Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
2.0_Newport Crossings Mixed Use Project_PA2017-107
aEW PART o� $ CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ' PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT u r e� February 21, 2019 �UFOM1�P Agenda Item No. 2 SUBJECT: Newport Crossings Mixed -Use (PA2017-107) • Site Development Review No. SD2017-004 • Lot Line Adjustment No. LA2018-004 • Affordable Housing Implementation Plan No. AH2O18-001 • Enviornmental Impact Report No. ER2017-001 SITE LOCATION: 1701 Corinthian Way; 1660 Dove Street; 4251, 4253, and 4255 Martingale Way; and 4200, 4220, and 4250 Scott Drive APPLICANT: Starboard MacArthur Square, LP OWNER: Starboard MacArthur Square, LP PLANNER: Jaime Murillo, Senior Planner (949) 644-3209, jmurillo@newportbeachca.gov PROJECT SUMMARY The project would redevelop the existing 58,277 -square -foot commercial center known as MacArthur Square with a mixed-use development consisting of 350 residential dwelling units, 7,500 square feet of commercial floor area, and a 0.5 -acre public park. The following applications are requested or required in order to implement the project as proposed: • A site development review authorizing the construction of the mixed-use building; and A lot line adjustment to reconfigure the three underlying parcels that comprise the site; and An affordable housing implementation plan specifying how the proposed project would meet the City's affordable housing requirements, pursuant to the Residential Overlay of the Newport Place Planned Community and density bonus and incentives/concessions pursuant to Chapter 20.32 (Density Bonus) of the City's Municipal Code and Government Code Section 65915 (Density Bonus Law). RECOMMENDATION 1) Conduct a public hearing; 2) Adopt Resolution No. PC2019-004 certifying Environmental Impact Report No. ER2017- 001, making facts and findings, and approving a mitigation monitoring and reporting program for the Newport Crossing Mixed -Use Project (SCH No. 2017101067) (Attachment PC 1); and 3) Adopt Resolution No. PC2019-005 approving Site Development Review No. SD2017-004, Lot Line Adjustment No. LA2018-004, and Affordable Housing Implementation Plan No. AH2O18-001, subject to conditions of approval (Attachment PC 2). 1 9 Newport Crossings Mixed -Use (PA2017-107) Planning Commission, February 21, 2019 Page 2 VICINITY MAP Subject e-. Property 5 w. f .5 GENERAL PLAN ZONING �y t c 4 1, LOCATIONI GENERAL PLAN ZONING CURRENT USE ON-SITE Mixed Use Horizontal 2 (MU -H2 Newport Place Retail NORTH MU -112 PC 11 Hotel & Retail SOUTH MU -H2 PC 11 Office EAST MU -112 PC 11 Office WEST. General Commercial (CG) & PC 11 Restaurant & Car General Commercial Office CO -G Wash 3 Newport Crossings Mixed -Use (PA2017-107) Planning Commission, February 21, 2019 Page 3 INTRODUCTION Proiect Settin The subject property is located within the Airport Area and approximately 5.70 acres in size. The property is developed with a 58,277 square -foot retail shopping center called MacArthur Square within the Newport Place Planned Community. The pentagonal -shaped site consists of three contiguous parcels and is bound by Corinthian Way to the northeast, Martingale Way to the east, Scott Drive to the northwest, and Dove Street to the southwest, and an office development to the south. Driveways are located on Dove Street, Scott Drive and Martingale Way. The shopping center was built in 1974 and consists of eight commercial buildings and a common parking lot. Approximately 30 percent of the center is currently occupied. Tenants currently include retail stores, professional offices, and restaurants. Surrounding uses include a variety of low to mid -rise office buildings, commercial centers, restaurants, a car wash and service facility, and a hotel. Some buildings in the area exceed 100 feet in height. More specifically, a 10 -story Hyatt Hotel (formerly Radisson) is located to the north, opposite of Corinthian Way. A one-story retail complex with Staples and several quick food and retail establishments is located to the north of Corinthian Way. A 2 -story bank building and a 3 -story office building are located to the east. A 4 -story office building is located to the south of the subject site, separated by a surface parking lot. A single -story hand car wash and Benihana Japanese Restaurant are located to the northwest. Lastly, the single -story "Hangars" office complex is located to the southwest on Dove Street. Project Description The proposed project would replace the existing MacArthur Square shopping center with a multi- story, mixed-use building consisting of 350 rental units, 2,000 square feet of restaurant use, and 5,500 square feet of retail use. The project also includes the development of a 0.5 -acre public park. Of the 350 residential units, 78 will be affordable and restricted to low-income households with incomes at or below 80 percent of the area median income adjusted for household size for a minimum of 30 years. Architectural and Site Design The proposed pentagonal -shaped, mixed-use building is designed as a single structure with 4 - and 5 -story residential building facades wrapped around a central parking structure. A ground - level commercial node would face the Corinthian Way frontage and would include a retail plaza. The applicant describes the building's architectural design as "California Coast Modern," which is monochromic with colored accents. The integral accents comprise of metal and acrylic panes, wood plank tiles, and stone veneer. Metal clad horizontal roof elements are used at the top floor to define and vary the building mass and character. Glass railings, metal trellises, metal sunshades, and, horizontal metal slats will also be used to create the modern architectural aesthetic prevalent in the area. 0 Newport Crossings Mixed -Use (PA2017-107) Planning Commission, February 21, 2019 Page 4 The residential living areas of the proposed mixed-use building comply with the 55 -foot base height allowed by the Newport Place Planned Community, with limited architectural elements measuring up to 77 feet 9 inches. These architectural elements include the parapet, rooftop mechanical equipment, elevator shafts, emergency staircase, rooftop amenity terrace, and a portion of the parking garage. The minimum required building setback of 30 feet would be provided from property lines abutting adjacent streets, which will be heavily landscaped with new noninvasive, low-water use ground cover, shrubs, and trees. The building will also be setback approximately 89 feet from the existing southerly property line abutting 1600 Dove Street that is developed with surface parking for a mid -rise, office building. The public park, which will also be landscaped with a similar landscape palate, will provide a buffer between the mixed-use building and adjacent office building. Residential Units The 350 rental units include 29 studio units that average 606 square feet in size; 197 one - bedroom units that average 753 square feet in size; and 124 two-bedroom units that average 1,074 square feet in size. Of the 350 units, 78 units will be affordable to low-income households and 272 units will be market -rate housing. The proposed unit mix for the affordable units is 20 studio units, 56 one - bedroom units, and 2 two-bedroom units. The affordable units will consist of the same size and amenities as the market -rate units, and will be equally distributed throughout the project. Parking and Access Six -levels of parking (one level partially below grade) would provide a total of 740 parking spaces. Vehicular access to the parking structure would be provided by two driveways, one from Scott Drive and the second from Martingale Way. The parking garage would be restricted to apartment residents, guests, and employees; and to employees and patrons of the commercial uses. The public park would have access to a separate four -space parking lot from a driveway located at the southern end of Martingale Way. Project Amenities The project includes extensive on-site recreational and entertainment amenities, including: 1) a pool courtyard with community pool and spa, clubroom, barbecue grills and outdoor fireplace; 2) an entertainment courtyard with fire pit, barbeque grills, informal seating/gathering areas; 3) a lounge courtyard with cabana and fire pit, barbeque grills, communal dining, and seating/gathering areas; 4) a rooftop amenity terrace at level 7 with spa, cabana, fireplace, barbeques, outdoor kitchen, game area, informal seating/ gathering areas, and dining areas; and 5) a view deck on level 5 with an outdoor kitchen, lounge chairs, and fireplace. 5 Newport Crossings Mixed -Use (PA2017-107) Planning Commission, February 21, 2019 Page 5 Public Park The proposed location of the 0.5 -acre, rectangular -shaped public park will be at the southern end of the project site. The park would be accessed from both Dove Street and Martingale Way, would have access to a dedicated four -space parking lot, and would maintain additional access to existing on -street parking provided along Martingale Way. The park is intended to provide a recreation and activity area for future residents, employees, and patrons of the project. Upon completion, the park land and the improvements would be dedicated to the City for public use; however, it would be managed and operated by the property management company of the project. An agreement will be required to ensure proper maintenance and operations for the public park. Park amenities include: • a play lawn featuring playground equipment, shade structure, benches, and synthetic turf; • fenced and separated dog parks for large and small dogs with synthetic turf; • fitness terrace with fitness equipment and shade trellis; • central dining terrace with overhead trellis, tables, and chairs; • bocce ball court with shade cabanas; • fenced pickleball court; and • seat walls. Requested Applications The application for the proposed mixed-use residential development consists of the following components: Site Development Review No. SD2017-004: To ensure the site is developed in accordance with the Newport Place Planned Community Development Plan and Zoning Code development standards and regulations pursuant to Newport Beach Municipal Code (NBMC) Section 20.52.080 (Site Development Reviews). Lot Line Adjustment No. LA2018-004: A lot line adjustment to reconfigure the three underlying parcels that comprise the site, pursuant to Chapter 19.76 (Lot Line Adjustments) of the Municipal Code. Specifically, the site would be reconfigured to create a 0.5 -acre parcel for the public park to be dedicated to the City; a 5.08 -acre parcel for the proposed mixed-use development; and an 0.11 -acre parcel (to be owned by the project applicant) for emergency access improvements required to serve the proposed project. The 0.11 -acre parcel would N Newport Crossings Mixed -Use (PA2017-107) Planning Commission, February 21, 2019 Page 6 also include an easement dedicated to the City for public access and parking for the park. With dedication of the 0.5 -acre public park, the net project site area would be 5.19 acres. • Affordable Housing Implementation Plan No. AH2018-001: A program specifying how the proposed project would meet the City's affordable housing requirements, pursuant to the Residential Overlay of the Newport Place Planned Community. Under the Affordable Housing Implementation Plan (AHIP), 78 units would be set aside as affordable units to lower-income households. Providing the affordable housing required by the Residential Overlay of the Newport Place Planned Community qualifies the project for a density bonus and incentives/concessions pursuant to Chapter 20.32 (Density Bonus) of the City's Municipal Code and Government Code Section 65915 (Density Bonus Law). The AHIP includes a request for one development concession related to the bedroom mix of the affordable units and a development waiver of the 55 -foot building height limit to allow a height of 77 feet 9 inches to accommodate the parapet, roof -top mechanical equipment, elevator shafts, emergency staircase, rooftop amenity terrace, and a portion of the parking garage. Background Previous Application - Residences at Newport Place In 2016, a previous mixed-use development called the Residences at Newport Place was proposed for the site. The project consisted of 384 residential units and 5,677 square feet of retail use. On June 23, 2016, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 2019 denying the project based on the following concerns: • Setback encroachments • Exceedance of height standards • Waiver of park dedication requirement • Public open space design and limits on public access • Project integration with surroundings • Limited commercial space • Inadequate parking The Planning Commission's decision was appealed by the previous applicant to the City Council. On July 26, 2016, the City Council upheld the decision of the Planning Commission and denied the project. Planning Commission Study Session On December 6, 2018, a study session was held to introduce the project to the Planning Commission and the public, and provide an overview of the Draft Environmental Impact Report. In general, the Planning Commission favored the architectural design of the mixed-use building, siting of retail component, large landscaped setbacks, and design of the park. During the study session, the Planning Commission provided the following comments to staff for further investigation: 7 Newport Crossings Mixed -Use (PA2017-107) Planning Commission, February 21, 2019 Page 7 • Comment: Feasibility of time or parking restrictions on Martingale Way to ensure adequate parking for park users. Response: Traffic engineering staff will review parking conditions on Martingale Way throughout the construction phase, and after completion of the project, to determine if parking restrictions are necessary to ensure there is adequate parking for park users. • Comment: Neighboring property owners should be invited to Parks, Beaches, and Recreation Commission meetings. Response: Public notices were mailed to surrounding property owners within a 300 -foot radius of the project site and the site was posted informing the public of the February 5, 2019, Parks, Beaches, and Recreation Commission meeting and their review of the park design and amenities. • Comment: Installation of a fence separating park from office complex to the south should be considered to discourage park users from parking in office complex lot. Response: A 42 -inch -high metal mesh fence with flowering vines was added to landscape plans along southerly property line. Comments by the general public were also considered. Supportive comments included commending the applicant for their outreach efforts, and support of new housing, including affordable housing. Concerns were also raised regarding assignment of schools, adequacy of park to accommodate the numerous planned amenities, and adequacy of parking. Excerpt of the December 6, 2018 Planning Commission Minutes is included as Attachment PC 3. Parks, Beaches, and Recreation (PB&R) Commission On February 5, 2019, staff and the applicant presented the park design and amenities to PB&R Commission for their review and recommendations. Overall, the PB&R Commission supported the design, layout, and proposed amenities of the park, and with a majority vote of 6-1, recommended to support the park design as proposed. However, they also emphasized the importance of the following: • Restrooms - The park does not include restrooms and it was generally thought to be unnecessary due to size of park and the belief that the predominant park user would be residents of the project. PB&R Commissioners stressed that restroom access for non- residents was important. The applicant indicated that the retail suites would include a provision in their lease to allow public restroom access during business hours. • Signage - Since the park would be privately maintained, the PB&R Commission expressed the need for adequate signage that clearly identifies the park as public, parking restricted for park users only, and availability of public restrooms. The applicant agreed to work with City staff on signage plan. 1i Newport Crossings Mixed -Use (PA2017-107) Planning Commission, February 21, 2019 Page 8 Comments by the general public were also considered. Public comments included support for pickleball court and need for PB&R Commission to comprehensively consider and plan park amenities of new Airport Area parks. DISCUSSION General Plan Consistency A complete consistency analysis of each of the applicable General Plan policies is included in the Draft Environmental Impact Report beginning on Page 5.9-12 of the document. The analysis concludes that the project is consistent with each of the adopted goals and policies. The following discussion highlights a finding of consistency in the General Plan Mixed -Use Horizontal 2 (MU - H2) land use designation and significant policies applicable to Airport Area development. MU -H2 Land Use Category The subject property has a General Plan Land Use Element designation of MU -H2. This category provides for a horizontal intermixing of uses that may include regional commercial office, multi- family residential, vertical mixed-use buildings, industrial, hotel rooms, and ancillary neighborhood commercial uses. The MU -H2 land use category covers a significant portion of properties in the Airport Area, including those located in the Newport Place Planned Community and Koll Center Newport Planned Community. The project is consistent with this designation by redeveloping an aging and under-utilized commercial center with a new mixed-use development that incorporates multi -family residential and neighborhood commercial uses. Airport Area Development Limits The MU -H2 designation and General Plan Policy LU 6.15.5 (Residential and Supporting Uses) allows a maximum of 2,200 residential units of which 1,650 units may be developed as replacement of existing office, retail, and/or industrial uses. The maximum density is 50 units per net acre. The remaining 550 units are classified as additive units meaning they are not required to replace other units and they may be constructed as "in -fill' units to existing commercial or office development within the Conceptual Development Plan Area (CDPA) of the Airport Area as illustrated in Figure LU22 of the General Plan Land Use Element (Attachment PC 4). Any eligible density bonus allowed by Government Code Sections 65915 (Density Bonus Law) and Chapter 20.32 (Density Bonus) of the Municipal Code are not included in the 2,200 -unit allowance or the 50 dwelling units per acre standard. Table 1 lists the residential units approved, proposed and remaining within the MU -H2 designation of the Airport Area. The approved Uptown Newport mixed-use residential project and pending Koll Center Residences projects are also included for context. 0 Newport Crossings Mixed -Use (PA2017-107) Planning Commission, February 21, 2019 Page 9 Table 1 Residential Development in the Airport Area Residential Development Allocation Base Units Density Bonus (35% of base units) Project Total With Density Bonus Replacement Units Additive Units Base Units Total General Plan Development Limit MU -H2 1650 550 2,200 Approved Projects Uptown Newport 1,244 units total 632 290 922 322 1,244 Projects Under Review Newport Crossings 259 259 91 350 The Koll Center Residences 260 260 260 Remaining Development Allocation 759 0 759 The subject property has 58,277 square feet of existing retail use. The existing center is slightly higher than the development limit of 56,880 per Anomaly No. 12 of the General Plan Land Use Element. By using the City's adopted use conversion factors to maintain traffic trip neutrality, the applicant can replace the existing shopping center with a maximum of 259 residential units and reconstruct up to 10,264 square feet of nonresidential development. The conversion factors provided in "Airport Area Residential & Mixed Use Adjustment Factors for Traffic Analyses in Newport Beach", are provided as Attachment PC 5. The additional 91 units (35 percent) requested are density bonus units authorized by the Density Bonus Law and Municipal Code. Airport Area General Plan Policies The General Plan contains a number of policies that provide for the orderly evolution of the Airport Area, from a business park, to a mixed-use district with cohesive residential villages integrated within the existing fabric of office, industrial, retail, and airport -related businesses. Residential opportunities are to be developed as clusters of residential villages centering on neighborhood parks and interconnected by pedestrian walkways. These would contain a mix of housing types and buildings that integrate housing with ground level convenience retail uses and would be developed at a sufficient scale to achieve a complete neighborhood. Provided below is a summary of these policies and the project's consistency with each. Sizes of Residential Villaaes (LU6.15.6) and Reaulatory Plan (LU6.15.10): Each residential village shall be at least 10 -acres in size at build -out and be organized around a neighborhood park and other similar amenities. The first phase of residential development in each village shall be at least five gross acres, exclusive of existing rights-of-way. At the discretion of the City, the acreage can include part of a property in a different land use category, if the City finds that a sufficient portion of the contiguous property is contributing to the village fabric of open space, parking, or other amenities. A regulatory plan for each residential village is also required. 10 Newport Crossings Mixed -Use (PA2017-107) Planning Commission, February 21, 2019 Page 10 The subject property, after dedication of the 0.5 -acre public park, is approximately 5.19 acres in size, which is consistent with the first phase requirement of 5 acres, but less than the required 10 -acre minimum for a residential village. Although opportunities exist, no other applications on adjacent properties have been filed that would expand the residential village. However, in exchange for the support of the City's need for lower-income households and providing 78 affordable units, the project is exempt from the minimum 10 -acre site required by Policy LU6.15.6 pursuant to the Residential Overlay of the Newport Place Planned Community and General Plan Housing Program No. 3.2.2. The Residential Overlay of Newport Place Planned Community also provides the regulatory plan for residential projects with affordable housing provisions. As a result, a new regulatory plan required by Policy LU6.15.10 is not required. • Overall Density and Housing Types (LU6.15.7): In addition to providing a minimum land area for residential development, the General Plan also establishes minimum densities to ensure that a sufficient critical mass is created within each 10 -acre village. As such, the overall minimum density for each village at build -out is 30 dwelling units per net acre, exclusive of existing and future rights-of-way, open spaces and pedestrian ways; a maximum net density of 50 units per acre is also established. Within the density envelope (30 to 50 du/ac), the General Plan promotes a diversity of building types, including row houses and podium mid - rise and high-rise buildings to accommodate a range of household types and incomes and to promote a variety of building masses and scales. The project has a base density of 50 units per net acre (259 units) which is consistent with a maximum of 50 du/acre allowance by this policy. This base density does not include the 35 - percent density bonus of 91 units that is allowed by the Newport Place Planned Community and State Bonus Density law in exchange for the 30 -percent or 78 units set aside for affordable housing. Altogether, the project has an overall density of 67 units per net acre. The proposed residential project is considered a mid -rise style, for -rent apartment development. Although the residential development is limited to one particular housing product, the 350 apartment units include a variety mix of unit types, ranging from studio to two-bedroom units, accommodating a variety of household types and income. Of the 350 residential units, 78 units will be affordable to low-income households and 272 units will be market -rate housing. • Neighborhood Parks (LU6.15.13): The General Plan calls for residential villages to be centered on neighborhood parks to provide structure and a sense of community and identity. The General Plan requires a park dedication of at least 8 percent of land or 0.50 acre whichever is greater of the first phase development in each neighborhood; or a minimum of one acre in size, or at least eight percent of the total land area of the residential village, whichever is greater. The policy allows a waiver where it can be demonstrated that the development parcels are too small to feasibly accommodate a park or inappropriately located to serve the needs of local residents. 11 Newport Crossings Mixed -Use (PA2017-107) Planning Commission, February 21, 2019 Page 11 The project includes the dedication of a 0.5 -acre public park, consistent with the first phase development requirement of LU 6.15.13. The park is located at the southern edge of the project site between Dove Street and Martingale Way. The park would be easily accessible through pedestrian connections and sited in a location consistent with a conceptual neighborhood park location per General Plan Figure LU23 (Airport Area Residential Villages Illustrative Concept Diagram) (Attachment PC 6). The park would serve the project's future residents, employees, and patrons, and the existing offices and businesses in the surrounding vicinity as a recreation and activity area. Park amenities include a play lawn and playground equipment, shade structures, benches, fitness terrace, central dining terrace, and bocce ball court. A proposed dog park and pickleball court would also serve regional needs of City residents. The park landscape plan includes noninvasive and low-water use plants and trees. A tree and shrub hedge would be provided along the southern boundary providing a physical and visual boarder between the park and adjacent office parking lot to the south. A small off-street parking lot for park users is proposed adjacent to the eastern end of the park, and additional on -street parking opportunities exist along Martingale Way. Should the residential village expand in the future through the redevelopment of adjacent parcels, additional park area will be sought then. • On -Site Recreation and Open Space (LU6.15.16): Require developers of multi -family developments on parcels eight acres or larger to provide on-site recreational amenities (public urban plazas for recreation and outdoor activity, swimming pools, exercise facilities, tennis courts, basketball courts, etc.), at a ratio of 44 square feet per each dwelling unit. In - lieu cash payment where there is insufficient land to provide on-site recreational amenities is required. The proposed project is approximately 5.70 acres in size which is under the eight -acre criteria for on-site recreational amenities provision. However, the project provides extensive on-site recreational amenities, including separate pool, entertainment, and lounge courtyards with eating, seating, and barbeque space; a rooftop amenity terrace; a fifth -level view deck; a club room for entertainment and gatherings; and a fitness facility. In addition, a public plaza is located in front of the retail shops facing the main corner of the project at Corinthian Way and Martingale Way that will provide informal areas that residents can take advantage of. The provided amenities total 22,696 square feet (65 square feet per unit), exceeding the 15,400 square -foot (44 square feet per unit) on-site recreational amenities requirement, and lessening the demand on existing recreational facilities in the City. Newport Place Planned Community (Zoning Code) Consistency The subject property is zoned Planned Community and subject to the Newport Place Planned Community Development Plan (PC -11) regulations. Within PC -11, the site is designated as General Commercial Site 6, which allows retail commercial, office, and professional and business uses. The site is also within the Residential Overlay of PC -11, where multi -family residential development is permitted as a stand-alone use provided minimum affordable housing requirements are met. 12 Newport Crossings Mixed -Use (PA2017-107) Planning Commission, February 21, 2019 Page 12 Beside the height exception and unit -mix incentive requested through the allowed density bonus, the proposed project complies with the development standards of the Residential Overlay and applicable standards of the Zoning Code as detailed in Table 2. Table 2 Zoning Compliance Project Elements Standard Proposed Compliance Size No minimum with 5.19 acres affordable housing (after 0.5 -acre park Yes dedication Density 30 du/ac min. (155 du) 50 du/ac (w/ base units) Yes (dwelling units / acre 50 du/ac max. 259 du 67du/ac w/ density bonus Total Residential Unit 350 max. 350 Yes • Base Unit 259 max. 259 Yes • Density Bonus Units 91 max. 91 Yes 35% Affordable Unit @ 30% 78 min. 78 Yes of base units Market -Rate Unit No min. 272 Yes Non -Residential' Commercial Use 10,264 sf. max. 7,500 sf. Yes Building Height 55 feet living areas Yes, with Density Bonus 55 feet 77 feet 9 inches architectural development elements and parking waiver structure Building Setbacks • Corinthian Way 30 ft. 30 • Martingale Way 30 ft. 30 • Dove Street 30 ft. 30 Yes • Scott Drive 30 ft. 30 • Park property line 10 ft. 11.2 ft. Parking 545 Total (min.) 740 Total • ResidentiaR 474 (1.35/unit) 661 (1.89/unit) (0-1 Bed/ 1 space) (2-3 Bed/ 2 spaces) • Apartment Leasing None 5 Yes • Retail (5,500 sf) 22 (1/250 sf) 25 • Restaurant use' 49 (1/40 sf of net public 49 area) Utilizing adopted conversion rate of 5.4 dwelling units per thousand square feet of commercial floor area, the proposed 259 base dwelling units represent 47,963 square feet of floor area converted. Given 58,277 square feet of existing permitted floor area, 10,264 square feet of commercial development opportunity remains. 2 Subject to maximum parking requirement pursuant to NBMC Section 20.32.040 (Parking Requirements in Density Bonus Projects) and Government Code Section 65915(p) (Density Bonus Law). 'Assumes 1,000 square feet of interior net public area (NPA) and 950 square feet of exterior NPA of "fast - casual" type restaurant. An additional 250 square feet of exterior NPA excluded per NBMC Section 20.40.040. 13 Newport Crossings Mixed -Use (PA2017-107) Planning Commission, February 21, 2019 Page 13 Major Site Development Review Findings Residential development pursuant to the Residential Overlay of the Newport Center Planned Community requires major site development review consistent with NBMC Section 20.52.080 (Site Development Reviews). In accordance with Section 20.52.080(F), the Planning Commission may approve or conditionally approve a site development review application, only after first finding that the proposed development is: 1. Allowed within the subject zoning district; 2. In compliance with all of the applicable criteria identified in 20.52.080(C)(2)(c) below. Compliance with this section, the General Plan, this Zoning Code, any applicable specific plan, and other applicable criteria and policies related to the use or structure ii. The efficient arrangement of structures on the site and the harmonious relationship of the structures to one another and to other adjacent developments; and whether the relationship is based on standards of good design; iii. The compatibility in terms of bulk, scale, and aesthetic treatment of structures on the site and adjacent developments and public areas; iv. The adequacy, efficiency, and safety of pedestrian and vehicular access, including drive aisles, driveways, and parking and loading spaces; The adequacy and efficiency of landscaping and open space areas and the use of water efficient plant and irrigation materials; and vi. The protection of significant views from public right(s)-of-way and compliance with Section 20.30. 100 (Public View Protection). 3. Not detrimental to the harmonious and orderly growth of the City, nor endangers, jeopardizes, or otherwise constitutes a hazard to the public convenience, health, interest, safety, or general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of the proposed development. In summary, the project implements the MU -H2 General Plan designation and the intent of the Residential Overlay of PC -11 by introducing 350 new residential units to an existing major employment center (the Airport Area and Irvine Business Complex), including setting aside 78 residential units for low-income households, and providing new opportunities for those working in the area to live near work. The project also includes park space, retail, and restaurant uses that will help meet the needs of its residents and surrounding employees in the area. It is also important to note that additional retail and restaurant opportunities are located within a short walking distance of the project site. 14 Newport Crossings Mixed -Use (PA2017-107) Planning Commission, February 21, 2019 Page 14 As discussed in the General Plan and Newport Place Planned Community Consistency sections above, the proposed project will comply with all applicable policies of the General Plan and PC -11 Development Plan requirements. The requested development waiver of the 55 -foot building height standard and distribution of affordable unit mix is addressed through the allowed density bonus and related incentive/waiver requests as discussed in more detail in the Affordable Housing Implementation Plan section of this report. In summary, the City must allow the requested incentive and waiver request pursuant to State Bonus Density law and the Zoning Code. Ground -level units include large patios with access to the street sidewalks, promoting walkability and pedestrian activity. Upper-level units include ample and usable outdoor decks with storage. Each unit exceeds the minimum private open space requirement (5 percent of gross unit area) and the project as a whole provides 63,445 square feet of common open space exceeding the minimum common open space requirement of 26,250 square feet (75 square feet per unit). The building will be below the base height limit of 55 feet, with the exception of architectural elements of up to 77 feet 9 inches. These architectural elements include the parapet, rooftop mechanical equipment, elevator shafts, emergency staircase, rooftop amenity terrace, and a portion of the parking garage. The project's building mass is comparable and compatible to the existing surrounding developments. The proposed development is the first residential project in the Newport Place Planned Community where the predominant permitted land uses are office and light industrial developments with limited retail allowed in certain sub -areas of the planned community. These surrounding developments are ranging from single -story to four-story in height with the exception of the 10 -story Radisson Hotel located nearby. The adjacent office building at 1600 Dove is approximately 60 feet high. The project has been designed to exhibit a high quality design and complements the surrounding urban context. The retail and restaurant components are located on the ground level and oriented toward the streets to minimize potential conflicts with the residential uses. Additionally, these retail and restaurant uses are well integrated into the overall building design through the use of common design elements. The fagade is articulated through the use of windows, color, and changes in planes and massing. The project provides separate entrances for residential and non-residential uses, with commercial entrances articulated by a white frame and storefront windows. The parking facility is completely integrated into the design and hidden from public view by the wrapping of residential units around the exterior of the parking structure. Extensive landscaping has been incorporated along the street frontages, in interior courtyards, on the roof terrace, within the retail plaza, and within the public park. The 4- and 5 -story residential building facades along all streets are designed and articulated to breakdown its massing vertically and horizontally. Layered horizontal fagade base treatment is used to break up the height of the building. Two-story white framed elements are also used consistently throughout the elevations to visually reduce its height and to create a pedestrian - scale presence on the street frontages. The articulated masses also create and define a new activated street presence on Corinthian Way. A modern tower feature and rooftop terrace create ambience, an architectural focal point, and visual interest. In addition to layering the fagades, varying window patterns, and planar geometric breaks, horizontal roof elements help define the building's modern character. Corner window treatments are also utilized at strategic locations to 15 Newport Crossings Mixed -Use (PA2017-107) Planning Commission, February 21, 2019 Page 15 vary the character and massing of residential balconies. Metal sunshade devices are also used to create an interesting shadow play on the facade. All in all, these varying design elements help break up the building massing avoiding large unarticulated and monotonous building elevations. The project includes approximately 52,900 square feet of landscape area, which has been designed and must meet NBMC requirements with respect to drought tolerance and water efficiency. Project landscaping consists of ornamental trees, shrubs, and groundcover along the site perimeter and in public gathering areas. Although approximately 76 trees would be removed, the proposed project would provide a greater number of trees than currently exists (approximately 174 new trees, including the public park and plaza). In addition, seven existing Italian Stone pines and five Canary Island pines along Martingale Way would be preserved. All landscaped areas, including the public park and retail plaza, would be maintained by the property management company. Vehicular access to the mixed-use building would be provided via full -access driveways off Scott Drive and Martingale Way. The parking garage would be restricted to apartment residents, guests, and employees; and to employees and patrons of the commercial uses. The design of the parking structure allows for residents to park on the level of their respective unit for ease of access. The public park would have a separate full -access driveway located at the southern end of Martingale Way. Pedestrian access would be provided along the perimeter streets, with pedestrian corridors and walkways leading into the retail, residential, and through the public park areas. Site access, including the drive aisles, driveways, parking and loading spaces, have all been reviewed by the City Traffic Engineer for adequacy, efficiency, and safety. The proposed building has been designed to accommodate and provide safe access for emergency vehicles, delivery trucks, and refuse collections vehicles, as determined by the City Traffic Engineer. Refuse collection is accommodated via two on-site staging areas with adequate turnaround space to ensure safe maneuvering by refuse vehicles. Emergency vehicles will have access via the surrounding streets and through two additional emergency vehicle access easements provided to the City. The project has been designed to ensure that potential conflicts with surrounding land uses are minimized to the extent possible to maintain a healthy environment for both businesses and residents by providing an architecturally pleasing project with articulation and building modulations to enhance the urban environment. The project site does not have the potential to obstruct public views from identified public view points and corridors, as identified on General Plan Figure NR 3 (Coastal Views), to the ocean, bay, harbor, or other scenic or historical resources due to the location of the project site. Staff believes facts to support the required findings exist to approve the Major Site Development Review, and they are included in the attached draft resolution for approval (Attachment PC 2). 10 Newport Crossings Mixed -Use (PA2017-107) Planning Commission, February 21, 2019 Page 16 Lot Line Adiustment The subject property is a pentagonal -shape site and consists of three contiguous parcels. The lot line adjustment allows the reconfiguration of the underlying parcels to create a 0.5 -acre parcel (Parcel 2) to be deeded to the City for public park use consistent with General Plan requirements, a 0.11 -acre parcel (Parcel 3) for public parking for park use and emergency vehicle access for the mixed-use development, and 5.08 -acre parcel (Parcel 1) for the mixed-use development. There is no minimum site area for development meeting the development requirements of the Residential Overlay of the Newport Place Planned Community. The proposed lot line adjustment exhibit is included as Attachment PC 7. Section 19.76.020 of the Municipal Code establishes findings that must be made in order to approve a lot line adjustment. These findings and facts in support of findings are provided in the draft resolution of approval Attachment PC 2. Affordable Housing Implementation Plan (AHIP) The applicant has prepared a draft AHIP (Attachment PC 8) to illustrate compliance with the affordable housing requirements of the Residential Overlay of the Newport Place Planned Community and density bonus allowances pursuant Government Code Section 65915-65918 (Density Bonus Law) and NBMC Chapter 20.32 (Density Bonus Code). Consistent with the affordable housing requirements of the Residential Overlay, 30 percent of the project's base apartment units (78 units) would be set aside as affordable units to low-income households. Of the 78 affordable units provided, 52 units would be set aside for households 17 A f J 1• , .'7 Existina Parcel Confi uration Proposed Parcel Confi uration Section 19.76.020 of the Municipal Code establishes findings that must be made in order to approve a lot line adjustment. These findings and facts in support of findings are provided in the draft resolution of approval Attachment PC 2. Affordable Housing Implementation Plan (AHIP) The applicant has prepared a draft AHIP (Attachment PC 8) to illustrate compliance with the affordable housing requirements of the Residential Overlay of the Newport Place Planned Community and density bonus allowances pursuant Government Code Section 65915-65918 (Density Bonus Law) and NBMC Chapter 20.32 (Density Bonus Code). Consistent with the affordable housing requirements of the Residential Overlay, 30 percent of the project's base apartment units (78 units) would be set aside as affordable units to low-income households. Of the 78 affordable units provided, 52 units would be set aside for households 17 Newport Crossings Mixed -Use (PA2017-107) Planning Commission, February 21, 2019 Page 17 earning 60 percent or less of the area median income' for a minimum term of 55 yearsz. The remaining 26 affordable units would be set aside for households earning 80 percent or less of the area median income for a minimum term of 30 years3. Table 3 Maximum Rents by Bedroom Count (Based on 2018 Income Limits) Bedroom Type Number of Maximum Utility Allowance Affordable Units Monthly Rent Rent Low -Income Units 52 60% AMI Studio 13 $974 $96 $878 1 Bedroom 38 1,112 104 1,008 2 Bedroom 1 1,252 132 1,120 Low -Income Units 26 80% AMI Studio 7 $1,531 $96 $1,435 1 Bedroom 18 1,750 104 1,646 2 Bedroom 1 1,969 132 1,837 As encouraged by the Residential Overlay, and as authorized pursuant to Government Code Section 65915-65918 (Density Bonus Law) and NBMC Chapter 20.32 (Density Bonus Code), with the 30 percent allocation for low-income households, the project is entitled to a maximum density bonus of 35 percent (91 units) above the maximum number of units allowed by the General Plan. In addition to the 91 density bonus units and pursuant to Government Code Section 65915(d)(1), the Project is eligible to receive up to two incentives or concessions that would result in identifiable, financially sufficient, and actual cost reductions. Government Code Section 65915(e)(1) also entitles developers to waivers or modifications of development standards that, if applied, would physically preclude development of housing with the provided density bonus. The proposed project includes a request for one development concession for the unit mix and one waiver for the height as follows: Incentive Request: Pursuant to Section V.F.1 of the Residential Overlay, affordable units shall reflect the range of the number of bedrooms provided in the residential development project as a whole. As illustrated in Table 4, the project would provide a unit mix that includes a greater percentage of studio and one -bedroom units than the project as a whole. Granting this incentive will result in identifiable, financially sufficient, and actual project cost reductions by reducing the long-term rental subsidy costs associated with the two-bedroom units and affording additional rental income for the project to ensure financial feasibility. Area median income (AMI) for Orange County based on 2018 income limits is $83,450 for a three-person household, $74,150 for a two -person household, and $ 64,900 for a one-person household. 2 Density Bonus Law requires a minimum term of 55 years. Only 20 percent of units (52 units) required to be eligible for the maximum density bonus. 3 Residential Overlay requires a minimum term of 30 years. 12 Newport Crossings Mixed -Use (PA2017-107) Planning Commission, February 21, 2019 Page 18 Table 4 Unit Mix Unit Type Total Units Percent of Total Units Total Affordable Units Percent of Total Affordable Units Studio 29 8.3% 20 25.6% 1 Bedroom 197 56.3% 56 71.8% 2 Bedroom 124 35.4% 2 2.6% Total 350 100% 78 100% Development Standard Waiver Request: Pursuant to Section V.A of the Residential Overlay, building heights are limited to a base height of 55 feet, but may be increased through a site development review. Government Code Section 65915(e)(1) provides that a city may not apply a development standard that will have the effect of physically precluding the construction of the density bonus units at the density permitted under the density bonus law. In the case of the proposed project, a waiver of the 55 -foot height limit development standard to allow a height of 77 feet 9 inches is requested to accommodate the parapet, rooftop mechanical equipment, elevator shafts, emergency staircase, the rooftop amenity deck, and a portion of the parking structure. Without the height allowance for the stairs, elevators, mechanical equipment, and parapet, 63 of the 91 density bonus units would need to be eliminated. Furthermore, limiting height to 55 feet would also result in the elimination of the rooftop amenity deck and upper level of parking structure, which are necessary to meet expectations of prospective tenants and to achieve market -rate rents to make the overall project financially viable, and provide the level of on-site amenities encouraged by the Residential Overlay, and reduce the impact of parking availability on neighboring streets. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW Environmental Impact Report Prior to making an approval decision on the proposed project or a modified project, the Planning Commission must first review, consider, and certify the Environmental Impact Report (EIR), SCH No. 2017101067. The City contracted with PlaceWorks, an environmental consulting firm, to prepare an Initial Study and Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the proposed project in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the State CEQA Guidelines. The DEIR was routed to the Planning Commission in advance of this staff report to allow additional time to review the report. A copy of the DEIR was also made available on the City's website (htti)://www.newportbeachca.00v/ceoa), at each Newport Beach Public Library, and at the Community Development Department at City Hall. The following environmental topics were identified as potentially affected by the implementation of the proposed project: Aesthetics, Air Quality, Biological Resources, Cultural Resources, 19 Newport Crossings Mixed -Use (PA2017-107) Planning Commission, February 21, 2019 Page 19 Geology and Soils, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, Hydrology and Water Quality, Land Use and Planning, Noise, Population and Housing, Recreation, Public Services, Transportation and Traffic, Tribal Cultural Resources, and Utilities and Sewer Services. These topics were the subject of the DEIR analysis, and potential impacts were identified. The document recommends the adoption of 9 mitigation measures to reduce the potentially significant adverse effects to a less than significant level related to Air Quality, Biological Resources, Cultural Resources, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, and Public Services. These mitigation measures are identified in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, which is included as Exhibit C of Attachment PC 1. No impacts were determined to be significant and unavoidable. The DEIR was completed and circulated for a 45 -day public -review period that began on November 30, 2018, and concluded on January 14, 2019. A total of 14 comment letters were received from interested parties. The consultant and staff prepared written responses to each of the comments received on the adequacy of the DEIR, which are included as Section 2 (Response to Comments) of Attachment PC 9. Revisions to the DEIR were also prepared (Section 3 of Attachment PC 9), which provide additional or revised information required for the preparation of responses to certain comments. The revisions do not alter any impact significance conclusion disclosed in the DEIR nor do they identify any new previously undiscovered impact. As a result, the revisions to the DEIR do not warrant recirculation of the DEIR for public review. The revisions to the DEIR will be incorporated into the Final EIR, if certified. On the basis of the analysis provided in the DEIR, including response to comments and revisions to DEIR, City staff has concluded that the project would not have a long term significant impact on the environment and there are no significant short-term or construction -related impacts. Traffic Impact Analysis A Traffic Impact Analysis has been prepared by LSA (Appendix J of the DEIR) under the supervision of the City Traffic Engineer for the proposed development, in compliance with the CEQA. The traffic evaluation includes an overview of the trip generation and correlated trip rates that are expected to be generated by the proposed development. By using the criteria specified in the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual (10th Edition), trip generation rates for the proposed apartment, retail and restaurant uses are estimated. The overall trip generation estimates take into account the trips associated with the existing retail and restaurant uses on the subject site that will be removed. The net difference between the trips generated by the existing uses and the estimated trips to be generated by the proposed uses on the subject property represent the net increase or decrease of trips that were used for traffic evaluation purposes. Chapter 15.40 (Traffic Phasing Ordinance) of the Municipal Code requires a traffic study to be prepared and findings be made prior to issuance of building permits if a proposed project will generate in excess of 300 average daily trips (ADT). Per TPO trip generation procedures, credit is allowed to apply to all existing businesses on the site, even if they are currently vacant. 20 Newport Crossings Mixed -Use (PA2017-107) Planning Commission, February 21, 2019 Page 20 Accordingly, the project has a net reduction of 1,033 (-1,033) daily trips, with an increase of 27 (+27) trips in the morning peak hour, and a reduction of 126 (-126) trips in the evening peak hour. Since the project would generate less than 300 average daily trips, a TPO traffic impact analysis is not required for the project. Per CEQA requirements, the project trip generation estimates reflect actual land uses on the ground at the time the project application was submitted, meaning no credits are given to the existing businesses that are vacant. Accordingly, the project has a net increase of 1,077 (+1,077) daily trips, with 123 (+123) additional trips in the morning peak hour, and 75 (+75) trips in the evening peak hour. A total of twenty-one intersections and four roadway segments were included in the EIR traffic analysis. The traffic study concludes that all study area intersections and roadway segments will continue to operate at a satisfactory level of service (LOS) with the addition of project traffic, except for the MacArthur Boulevard/Michelson Drive intersection northwest of the project site in the City of Irvine. Project -related traffic does not increase the calculated volume -to -capacity ratio by more than 0.02 at this intersection, thus a significant project impact would not occur per City of Irvine significance thresholds. In other words, the MacArthur Boulevard/Michelson Drive intersection will operate at an unsatisfactory level of service and project traffic added to the intersection is less than significant in the short-term and cumulative sense. A Construction Traffic Management Plan will be required as a condition of approval to ensure that short-term construction traffic issues are properly addressed. FISCAL ANALYSIS A fiscal analysis has been prepared pursuant to Implementation Program 12.1 of the General Plan (Attachment PC 10). The purpose of the fiscal analysis is to estimate the public cost and revenue of the proposed project. The analysis concluded that the proposed development would require a higher level of City services as compared to the existing retail shopping center, and would produce a negative annual cost/revenue balance for the site. Accordingly, the proposed project would generate an annual net fiscal cost to the City of approximately $128,900, as compared to the estimated current fiscal surplus cost from the existing site of $22,900, a net cost of approximately $106,000 per year. It is important to note that the analysis assumed a healthy shopping center, which isn't the current case. As a result, revenues from the existing use are overstated and the anticipated deficit is also overstated. Additionally, the General Plan Policy LU 6.15.2 encourages the redevelopment of underperforming properties. Although the project would likely require higher level of services, the public services analysis in the DER concludes that the proposed project would not create adverse impacts on most City services, with the exception of a cumulative impact on emergency medical response. However, with the implementation of Mitigation Measure PS -1, which includes the pro rata contribution to purchase an ambulance and participation into a funding program for emergency personnel, this potential impact is reduced to a less than significant level. 21 Newport Crossings Mixed -Use (PA2017-107) Planning Commission, February 21, 2019 Page 21 It is also important to recognize that the proposed project is consistent with the General Plan. The 2006 General Plan anticipated an increase of commercial, lodging and residential uses. The net impact of the growth in land uses at build out of the General Plan compared to existing land uses in 2006 when the General Plan was adopted, would result in a positive fiscal impact for the General Fund of $21.7 million per year. This positive projected fiscal outcome incorporates the negative fiscal impacts of some of the residential development included in the plan, as demonstrated by the proposed project. SUMMARY Staff believes the findings for project approval can be made, with specific conditions of approval. The General Plan Land Use Element policies promote the introduction of residential and mixed- use development within the Airport Area provided that such development contributes to the creation of viable neighborhood clusters with appropriate infrastructure, pedestrian -oriented features and open spaces. The applicant proposes to redevelop the existing retail shopping center with a mixed-use residential project that meets the overall intent of the General Plan goal for the MU -H2 designation in providing a mixed-use residential village and with pedestrian -oriented amenities that facilitate walking and enhance livability. The proposed development contributes to the creation of viable mixed-use neighborhood clusters with appropriate infrastructure, pedestrian - oriented features and open spaces in the Airport Area. Staff believes the project contributes to the overall goals of the General Plan and it will provide new housing opportunities, including affordable units, for the community. Alternatives and Housing Accountability Act Compliance The Planning Commission has the following alternatives: 1. The Planning Commission may require or suggest specific design changes that are necessary to alleviate any areas of concern. If the requested changes are substantial, staff will return with a revised resolution incorporating new findings and/or conditions; or 2. If the Planning Commission chooses to deny or reduce the density of the project, findings must be made consistent with the Housing Accountability Act (Government Code Section 65589.5), which restricts the City's ability to deny, reduce density of, or make infeasible housing developments for projects that are consistent with objective general plan and zoning standards. The law also places the burden of proof on the City to justify denial or reduction in density. Therefore, if after consideration of all written and oral evidence presented, the Planning Commission desires to either disapprove or impose a condition that the project be developed at a lower density or with any other conditions that would adversely impact feasibility of the proposed project, the Planning Commission must articulate the factual basis for making the following findings and direct staff to return with a revised resolution incorporating the articulated findings and factual basis for the decision: Newport Crossings Mixed -Use (PA2017-107) Planning Commission, February 21, 2019 Page 22 (A) The housing development project would have a specific, adverse impact upon the public health or safety unless the project is disapproved or approved upon the condition that the project be developed at a lower density. As used in this paragraph, a "specific, adverse impact" means a significant, quantifiable, direct, and unavoidable impact, based on objective, identified written public health or safety standards, policies, or conditions as they existed on the date the application was deemed complete. (B) There is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the adverse impact identified, other than the disapproval of the housing development project or the approval of the project upon the condition that it be developed at a lower density." Public Notice Public notice of this meeting was published in the Daily Pilot; mailed to all property owners within 300 feet of the boundaries of the site (excluding intervening rights-of-way and waterways) including the applicant; and posted on the subject property at a minimum 10 days before the scheduled meeting, consistent with the provisions of the Municipal Code. The environmental assessment process has also been noticed consistent with the California Environmental Quality Act. Additionally, the item appeared on the agenda for this meeting, which was posted at City Hall and on the City website. Correspondence Correspondence received to date for the project is included as Attachment PC 11 for the Planning Commission consideration. Prepared by: J ' e Murillo Senior Planner ATTACHMENTS Submitted by: U/G 14_� Jim Campbell Deputy Community Development Director PC 1 Draft Resolution Certifying EIR PC 2 Draft Resolution for Project Approval PC 3 December 6, 2018, Planning Commission Study Session Minutes PC 4 Figure LU22 of the General Plan Land Use Element PC 5 Airport Area Residential & Mixed Use Adjustment Factors PC 6 Figure LU23 of the General Plan Land Use Element 23 Newport Crossings Mixed -Use (PA2017-107) Planning Commission, February 21, 2019 Page 23 PC 7 Lot Line Adjustment Exhibit PC 8 Draft Affordable Housing Implementation Plan PC 9 Final EIR- Response to Comments and Revisions to DEIR PC 10 Fiscal Analysis PC 11 Project Correspondence PC 12 Project Plans Attachment No. PC 1 Draft Resolution Certifying EIR 25 20 RESOLUTION NO. PC2019-004 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA, CERTIFYING ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. ER2017-001, MAKING FACTS AND FINDINGS, AND APPROVING A MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM FOR THE NEWPORT CROSSINGS MIXED-USE PROJECT LOCATED AT 1701 CORINTHIAN WAY; 4251, 4253 AND 4255 MARTINGALE WAY; 4200, 4220 AND 4250 SCOTT DRIVE; AND 1660 DOVE STREET (PA2017-107) THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH HEREBY FINDS AS FOLLOWS: pyx.�rr;•�.�r��r_�ra�•�la.rr<•»y_�.�r`�l An application was filed by Starboard MacArthur Square, LP, 1701 Corinthian Way; 4251, 4253 and 4255 Martingale Way; 4200, 4220 and 4250 Scott Drive; and 1660 Dove Street and legally described as Lots 1 of Tract 7770, and Parcels 1 and 2 of Book 53, Page 13 of Parcel Maps ("Subject Property") requesting an approval for the development of a mixed use residential project ("Project'). The following approvals are requested or required in order to implement the project as proposed: A. Site Development Review: To ensure the site is developed in accordance with the Newport Place Planned Community Development Plan and Zoning Code development standards and regulations pursuant to Newport Beach Municipal Code ("NBMC") Section 20.52.080 (Site Development Reviews); B. Lot Line Adjustment: A lot line adjustment to reconfigure the three (3) underlying parcels that comprise the site, pursuant to NBMC Chapter 19.76 (Lot Line Adjustments). Specifically, the site would be reconfigured to create a 0.5 -acre parcel for public park purposes to be deeded to the City; a 5.08 - acre parcel for the proposed mixed-use development; and an 0.11 -acre parcel (to be owned by the Project applicant) for emergency access improvements needed to serve the proposed mixed-use building. The 0.11 - acre parcel would also include an easement dedicated to the City for access and parking for the public park. With dedication of the 0.5 -acre public park, the net project site area would be 5.19 acres; and C. Affordable Housing Implementation Plan: A program specifying how the Project would meet the City's affordable housing requirements, pursuant to the Residential Overlay of the Newport Place Planned Community. Under the Affordable Housing Implementation Plan, seventy eight (78) units would be set aside as affordable units to lower-income households. Providing the affordable housing required by the Residential Overlay of the Newport Place Planned Community qualifies the Project for a density bonus and 2� Planning Commission Resolution No. PC2019-004 Page 2 of 6 incentives/concessions pursuant to Chapter 20.32 (Density Bonus) of the NBMC and Government Code Section 65915 (Density Bonus Law). The AHIP includes a request for one development concession related to the bedroom mix of the affordable units and a development waiver of the 55 - foot building height limit to allow a height of 77 feet 9 inches to accommodate the parapet, rooftop mechanical equipment, elevator shafts, emergency staircase, rooftop amenity terrace, and a portion of the parking garage. 2. The Subject Property is located within General Commercial Site 6 and the Residential Overlay of the Newport Place Planned Community (PC -11) Zoning District and the General Plan Land Use Element category is Mixed -Use District Horizontal -2 (MU -H2). 3. The Subject Property is not located within the coastal zone; therefore, a coastal development permit is not required. 4. A study session was held on December 6, 2018, in the Council Chambers located at 100 Civic Center Drive, Newport Beach, California, to introduce the Project to the City of Newport Beach Planning Commission ("Planning Commission"). No action was taken at the study session. Although not required, the City mailed a courtesy public notice of this study session to property owners within a three hundred (300) -foot radius of the Subject Property. 5. On Tuesday, February 5, 2019, a meeting was held with the Parks, Beaches, and Recreation Commission in the City Council Chambers, at 100 Civic Center Drive, Newport Beach, California 92660. A notice of time, place and purpose of the hearing was given in accordance with the NBMC. The Project park design and staff report were presented to the Parks, Beaches, and Recreation Commission for their comment and recommendations. Public comments regarding the park design were also taken. The agenda for the meeting was posted at City Hall and on the City's website. 6. The Planning Commission held a public hearing on February 21, 2019, in the City Hall Council Chambers, 100 Civic Center Drive, Newport Beach, California. A notice of the time, place and purpose of the aforesaid meeting was provided in accordance with CEQA and the NBMC. The environmental documents for the Project comprised of the DEIR, Final Environmental Impact Report ("FEIR") which consists of Responses to Comments, Revisions to DEIR (collectively, the "EIR"), and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program ("MMRP"), the draft Findings and Facts in Support of Findings ("Findings"), staff report, and evidence, both written and oral, were presented to and considered by the Planning Commission at this hearing. 22 Planning Commission Resolution No. PC2019-004 Page 3 of 6 SECTION 2. CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT DETERMINATION. 1. Pursuant to California Public Resources Code Section 21080.3.1 (AB52), the City is required to consult with California Native American tribes that have requested in writing to be informed of proposed projects in the geographic area that is traditionally and culturally affiliated with the tribe. Two tribes have requested notification in writing. The tribal contacts were provided notice on January 3, 2018. The thirty (30) -day noticing requirement under AB52 was completed on February 2, 2018 and none of the tribes responded to the City's request. 2. Pursuant to CEQA, Public Resources Code Sections 21000, et seq., the State CEQA Guidelines (14 Cal. Code of Regulations, Sections 15000 et seq.), and City Council Policy K-3 (Implementation Procedures for the California Environmental Quality Act), it was determined that the Project could have a significant adverse effect on the environment, and thus warranted the preparation of an EIR. 3. On November 1, 2017, the City, as lead agency under CEQA, prepared a Notice of Preparation ("NOP") of the EIR and mailed that NOP to responsible and trustee public agencies, organizations likely to be interested in the potential impacts, property owners within a three hundred (300) foot radius of the Property, and any persons who had previously requested notice in writing. 4. On November 16, 2017, the City held a public scoping meeting to present the project and to solicit input from interested individuals, organizations, and responsible and trustee public agencies regarding environmental issues that should be addressed in the EIR. 5. The City thereafter caused to be prepared a Draft Environmental Impact Report (No. ER2017-001, SCH No. 2017101067) ("DEIR") in compliance with CEQA, the State CEQA Guidelines and City Council Policy K-3, which, taking into account the comments it received on the NOP, described the Project and discussed the environmental impacts resulting therefrom. 6. The DEIR was circulated for a forty-five (45) day comment period beginning on November 30, 2018, and ending on January 14, 2019. 7. Staff of the City of Newport Beach reviewed the comments received on the DEIR during the public comments and review period, and prepared full and complete responses thereto, and on February 11, 2019, distributed the responses to comments in accordance with CEQA. 8. The environmental documents for the Project comprised of the DEIR, Final Environmental Impact Report (as defined below) which consists of Responses to Comments, Revisions to DEIR (collectively, the "EIR"), and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program ("MMRP"), the draft Findings and Facts in Support of Findings ("Findings"), staff report, and evidence, both written and oral, were presented to and considered by the Planning Commission. 29 Planning Commission Resolution No. PC2019-004 Page 4 of 6 9. The Final EIR ("FEIR"), consisting of the NOP, DEIR, Responses to Comments, and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program attached hereto as Exhibits "A" and "C," and incorporated herein by reference, were considered by the Planning Commission in its review of the proposed Project. 10. The FEIR does not identify any significant impacts to the environment, which are unavoidable. 11. Based on the entire environmental review record, the Project, with mitigation measures, will have a less than significant impact upon the environment and there are no known substantial adverse effects on human beings that would be caused. Additionally, there are no long-term environmental goals that would be compromised by the Project, nor cumulative impacts anticipated in connection with the Project. The mitigation measures identified and incorporated in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program attached at Exhibit C), are feasible and will reduce the potential environmental impacts to a less than significant level. 12. The Planning Commission has reviewed the Revisions to the DEIR Section of the FEIR (SCH No. 2017101067) and determined that none of the new material contained in this section constitutes the type of significant new information that requires recirculation of the DEIR for further public comment pursuant to CEQA, specifically CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5. None of the new material indicates that the project will result in a significant new environmental impact not previously disclosed in the DEIR. Additionally, none of this material indicates that there would be a substantial increase in the severity of a previously identified environmental impact that will not be mitigated, or that there would be any of the other circumstances requiring recirculation described in Section 15088.5. 13. The Planning Commission has read and considered the EIR and has found that the EIR considers all potentially significant environmental effects of the Project and is complete and adequate, and fully complies with all requirements of CEQA and the State and local CEQA Guidelines. 14. The Planning Commission finds that judicial challenges to the City's CEQA determinations and approvals of land use projects are costly and time consuming. In addition, Project opponents often seek an award of attorneys' fees in such challenges. As Project applicants are the primary beneficiaries of such approvals, it is appropriate that such applicants should bear the expense of defending against any such judicial challenge, and bear the responsibility for any costs, attorneys' fees, and damages which may be awarded to a successful challenger. SECTION 3. DECISION. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: 1. The Planning Commission of the City of Newport Beach hereby certifies Environmental Impact Report No. ER2017-001 (SCH No. 2017101067), which is 30 Planning Commission Resolution No. PC2019-004 Page 5 of 6 attached hereto as Exhibit "A" and incorporated herein by reference. EIR No. ER2017-001 consists of the NOP, Draft EIR, appendices, Responses to Comments, and Revisions to the Draft EIR. 2. The Planning Commission has reviewed and hereby adopts the "CEQA Findings of Fact for the Newport Crossings Mixed Use Project, Final Environmental Impact Report," attached hereto as Exhibit "B" and incorporated herein by reference in accordance with 14 California Code of Regulations, Section 15091 and the California Public Resources Code Section 21081. 3. The Planning Commission of the City of Newport Beach hereby approves the Mitigation Monitoring Report Program attached hereto as Exhibit "C" and incorporated herein by reference. 4. The recitals provided in this resolution are true and correct and are incorporated into the operative part of this resolution. 5. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this resolution 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 resolution. The Planning Commission hereby declares that it would have passed this resolution, and each section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase hereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, sentences, clauses or phrases be declared invalid or unconstitutional. 6. This action shall become final and effective fourteen (14) days following the date this resolution was adopted unless within such time an appeal is filed with the City Clerk in accordance with the provisions of Title 20 Planning and Zoning, of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. 31 Planning Commission Resolution No. PC2019-004 Page 6 of 6 PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED THIS 21ST DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2019. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN ABSENT: BY: Peter Zak. Chairman BY: Lee Lowrey, Secretary Exhibit A: Environmental Impact Report No. ER2017-001 Exhibit B: CEQA Findings of Fact for the Newport Crossings Mixed Use Project Final Environmental Impact Report Exhibit C: Mitigation Monitoring Report Program S2 Exhibit "A" Environmental Impact Report EIR SCH No. 2017101067 • Notice of Preparation • Environmental Analysis • Alternatives Analysis • Appendices • Responses to Comments • Revisions to Draft EIR (Available separate due to bulk and at http://newportbeachca. gov/cepa) M. Exhibit "B" CEQA Findings of Fact for the Newport Crossings Mixed Use Project Final Environmental Impact Report 55 Exhibit B CEQA FINDINGS OF FACT FOR THE NEWPORT CROSSINGS MIXED USE PROJECT FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT City of Newport Beach STATE CLEARINGHOUSE NO. 2017101067 INTRODUCTION The California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") requires that a number of written findings be made by the lead agency in connection with certification of an environmental impact report ("EIR") prior to approval of the project pursuant to Sections 15091 and 15093 of the CEQA Guidelines and Section 21081 of the Public Resources Code. The State CEQA Guidelines Section 15091 provides: (a) No public agency shall approve or carry out a project for which an EIR has been certified which identifies one or more significant environmental effects of the project unless the public agency makes one or more written findings for each of those significant effects, accompanied by a brief explanation of the rationale for each finding. The possible findings are: 1. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the EIR. 2. Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and not the agency making the finding. Such changes have been adopted by such other agency or can or should be adopted by such other agency. 3. Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the final EIR. (b) The findings required by subdivision (a) shall be supported by substantial evidence in the record. (c) The finding in subdivision (a)(2) shall not be made if the agency making the finding has concurrent jurisdiction with another agency to deal with identified feasible mitigation measures or alternatives. The finding in subsection (a)(3) shall describe the specific reasons for rejecting identified mitigation measures and project alternatives. Newport Crossings Mixed Use Project CEQA Findings of Fact -1- 30 (d) When making the findings required in subdivision (a)(1), the agency shall also adopt a program for reporting on or monitoring the changes which it has either required in the project or made a condition of approval to avoid or substantially lessen significant environmental effects. These measures must be fully enforceable through permit conditions, agreements, or other measures. (e) The public agency shall specify the location and custodian of the documents or other materials which constitute the record of the proceedings upon which its decision is based. (f) A statement made pursuant to Section 15093 does not substitute for the findings required by this section. Public Resources Code Section 21061.1 defines "feasible" to mean "capable of being accomplished in a successful manner within a reasonable period of time, taking into account economic, environmental, social, and technological factors." CEQA Guidelines section 15364 adds another factor: "legal" considerations. (See Citizens of Goleta Valley v. Board of Supervisors (1990) 52 Cal.3d 553, 565 (Goleta ll).) The concept of "feasibility" also encompasses the question of whether a particular alternative or mitigation measure promotes the underlying goals and objectives of a project. (California Native Plant Soc. v. City of Santa Cruz (2009) 177 Cal.AppAth 957, 1001 ["an alternative 'may be found infeasible on the ground it is inconsistent with the project objectives as long as the finding is supported by substantial evidence in the record"'].) An alternative may also be rejected because it "would not 'entirely fulfill' [a] project objective." Citizens for Open Government v. City of Lodi (2012) 205 Cal.AppAth 296, 314-315.) "[F]easibility" under CEQA encompasses 'desirability' to the extent that desirability is based on a reasonable balancing of the relevant economic, environmental, social, and technological factors." (City of Del Mar v. City of San Diego (1982) 133 Cal.App.3d 410, 417; see also Sequoyah Hills Homeowners Assn. v. City of Oakland (1993) 23 Cal.AppAth 704, 715.) With respect to a project for which significant impacts are not avoided or substantially lessened, a public agency, after adopting proper findings, may nevertheless approve the project if the agency first adopts a statement of overriding considerations setting forth the specific reasons why the agency found that the project's "benefits" rendered "acceptable" its "unavoidable adverse environmental effects." (CEQA Guidelines, §§ 15093, 15043, subd. (b); see also Pub. Resources Code, § 21081, subd. (b).) The California Supreme Court has stated, "[t]he wisdom of approving ... any development project, a delicate task which requires a balancing of interests, is necessarily left to the sound discretion of the local officials and their constituents who are responsible for such decisions. The law as we interpret and apply it simply requires that those decisions be informed, and therefore balanced." (Goleta ll, supra, 52 Cal.3d at p. 576.) When adopting Statements of Overriding Considerations, State CEQA Guidelines Section 15093 further provides: Newport Crossings Mixed Use Project CEQA Findings of Fact -2- 3:F (a) CEQA requires the decision-making agency to balance, as applicable, the economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits of a proposed project against its unavoidable environmental risks when determining whether to approve the project. If the specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits of a proposal project outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental effects, the adverse environmental effects may be considered "acceptable." (b) Where the lead agency approves a project which will result in the occurrence of significant effects which are identified in the final EIR but are not avoided or substantially lessened, the agency shall state in writing the specific reasons to support its action based on the final EIR and/or other information in the record. This statement of overriding considerations shall be supported by substantial evidence in the record. (c) If an agency makes a statement of overriding considerations, the statement should be included in the record of the project approval and should be mentioned in the notice of determination. This statement does not substitute for, and shall be in addition to, findings required pursuant to Section 15091. Having received, independently reviewed, and considered the Draft Environmental Impact Report ("DEIR") and the Final Environmental Impact Report ("FEIR") for the Newport Crossings Mixed Use Project, SCH No. 2017101067 (collectively, the "EIR"), as well as all other information in the record of proceedings on this matter, the following Findings of Facts ("Findings") are hereby adopted by the City of Newport Beach ("City") in its capacity as the CEQA Lead Agency. These Findings set forth the environmental basis for the discretionary actions to be undertaken by the City for adoption and implementation of the Newport Crossings Mixed Use Project ("Proposed Project"). This action includes the certification of the following: ■ Newport Crossings Mixed Use Project Environmental Impact Report, SCH No. 2017101067 A. DOCUMENT FORMAT These Findings have been organized into the following sections: 1) Section 1 provides an introduction. 2) Section 2 provides a summary of the project, overview of the discretionary actions required for approval of the project, and a statement of the project's objectives. 3) Section 3 provides a summary of previous environmental reviews related to the project area that took place prior to the environmental review done specifically for the project, and a summary of public participation in the environmental review for the project. 4) Section 4 sets forth findings regarding the environmental impacts that were determined to be—as a result of the Notice of Preparation (NOP) and consideration of comments received during the NOP comment period—either not relevant to the project or clearly not at levels that Newport Crossings Mixed Use Project CEQA Findings of Fact -3- 38 were deemed significant for consideration given the nature and location of the Proposed Project. 5) Section 5 sets forth findings regarding significant or potentially significant environmental impacts identified in the DEIR that the City has determined are either not significant or can feasibly be mitigated to a less than significant level through the imposition of project design features and/or mitigation measures. In order to ensure compliance and implementation, all of these measures are included in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program ("MMRP") for the project and adopted as conditions of the project by the Lead Agency. Where potentially significant impacts can be reduced to less than significant levels through adherence to project design features and/or mitigation measures, these findings specify how those impacts were reduced to an acceptable level. Section 5 also includes findings regarding those significant or potentially significant environmental impacts identified in the DEIR that will or may result from the project and which the City has determined cannot feasibly be mitigated to a less than significant level. 6) Section 6 sets forth findings regarding alternatives to the Proposed Project. B. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS For purposes of CEQA and these Findings, the Record of Proceedings for the Proposed Project consists of the following documents and other evidence, at a minimum: ■ The NOP and all other public notices issued by the City in conjunction with the Proposed Project ■ The DEIR for the Proposed Project ■ The FEIR for the Proposed Project ■ All written comments submitted by agencies or members of the public during the public review comment period on the DEIR ■ All responses to written comments submitted by agencies or members of the public during the public review comment period on the DEIR ■ All written and verbal public testimony presented during a noticed public hearing for the Proposed Project ■ The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program ■ The reports and technical memoranda included or referenced in the Response to Comments ■ All documents, studies, EIRs, or other materials incorporated by reference in the DEIR and FEIR ■ The Resolutions adopted by the City of Newport Beach in connection with the Proposed Project, and all documents incorporated by reference therein, including comments received after the close of the comment period and responses thereto ■ Matters of common knowledge to the City of Newport Beach, including but not limited to federal, state, and local laws and regulations Newport Crossings Mixed Use Project CEQA Findings of Fact -4- 39 ■ Any documents expressly cited in these Findings ■ Any other relevant materials required to be in the record of proceedings by Public Resources Code Section 21167.6(e) The documents and other material that constitute the record of proceedings on which these findings are based are located at the City of Newport Beach Community Development Department. The custodian for these documents is the City of Newport Beach. This information is provided in compliance with Public Resources Code Section 21081.6(a)(2) and 14 California Code Regulations Section 15091(e). C. CUSTODIAN AND LOCATION OF RECORDS The documents and other materials that constitute the administrative record for the City's actions related to the project are at the City of Newport Beach Community Development Department, 100 Civic Center Drive, Newport Beach, California 92660. The City's Community Development Department is the custodian of the administrative record for the project. Copies of these documents, which constitute the record of proceedings, are and at all relevant times have been and will be available upon request at the offices of the Community Development Department. This information is provided in compliance with Public Resources Code Section 21081.6(a)(2) and 14 California Code Regulations Section 15091(e). a Z101:10 Will Pi I JAI_1WI A. PROJECT LOCATION The approximately 5.69 -acre project site is in the northern end of the City of Newport Beach ("City'). The City is in the western part of Orange County in southern California. It is bordered by Huntington Beach to the northwest, Costa Mesa to the north, Irvine to the northeast, unincorporated areas (Crystal Cove State Park) of Orange County to the southeast, and the Pacific Ocean to the south. Regional access to the project site is provided via Interstate 405 (1- 405), State Route 55 (SR -55), State Route 73 (SR -73) (San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor), and Highway 1 (Pacific Coast Highway). The project site is in the City's "Airport Area" planning subarea, which is bounded by Campus Drive to the north and west, SR -73 to the south, and Jamboree Road to the east. Within the Airport Area are established planned community development plans. The project site is in the Newport Place Planned Community. The site is generally bounded by Corinthian Way to the northeast, Martingale Way to the east, Scott Drive to the northwest, and Dove Street to the southwest. The site is approximately 0.2 mile east of John Wayne Airport. The project site is pentagonal -shaped area comprised of three (3) legal parcels (four Assessor Parcel Numbers (APNs): 427-172-02, -03, -05, and -06). Given the odd shape of the property, it does not have a definable width or depth. Newport Crossings Mixed Use Project CEQA Findings of Fact -5- Luo B. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The site is currently improved with the 58,277 -square foot MacArthur Square shopping center, which was built in 1974. The shopping center consists of eight (8) single -story commercial/retail buildings, surface parking, and various landscape (e.g., ornamental trees, shrubs) and hardscape improvements. MacArthur Square is characterized as an aging, underutilized, and underperforming shopping center that supports a variety of retail and commercial business, including restaurants and retail shops. Current tenants include several restaurants, a dance studio, retail stores, and professional and medical offices. Project development includes demolition of approximately 58,277 square feet of existing buildings, surface parking for 462 vehicles, and hardscape improvements of MacArthur Square. Project development also requires removal of a number of ornamental trees and other landscape improvements. Upon clearing, the approximately 5.69 -acre project site would be redeveloped with the proposed Newport Crossings Mixed Use project ("Proposed Project"). The Proposed Project would consist of the development of a multistory building that would house 350 apartment units, 2,000 square feet of "casual -dining" restaurant space, and 5,500 square feet of retail space. The project also includes the development of a 0.5 -acre public park, which is described in detail below. The proposed building and public park fit into the overall layout of the project site. The proposed building would follow the pentagonal shape of the project site, with building fagades fronting all site frontages. The pentagonal building is designed as a single structure; however, it includes multiple buildings with various heights and massing that are connected to each other through common/shared walls, covered pedestrian corridors and breezeways, and various building elements and architectural features. Centrally located within the multistory building is a six -level, five -story parking structure (one semi -subterranean level), which would be surrounded and screened from public view by the proposed building. Various courtyards and recreational and entertainment amenities would be introduced to break up the overall building plane; these features and amenities would also help break up the massing of the building as seen from the ground level. Various elements of the proposed building would exceed the base height limit of 55 feet; specifically, building heights would reach up to 77 feet 9 inches for stair towers, architectural features (including parapets), parking structure, roof decks, elevator shafts, and mechanical equipment. However, all portions of the building's residential living areas would be under 55 feet in height. The proposed retail space and plaza would front onto Corinthian Way, serving as a walkable and pedestrian -friendly connection between the Proposed Project's retail uses and existing commercial and retail uses to the north, across Corinthian Way. Also, the elongated, roughly rectangular public park in the southern portion of the project site would help provide a physical and visual buffer between the proposed apartment units and the office uses to the south. Newport Crossings Mixed Use Project CEQA Findings of Fact -6- iM Affordable Housing and Development Incentives/Concessions and Waivers The established Newport Place Planned Community Development Standards ("Residential Overlay') allow for a maximum residential density of fifty (50) dwelling units per net acre; a minimum of thirty percent (30%) of the units in residential developments are required to be affordable to lower-income households. After dedication of the 0.5 -acre public park, the net acreage of the project site would be 5.19 acres, which results in a maximum allowed density of 259 units. Of the 259 units allowed, 78 units ( thirty percent (30%)) are proposed to be reserved for lower-income households. As encouraged by the Residential Overlay and pursuant to Chapter 20.32 (Density Bonus) of the City's zoning code and Government Code Section 65915 (Density Bonus Law), with a thirty percent (30%) allocation for lower-income households, the Proposed Project is entitled to the maximum thirty five percent (35%) density bonus (91 additional units), increasing the total project density to 350 units. Therefore, of the Proposed Project's 350 apartment units, 259 are considered "base" units and ninety one (91) are "density bonus" units. In addition to the ninety one (91) density bonus units, development incentives are available to developers pursuant to Chapter 20.32 of the City's zoning code and Government Code Section 65915(d)(1). Specifically, the Proposed Project is entitled to up to three (3) incentives or concessions that would result in identifiable, financially sufficient, and actual cost reductions. Government Code Section 65915(e)(1) also entitles a development to waivers or modifications of development standards that, if applied, would physically preclude development of the housing development with the proposed density bonus. To illustrate compliance with the Residential Overlay affordable housing requirements and density bonus allowances of the City zoning code and state law, the Proposed Project includes preparation of an Affordable Housing Implementation Plan ("AHIP") (see Section 3.3.3, Discretionary Actions and Approvals). The AHIP includes a request for one development concession for the unit mix and one waiver for the height. ■ Development Concession (Unit Mix). Pursuant to Section V.F.1 of the Residential Overlay, "Affordable units shall reflect the range of numbers of bedrooms provided in the residential development project as a whole." In the case of the Proposed Project, the project applicant is requesting a unit mix that includes a greater percentage of studio and one -bedroom units, as illustrated in Table 3-2. ■ Waiver/Concession of Development Standard (Height Increase). Pursuant to Section V.A of the Residential Overlay, the maximum building heights are limited to 55 feet, but may be increased with the approval of a site development review after making certain findings for approval. Government Code Section 65915(e)(1) provides that a city may not apply a development standard that will have the effect of physically precluding the construction of a density bonus project at the density permitted under the density bonus law. In the case of the Proposed Project, the project applicant is requesting a waiver of the 55 -foot building height limit to 77 feet 9 inches in order to accommodate the parapet, roof -top mechanical equipment, elevator shafts, emergency staircase, rooftop terrace, and a portion of the parking garage. Newport Crossings Mixed Use Project CEQA Findings of Fact -7- REA Architectural Features The proposed architectural style would be Contemporary, and design elements (e.g., roof style, window fenestration and details, building materials) would be consistent with this architectural style. For example, design elements would include light sand -finish stucco walls; architectural metal and acrylic panels; wood plank tiles; glass railings; vinyl windows; aluminum storefronts; and metal awnings, sun shades, horizontal slats, and trellises. Building pop -outs and offsets; variations in building heights, rooflines, materials, colors, and landscaping; and balconies would be added and modulated to offset the building's massing, provide human scale, promote visual interest and articulation, and provide relief to and variation in the building form and style. The final building design and architectural style are subject to review and approval by the City's Planning Commission. Landscaoina and Liahtin Ornamental trees, shrubs, and groundcover would be planted along the site perimeter and in the public gathering areas, such as the entertainment courtyard, pool courtyard, lounge, view deck, and rooftop terrace in the residential development portion as well as the retail plaza. The half - acre public park in the southern portion of the site would also be landscaped with ornamental trees surrounding the proposed park amenities. Additionally, existing Italian Stone pines along Martingale Way would be preserved in place. The proposed plant palette would include noninvasive, medium -/low-water consumptive varieties. The proposed plants would be water conserving and have deep root systems that enable soil stabilization and minimize erosion. Project development requires removal of the majority of existing trees onsite (minus the aforementioned Italian Stone pines), as well as other landscape improvements associated with the existing MacArthur Square shopping center. Although the majority of existing trees would be removed (approximately 76 trees), the Proposed Project would provide a greater number of trees (approximately 174 new trees, including the public park and retail plaza) than currently exist. All landscaped areas, including the public park and retail plaza, would be maintained by the property management company. Project lighting would consist of building -mounted light fixtures; lighting for pedestrian walkways and corridors; decorative lighting for landscape and architectural features; signage lighting; interior lighting for the apartment units, leasing office, retail uses, and parking structure; lighting for the courtyards, rooftop terrace, common areas, and public park; and security lighting. Amenities. Recreation and Entertainment Areas. and Services Residential Future project residents and their guests would have access to a number of amenities, recreation and entertainment areas and services, including: Pool Courtyard: The pool courtyard includes a community pool and spa, a clubroom, an outdoor terrace, barbecue grills, and an outdoor fireplace. Chaise lounges and cabanas provide for poolside seating, and the spa terrace would be developed with lounging on deck or synthetic turf Newport Crossings Mixed Use Project CEQA Findings of Fact -8- 4S with a fireplace. A round metal trellis at the south end of the pool courtyard is intended for hanging "pod" chairs with views back to the clubroom. This courtyard would provide a direct connection to the proposed public park (described below) via a gated entry. Entertainment Courtyard: The entertainment courtyard is intended for the passive user and bisected by a pedestrian corridor. Uses in this courtyard would include a fire pit, barbecue grills, soft seating, and overhead festival lights. Ground -level units surrounding the entertainment courtyard would have private patios fronting the courtyard. Lounge Courtyard: The lounge courtyard is intended for the passive user and bisected by a pedestrian corridor. Uses in this courtyard would include a lounge cabana with fire pit, barbecue grills, communal dining tables, and soft seating. Ground -level units surrounding the lounge courtyard would have private patios fronting the courtyard. Rooftop Terrace at Level 7: The rooftop terrace would be on the seventh floor of the apartment building, on the north side of the proposed parking structure. The terrace would provide direct views of the retail plaza below, John Wayne Airport, and surrounding commercial areas. The terrace would include a spa with a cabana and sunning furniture. A fireside lounge with a three - sided fireplace, group shade structure, lounge seating, and overhead festival lights would be provided at the center of the terrace. The rooftop would also include a dining terrace with barbecue grills, communal tables and outdoor kitchen, and a game lawn with synthetic turf, game tables, and overhead festival lighting. View Deck at Level 5: The view deck would be on the fifth floor of the apartment building. The view deck would include an outdoor kitchen, lounge chairs, and a fireplace. Other amenities and services available to future residents include a club room for entertainment and gatherings; fitness facility; leasing office; centralized mail room; and washer and dryer in each apartment unit. Also, each apartment unit would feature a private patio or balcony. Ground -level units would feature patios, and units on the second floor and above would feature balconies. Retail A retail plaza would be directly adjacent to the proposed ground -level retail uses fronting Corinthian Way. The retail plaza would be available to future retail employees and patrons of the retail uses and to future project residents and their guests. The retail plaza would include designated outdoor dining areas for restaurants with tables, chairs, and low fencing; an open dining plaza with tables, chairs, and festival lights; a fireside lounge with a firepit, soft seating, and festival lights; a water feature that would include a wall and reflection pool with water steps; and palm trees and other landscape features and elements throughout. Public Park In addition, the Proposed Project includes development of a half -acre public park. An elongated, rectangular -shaped public park would be at the southern end of the project site with frontages on Dove Street and Martingale Way. Upon completion, the park would be dedicated to the City for public use; however, it would be managed and operated by the property management company. Newport Crossings Mixed Use Project CEQA Findings of Fact -9- The park would serve future project residents, employees, and patrons. It is also intended to serve the existing offices and business in the surrounding vicinity as a recreation and activity area and respite from the daily work environment. Anticipated park amenities include a play lawn featuring playground equipment, shade structure, benches, and synthetic turf; fenced and separated dog parks for large and small dogs featuring synthetic turf; fitness terrace with fitness equipment and shade trellis; central dining terrace with overhead trellis, tables, and chairs; bocce ball court with shade cabanas; fenced pickleball court; and seat walls throughout. An off-street parking lot for park users is also proposed on the eastern end of the park. The public park would be landscaped with low -water -use plants. A tree and shrub hedge would be provided along the southern boundary to provide a visual and physical buffer between the park and the adjacent office parking lot to the south. Access, Circulation, and Parking Vehicular Access and Circulation Vehicular access to the project site would be via full -access driveways (all turning movements permitted) off Scott Drive and Martingale Way. The driveways would lead to internal private drive aisles with decorative pavers, which would direct vehicles to the parking structure's gated entries. The parking structure would be restricted to apartment residents, guests, and employees, and to employees and patrons of the retail uses. Once inside the parking structure, vehicles would circulate via internal drive aisles and vehicle ramps; wayfinding signs would be provided. The parking structure's gated entries would be accessed by emergency service vehicles via remote opening devices. The public park would have a separate full -access driveway at the southern end of Martingale Way, which would lead into a separate parking lot area for the park. Pedestrian and Bicycle Access and Circulation Pedestrians and bicyclists would access the project site along the perimeter roadways. Pedestrian corridors and walkways that lead into the retail, residential, and public park areas line the perimeter of the project site. Pedestrian corridors and walkways would also be provided internal to the site, between the apartment buildings and courtyards; these would connect to the public sidewalks along the perimeter roadways. Resident access to the individual apartment units, site amenities, retail plaza, and parking structure would be provided via internal pedestrian corridors/walkways on each level of the apartment building, as well as via elevators and stairwells. As a part of the Proposed Project, the existing public sidewalks along Dove Street, Scott Drive, Corinthian Way, and Martingale Way would be demolished and reconstructed to City standards. Additionally, new ADA -compliant curb access ramps would be constructed at Dove Street/Scott Drive, Scott Drive/Corinthian Way, and Corinthian Way/Martingale Way intersections in accordance with City standards. Newport Crossings Mixed Use Project CEQA Findings of Fact -10- iRE Parking A six -level, five -story parking structure (one semi -subterranean level) is proposed in the center of the project site. It would be surrounded and screened from public view by the proposed multistory building. The parking structure would be restricted to apartment residents, guests, and employees, and to retail employees and patrons. The parking structure would provide a total of 740 parking spaces, including assigned and open spaces for residences and their visitors, required spaces for ADA -accessible parking and electric vehicle charging stations, and open spaces for retail patrons and employees. Of the total 740 parking spaces provided, five (5) uncovered surface parking spaces would be provided in front of the leasing office, 661 would be designated/assigned for apartment use and the remaining seventy four (74) for the retail uses. The seventy four (74) spaces for retail use would all be provided on the ground level of the parking structure. Levels two through five of the parking structure would contain the parking spaces for apartment residents and visitors; a few resident parking spaces would also be provided on the ground level. The project provides 655 assigned residential parking stalls (1.87/unit), which is less than the City requires for non -density bonus projects (2/unit plus 0.5 space per unit for guest parking), but in excess of the City's parking stall requirement for density bonus projects that request a parking reduction. The City's density bonus regulations establish parking requirements consistent with the requirements under state density bonus law. Under that law, if a developer so requests, a city cannot require a parking ratio that would exceed one space for each studio and one -bedroom unit and two spaces for each two-bedroom unit. (Gov't Code § 65915(p)(1).) With the project's mix of units, this would result in a parking ratio of 1.35 parking spaces per unit (or 474 spaces). The public park would have a separate parking lot (four parking spaces) for park users, which would be accessed from Martingale Way. Bicycle racks would be provided in key locations of the retail plaza area and public park. At a minimum, four open rack bicycle spaces for short term parking and four secured lockers for long- term parking would be provided. Project residents would also be able to store their bicycles in their apartment units. Infrastructure Improvements Water. The City's Water Services Department currently provides potable water to the existing commercial and retail uses on the project site and would continue to do so for the Proposed Project. Potable water is provided via internal water lines that connect to the existing off-site water lines in the perimeter roadways. As a part of the Proposed Project, the on-site potable water lines would be removed and replaced with a series of new potable water lines that would connect to the existing off-site water lines in the perimeter roadways. Additionally, fire hydrants would be installed onsite at key locations, as required by the City of Newport Beach Fire Department to meet hose -pull requirements and provide adequate fire access. Wastewater. The City's Water Services Department currently provides wastewater collection service to the existing commercial and retail uses on the project site and would continue to do so Newport Crossings Mixed Use Project CEQA Findings of Fact -11- WO for the Proposed Project. Wastewater collection is provided via internal sewer lines that connect to the off-site sewer lines in the perimeter roadways. Drainage. Under existing conditions, approximately 90 percent of the project site consists of impervious areas (e.g., buildings, paving), and the remainder is pervious (e.g., landscaping). Under proposed conditions, approximately 77 percent of the project site would consist of impervious areas and the remainder would be pervious. Runoff from the project site would be conveyed similar to existing conditions, continuing to flow southerly via a new onsite drainage collection and treatment system. Site drainage improvements needed to accommodate the Proposed Project would include new storm drain pipes, catch basins, and best management (BMP) practices (e.g., modular wetland system). C. DISCRETIONARY ACTIONS AND APPROVALS Project development requires the following discretionary actions and approvals from the City: ■ Certification of the Newport Crossings Mixed Use Project Environmental Impact Report, SCH No. 2017101067 Adoption of the Findings of Fact ■ Adoption of a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program ■ Approval of Lot Line Adjustment No. LA2018-004 ■ Approval of Affordable Housing Implementation Plan No. AH2018-001 ■ Approval of Site Development Review No. SD2017-004 D. STATEMENT OF PROJECT OBJECTIVES The statement of objectives sought by the project and set forth in the EIR is provided as follows: 1. To develop a multiunit mixed-use project that includes affordable housing units that will serve the various populations of the City of Newport Beach. 2. To develop a mixed-use project that is consistent with and furthers the policies of the General Plan for the Airport Area without the need for a General Plan amendment. 3. To locate additional housing within an area identified by the General Plan as an opportunity area for future housing. 4. To develop a mixed-use project that contributes to a walkable and pedestrian -friendly community. 5. To generate temporary employment in the construction industry. 6. To improve the jobs -housing balance in Newport Beach and to provide new housing within close proximity to jobs and services. Newport Crossings Mixed Use Project CEQA Findings of Fact -12- 47 7. To provide beneficial site and area improvements, including extensive onsite private recreation amenities and the dedication of a public park to the City of Newport Beach. 8. To develop a project that implements and is consistent with the intent of the Newport Place Planned Community Residential Overlay and that take advantage of the Density Bonus allowed under both the City's zoning code and Government Code Section 65915. III. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW AND PUBLIC PARTICIPATION PROCESS In conformance with CEQA, the State CEQA Guidelines, and the City of Newport Beach CEQA Guidelines, the City conducted an extensive environmental review of the Proposed Project. The City of Newport Beach determined that an EIR would be required for the Proposed Project and issued a Notice of Preparation ("NOP") on November 1, 2017. The NOP was sent to all responsible agencies, trustee agencies, and the Office of Planning Research and posted at the Orange County Clerk -Recorder's office and on the City's website on November 1, 2017. The thirty (30) -day public review period extended from November 1, 2017, to November 30, 2017. ■ A scoping meeting was held during the NOP review period to solicit additional suggestions on the scope of the DEIR. Attendees were provided an opportunity to identify verbally or in writing the issues they felt should be addressed in the DEIR. The scoping meeting was held on Thursday, November 16, 2017, at the OASIS Senior Center at 801 Narcissus Avenue, Corona Del Mar, California 92625. The notice of the public scoping meeting was included in the NOP. The scope of the DEIR was determined based on the City's comments received in response to the NOP, and comments received at the scoping meeting conducted by the City on November 16, 2017. Section 2.3 of the DEIR describes the issues identified for analysis in the DEIR. The City of Newport Beach prepared a DEIR, which was made available for a forty five (45) -day public review period beginning Friday, November 20, 2018 and ending Monday, January 14, 2019. The complete DEIR consists of the analysis of the Newport Crossings Mixed Use Project and all referenced appendices. The Notice of Availability ("NOX) for the DEIR was sent to all interested persons, agencies, and organizations. The Notice of Completion ("NOC") was sent to the State Clearinghouse in Sacramento for distribution to public agencies. The NOA was posted at the Orange County Clerk - Recorder's office on November 28, 2018. Copies of the DEIR were made available for public review at the City of Newport Beach Community Development Department and three Newport Beach Public Library facilities (Central Library, Mariners Branch, and Balboa Branch,). The DEIR was also made available for download via the City's website: https://www.newportbeachca.gov/ceqa One study session was held by the Planning Commission on Thursday, December 6, 2018 in the City's Council Chambers, located at 100 Civic Center Drive, Newport Beach, California 92660. Notice of time, place, and purpose of the aforesaid meeting was provided in accordance with CEQA and the City's Municipal Code. The Newport Crossings Mixed Use Project and staff report were presented to the Planning Commission at this Newport Crossings Mixed Use Project CEQA Findings of Fact -13- M study session. Public comments regarding the Proposed Project were also taken. The agenda for the study session was posted at City Hall and on the City's website. • On Tuesday, February 5, 2019, a meeting was held with the Parks, Beaches, and Recreation Commission in the City's Council Chambers, located at 100 Civic Center Drive, Newport Beach, California 92660. Notice of time, place, and purpose of the aforesaid meeting was provided in accordance with CEQA and the City's Municipal Code. The Newport Crossings Mixed Use Project park design and staff report was presented to the Parks, Beaches, and Recreation Commission for their comment and recommendations. Public comments regarding the park design were also taken. The agenda for the meeting was posted at City Hall and on the City's website. • Preparation of the FEIR includes comments on the DEIR, responses to those comments, clarifications/revisions to the DEIR, and revised figures. The FEIR was released on February 8, 2019, and posted on the City's website. A Planning Commission Public Hearing was held on February 21, 2019 in the City's Council Chambers, at 100 Civic Center Drive, Newport Beach, California 92660. A notice of time, place, and purpose of the aforementioned meeting was provided in accordance with CEQA and the City's Municipal Code. The DEIR, FEIR, staff report, and evidence, both written and oral, were presented to and considered by the Planning Commission at this hearing. - Notice of the Planning Commission Public Hearing was a one-eighth page advertisement in the Daily Pilot newspaper on February 9, 2019. - Additionally, notices were mailed to nearby property owners and interested parties consistent with the environmental review process required under the California Environmental Quality Act. The item was on the agenda for the noticed Planning Commission Public Hearing, which was posted at City Hall and on the City's website. • In compliance with Section 15088(b) of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations (State CEQA Guidelines), the City has met its obligation to provide written Responses to Comments to public agencies at least 10 days prior to certifying the FEIR. IV. ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES THAT WERE DETERMINED NOT TO BE POTENTIALLY AFFECTED BY THE PROPOSED PROJECT A. IMPACTS DETERMINED TO BE LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT DURING THE SCOPING PROCESS Based on the public scoping process (including review of NOP responses and input at the public scoping meeting), in addition to analysis prepared for the DEIR, the City determined, based upon the threshold criteria for significance, that the project would have no impact or a less than significant impact on the following potential environmental issues (see DEIR, Chapter 8, Impacts Found Not to be Significant). It was determined, therefore, that these potential environmental issues would be precluded from detailed discussion in the DEIR. Based upon the environmental analysis presented in the DEIR, and the comments received by the public on the DEIR, no substantial evidence was submitted to or identified by the City which indicated that the project would have an impact on the following environmental areas: (a) Agriculture and Forestry Resources: The project site does not contain Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance. No portion of the project area Newport Crossings Mixed Use Project CEQA Findings of Fact -14- 4q includes forest resources, and the site is not zoned for forest land, timberland, or timberland production. (b) Biological Resources: The project site is fully developed and in a highly urbanized area of the City and would not adversely impact candidate, sensitive or special status species; riparian habitat or other sensitive natural communities. The project also would not conflict with any local ordinances protecting biological resources, adopted Habitat Conservation Plan or Natural Community Conservation Plan. (c) Mineral Resources: The project would not result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource or locally important mineral resource recovery site. (d) Geology and Soils: The Proposed Project would not use septic systems or alternative waste water disposal systems. (e) Hazards and Hazardous Materials: The project would not impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response/evacuation plan or expose people or structures to potential wildland fire hazards. (f) Hydrology and Water Quality: The project site is not located within a 100 -year flood hazard zone and is not close or low enough to sea level to be exposed to potential inundation by seiche or tsunami. The project area is mostly flat and would not be prone to mudslides, and there are no nearby dams or levees that could expose people or structures to flood hazards as a result of dam or levee failure. (g) Land Use and Planning: The project would not conflict with a habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan. (h) Population and Housing: The project would not displace any housing or residents. All other topical areas of evaluation included in the Environmental Checklist were determined to require further assessment in the DEIR. B. IMPACTS DETERMINED TO BE LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IN THE DEIR This section identifies impacts of the Proposed Project determined to be less than significant without implementation of project -specific mitigation measures. This determination, however, does assume compliance with existing regulations as detailed in each respective topical section of Chapter 5 in the DEIR. (a) Aesthetics: The project would not result in a substantial adverse effect on a scenic visa or alter scenic resources within a state scenic highway. The project would alter the visual appearance of the project site and its surroundings but would not substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality. The project would also create new sources of light or glare in the project area, but none of these would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area. (b) Air Quality: The project is consistent with the applicable Southern Coast Air Quality Management District's Air Quality Management Plan. The long-term operation of the project would not generate additional vehicle trips and associated emissions in exceedance of SCAQMD's threshold criteria. The Proposed Project would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. Operation of the Proposed Project would not expose Newport Crossings Mixed Use Project CEQA Findings of Fact -15- 50 sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations and would not create objectionable odors. (c) Biological Resources: The project would not result in an impact on federally designated wetlands through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means. Development of the project would not conflict with the City's local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources. (d) Cultural Resources: Development of the project would not impact an identified historic resource. The likelihood that human remains may be discovered during clearing and grading activities is considered extremely low. In the unlikely event human remains are uncovered, impacts would be less than significant upon compliance with California and Safety Code Section 7050.5. (e) Geology and Soils: The project would expose people to strong ground shaking. The project site is not subject to surface rupture and would not subject people or structures to substantial hazards from surface rupture of a known active fault and liquefaction impacts would be less than significant. No impacts would occur with earthquake -induced landslides. Project development would not cause substantial soil erosion. Impacts related to collapsible and expansive soils would be less than significant and development would not subject people or structures to substantial hazards from ground subsidence. (f) Greenhouse Gas Emissions: The project would not generate a net increase in GHG emissions, either directly or indirectly, that would have a significant impact on the environment. The project would not conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of GHGs. (g) Hazards and Hazardous Materials: Substantial hazards to the public or the environment arising from the routine use, storage, transport, and disposal of hazardous materials during long-term operation of the Proposed Project would not occur. The project would not create an obstruction to air navigation or cause safety hazards to people working or residing on the project site due to its proximity to the John Wayne Airport. (h) Hydrology and Water Quality: The project would not violate water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise degrade water quality. The project would not reduce groundwater recharge or quality and would have less than significant impacts to the storm drain system and the potential for flooding. The project would also not substantially alter the existing drainage pattern to result in potentially significant erosion or situation impacts. Land Use Planning: The project would not divide an established community and would not conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including the City of Newport Beach General Plan policies, Newport Planned Community zoning, or the Airport Environs Land Us Plan for John Wayne Airport,) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. The project would also not conflict with an adopted habitat conservation plan. Q) Noise: Construction activities would create temporary noise increases in the vicinity of the Proposed Project site but would be in compliance with the City's noise ordinance. The project would not expose sensitive uses to strong levels of groundborne vibration or operational traffic and stationary noises and would not result in long-term operation -related noise that would exceed local standards. The proximity of the project site to John Wayne Airport would Newport Crossings Mixed Use Project CEQA Findings of Fact -16- 51 result in exposure of future residents and workers to airport -related noise but would cause less than significant impacts. (k) Population and Housing: The Proposed Project would not substantially induce population or housing beyond SCAG's forecast population and housing growth anticipated for the City of Newport Beach by 2040. (1) Public Services: The project would not create significant impacts related to emergency services, police protection, school services, or library services. (m) Recreation: Residents would have ample recreational facilities onsite, and therefore are not expected to use City parks or recreational facilities such that substantial deterioration would occur or be accelerated. Therefore, the Proposed Project would not result in a significant impact on existing park and recreational facilities. Development of a 0.5 -acre public community park and private recreational amenities under the Proposed Project would not result in environmental impact. (n) Transportation and Traffic: The project would not impact levels of service for the existing roadway system and would not conflict with applicable plans governing the performance of the City's circulation system, including the Newport Beach traffic phasing ordinance and Orange County Congestion Management Plan. The project would also not impact state highway intersections in the study area. The project would not increase hazards due to design features, result in inadequate emergency access, or conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities. The project would not result in a change in air traffic patterns or an increase in traffic levels that would cause substantial safety risks. (o) Tribal Cultural Resources: The project would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource. (p) Utilities and Service Systems: Project -generated wastewater would be adequately collected and treated by the City and Orange County Sanitation District, respectively. Water demands of the project would be adequately served by existing and proposed water supply and delivery systems and stormwater flow would be adequately served by existing and proposed drainage systems. The project would not exceed the capacity of the existing storm drain system and no new stormwater drainage facilities would need to be constructed or expanded. V. FINDINGS REGARDING POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS The following potentially significant environmental impacts were analyzed in the DEIR, and the effects of the project were considered. Because of environmental analysis of the project and the identification of relevant General Plan policies; compliance with existing laws, codes, and statutes; and the identification of feasible mitigation measures, some potentially significant impacts have been determined by the City to be reduced to a level of less than significant, and the City has found—in accordance with CEQA Section 21081(a)(1) and State CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(a) (1)—that "Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment." This is referred to herein as "Finding 1." Newport Crossings Mixed Use Project CEQA Findings of Fact -17- 52 Where the City has determined—pursuant to CEQA Section 21081(a)(2) and State CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(a)(2)—that "Those changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and have been, or can and should be, adopted by that other agency," the City's finding is referred to herein as "Finding 2." Where, as a result of the environmental analysis of the project, the City has determined that either (1) even with the identification of project design features, compliance with existing laws, codes and statutes, and/or the identification of feasible mitigation measures, potentially significant impacts cannot be reduced to a level of less than significant, or (2) no feasible mitigation measures or alternatives are available to mitigate the potentially significant impact, the City has found in accordance with CEQA Section 21081(a)(3) and State CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(a)(3) that "Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including considerations for the provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or alternatives identified in the environmental impact report." This is referred to herein as "Finding 3." A. IMPACTS MITIGATED TO LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT The following summary describes impacts of the Proposed Project that, without mitigation, would result in significant adverse impacts. Upon implementation of the mitigation measures provided in the DER, the impacts would be considered less than significant. 1. Air Quality Impact 5.2-2: Construction activities associated with the Proposed Project would generate short-term emissions in exceedance of SCAQMD'S threshold criteria for NOx. Construction activities produce combustion emissions from various sources, such as on-site heavy-duty construction vehicles, vehicles hauling materials to and from the site, and motor vehicles transporting the construction crew. Site preparation activities produce fugitive dust emissions (PM,o and PM2.5) from demolition and soil -disturbing activities, such as grading and excavation. Air pollutant emissions from construction activities onsite would vary daily as construction activity levels change. As stated, the Proposed Project is anticipated to be constructed over an approximately 38 -month period from December 2019 through January 2023. Construction air pollutant emissions are based on the preliminary information provided by the project applicant. Construction would entail demolition of existing asphalt and structures; site preparation, grading, and excavation; off-site hauling of demolition debris and soil; street improvements; utilities installation; construction of the proposed building; architectural coating; and asphalt paving. Implementation of Mitigation Measure AQ -1, AQ -2 and AQ -3 would reduce air quality impacts related to construction activities to less than significant. Newport Crossings Mixed Use Project CEQA Findings of Fact -18- 53 Mitigation Measures AQ -1 The construction contractor shall implement the following measure to reduce construction exhaust emissions during rough grading and rough grading soil hauling activities: Hauling of soil generated from rough grading activities shall be limited to a maximum of 269 trucks per day (538 one-way haul trips per day if 14 -cubic -yard trucks are used) assuming a one-way haul distance of 20 miles. If the one-way truck haul distance for export of soil from rough grading activities is greater than 20 miles, as identified by the contractor(s), hauling shall be restricted to no more than 10,760 miles per day. • Rough grading and rough grading soil hauling activities shall not overlap with other construction activities (demolition, site preparation, utilities, etc.). These requirements shall be noted on all construction management plans and verified by the City of Newport Beach prior to issuance of any construction permits and during rough grading and rough grading soil hauling activities. AQ -2 The construction contractor shall implement the following measure to reduce construction exhaust emissions during demolition and demolition debris material export activities: • Hauling of building demolition debris shall be limited to a maximum of 47 trucks per day (94 one-way haul trips per day if 18 -cubic -yard trucks are used) assuming a one-way haul distance of 30 miles. If the one-way truck haul distance for export of building demolition debris is greater than 30 miles, as identified by the contractor(s), hauling shall be restricted to no more than 2,850 miles per day. • All demolition and demolition debris (building asphalt) hauling activities shall not overlap with other non -demolition construction activities (rough grading, site preparation, utilities, etc...). These requirements shall be noted on all construction management plans and verified by the City of Newport Beach prior to issuance of any construction permits and during demolition and demolition debris hauling activities. AQ -3 Construction contractors shall, at minimum, use equipment that meets the EPA's Tier 4 emissions standards for off-road diesel -powered construction equipment of 50 horsepower or greater for all phases of construction activity, unless it can be demonstrated to the City of Newport Beach Building Division with substantial evidence that such equipment is not available. Any emissions control device used by the contractor shall achieve emissions reductions that are no less than what could be achieved by Tier 4 emissions standards for a similarly sized engine, as defined by the California Air Resources Board's regulations. Prior to construction , the project engineer shall ensure that all construction (e.g., demolition and grading) plans clearly show the requirement for EPA Tier 4 emissions standards for construction equipment of 50 horsepower or greater for the specific activities stated above. During construction, the construction contractor shall maintain Newport Crossings Mixed Use Project CEQA Findings of Fact -19- 54 a list of all operating equipment in use on the construction site for verification by the City of Newport Beach. The construction equipment list shall state the makes, models, and numbers of construction equipment onsite. Equipment shall be properly serviced and maintained in accordance with the manufacturer's recommendations. Construction contractors shall also ensure that all nonessential idling of construction equipment is restricted to 5 minutes or less in compliance with Section 2449 of the California Code of Regulations, Title 13, Article 4.8, Chapter 9. Finding Finding 1 – The City hereby makes Finding 1. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the DEIR. These changes are identified in the form of the mitigation measures above. The City of Newport Beach hereby finds that implementation of the mitigation measures is feasible, and the measures are therefore adopted. 2. Biological Resources Impact 5.3-2: Removal of trees and shrubs onsite during site clearance could impact nesting migratory birds. The project site is fully developed and in a highly urbanized area of the City and is surrounded by a mix of commercial, retail and office development. The project site and its surroundings do not provide habitat for the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species. Although the Proposed Project may provide some habitat for limited wildlife movement and live- in habitat—particularly for reptile and avian species and small to medium mammals that are adapted to urban settings—the Proposed Project does not function as a wildlife corridor. Additionally, the site and environs have not been identified or designated as a wildlife corridor in the Natural Resources Element of the Newport Beach General Plan. The project site does, however, include a number of large ornamental trees along the site boundaries and internal to the site, the majority of which would be removed under the Proposed Project. These trees may be used for nesting by migratory birds protected under the federal MBTA and Section 3513 et seq. of the California Fish and Game Code.' Section 3513 provides protection to the birds listed under the MBTA, essentially all native migratory birds. Additionally, Section 3503 of the code makes it unlawful to take, possess, or needlessly destroy the nest or eggs of any bird. Under the provisions of the MBTA, it is unlawful "by any means or manner to pursue, hunt, take, capture (or) kill" any migratory birds except as permitted by regulations issued by USFWS. The term "take" is defined by USFWS regulation to mean to "pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture or collect" any migratory bird or any part, nest or egg of any migratory bird covered by the conventions, or to attempt those activities. USFWS administers permits to take migratory birds in accordance with the MBTA. t The MBTA covers 1,026 bird species (see Code of Federal Regulations, Title 50, Section 10.13); that is, about 90 percent of the bird species occurring in the United States. Newport Crossings Mixed Use Project CEQA Findings of Fact -20- 5115 Mitigation Measure BIO -1 requires a qualified biologist to identify any active nests in and adjacent to the Proposed Project site no more than three days prior to initiation of the action and would reduce impacts to less than significant. Mitigation Measures BIO -1 Prior to the commencement of any proposed actions (e.g., site clearing, demolition, grading) during the breeding/nesting season (September 1 through February 15), a qualified biologist contracted by the project applicant shall conduct a preconstruction survey(s) to identify any active nests in and adjacent to the Proposed Project site no more than three days prior to initiation of the action. If the biologist does not find any active nests that would be potentially impacted, the proposed action may proceed. However, if the biologist finds an active nest within or directly adjacent to the action area (within 100 feet) and determines that the nest may be impacted, the biologist shall delineate an appropriate buffer zone around the nest using temporary plastic fencing or other suitable materials, such as barricade tape and traffic cones. The buffer zone shall be determined by the biologist in consultation with applicable resource agencies and in consideration of species sensitivity and existing nest site conditions, and in coordination with the construction contractor. The qualified biologist shall serve as a construction monitor during those periods when construction activities occur near active nest areas to ensure that no inadvertent impacts on these nests occur. Only specified construction activities (if any) approved by the qualified biologist shall take place within the buffer zone until the nest is vacated. At the discretion of the qualified biologist, activities that may be prohibited within the buffer zone include but not be limited to grading and tree clearing. Once the nest is no longer active and upon final determination by the biologist, the proposed action may proceed within the buffer zone. The qualified biologist shall prepare a survey report/memorandum summarizing his/her findings and recommendations of the preconstruction survey. Any active nests observed during the survey shall be mapped on a current aerial photograph, including documentation of GPS coordinates, and included in the survey report/memorandum. The completed survey report/memorandum shall be submitted to the City of Newport Beach Community Development Department prior to construction -related activities that have the potential to disturb any active nests during the nesting season Finding Finding 1 — The City hereby makes Finding 1. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the DEIR. These changes are identified in the form of the mitigation measures above. The City of Newport Beach hereby finds that implementation of the mitigation measures is feasible, and the measures are therefore adopted. 3. Cultural Resources Impact 5.4-2: Proposed development could result in an impact on archaeological resources. The project site is developed with MacArthur Square commercial center. The project site is in a highly -urbanized area of the City and is surrounded by a mix of retail, commercial, hotel, and Newport Crossings Mixed Use Project CEQA Findings of Fact -21- 50 professional office development. While unlikely, the presence of subsurface archaeological resources on the project site remains possible, and these could be affected by ground -disturbing activities associated with grading and construction at the site. It is possible that subsurface disturbance might occur at levels not previously disturbed (e.g., deeper excavation than previously performed) or may uncover undiscovered archeological resources at the site. For example, project site grading would involve removal of existing soils to depths of about 5 feet bgs on most of the site, and utility trenches would extend up to 8 feet bgs. Site soils are also considered moderately sensitive for buried archaeological resources due to the presence of 10 archaeological sites within about one mile of the project site and the presence of several wetlands near the site before the area was developed. Therefore, ground disturbance during site grading and construction could damage archaeological resources that may be buried in site soils. Implementation of Mitigation Measure CUL -1 would ensure impacts to archaeological resources would remain less than significant. Mitigation Measures CUL -1 Prior to the issuance of a grading permit by the City of Newport Beach, the project applicant shall retain a qualified archaeologist to periodically monitor ground -disturbing activities onsite and provide documentation of such retention to the City of Newport Beach Community Development Director. The archaeologist shall train project construction workers on the types of archaeological resources that could be found in site soils. The archaeologist shall periodically monitor project ground -disturbing activities. During construction activities, the project applicant shall allow representatives of cultural organizations, including traditionally -/culturally -affiliated Native American tribes (e.g., Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians-Kizh Nation, Juaneho Band of Mission Indians Acjachemen Nation), to access the project site on a volunteer basis to monitor grading and excavation activities. If archaeological resources are encountered, all construction work within 50 feet of the find shall cease, and the archaeologist shall assess the find for importance and whether preservation in place without impacts is feasible. Construction activities may continue in other areas. If, in consultation with the City and affected Native American tribe (as deemed necessary), the discovery is determined to not be important, work will be permitted to continue in the area. Any resource that is not Native American in origin and that cannot be preserved in place shall be curated at a public, nonprofit institution with a research interest in the materials, such as the South Central Coastal Information Center at California State University, Fullerton. Finding Finding 1 — The City hereby makes Finding 1. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the DEIR. These changes are identified in the form of the mitigation measures above. The City of Newport Beach hereby finds that implementation of the mitigation measures is feasible, and the measures are therefore adopted. Newport Crossings Mixed Use Project CEQA Findings of Fact -22- 57 Impact 5.4-3: The Proposed Project could result in an impact on paleontological resources. The project site is fully developed and in a highly -urbanized area of the City. However, the Pleistocene -age marine terrace deposits underlying the project site are considered moderately sensitive for fossils. Excavations during project construction are expected to extend to about eight feet bgs, while fossils in similar sediments in the region are typically found at depths of 8 to 10 feet or more bgs. This impact would be significant in the event that ground disturbance during project construction encountered fossils. With recommendations for a qualified paleontologist to be available on-call as per Mitigation Measure CUL -2, impacts remain less than significant. Mitigation Measures CUL -2 Prior to the issuance of a grading permit by the City of Newport Beach, the project applicant shall retain a qualified paleontologist to be available on-call during ground - disturbing activities onsite and provide documentation of such retention to the City of Newport Beach Community Development Director. If fossils are encountered, all construction work within fifty (50) feet of the find shall cease, and the paleontologist shall assess the find for importance. Construction activities may continue in other areas. If, in consultation with the City, the discovery is determined to not be important, work will be permitted to continue in the area. Any resource shall be curated at a public, nonprofit institution with a research interest in the materials, such as the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County or the Cooper Center (a partnership between California State University, Fullerton and the County of Orange). Finding Finding 1 — The City hereby makes Finding 1. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the DEIR. These changes are identified in the form of the mitigation measures above. The City of Newport Beach hereby finds that implementation of the mitigation measures is feasible, and the measures are therefore adopted. 4. Hazards and Hazardous Materials Impact 5.7-2: The oroiect site is on a list of hazardous materials sites. Onsite Soil and Soil Vapor Testing Results The 2017 Phase I ESA identified historical dry cleaners onsite and an existing dry cleaner across Corinthian Way from the northeast site boundary as a REC for the project site. The 2017 soil vapor testing identified perch loroethylene (PCE) concentrations above the CHHSL for residential land use (0.48 pg/L) from all four soil vapor probes in the north end of the project site; concentrations at 5 feet bgs ranged from 1.1 to 1.3 pg/L. PCE concentrations in soil vapor samples from 15 feet bgs ranged from 3.9 to 4.4 feet pg/L, suggesting that the PCE detected was likely associated with regional groundwater contamination. PCE is toxic and listed as a carcinogen under Proposition 65 (DTSC 2018). Groundwater was encountered under the site at about 30 feet bgs in borings made as part of a 2014 geotechnical investigation of the site (Geocon West 2014). Newport Crossings Mixed Use Project CEQA Findings of Fact -23- m A human health risk assessment based on the 2017 soil vapor testing found that cancer risk estimated for the highest soil vapor concentration of each chemical from the entire project site is four in one million (0.000004), above the state standard of one in one million (0.000001) for residential land use. The corresponding cancer risk for the three soil vapor concentrations from the southern part of the project site was one in one million, considered acceptable for residential use. The noncancer hazard indices were well below 1.0, the level considered acceptable for residential use. The 2017 soil and soil gas investigation technical memorandum recommended mitigation for soil vapor consisting of a passive vapor barrier with the following components: Subslab Ventilation System: A subslab collection and ventilation system should be installed under the five -story section of the residential building along Scott Drive. The system should consist of a series of PVC (polyvinyl chloride) gas collection pipes embedded in a permeable gravel layer. The collection pipes should be networked together and vented to the atmosphere. The purpose of the vent system will be to prevent the buildup or accumulation of VOCs in the underlying soil; the gases instead are passively diverted into the venting system and safely discharged to the atmosphere away from occupied areas and air intake vents. Membrane Barrier: A horizontal synthetic membrane or a sprayed -on liner should be placed over the granular collection layer. The membrane provides a barrier to the intrusion of subsurface gases. Utility Trench Dams and Conduit Seals: Gas barriers should be installed in the permeable backfill of utility trenches or the hollow spaces of electrical or cable conduit piping to prevent gases from migrating laterally into the soils beneath the building. The conduit seals can consist of polyurethane foam that is injected into the conduit piping at the point where the conduit enters the structure to prevent the infiltration of subsurface gases into interior space. The 2017 Phase I ESA also stated that a vapor barrier would be needed below an underground parking structure. The Phase 11 ESA completed on-site in 2013 found a concentration of 0.73 pg/L—exceeding the CHHSL for residential use, 0.48 Ng/L—in one of three subslab soil vapor samples collected from beneath the site of two former dry-cleaning businesses in the north end of the project site. Concentrations above the CHHSL-1.5 and 1.4 pg/L, respectively—were also identified in two of seven soil vapor samples collected from the site perimeter. The historical uses of the property and adjoining properties are considered an REC. Hazards from PCE contamination in soil vapor underneath the site would be a potentially significant impact unless mitigated. Asbestos -Containing Materials and Lead -Based Paint The 2017 ESA included a limited visual screening for ACM onsite. Suspect ACM onsite included vinyl flooring, vinyl flooring mastic, textured coatings, lay -in ceiling panels, roofing materials, wallboard, and joint compound. An asbestos survey and abatement, containment, and disposal Newport Crossings Mixed Use Project CEQA Findings of Fact -24- 59 of ACM would be required under CFR Title 40 Section 61 Subpart M; SCAQMD Rule 1403; and 8 CCR Section 1529. Lead-based paint could be present onsite. Lead must be contained during demolition activities pursuant to California Health and Safety Code Sections 17920.10 and 105255. Such work would also be subject to occupational exposure limits set forth in 8 CCR Section 1532.1. Hazardous Materials Site Listings MacArthur Square Cleaners, formerly at 1701-H Corinthian Way, was identified on the Emissions Inventory Data (EMI), Resource Conservation and Recovery Act Small -Quantity Generator (RCRA-SQG), Enforcement and Compliance History Online (ECHO), Facility Index System (FINDS), HAZNET, and EDR Historical Cleaner databases. MacArthur Cleaners was present by 1986 and through at least 2005. Green Hanger Cleaners at 4250 Scott Drive, was identified on the EDR Historical Cleaner and DRYCLEANERS databases. Both former dry cleaners are considered RECs for the project site. The subslab soil vapor samples described above were taken from below the sites of these two former cleaners. Bacons Airport Photo Inc., which formerly operated onsite at 4251-B Martingale Way, was identified on the RCRA-SQG database. This former business is not considered a REC (see Appendix F.1 for further discussion). The Phase I ESA discussed 10 off-site hazardous materials sites within about 0.8 mile of the project site. After implementation of Mitigation Measures HAZ-1 and HAZ-2, project impacts would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures HAZ-1 Before the City of Newport Beach issues a grading permit for the Proposed Project, the City of Newport Beach Chief Building Official or his/her designee shall verify that a passive ventilation system conforming to the following specifications has been included on project building plans. The City of Newport Beach Community Development Department shall verify that the ventilation system is built to such specifications during project construction. HAZ-2 Prior to issuance of the first building permit, soil and soil vapor samples shall be collected from beneath the former Enjay Cleaners and soil samples shall be collected from beneath the proposed 0.5 -acre public park site and tested for PCE and OCPs, respectively. The results shall be submitted to the Orange County Health Care Agency and City Building Official. In the event that soil concentrations exceed site-specific cleanup goals, affected soils shall be removed and properly treated/disposed of. Should soil vapor concentrations exceed site-specific cleanup goals, short-term soil vapor extraction and treatment shall be performed to reduce soil vapor concentrations. Newport Crossings Mixed Use Project CEQA Findings of Fact -25- �I Subslab Ventilation System: A subslab collection and ventilation system shall be installed under the residential building. The system shall consist of a series of PVC (polyvinyl chloride) gas collection pipes embedded in a permeable gravel layer. The collection pipes shall be networked together and vented to the atmosphere. The purpose of the vent system will be to prevent the buildup or accumulation of VOCs (Volatile organic compounds) in the underlying soil; the gases instead are passively diverted into the venting system and safely discharged to the atmosphere away from occupied areas and air intake vents. Membrane Barrier: A horizontal synthetic membrane or a sprayed -on liner shall be placed over the granular collection layer. The membrane provides a barrier to the intrusion of subsurface gases. Utility Trench Dams and Conduit Seals: Gas barriers shall be installed in the permeable backfill of utility trenches or the hollow spaces of electrical or cable conduit piping to prevent gases from migrating laterally into the soils beneath the building. The conduit seals can consist of polyurethane foam that is injected into the conduit piping at the point where the conduit enters the structure to prevent the infiltration of subsurface gases into interior space. Finding Finding 1 — The City hereby makes Finding 1. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the DEIR. These changes are identified in the form of the mitigation measures above. The City of Newport Beach hereby finds that implementation of the mitigation measures is feasible, and the measures are therefore adopted. 5. Public Services Impact 5.12-1: The Proposed Project would introduce new residents, workers, and structures into Newport Beach Fire Department's service boundaries, thereby increasing the requirement for fire protection apparatus and personnel, but not resulting in the need for new or physically altered fire facilities. -related construction worker, delivery, and construction vehicle trips would not adversely affect the operations of intersections and roadways in the study area. [Threshold T-1] The proposed development of 350 apartments and 7,500 square feet of commercial space is expected to combine with other Airport Area developments to generate an increased demand for fire protection and emergency medical services. The increase in population and employees and the proposed multistory residential buildings and ground -level retail uses may result in increased demand for service from NBFD in order to provide adequate fire protection and emergency medical services, including additional staffing, facilities, and equipment. The additional population anticipated with the Proposed Project could also potentially affect NBFD's response time to the project site. A paramedic unit would be dispatched from Fire Station 3 (Fashion Island), which is the closest paramedic unit to the site. In addition, Fire Station 7 has adequate space to support more Newport Crossings Mixed Use Project CEQA Findings of Fact -26- 01 personnel if required to serve the project. Therefore, the project would not result in a need for a new or physically altered fire station for the Newport Beach Fire Department ("NBFD") to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for fire protection services. NBFD's operating budget is generated through tax revenues. Facilities, personnel, and equipment expansion and acquisition are tied to the City budget process and tax -base expansion. The project applicant/developer would be required to pay excise taxes to the City under Municipal Code Chapter 3.12, which was established for public improvements and facilities associated with NBFD, public libraries, and public parks. A portion of the taxes paid would be allocated for fire stations and firefighting apparatus. The project uses would also generate increased sales taxes and property taxes for the City's General Fund, some of which would be available to fund NBFD operations, including the needed staffing increase. The City also involves NBFD in the development review process in order to ensure that the necessary fire prevention and emergency response features are incorporated into development projects. All site and building improvements proposed under the project would be subject to review and approval by NBFD prior to building permit and/or certificate of occupancy issuance. Project development is required to comply with the current adopted fire codes, building codes, and nationally recognized fire and life safety standards of the City and NBFD, such as those outlined in Chapter 9.04 (Fire Code) of the Newport Beach Municipal Code, which impose design standards and requirements that seek to minimize and mitigate fire risk. Compliance with these codes and standards is ensured through the City's and NBFD's development review and building plan check process. For example, fire hydrants would be installed at key locations within the project site, as required by NBFD to meet the hose -pull requirements and provide adequate fire access for the land uses of the Proposed Project. Knox boxes would also be required where necessary (i.e., stairwells where the doors are locked for entry, vehicular and parking structure gated entries) to provide access for NBFD personnel. After implementation of PS -1, project impacts would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures PS -1 The project applicant/developer shall comply with the following measures related to fire protection and emergency services: Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the project applicant/developer shall provide payment to the City of Newport Beach equivalent to the cost for purchasing and equipping a new rescue ambulance with patient transport and advanced life support ("ALS") capabilities to be located at Santa Ana Heights Fire Station No. 7. Because the cost of the ambulance exceeds the Project's pro rata contribution to its cumulative impact, the Project applicant shall be entitled to reimbursement from the City on a pro rata share basis, as determined by the City. The project applicant/developer shall participate, on a pro -rata basis, in any City -approved funding program for up to an additional six firefighter/paramedic personnel, as may be needed to fund staff for the new paramedic unit. The funding program may be a community facilities district or Newport Crossings Mixed Use Project CEQA Findings of Fact -27- 00A other funding program. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the project applicant/developer shall execute a written agreement with the City of Newport Beach to participate in such a funding program if the City determines one is necessary and forms it prior to the City's issuance of the Project's first Certificate of Occupancy. B. SIGNIFICANT UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS There are no significant unavoidable adverse impacts. VI. FINDINGS REGARDING ALTERNATIVES CEQA requires that an EIR include a discussion of reasonable project alternatives that would "feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the project, but would avoid or substantially lessen any significant effects of the project, and evaluate the comparative merits of the alternatives" (CEQA Guidelines § 15126.6[a]). The Proposed Project would result in potentially significant environmental effects prior to mitigation in the areas of air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, hazards and hazardous materials, and public services (fire protection and emergency services). However, with mitigation, impacts to these three topical areas would be avoided or reduced to less than significant levels. No significant and unavoidable impact would occur under implementation of the Proposed Project. A. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED AND REJECTED DURING THE SCOPING/PROJECT PLANNING PROCESS The following is a discussion of the alternative considered during the scoping and planning process and the reasons why it was not selected for detailed analysis in the DEIR. Alternative Development Areas. CEQA requires that the discussion of alternatives focus on alternatives to the project or its location that are capable of avoiding or substantially lessening any significant effects of the project. The key question and first step in the analysis is whether any of the significant effects of the project would be avoided or substantially lessened by putting the project in another location. Only locations that would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project need be considered for inclusion in the EIR (CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6[f][2][A]). Key factors in evaluating the feasibility of potential offsite locations for EIR project alternatives include: ■ If it is in the same jurisdiction. ■ Whether development as proposed would require a General Plan Amendment. ■ Whether the project applicant could reasonably acquire, control, or otherwise have access to the alternative site (or the site is already owned by the proponent). (CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6[f][11) The project applicant does not own or control other comparable property in the City, and the Proposed Project does not require a General Plan Amendment or Planned Community Newport Crossings Mixed Use Project CEQA Findings of Fact -28- NN Development Plan Amendment. Moreover, the Proposed Project does not result in any significant, unavoidable impacts. Impacts that would be potentially significant prior to mitigation include air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, hazards and hazardous materials, and public services (fire protection and emergency services). Air quality measures are associated with the project's construction phase. Biological resource mitigation is limited to measures to protect migratory birds (potentially nesting birds at construction), and cultural resources mitigation includes archaeological and paleontological monitoring. These mitigation measures are likely to be required at any comparable alternative site in the City. The potential hazard is the detection of perchloroethylene (PCE), listed as a carcinogen under Proposition 65, in soil vapor from under the site at concentrations above the California Human Health Screening Level for residential land use. This will be mitigated to less than significant by required structural improvements (subslab ventilation system, membrane barrier and trench dams and conduit seals). For public services, the mitigation is to provide funding for an ambulance and to provide a pro rata share of the cost of increasing firefighter staffing. This measure likely would be required for any project that would increase demand for fire services and prompt a need for increased staffing in the City. Conclusion: Based on this review, there are no feasible alternative project sites within the City that would accommodate the Proposed Project and reduce or eliminate significant environmental impacts. Therefore, this alternative was considered but rejected from further consideration. B. ALTERNATIVES SELECTED FOR FURTHER ANALYSIS Based on the CEQA criteria, the following two alternatives were determined to represent a reasonable range of alternatives which have the potential to feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the project but which may avoid or substantially lessen any the environmental effects of the project. No Project Alternative This alternative assumes that the existing commercial development on the site would remain, and leases would be extended/renewed to continue commercial operations at the site. Under this alternative, no demolition of existing buildings would occur. Finding: The City Council rejects the No Project/No Development Alternative on the basis of policy and economic factors as explained herein. (See Pub. Resources Code, § 21061.1; CEQA Guidelines, § 15364; see also City of Del Mar v. City of San Diego (1982) 133 Cal.App.3d 410, 417; California Native Plant Soc. v. City of Santa Cruz (2009) 177 Cal.App.4th 957, 1001; Sequoyah Hills Homeowners Assn. v. City of Oakland (1993) 23 Cal.AppAth 704, 715.) Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible this project alternative identified in the FEIR. The No Project alternative would lessen environmental impacts in the areas of air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, geology and soils, greenhouse gas emissions, hazards and hazardous materials, public services, tribal cultural resources, and utilities and service systems. Compared to the Proposed Project, this alternative would have greater impacts related to aesthetics, hydrology and water quality, land use and planning, population and housing, and recreation. Overall, the No Project alternative would reduce impacts for nine environmental Newport Crossings Mixed Use Project CEQA Findings of Fact -29- rM categories and increase impacts for six categories. Assuming full occupancy for the existing commercial buildings under the No Project alternative, this alternative could introduce a new significant impact for traffic. The inconsistency with the goals of the Newport Beach General Plan and Residential Overlay of the Newport Place Planned Community Development Plan vision for this area is an important land use consideration (impact greater than Proposed Project). Overall, the No Project alternative would result in a similar level of environmental impacts, but very different impacts. It would not be considered environmentally superior. Moreover, the No Project alternative would prevent redevelopment of the project site. Therefore, none of the project objectives would be achieved under this alternative. The No Project alternative would not provide any of the project benefits that would occur with implementation of the Proposed Project, including enhancement of the site's character and design, dedication of publicly - accessible park space, sustainable development improvements (such as low -impact development, source control, site design, and treatment control best management practices that would improve drainage and water quality); economic revitalization, and affordable housing Reduced Height and Density Alternative Under this alternative, the project's building height would be kept under the 55 feet. As a result, the fifth floor of residential units (63 units), 7,955 square -foot amenity deck, a top of parking structure would all be eliminated. The retail, park, and residential amenities would remain the same as the Proposed Project. As shown in Table 1-1, this alternative would include a total of 287 residential units, and the maximum structure height would be 55 feet. Finding: The City Council rejects the Reduced Height and Density Alternative on the basis of policy and economic factors as explained herein. (See Pub. Resources Code, § 21061.1; CEQA Guidelines, § 15364; see also City of Del Mar v. City of San Diego (1982) 133 Cal.App.3d 410, 417; California Native Plant Soc. v. City of Santa Cruz (2009) 177 Cal.AppAth 957, 1001; Sequoyah Hills Homeowners Assn. v. City of Oakland (1993) 23 Cal.AppAth 704, 715.) Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible this project alternative identified in the FEIR. The Reduced Height and Density alternative would lessen environmental impacts in the areas of air quality, greenhouse gas emissions, noise (operational), public services, recreation, transportation and traffic, and utilities and service systems. Impacts would be very similar for aesthetics, biological and cultural resources, geology and soils, hazards, hydrology and water quality, and land use and planning. This alternative would increase impacts to population and housing Qobs-housing balance). As with the Proposed Project, all impacts would be mitigated to less than significant. Overall, impacts under this alternative would be reduced in comparison to the Proposed Project. The Reduced Height and Density alternative would represent a similar project as the Proposed Project, only with fewer housing units and less overall development intensity. Accordingly, as shown in Table 7-7, several of the project objectives would be achieved, but to a lesser extent. These includes objectives related to provision of housing, local jobs -housing balance, and onsite private recreation amenities. In addition, the Reduced Height and Density alternative would not Newport Crossings Mixed Use Project CEQA Findings of Fact -30- 05 allow for the provision of the 91 density bonus units allowed under both the City's zoning code and Government Code Section 65915 for the project. Instead, only 28 units associated with this alternative would be density bonus units. Newport Crossings Mixed Use Project CEQA Findings of Fact -31- Exhibit "C" Mitigation Monitoring Report Program 07 February 2019 1 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program State Clearinghouse No. 2017101067 NEWPORT CROSSINGS MIXED USE PROJECT for City of Newport Beach Prepared for: City of Newport Beach Contact: Jaime Murillo, Senior Planner 100 Civic Center Drive Newport Beach, California 92660 949.644.3209 Prepared by: PlaceWorks Contact: JoAnn Hadfield, Principal, Environmental Services 3 MacArthur Place, Suite 1100 Santa Ana, California 92707 714.966.9220 info@placeworks.com www.placeworks.com PLACEWORKS 02 NEWPORT CROSSINGS MIXED USE MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Table of Contents 1. MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM.........................................................1 1.1 PURPOSE OF MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM ............................I 1.2 PROJECT LOCATION..................................................................................................................................2 1.3 PROJECT SUMMARY List of Tables Table 1 Mitigation Monitoring Requirements................................................................................................ 5 February 2019 Page i 1. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 1.1 PURPOSE OF MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM This Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program has been developed to provide a vehicle by which to monitor mitigation measures and conditions of approval outlined in the Newport Crossings Mixed Use Project Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR), State Clearinghouse No. 2017101067. The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) has been prepared in conformance with Section 21081.6 of the Public Resources Code and City of Newport Beach Monitoring Requirements. Section 21081.6 states: (a) When making findings required by paragraph (1) of subdivision (a) of Section 21081 or when adopting a mitigated negative declaration pursuant to paragraph (2) of subdivision (c) of Section 21080, the following requirements shall apply: (1) The public agency shall adopt a reporting or monitoring program for the changes made to the project or conditions of project approval, adopted in order to mitigate or avoid significant effects on the environment. The reporting or monitoring program shall be designed to ensure compliance during project implementation. For those changes which have been required or incorporated into the project at the request of a responsible agency or a public agency having jurisdiction by law over natural resources affected by the project, that agency shall, if so requested by the lead or responsible agency, prepare and submit a proposed reporting or monitoring program. (2) The lead agency shall specify the location and custodian of the documents or other material which constitute the record of proceedings upon which its decision is based. The State CEQA Guidelines Section 15097 provides clarification of mitigation monitoring and reporting requirements and guidance to local lead agencies on implementing strategies. The reporting or monitoring program must be designed to ensure compliance during project implementation. The City of Newport Beach is the lead agency for the Newport Crossings Mixed Use project and is therefore responsible for implementing the MMRP. The MMRP has been drafted to meet the requirements of Public Resources Code Section 21081.6 as a fully enforceable monitoring program. The MMRP consists of die mitigation program and the measures to implement and monitor the mitigation program. The MMRP defines the following for the mitigation measure outlined in Table 1, Mitigation Monitoring Reguirementr Definition of Mitigation. The mitigation measure contains the criteria for mitigation, either in the form of adherence to certain adopted regulations or identification of the steps to be taken in mitigation. February 2019 Page 1 70 NEWPORT CROSSINGS MIXED USE MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program ■ Responsible Party or Designated Representative. Unless otherwise indicated, the project applicant is the responsible party for implementing the mitigation, and the City of Newport Beach or a designated representative is responsible for monitoring the performance and implementation of the mitigation measures. To guarantee that the mitigation measure will not be inadvertently overlooked, a supervising public official acting as the Designated Representative is the official who grants the permit or authorization called for in the performance. Where more than one official is identified, permits or authorization from all officials shall be required. ■ Time Frame. In each case, a time frame is provided for performance of the mitigation measure or review of evidence that mitigation has taken place. The performance points selected are designed to ensure that impact -related components of project implementation do not proceed without establishing that the mitigation is implemented or ensured. All activities are subject to the approval of all required permits from local, state, and federal agencies with permitting authority over the specific activity. The numbering system in Table l corresponds with the numbering system used in the DEIR. The last column of the MMRP table will be used by the parties responsible for documenting when implementation of the mitigation measure has been completed. The ongoing documentation and monitoring of mitigation compliance will be completed by the City of Newport Beach. The completed MMRP and supplemental documents will be kept on file at the City of Newport Beach Community Development Department Planning Division. 1.2 PROJECT LOCATION The approximately 5.69 -acre project site is in the northern end of the City of Newport Beach (City). The project site is in the City's `Airport Area" planning subarea, which is bounded by Campus Drive to the north and west, SR -73 to the south, and Jamboree Road to the east. Within the Airport Area are established planned community development plans. The project site is in the Newport Place Planned Community. The site is generally bounded by Corinthian Way to the northeast, Martingale Way to the east, Scott Drive to the northwest, and Dove Street to the southwest. The site is approximately 0.2 mile east of John Wayne Airport. The project site is pentagonal -shaped area comprising three legal lots; four Assessor Parcel Numbers (APNs): 427-172-02, -03, -05, and -06. Given the odd shape of the property, it does not have a definable width or depth. 1.3 PROJECT SUMMARY The site is currently improved with the 58,277-squarefoot MacArthur Square shopping center, which was built in 1974. The shopping center consists of eight single -story commercial/retail buildings, surface parking, and various landscape (e.g., ornamental trees, shrubs) and hardscape improvements. MacArthur Square is characterized as an aging, underutilized, and underperforming shopping center that supports a variety of retail and commercial business, including restaurants and retail shops. Current tenants include several restaurants, a dance studio, retail stores, and professional and medical offices. Project development includes demolition of approximately 58,277 square feet of existing buildings, surface parking for 462 vehicles, and hardscape improvements of MacArthur Square. Project development also requires removal of a number of ornamental trees and other landscape improvements. February 2019 Page 2 71 NEWPORT CROSSINGS MIXED USE MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Upon clearing, the approximately 5.69 -acre project site would be redeveloped with the proposed Newport Crossings M xed Use project (proposed project). The proposed project would consist of the development of a multistory building that would house 350 apartment units, 2,000 square feet of "casual -dining" restaurant space, and 5,500 square feet of retail space. The project also includes the development of a 0.5 -acre public park. The established Newport Place Planned Community Development Standards (Residential Overlay) allow for a maximum residential density of 50 dwelling units per net acre•, a minimum of 30 percent of the units in residential developments are required to be affordable to lower-income households. With a 30 percent allocation for lower-income households, the proposed project is entitled to the maximum 35 percent density bonus (91 additional units), increasing the total project density to 350 units. February 2019 Page 3 72 NEWPORT CROSSINGS MIXED USE MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH This page intentionally dft blank. February 2019 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Pgge 4 73 Table 1 M Measure 5.1 AIR QUALITY NEWPORT CROSSINGS MIXED USE MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Monitor Responsibility for Responsibility for (Signature Required) AQ -1 The construction contractor shall implement the following measure Project Applicant; During grading and. City of Newport Beach to reduce construction exhaust emissions during rough grading and Construction Contractor construction Community Development rough grading soil hauling activities: Department— Planning • Hauling of soil generated from rough grading activities shall be Division limited to a maximum of 269 trucks per day (538 one-way haul trips per day if 14 -cubic -yard trucks are used) assuming a one- way haul distance of 20 miles. If the one-way truck haul distance for export of soil from rough grading activities is greater than 20 miles, as identified by the contractor(s), hauling shall be restricted to no more than 10,760 miles per day. • Rough grading and rough grading soil hauling activities shall not overlap with other construction activities (demolition, site preparation, utilities, etc.) These requirements shall be noted on all construction management plans and verified by the City of Newport Beach prior to issuance of any construction permits and during rough grading and rough grading soil hauling activities. AQ -2 The construction contractor shall implement the following measure Project Applicant; During grading and City of Newport Beach to reduce construction exhaust emissions during demolition and Construction Contractor construction Community Development demolition debris material export activities: Department— Planning & • Hauling of building demolition debris shall be limited to a Building Division maximum of 47 trucks per day (94 one-way haul trips per day if 18 -cubic -yard trucks are used) assuming a one-way haul distance of 30 miles. If the one-way truck haul distance for export of building demolition debris is greater than 30 miles, as identified by the contractor(s), hauling shall be restricted to no more than 2,850 miles per day. February 2019 Page 5 74 NEWPORT CROSSINGS MIXED USE MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Table 1 Mitigation Monitoring Requirements Mitigation Measure Responsibility for Implementation Timing Responsibility for MonitoringDate Monitor (Signature Required) of Com liance • All demolition and demolition debris (building asphalt) hauling activities shall not overlap with other non -demolition construction activities (rough grading, site preparation, utilities, etc.). These requirements shall be noted on all construction management plans and verified by the City of Newport Beach prior to issuance of any construction permits and during demolition and demolition debris hauling activities. AQ -3 Construction contractors shall, at minimum, use equipment that Project Applicant, Prior to construction City of Newport Beach meets the EPA's Tier 4 emissions standards for off-road diesel- Construction Contractor Community Development powered construction equipment of 50 horsepower or greater for all Department— Planning & phases of construction activities, unless it can be demonstrated to Building Division the City of Newport Beach Building Division with substantial evidence that such equipment is not available. Any emissions control device used by the contractor shall achieve emissions reductions that are no less than what could be achieved by Tier 4 emissions standards for a similarly sized engine, as defined by the California Air Resources Board's regulations. Prior to construction , the project engineer shall ensure that all construction (e.g., demolition and grading) plans clearly show the requirement for EPA Tier 4 emissions standards for construction equipment of 50 horsepower or greater for the specific activities stated above. During construction, the construction contractor shall maintain a list of all operating equipment in use on the construction site for verification by the City of Newport Beach. The construction equipment list shall state the makes, models, and numbers of construction equipment onsite. Equipment shall be properly serviced and maintained in accordance with the manufacturer's recommendations. Construction contractors shall also ensure that all nonessential idling of construction equipment is restricted to 5 minutes or less in compliance with Section 2449 of the Califomia Code of Regulations, Title 13, Article 4.8, Chapter 9. February 2019 Page 6 715 M Measure 5.2 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES NEWPORT CROSSINGS MIXED USE MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Monitor Responsibility for Responsibility for (Signature Required) BIO -1 Prior to the commencement of any proposed actions (e.g., site Project Applicant; Prior to commencement City of Newport Beach clearing, demolition, grading) during the breeding/nesting season Certified Biologist; of any proposed actions Community Development (September i through February 15), a qualified biologist contracted Construction Contractor (e.g., site clearing, Department— Planning by the project applicant shall conduct a preconstruction survey(s) to demolition, grading) Division identify any active nests in and adjacent to the proposed project site no more than three days prior to initiation of the action. If the biologist does not find any active nests that would be potentially impacted, the proposed action may proceed. However, if the biologist finds an active nest within or directly adjacent to the action area (within 100 feet) and determines that the nest may be impacted, the biologist shall delineate an appropriate buffer zone around the nest using temporary plastic fencing or other suitable materials, such as barricade tape and traffic cones. The buffer zone shall be determined by the biologist in consultation with applicable resource agencies and in consideration of species sensitivity and existing nest site conditions, and in coordination with the construction contractor. The qualified biologist shall serve as a construction monitor during those periods when construction activities occur near active nest areas to ensure that no inadvertent impacts on these nests occur. Only specified construction activities (if any) approved by the qualified biologist shall take place within the buffer zone until the nest is vacated. At the discretion of the qualified biologist, activities that may be prohibited within the buffer zone include but not be limited to grading and tree clearing. Once the nest is no longer active and upon final determination by the biologist, the proposed action may proceed within the buffer zone. The qualified biologist shall prepare a survey reporYmemorandum summarizing his/her findings and recommendations of the preconstmction survey. Any active nests observed during the survey shall be mapped on a current aerial photograph, including documentation of GPS coordinates, and included in the survey reporYmemorandum. The completed survey reporUmemorandum shall be submitted to the City of Newport Beach Community February 2019 Page 7 70 NEWPORT CROSSINGS MIXED USE MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Table 1 Mitiqation Monitoring Requirements 5.3 CULTURAL RESOURCES CUL -1 Prior to the issuance of a grading permit by the City of Newport Project Applicant; Prior to issuance of Monitor Responsibility for Beach, the project applicant shall retain a qualified archaeologist to Responsibility for (Signature Required) Mitigation Measure Implementation Timing Monitoring Date of Compliance Development Department prior to construction -related activities that documentation of such retention to the City of Newport Beach have the potential to disturb any active nests during the nesting Community Development Director. The archaeologist shall train season. project construction workers on the types of archaeological 5.3 CULTURAL RESOURCES CUL -1 Prior to the issuance of a grading permit by the City of Newport Project Applicant; Prior to issuance of City of Newport Beach Beach, the project applicant shall retain a qualified archaeologist to Certified Archaeologist; grading permits Community Development periodically monitor ground -disturbing activities onsite and provide Construction Contractor Department— Planning & documentation of such retention to the City of Newport Beach Building Division Community Development Director. The archaeologist shall train project construction workers on the types of archaeological resources that could be found in site soils. The archaeologist shall periodically monitor project ground -disturbing activities. During construction activities, the project applicant shall allow representatives of cultural organizations, including traditionally - /culturally -affiliated Native American tribes (e.g., Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians-Kizh Nation, Juaneno Band of Mission Indians Acjachemen Nation), to access the project site on a volunteer basis to monitor grading and excavation activities. If archaeological resources are encountered, all construction work within 50 feet of the find shall cease, and the archaeologist shall assess the find for importance and whether preservation in place without impacts is feasible. Construction activities may continue in other areas. If, in consultation with the City and affected Native American tribe (as deemed necessary), the discovery is determined to not be Important, work will be permitted to continue in the area. Any resource that is not Native American in origin and that cannot be preserved in place shall be curated at a public, nonprofit institution with a research interest in the materials, such as the South Central Coastal Information Center at California State University, Fullerton. February 2019 Page 8 77 NEWPORT CROSSINGS MIXED USE MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Table 1 Mitigation Monitoring Requirements Mitigation Measure Responsibility for Implementation Timing Responsibility for MonitoringDate Monitor (Signature Required) of Com liance CUL -2 Prior to the issuance of a grading permit by the City of Newport Project Applicant; Prior to issuance of City of Newport Beach Community Development Beach, the project applicant shall retain a qualified paleontologist to Certified Paleontologist; grading permits Community Development Department— Building be available on-call during ground -disturbing activities onsite and Construction Contractor Department — Planning Division provide documentation of such retention to the City of Newport project building plans. The City of Newport Beach Community Division Beach Community Development Director. If fossils are Development Department shall verify that the ventilation system is encountered, all construction work within 50 feet of the find shall built to such specifications during project construction. cease, and the paleontologist shall assess the find for importance. • Subslab Ventilation System: A subslab collection and Construction activities may continue in other areas. If, in ventilation system shall be installed under the residential consultation with the City, the discovery is determined to not be building. The system shall consist of a series of PVC (polyvinyl important, work will be permitted to continue in the area. Any chloride) gas collection pipes embedded in a permeable gravel resource shall be curated at a public, nonprofit institution with a layer. The collection pipes shall be networked together and research interest in the materials, such as the Natural History vented to the atmosphere. The purpose of the vent system will Museum of Los Angeles County or the Cooper Center (a be to prevent the buildup or accumulation of VOCs in the partnership between California State University, Fullerton and the underlying soil; the gases instead are passively diverted into the County of Orange).. venting system and safely discharged to the atmosphere away 5.4 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS HAZ-1 Before the City of NewportBeach issues a grading permit for the Project Applicant; Prior to issuance of City of Newport Beach proposed project, the City of Newport Beach Chief Building Official Construction Contractor grading permits Community Development or his/her designee shall verify that a passive ventilation system Department— Building conforming to the following specifications has been included on Division project building plans. The City of Newport Beach Community Development Department shall verify that the ventilation system is built to such specifications during project construction. • Subslab Ventilation System: A subslab collection and ventilation system shall be installed under the residential building. The system shall consist of a series of PVC (polyvinyl chloride) gas collection pipes embedded in a permeable gravel layer. The collection pipes shall be networked together and vented to the atmosphere. The purpose of the vent system will be to prevent the buildup or accumulation of VOCs in the underlying soil; the gases instead are passively diverted into the venting system and safely discharged to the atmosphere away from occupied areas and air intake vents. February 2019 Page 9 NEWPORT CROSSINGS MIXED USE MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Table 1 Mitigation Monitoring Requirements Mitigation Measure Responsibility for Implementation Timing Responsibility for MonitoringDate Monitor (Signature Required) of Com liance • Membrane Barrier: A horizontal synthetic membrane or a sprayed -on liner shall be placed over the granular collection layer. The membrane provides a barrier to the intrusion of subsurface gases. • Utility Trench Dam and Conduit Seals: Gas barriers shall be installed in the permeable backfill of utility trenches or the hollow spaces of electrical or cable conduit piping to prevent gases from migrating laterally into the soils beneath the building. The conduit seals can consist of polyurethane foam that is injected into the conduit piping at the point where the conduit enters the structure to prevent the infiltration of subsurface gases into interior space. HAZ-2 Prior to issuance of the first building permit, soil and soil vapor Project Applicant; Pdor to issuance of the City of Newport Beach samples shall be collected from beneath the former Enjay Cleaners Construction Contractor first building permit Community Development and soil samples shall be collected from beneath the proposed 0.5- Department— Building acre public park site and tested for PCE and OCPs, respectively. Division The results shall be submitted to the Orange County Health Care Agency and City Building Official. In the event that soil concentrations exceed site-specific cleanup goals, affected soils shall be removed and property treated/disposed of. Should soil vapor concentrations exceed site-specific cleanup goals, short-term soil vapor extraction and treatment shall be performed to reduce soil vapor concentrations. February 2019 Page 10 7Q Table 1 M Measure 5.5 PUBLIC SERVICES NEWPORT CROSSINGS MIXED USE MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Monitor Responsibility for Responsibility for (Signature Required) PS -1 The project applicantldeveloper shall comply with the following Project Applicant Prior to issuance of City of Newport Beach measures related to fire protection and emergency services: building permits Community Development Department Planning • Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the project Divisi ion applicant/developer shall provide payment to the City of Newport Beach equivalent to the cost for purchasing and equipping a new rescue ambulance with patient transport and advanced life support (ALS) capabilities to be located at Santa Ana Heights Fire Station No. 7. Because the cost of the ambulance exceeds the Project's pro rata contribution to its cumulative impact, the Project applicant shall be entitled to reimbursement from the City on a pro rata share basis, as determined by the City. • The project applicant/developer shall participate, on a pro -rata basis, in any City -approved funding program for up to an additional six firefighter/paramedic personnel, as may be needed to fund staff for the new paramedic unit. The funding program may be a community facilities district or other funding program. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the project applicant/developer shall execute a written agreement with the City of Newport Beach to participate in such a funding program if the City determines one is necessary and forms it prior to the City's issuance of the Project's first Certificate of Occupancy. February 2019 Page 11 M This page intentionally l�ft blank. February 2019 NEWPORT CROSSINGS MIXED USE MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Page 12 NA -90 22 Attachment No. PC 2 Draft Resolution for Project Approval RS 24 RESOLUTION NO. PC2019-005 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW NO. SD2017-004, LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT NO. LA2018-004 AND AFFORDABLE HOUSING IMPLEMENTATION PLAN NO. AH2018-001, AND ADOPTING CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT FACTS AND FINDINGS FOR THE NEWPORT CROSSINGS MIXED-USE PROJECT LOCATED AT 1701 CORINTHIAN WAY; 4251, 4253 AND 4255 MARTINGALE WAY; 4200, 4220 AND 4250 SCOTT DRIVE; AND 1660 DOVE STREET (PA2017-107) THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH HEREBY FINDS AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. STATEMENT OF FACTS. 1. An application was filed by Starboard MacArthur Square, LP, 1701 Corinthian Way; 4251, 4253 and 4255 Martingale Way; 4200, 4220 and 4250 Scott Drive; and 1660 Dove Street and legally described as Lots 1 of Tract 7770, and Parcels 1 and 2 of Book 53, Page 13 of Parcel Maps requesting an approval for the development of a mixed-use residential project ("Project"). The following approvals are requested or required in order to implement the Project as proposed: A. Site Development Review: To ensure the site is developed in accordance with the Newport Place Planned Community Development Plan and Zoning Code development standards and regulations pursuant to Newport Beach Municipal Code ("NBMC") Section 20.52.080 (Site Development Reviews); B. Lot Line Adjustment: A lot line adjustment to reconfigure the three (3) underlying parcels that comprise the site, pursuant to NBMC Chapter 19.76 (Lot Line Adjustments). Specifically, the site would be reconfigured to create a 0.5 -acre parcel for public park purposes to be deeded to the City; a 5.08 -acre parcel for the proposed mixed-use development; and an 0.11 -acre parcel (to be owned by the Project applicant) for emergency access improvements needed to serve the proposed mixed-use building. The 0.11 -acre parcel would also include an easement dedicated to the City for access and parking for the public park. With dedication of the 0.5 -acre public park, the net project site area would be 5.19 acres; and C. Affordable Housing Implementation Plan: A program specifying how the Project would meet the City's affordable housing requirements, pursuant to the Residential Overlay of the Newport Place Planned Community. Under the Affordable Housing Implementation Plan ("AHIP"), seventy eight (78) units would be set aside as affordable units to lower-income households. Providing the affordable housing required by the Residential Overlay of the Newport Place 25 Planning Commission Resolution No. 2019-005 Pace 2 of 23 Planned Community qualifies the Project for a density bonus and incentives/concessions pursuant to Chapter 20.32 (Density Bonus) of the NBMC and Government Code Section 65915 (Density Bonus Law). The AHIP includes a request for one development concession related to the bedroom mix of the affordable units and a development waiver of the 55 -foot building height limit to allow a height of 77 feet 9 inches to accommodate the parapet, roof -top mechanical equipment, elevator shafts, emergency staircase, rooftop terrace, and a portion of the parking garage. 2. The subject property is located within General Commercial Site 6 and the Residential Overlay of the Newport Place Planned Community (PC -11) Zoning District and the General Plan Land Use Element category is Mixed -Use District Horizontal -2 (MU -1-12). 3. The subject property is not located within the coastal zone; therefore, a coastal development permit is not required. 4. A study session was held on December 6, 2018, in the Council Chambers located at 100 Civic Center Drive, Newport Beach, California, to introduce the project to the City of Newport Beach Planning Commission ("Planning Commission"). No action was taken at the study session. Although not required, the City mailed a courtesy public notice of this study session to property owners within a three hundred (300) -foot radius of the property. 5. On Tuesday, February 5, 2019, a meeting was held with the Parks, Beaches, and Recreation Commission in the City Council Chambers, at 100 Civic Center Drive, Newport Beach, California 92660. A notice of time, place and purpose of the hearing was given in accordance with the NBMC. The Project park design and staff report were presented to the Parks, Beaches, and Recreation Commission for their comment and recommendations. Public comments regarding the park design were also taken. The agenda for the meeting was posted at City Hall and on the City's website. 6. A public hearing was held on February 21, 2019, in the Council Chambers at 100 Civic Center Drive, Newport Beach, California. A notice of time, place and purpose of the hearing was given in accordance with the NBMC. Evidence, both written and oral, was presented to, and considered by, the Planning Commission at this hearing. SECTION 2. CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT DETERMINATION. 1. The Newport Crossings Mixed -Use Project Final Environmental Impact Report ("EIR") (SCH No. 2017101067) was prepared for the Project in compliance with CEQA, the State CEQA Guidelines, and City Council Policy K-3 (Implementation Procedures for the California Environmental Quality Act). 2. The Planning Commission, having final approval authority over the Project, adopted and certified as complete and adequate the Newport Crossings Mixed -Use Project Final Environmental Impact Report (SCH No. 2017101067), Findings and Facts in Support of OB -10-19 20 Planning Commission Resolution No. 2019-005 Paqe 3 of 23 Findings, and the "Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program" contained within Resolution No. 2019-004, on February 21, 2019. Resolution No. 2019-004 is hereby incorporated by this reference 3. The Planning Commission finds that judicial challenges to the City's CEQA determinations and approvals of land use projects are costly and time consuming. In addition, project opponents often seek an award of attorneys' fees in such challenges. As project applicants are the primary beneficiaries of such approvals, it is appropriate that such applicants should bear the expense of defending against any such judicial challenge, and bear the responsibility for any costs, attorneys' fees, and damages which may be awarded to a successful challenger. SECTION 3. REQUIRED FINDINGS. Major Site Development Review In accordance with NBMC Subsection 20.52.080(F) (Findings and Decision), the following findings and facts in support of such findings are set forth: Finding: A. The proposed development is allowed within the subject zoning district. Fact in Support of Finding: The subject property is currently zoned Planned Community and subject to the Newport Place Planned Community (PC -11) regulations. The site is designated General Commercial Site 6, which allows retail commercial, office, and professional and business uses. The site is also within a Residential Overlay where multiple -family residential development is also permitted pursuant to Part III (Residential Overlay) Section of PC -11. 2. Multi -unit residential development projects meeting the development requirements of the Residential Overlay are permitted by right, subject to approval of a site development review. 3. The Residential Overlay requires that a minimum of thirty percent (30%) of the units within the residential development be affordable to lower-income households for a minimum thirty (30) -year term and further limits densities to a minimum thirty (30) dwelling units per acre and a maximum of fifty (50) dwelling units per acre. After dedication of the 0.5 -acre public park, the net acreage of the site is 5.19 acres, resulting in a maximum density of 259 units. Of the 259 units allowed, 78 units (30 percent) are proposed to be reserved for low-income households. As encouraged by the Residential Overlay and pursuant to NBMC Chapter 20.32 (Density Bonus) and Government Code Section 65915 (Density Bonus Law), with a thirty percent (30%) allocation for low- income households, the proposed project is entitled to a thirty five percent (35%) density bonus (ninety one (91) additional units), increasing the total project density to 350 units. OB -10-19 27 Planning Commission Resolution No. 2019-005 Page 4 of 23 4. The Residential Overlay limits residential dwellings as replacement of nonresidential uses. As determined by the City Traffic Engineer, the number of peak hour trips generated by the redevelopment of the project site may not exceed the number of trips attributable to the existing permitted non-residential uses. The proposed 259 base dwelling units (exclusive of the density bonus units) is consistent with this limitation. The existing site is currently developed with 58,277 square feet of commercial floor area. With 7,500 square feet of commercial floor area to remain within the project, the remaining net floor area available for conversion is 50,727 square feet. When applying the City's adopted use conversion factors to maintain traffic trip neutrality to the existing net floor area, a total of 272 residential units would be allowed as replacement units. 5. The Residential Overlay limits development to the 2,200 maximum dwelling unit development allocation for the Airport Area established by General Plan Land Use Policy 6.15.5. Of the 2,200 residential units allowed, 1,650 units may be developed as replacement of existing office, retail, and/or industrial uses. The remaining 550 units are classified as additive units meaning they are not required to replace other units and they may be constructed as "in -fill" units to existing commercial or office development within the Conceptual Development Plan Area ("CDPA") of the Airport Area. Any eligible density bonus allowed by Government Code Sections 65915 (Density Bonus Law) and NBMC Chapter 20.32 (Density Bonus) are not included in the 2,200 -unit allowance. The only other approved project within the Airport Area at this time is the Uptown Newport project, which was approved for 632 replacement units, 290 additive units, and with a density bonus of 322 units for a total of 1,244 residential units. Taking into account the dwelling unit sum of the Uptown Newport project and the proposed Newport Crossings project, the remaining development allocation within the Airport Area would be 1,019 dwelling units (exclusive of density bonus units). 6. The subject property, after dedication of the 0.5 -acre public park, is approximately 5.19 acres in size. Pursuant to Section I of the Residential Overlay of the Newport Place Planned Community, the Project is exempt from the minimum 10 -acre site development required by General Plan Land Use Element Policy LU6.15.6 (Sizes of Residential Villages) in exchange for the support of the City's need for low-income households. Finding: B. The proposed development is in compliance with all of the following applicable criteria: Compliance with this section, the General Plan, this Zoning Code, any applicable specific plan, and other applicable criteria and policies related to the use or structure; ii. The efficient arrangement of structures on the site and the harmonious relationship of the structures to one another and to other adjacent developments; and whether the relationship is based on standards of good design; OB -10-19 22 Planning Commission Resolution No. 2019-005 Paqe 5 of 23 iii. The compatibility in terms of bulk, scale, and aesthetic treatment of structures on the site and adjacent developments and public areas; iv. The adequacy, efficiency, and safety of pedestrian and vehicular access, including drive aisles, driveways, and parking and loading spaces; v. The adequacy and efficiency of landscaping and open space areas and the use of water efficient plant and irrigation materials; and vi. The protection of significant views from public right(s)-of-way and compliance with NBMC Section 20.30. 100 (Public View Protection). Facts in Support of Finding: The subject property has a General Plan Land Use Element designation of Mixed -Use Horizontal 2 (MU -H2). This category provides for a horizontal intermixing of uses that may include regional commercial office, multifamily residential, vertical mixed-use buildings, industrial, hotel rooms, and ancillary neighborhood commercial uses. The MU - H2 land use category covers a significant portion of properties in the Airport Area within both the Newport Place and Koll Center Newport Planned Communities outside higher noise levels from John Wayne Airport. The Project is consistent with this designation by redeveloping an aging and under-utilized commercial center with a new mixed-use development. 2. As stated in Fact 3 in response to Finding A, the project's density of 259 base dwelling units (exclusive of the ninety one (91) density bonus units) is consistent with the maximum development limit of fifty (50) dwelling per unit pursuant to General Plan Policy LU 6.15.7. Consistent with this policy, the Project consists of a mix of studio, one-, and two-bedroom rental units (including seventy eight (78) affordable units), accommodating a variety of household types and incomes. The affordable units will have the same size and amenities as the market -rate units. The ninety one (91) density bonus units allowed by Government Code Sections 65915 (Density Bonus Law) and NBMC Chapter 20.32 (Density Bonus) are not restricted by the fifty (50) unit per net acre standard. 3. As stated in Facts 4 and 5 in response to Finding A, the Project is consistent with the 2,200 dwelling unit maximum development allocation established for the Airport Area pursuant to General Plan Policy LU 6.15.5. In addition, the Project's proposed 250 base dwelling units (replacement units) and 7,500 square feet of commercial floor area remain below the number of peak hour trips generated by the existing permitted 58,277 -square - foot commercial center that currently exists on the site. The ninety one (91) density bonus units allowed by Government Code Sections 65915 (Density Bonus Law) and NBMC Chapter 20.32 (Density Bonus) are not included in the 2,200 -unit allowance. 4. Consistent with General Plan Housing Element Program HP 3.2.2 and the minimum site area exemption adopted within the Residential Overlay of the Newport Place Planned Community Development Plan, the Project qualifies for an exemption to the 10 -acre OB -10-19 g9 Planning Commission Resolution No. 2019-005 Page 6 of 23 minimum site development requirement of General Plan Policy LU6.15.6 (Sizes of Residential Villages) and the regulatory plan requirements of LU6.15.10 (Regulatory Plan), in exchange for the support of the City's need for lower-income households. The subject property, after dedication of the 0.5 -acre public park, is approximately 5.19 acres in size. 5. Consistent with the park dedication requirements of General Plan Polices LU 6.15.13 (Neighborhood Parks Standards) and LU 6.15.14 (Neighborhood Parks Location), the Project includes the dedication of a 0.5 -acre public park located at the southern edge of the project site between Dove Street and Martingale Way. The park would be easily accessible through pedestrian connections and sited in a location consistent with a conceptual park location per General Plan Figure LU23 (Airport Area Residential Villages Illustrative Concept Diagram). The park would serve the Project's future residents, employees, and patrons, and the existing offices and businesses in the surrounding vicinity as a recreation and activity area. Park amenities include a play lawn and playground equipment, shade structures, benches, fitness terrace, central dining terrace, and bocce ball court. A proposed dog park and pickle ball court would also serve regional needs of City residents. The park includes noninvasive and low-water use plants and trees. A tree and shrub hedge would be provided along the southern boundary providing a physical and visual boarder between the park and adjacent office parking lot to the south. A small off-street parking lot for park users is proposed adjacent to the eastern end of the park, and additional on -street parking opportunities exist along Martingale Way. 6. Although the Project is smaller than the 8 -acre applicability requirement of General Plan Policy LU 6.15.16 (On -Site Recreation and Open Space Standards), the Project provides extensive on-site recreational amenities, including separate pool, entertainment, and lounge courtyards with eating, seating, and barbeque space; a rooftop terrace; a fifth -level view deck; a club room for entertainment and gatherings; and a fitness facility. In addition, a public plaza is located in front of the retail shops facing the main corner of the Project at Corinthian Way and Martingale Way that will provide informal areas that residents can take advantage of. The provided amenities total 22,696 square feet, exceeding the 15,400 square -foot (44 square feet x 350 units) on-site recreational amenities requirement. 7. The Project introduces 350 new residential units to an existing major employment center (the Airport Area and Irvine Business Complex), providing new opportunities for those working in the area to live near work. The Project also includes park space, retail, and restaurant uses that will help meet the needs of its residents and surrounding employees in the area. 8. Consistent with General Plan Policy LU5.3.1 (Mixed -Use Buildings), the Project has been designed to exhibit a high quality design and complements the surrounding urban context. The retail and restaurant components are located on the ground level and oriented toward the streets to minimize potential conflicts with the residential uses. Additionally, these retail and restaurant uses are well integrated into the overall building design through the use of common design elements. The fagade is articulated through OB -10-19 90 Planning Commission Resolution No. 2019-005 Page 7 of 23 the use of windows, color, and changes in planes and massing. The Project provides separate entrances for residential and non-residential uses, with commercial entrances articulated by a white frame and storefront windows. The parking facility is completely integrated into the design and hidden from public view by the wrapping of residential units around the exterior of the parking structure. Extensive landscaping has been incorporated along the street frontages, in interior courtyards, on the roof terrace, within the retail plaza, and within the public park. 9. Consistent with General Plan Policy LU6.15.22 (Building Massing), the 4- and 5 -story residential building facades along all streets are designated and articulated to breakdown it's massing vertically and horizontally. Layered horizontal fagade base treatment is used to break up the height of the building. Two-story white framed elements are also used consistently throughout the elevations to visually reduce its height and to create a pedestrian -scale presence on the street frontages. The articulated masses also create and define a new activated street presence on Corinthian Way. A modern tower feature and rooftop terrace create ambience, an architectural focal point, and visual interest. In addition to layering the fagades, varying window patterns, and planar geometric breaks, horizontal roof elements help define the building's modern character. Corner window treatments are also utilized at strategic locations to vary the character and massing of residential balconies. Metal sunshade devices are also used to create an interesting shadow play on the fagade. These varying design elements help break up the building massing avoiding large unarticulated and monotonous building elevations. 10.The proposed Project is designed with an architectural style and scale that are compatible and complementary to the overall Newport Place Planned Community. The building's architectural design is defined as "California Coast Modern," which is monochromic with colored accents. The integral accents comprise of metal and acrylic panes, wood plank tiles, and stone veneer. Metal clad horizontal roof elements are used at the top floor to define and vary the building mass and character. Glass railings, metal trellises, metal sunshades, and horizontal metal slats are also be used to create the modern architectural aesthetic prevalent in the area. 11. Ground -level units include large patios with access to the street sidewalks, promoting walkability and pedestrian activity. Upper-level units include ample and usable outdoor decks with storage. Each unit exceeds the minimum private open space requirement (5 percent of gross unit area) and the Project as a whole provides 63,445 square feet of common open space exceeding the minimum common open space requirement of 26,250 square feet (75 square feet per unit). 12. Overall, the building will be below the base height limit of 55 feet, with the exception of architectural elements of up to 77 feet 9 inches. These architectural elements include the parapet, rooftop mechanical equipment, elevator shafts, emergency staircase, rooftop terrace, and a portion of the parking garage. The proposed development is the first residential project in the Newport Place Planned Community where the predominant permitted land uses are office and light industrial developments with limited retail allowed in certain sub -areas of the planned community. These surrounding OB -10-19 91 Planning Commission Resolution No. 2019-005 Paqe 8 of 23 developments are ranging from single -story to four-story in height with the exception of the 10 -story Radisson Hotel located nearby. The Project's building mass is comparable and compatible to the existing surrounding developments. 13. Besides the height exception and unit -mix incentive requested through the allowed density bonus, the proposed project complies with the development standards of the Residential Overlay and applicable standards of the Zoning Code. 14. Project landscaping consists of ornamental trees, shrubs, and groundcover along the site perimeter and in public gathering areas. The existing Italian Stone pines and Canary Island pines along Martingale Way would be preserved. The plant palate would include noninvasive, low-water use plants. Although approximately seventy six (76) trees would be removed, the proposed Project would provide a greater number of trees than currently exists (approximately 174 new trees, including the public park and plaza). All landscaped areas, including the public park and retail plaza, would be maintained by the property management company. Project landscaping will be required to meet NBMC Chapter 14.17 (Water -Efficient Landscape) requirements with respect to water efficiency. 15.Vehicular access to the mixed-use building would be provided via full -access driveways off Scott Drive and Martingale Way. The parking garage would be restricted to apartment residents, guests, and employees; and to employees and patrons of the commercial uses. The design of the parking structure allows for residents to park on the level of their respective unit for ease of access. The public park would have a separate full -access driveway located at the southern end of Martingale Way. Pedestrian access would be provided along the perimeter streets, with pedestrian corridors and walkways leading into the retail, residential, and through the public park areas. Site access, including the drive aisles, driveways, parking and loading spaces, have all been reviewed by the City Traffic Engineer for adequacy, efficiency, and safety. 16.A six -level, five -story parking structure would be located within the center of the building, and screened from public view by the surrounding residential units. The structure would provide a total of 740 parking spaces, complying with required parking ratios as follows: a. Retail: 25 spaces provided, 22 space required for the 5,500 square feet (1 space per 250 square feet); b. Restaurant: 49 spaces for an assumed 1,000 square feet of interior net public area and 950 square feet of exterior net public area exceeding the 25 percent allowance (1 space per 40 square feet of net public area); c. Apartment Leasing: 5 spaces (none required by Zoning Code); d. Residential: 661 spaces, exceeding the 474 minimum spaces required for density bonus projects pursuant to NBMC Section 20.32.040 (Parking Requirements in Density Bonus Projects) and Government Code Section 65915(p) (Density Bonus OB -10-19 92 Planning Commission Resolution No. 2019-005 Paqe 9 of 23 Law) (1 space per 0 to one bedrooms units, and 2 spaces per two- and three- bedroom units). 17.The Project would comply with the minimum 30 -foot setback required from streets and 10 feet from interior property lines (including the new public park property line) required by the Newport Place Planned Community. 18.The Project site does not have the potential to obstruct public views from public view points and corridors, as identified on General Plan Figure NR 3 (Coastal Views), to the Pacific Ocean, Newport Bay and Harbor, offshore islands, the Old Channel of the Santa Ana River (the Oxbow Loop), Newport Pier, Balboa Pier, designated landmark and historic structures, parks, coastal and inland bluffs, canyons, mountains, wetlands, and permanent passive open space. The Project is not located near any public viewpoints and there are no designated public views through or across the site. Findin : C. The proposed development is not detrimental to the harmonious and orderly growth of the City, nor will it endanger, jeopardize, or otherwise constitute a hazard to the public convenience, health, interest, safety, or general welfare of person residing or working in the neighborhood of the proposed development. Facts in Support of Finding: 1. The Project has been designed to ensure that potential conflicts with surrounding land uses are minimized to the extent possible to maintain a healthy environment for both businesses and residents by providing an architecturally pleasing project with articulation and building modulations to enhance the urban environment. 2. The proposed building has been designed to accommodate and provide safe access for emergency vehicles, delivery trucks, and refuse collections vehicles, as determined by the City Traffic Engineer. Refuse collection is accommodated via two on-site staging areas with adequate turnaround space to ensure safe maneuvering by refuse vehicles. Emergency vehicles will have access via the surrounding streets and through two additional emergency vehicle access easements provided to the City. 3. The Property is located approximately 0.5 -miles east of the southernmost John Wayne Airport runway and is within the notification area of the Airport Environs Land Use Plan ("AELUP") for John Wayne Airport. However, the Project is below the maximum transitional imagery surface heights, and thus the project is within the building height limits of the AELUP. The Property falls inside the Noise Impact Zone "2" — Moderate Noise Impact (60 decibel [dB] Community Noise Equivalent Level [CNEL] or greater, less than 65 dB CNEL) and also Safety Zone 6 (Traffic Pattern Zone), where the likelihood of an accident is low. Consistent with the Residential Overlay, the Project has been conditioned to provide notice to all future residents of potential annoyances or inconveniences associated with residing in proximity to airport operations. Also, a notice OB -10-19 93 Planning Commission Resolution No. 2019-005 Paqe 10 of 23 is required to be provided in the public park and designated outdoor common and recreational areas advising of aircraft noise. 4. The Project does not involve the use or manufacture of any hazardous substances that could impact nearby development. Dry cleaning uses have existed on-site, and a dry cleaning use exists currently. A 2017 soil vapor test has identified perch loroethylene (PCE) concentrations above California Human Health Screening Level for residential use. However, with the implementation of Mitigation Measure MM HAZ-1 of the Newport Crossing Mixed -Use Project EIR, which includes the installation of a subslab ventilation system, membrane barrier, and utility trench damns and conduit seals, potential hazardous impacts are reduced to a less than significant impact, ensuring a safe living environment for future residents. 5. The Project would include enhanced pedestrian walkways that provide access between the various uses and areas within the project site and to the surrounding public sidewalks and uses. 6. The new construction complies with all Building, Public Works, Fire Codes, City ordinances, and all conditions of approval. Lot Line Adjustment In accordance with Section 19.76.020 (Procedures for Lot Line Adjustments) of the Newport Beach Municipal Code ("NBMC"), the following findings and facts in support of such findings are set forth: Finding: A. Approval of the lot line adjustment will not, under the circumstances of the particular case, be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, comfort, and general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of such proposed use or be detrimental or injurious to property and improvements in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the City, and further that the proposed lot line adjustment is consistent with the legislative intent of the title. Facts in Support of Finding: 1. The General Plan Land Use Designation of Mixed Use Horizontal (MU -H2) will be maintained for the three proposed parcels. 2. The lot line adjustment is consistent with the purpose identified in Section 19.76 (Lot Line Adjustment) of the NBMC. The lot line adjustment constitutes a minor boundary adjustment involving three (3) adjacent lots. The original number of lots will remain unchanged after the adjustment. 3. The lot line adjustment does not negatively impact surrounding land owners, and will not in itself be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, comfort, and general welfare of OB -10-19 94 Planning Commission Resolution No. 2019-005 Paqe 11 of 23 persons residing or working in the neighborhood, as the adjustment affects interior property lines between three (3) adjacent parcels. Finding: B. The number of parcels resulting from the lot line adjustment remains the same as before the adjustment. Facts in Support of Finding: 1. The proposed lot line adjustment will adjust the property line between three (3) contiguous parcels. The number of parcels remains the same as before the lot line adjustment. Finding: C. The lot line adjustment is consistent with applicable zoning regulations except that nothing herein shall prohibit the approval of a lot line adjustment as long as none of the resultant parcels is more nonconforming as to lot width, depth and area than the parcels that existed prior to the lot line adjustment. Facts in Support of Finding: 1. The proposed parcels would remain within the Newport Place Planned Community Zoning District and subject to applicable development standards. 2. The lot line adjustment allows the reconfiguration of the underlying parcels to create a 0.5 -acre parcel to be deeded to the City for public park use consistent with General Plan requirements, a 0.11 -acre parcel for public parking for park use and emergency vehicle access for the mixed-use development, and 5.08 -acre parcel for the mixed-use development. There is no minimum site area for development meeting the development requirements of the Residential Overlay of the Newport Place Planned Community. Finding: D. Neither the lots as adjusted nor adjoining parcels will be deprived legal access as a result of the lot line adjustment. Facts in Support of Finding: 1. Parcel 1 (mixed-use building) would maintain street frontage on Martingale Way, Corinthian Way, Scott Drive, and Dove Street. The Project would provide vehicular access from Scott Drive and Martingale Way. 2. Parcel 2 (emergency access and public parking) would maintain street frontage on Martingale Way. The park parking lot would provide vehicular access from Martingale Way. OB -10-19 95 Planning Commission Resolution No. 2019-005 Paqe 12 of 23 3. Parcel 3 (public park) would maintain street frontage adjacent to Martingale Way and Dove Street. The park would provide pedestrian access to both streets. Finding: E. That the final configuration of the parcels involved will not result in the loss of direct vehicular access from an adjacent alley for any of the parcels that are included in the lot line adjustment. Facts in Support of Finding: 4. There are no public alleys adjacent to the proposed parcels; therefore, this finding does not apply. Finding: F. That the final configuration of a reoriented lot does not result in any reduction of the street side setbacks as currently exist adjacent to a front yard of any adjacent key, unless such reduction is accomplished through a zone change to establish appropriate street site setbacks for the reoriented lot. The Planning Commission and City Council in approving the zone change application shall determine that the street side setbacks are appropriate, and are consistent and compatible with the surrounding pattern of development and existing adjacent setbacks. Facts in Support of Finding: 1. The final configuration of the proposed parcels does not result in a requirement for revised setbacks since the Newport Place Planned Community development standards utilizes street side setbacks that shall continue to apply to the adjusted parcels. Affordable Housing Implementation Plan The proposed Affordable Housing Implementation Plan ("AHIP") is consistent with the intent to implement affordable housing goals within the City pursuant to Government Code Section 65915-65918 (State Density Bonus Law), Newport Place Planned Community Part III — Residential Overlay and Title 20, Chapter 20.32 (Density Bonus Code) of the Newport Beach Municipal Code ("NBMC") for the following reasons: 1. Consistent with the affordable housing requirements pursuant to the Residential Overlay of the Newport Place Planned Community, thirty percent (30%) of the Project's apartment units (seventy eight (78) units) would be set aside as affordable units to low- income households. Low-income households, are defined as households earning eighty percent (80%) or less of the area median income, adjusted for family size. Of the seventy eight (78) affordable units provided, fifty two (52) units would be set aside for households earning sixty percent (60%) or less of the area median income for a minimum term of fifty five (55) years. The remaining twenty six (26) affordable units would be set aside OB -10-19 90 Planning Commission Resolution No. 2019-005 Paqe 13 of 23 for households earning eighty percent (80%) or less of the area median income for a minimum term of thirty (30) years. 2. The State Density Bonus Law and the City's Density Bonus Code provide for an increase in the number of units of up to thirty five percent (35%) above the maximum number of units allowed by the General Plan, for projects that include a minimum of twenty percent (20%) (fifty two (52) units, in the case of the proposed project) of the base units affordable to low-income households earning 60 percent or less of area median income. At the maximum density bonus of 35 percent, the Project is eligible for ninety one (91) additional units above the 259 base units allowed by the General Plan for a total of 350 units. 3. In addition to the ninety one (91) density bonus units and pursuant to Government Code Section 65915(d)(1), the Project is eligible to receive up to two (2) incentives or concessions that would result in identifiable, financially sufficient, and actual cost reductions. Government Code Section 65915(e)(1) also entitles developers to waivers or modifications of development standards that, if applied, would physically preclude development of housing with the provided density bonus. The proposed project includes a request for one development concession for the unit mix and one waiver for the height. 4. Incentive Request: Pursuant to Section V.F.1 of the Residential Overlay, affordable units shall reflect the range of the number of bedrooms provided in the residential development project as a whole. In this case, the Project would provide a unit mix that includes a greater percentage of studio and one -bedroom units. Granting this incentive will result in identifiable, financially sufficient, and actual project cost reductions by reducing the long-term rental subsidy costs associated with the two-bedroom units and affording additional rental income for the project to ensure financial feasibility. 5. Development Standard Waiver Request: Pursuant to Section V.A of the Residential Overlay, building heights are limited to a base height of fifty five (55) feet, but may be increased through a site development review. Government Code Section 65915(e)(1) provides that a city may not apply a development standard that will have the effect of physically precluding the construction of the density bonus units at the density permitted under the density bonus law. In the case of the proposed project, a waiver of the fifty five (55) -foot height limit development standard to allow a height of 77 feet 9 inches is requested to accommodate the parapet, rooftop mechanical equipment, elevator shafts, emergency staircase, the rooftop amenity deck, and a portion of the parking structure. Without the height allowance for the stairs, elevators, mechanical equipment, and parapet, sixty three (63) of the ninety one (91) density bonus units would need to be eliminated. Furthermore, limiting heights to fifty five (55) feet would also result in the elimination of the rooftop amenity deck and upper level of parking structure, which are necessary to meet expectations of prospective tenants and to achieve market -rate rents to make the overall project financially viable, and provide the level of on-site amenities encouraged by the Residential Overlay, and reduce the impact of parking availability on neighboring streets. OB -10-19 97 Planning Commission Resolution No. 2019-005 Paqe 14 of 23 SECTION 4. DECISION. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: 1. The Planning Commission of the City of Newport Beach hereby approves Site Development Review No SD2017-004, Lot Line Adjustment No. LA2018-004, and Affordable Housing Implementation Plan No. AH 2018-001, subject to the conditions set forth in Exhibit A, which is attached hereto and incorporated by reference. 2. This action shall become final and effective fourteen (14) days following the date this Resolution was adopted unless within such time an appeal is filed with the City Clerk in accordance with the provisions of Title 20 Planning and Zoning, of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. 3. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this resolution 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 resolution. The Planning Commission hereby declares that it would have passed this resolution, and each section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase hereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, sentences, clauses or phrases be declared invalid or unconstitutional. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED THIS 21ST DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2019. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: BY: Peter Zak, Chairman MN Lee Lowrey, Secretary Exhibit A: Conditions of Approval 08-10-18 92 Planning Commission Resolution No. 2019-005 Paqe 15 of 23 EXHIBIT "A" CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL (Project -specific conditions are in italics) PLANNING The development shall be in substantial conformance with the approved site plan, floor plans, building elevations, and landscaping plans stamped and dated with the date of this approval. (Except as modified by applicable conditions of approval.) 2. The Project is subject to compliance with all applicable submittals approved by the City of Newport Beach ("City") and all applicable City ordinances, policies, and standards, unless specifically waived or modified by the conditions of approval. 3. Site Development Review No. SD2017-004, Lot Line Adjustment No. LA2018-004 and Affordable Housing Implementation Plan No. AH2018-001 shall expire unless exercised within twenty four (24) months from the date of approval as specified in Section 20.54.060 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code (NBMC'), unless an extension is otherwise granted. 4. The applicant shall comply with all applicable provisions of NBMC Chapter 15.38, Fair Share Traffic Contribution Ordinance, and Chapter 15.42, Major Thoroughfare and Bridge Fee Program. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, Fair Share and Transportation Corridor Agency fees shall be paid. 5. The proposed development shall consist of the following: a. A maximum of 350 apartment units, and b. A maximum of 7,500 square feet of non-residential floor area. 6. The allocation of 740 on-site parking spaces shall be as follows: a. 661 on-site parking spaces for residents and guest parking; b. 5 on-site parking spaces for apartment leasing; and c. 74 spaces on-site for non-residential uses. Parking requirements for the non- residential use shall be calculated in accordance NBMC Chapter 20.40 (Off -Street Parking). 7. A minimum of 78 apartment units shall be made affordable to low-income households consistent with the approved Newport Crossings Affordable Housing Implementation Plan (AH2018-001) dated August 28, 2018. 8. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, an affordable housing agreement shall be executed in a recordable form as required by the City Attorney's Office. OB -10-19 qq 9J Planning Commission Resolution No. 2019-005 Paqe 16 of 23 9. On-site private recreational amenities as illustrated on the approved plans shall be provided and maintained for the duration of the project. 10. Commercial uses shall be permitted, or conditionally permitted, within the project consistent with the provisions of the Newport Place Planned Community Development Plan. 11. Prior to the issuance of a building permit. Lot Line Adjustment No. LA2018-004 shall be recorded. 12. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the developer shall enter into an agreement with the City for park improvements, use, and on-going maintenance, subject to the review and approval of the Community Development Department, Recreation and Senior Services Department, and City Attorney's Office. 13. Signage shall be installed and maintained within the park clearly indicating the park is for general public uses, any parking restrictions (park users only), and the availability of public restrooms. The design and location of the park signage shall be reviewed and approved by the City Recreation and Senior Services Department and Community Development Department prior to fabrication and installation. 14. Public access to restrooms for park users shall be provided within the project between 8:00 a.m. and 9:00 p.m., daily. The agreement required per Condition No. 12 shall identify the location of the restrooms and guarantee public access. 15. Prior to the issuance of a certificate of use and occupancy for the last residential building, the improvements to the 0.5 -acre public park shall be completed by the applicant and the park parcel (Parcel 3 of Lot Line Adjustment No. LA 2018-004) shall be deeded to the City. 16. The applicant shall comply with all project design features and mitigation measures contained within the approved Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program of the Newport Crossings Mixed -Use Project Environmental Impact Report No. ER2017-001 (SCH2017101067). 17. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the applicant shall pay applicable school fees. 18. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the applicant shall pay applicable property development tax as required pursuant to NBMC Chapter 3.12 (Property Development Tax). 19. A copy of the Resolution, including conditions of approval Exhibit "A" shall be incorporated into the Building Division and field sets of plans prior to issuance of the building permits. 20. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the applicant shall submit to the Planning Division an additional copy of the approved architectural plans for inclusion in the Site OB -10-19 200 Planning Commission Resolution No. 2019-005 Paqe 17 of 23 Development Review. The plans shall be identical to those approved by all City departments for building permit issuance. The approved copy shall include architectural sheets only and shall be reduced in size to 11 inches by 17 inches. The plans shall accurately depict the elements approved by this Site Development Review and shall highlight the approved elements such that they are readily discernible from other elements of the plans. 21. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the applicant shall submit a landscape and irrigation plan prepared by a licensed landscape architect. These plans shall incorporate drought -tolerant plantings and water -efficient irrigation practices, and the plans shall be approved by the Planning Division. 22. All landscape materials and irrigation systems shall be maintained in accordance with the approved landscape plan. All landscaped areas shall be maintained in a healthy and growing condition and shall receive regular pruning, fertilizing, mowing and trimming. All landscaped areas shall be kept free of weeds and debris. All irrigation systems shall be kept operable, including adjustments, replacements, repairs, and cleaning as part of regular maintenance. 23. The site shall not be excessively illuminated based on the luminance recommendations of the Illuminating Engineering Society of North America, or, if in the opinion of the Director of the Community Development Department, the illumination creates an unacceptable negative impact on surrounding land uses or environmental resources. The Director may order the dimming of light sources or other remediation upon finding that the site is excessively illuminated. 24. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the applicant shall prepare a photometric study in conjunction with a final lighting plan for approval by the Planning Division. The survey shall show that lighting values are "1" or less at all property lines. 25. Prior to the issuance of the certificate of occupancy or final of building permits, the applicant shall schedule an evening inspection by the Code Enforcement Division to confirm control of all lighting sources. 26. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the applicant shall pay any unpaid administrative costs and unpaid costs incurred by City -retained consultants associated with the processing of this application to the Planning Division. 27. All noise generated by the proposed use shall comply with the provisions of NBMC Chapter 10.26 (Community Noise Control) and other applicable noise control requirements. The maximum noise shall be limited to no more than depicted below for the specified time periods unless the ambient noise level is higher: OB -10-19 101 Planning Commission Resolution No. 2019-005 Paqe 18 of 23 28. Construction activities shall comply with NBMC Section 10.28.040 (Construction Activity — Noise Regulations), which restricts hours of noise -generating construction activities that produce noise to between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 6:30 p.m., Monday through Friday and 8:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. on Saturday. Noise -generating construction activities are not allowed on Sundays or Holidays. 29. The property management company shall distribute a written disclosure statement prior to lease or rental of any residential unit. 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. In addition, potential annoyances or inconveniences associated with residing in proximity to airport operations such as noise, vibration, and odor may occur. 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 and proximity to airport. Each and every 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 the mixed-use project: (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. 30. Prior to the issuance of building permits, an acoustical analysis report, prepared by an acoustical engineer, shall be submitted to the Planning Division describing the acoustical design features of the structure that will satisfy the exterior and interior noise standards. The project shall be attenuated in compliance with the report. 31. Signage shall be installed within the public park informing the public of the presence of operating aircraft at the John Wayne Airport. The final design and location of the signage shall be reviewed and approved by the City prior to installation. 32. Should the property be sold or otherwise come under different ownership, any future owners or assignees shall be notified of the conditions of this approval by either the current business owner, property owner or the leasing agent. OB -10-19 102 Between the hours of 7:OOAM and 10:00PM Between the hours of 10:00PM and 7:OOAM Location Interior Exterior Interior Exterior Residential Property 45dBA 55dBA 40dBA 50dBA Residential Property located within 100 feet of a commercial property 45dBA 60dBA 45dBA 50dBA Mixed Use Property 45dBA 60dBA 45dBA 50dBA Commercial Property N/A 65dBA N/A 60dBA 28. Construction activities shall comply with NBMC Section 10.28.040 (Construction Activity — Noise Regulations), which restricts hours of noise -generating construction activities that produce noise to between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 6:30 p.m., Monday through Friday and 8:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. on Saturday. Noise -generating construction activities are not allowed on Sundays or Holidays. 29. The property management company shall distribute a written disclosure statement prior to lease or rental of any residential unit. 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. In addition, potential annoyances or inconveniences associated with residing in proximity to airport operations such as noise, vibration, and odor may occur. 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 and proximity to airport. Each and every 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 the mixed-use project: (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. 30. Prior to the issuance of building permits, an acoustical analysis report, prepared by an acoustical engineer, shall be submitted to the Planning Division describing the acoustical design features of the structure that will satisfy the exterior and interior noise standards. The project shall be attenuated in compliance with the report. 31. Signage shall be installed within the public park informing the public of the presence of operating aircraft at the John Wayne Airport. The final design and location of the signage shall be reviewed and approved by the City prior to installation. 32. Should the property be sold or otherwise come under different ownership, any future owners or assignees shall be notified of the conditions of this approval by either the current business owner, property owner or the leasing agent. OB -10-19 102 Planning Commission Resolution No. 2019-005 Paqe 19 of 23 33. All trash shall be stored within the building or within dumpsters stored in the trash enclosure (three walls and a self -latching gate) or otherwise screened from view of neighboring properties, except when placed for pick-up by refuse collection agencies. 34. The applicant shall ensure that the trash dumpsters and/or receptacles are maintained to control odors. This may include the provision of either fully self-contained dumpsters or periodic steam cleaning of the dumpsters, if deemed necessary by the Planning Division. Cleaning and maintenance of trash dumpsters shall be done in compliance with the provisions of NBMC Title 14 (Water and Sewers), including all future amendments (including Water Quality related requirements). 35. Refuse collection shall comply with the Waste Management Plan included in the approved plans. Applicant's property management company shall contract with a franchised hauler on the City list of authorized companies. 36. An easement for pedestrian purposes and emergency vehicular access shall be granted to the City for the off-street emergency vehicle staging area along the Scott Drive project frontage. A mountable 8 -inch cub shall be used. 37. An easement for emergency vehicular access and public park access and parking shall be granted to the City over Parcel 2 of the lot line adjustment. 38. To the fullest extent permitted by law, applicant shall indemnify, defend and hold harmless City, its City Council, its boards and commissions, officials, officers, employees, and agents from and against any and all claims, demands, obligations, damages, actions, causes of action, suits, losses, judgments, fines, penalties, liabilities, costs and expenses (including without limitation, attorney's fees, disbursements and court costs) of every kind and nature whatsoever which may arise from or in any manner relate (directly or indirectly) to City's approval of the Newport Crossings Mixed -Use Project including, but not limited to, Site Development Review No. SD2017-004, Lot Line Adjustment No. LA2018-004, and Affordable Housing Implementation Plan No. AH2O18-001 (PA2017-107). This indemnification shall include, but not be limited to, damages awarded against the City, if any, costs of suit, attorneys' fees, and other expenses incurred in connection with such claim, action, causes of action, suit or proceeding whether incurred by applicant, City, and/or the parties initiating or bringing such proceeding. The applicant shall indemnify the City for all of City's costs, attorneys' fees, and damages which City incurs in enforcing the indemnification provisions set forth in this condition. The applicant shall pay to the City upon demand any amount owed to the City pursuant to the indemnification requirements prescribed in this condition. Fire Department Conditions 39. Fire hydrants shall be located within 400 feet of all portions of the building. Additional hydrants may be required dependent on fire flow calculations. 40. Blue hydrant identification markers shall be placed adjacent to fire hydrants. OB -10-19 103 Planning Commission Resolution No. 2019-005 Paqe 20 of 23 41. Apparatus access roads shall be constructed of a material that provides an all-weather driving surface and capable of supporting 72,000 pounds imposed load for fire apparatus and truck outrigger loads of 75 pounds per square inch over a two -foot area. Calculations stamped and signed by a registered professional engineer shall certify that the proposed surface meets the criteria of an all-weather driving surface and is capable of withstanding the weight of 72,000 pounds per Newport Beach Fire Department ("NBFD") Guideline C.01. 42. The proposed emergency access on Scott Drive shall measure a minimum of 120 feet in length for a staging area with an additional 10 feet in length for transition on each end of the staging area, resulting in a total 140 feet. The curbing for the access area shall be a rolled curb and installed as per City of Newport Beach Public Works Department specifications. 43. All security gates (including at entrance to garage and interior of garage area) shall have an approved remote opening device for emergency services. Consult NBFD Guideline C.01 for gate requirements. 44. An automatic fire sprinkler system shall be required and installed as per California Fire Code (C.F.C.) Sec. 903. 45. Standpipe systems shall be provided as set forth in C.F.C. Sec. 905. Additional standpipes (due to access restrictions with design of project) shall be required in locations determined by the NBFD. 46. A fire alarm system shall be required and installed as per C.F.C. Sec. 907. 47. Effective emergency responder radio coverage (800 MHz) shall be required and comply with NBFD Guideline & Standards D.05 Public Safety Radio System Coverage. 48. All buildings and structures with one of more passenger service elevators shall be provided with no less than one medical emergency service elevator to all landings. The elevator car shall be of such a size to accommodate a 24 -inch by 84 -inch ambulance gurney or stretcher with not less than 5 -inch radius corners, in the horizontal, open position, shall be provided with a minimum clear distance between walls or between walls and door excluding return panels not less than 80 inches by 54 inches and a minimum distance from wall to return panel not less than 51 inches with a 42 -inch side slide door as per California Building Code Sec. 3002. Phase I and Phase II recall shall be required. 49. Smoke detectors shall be required for the individual dwelling units as per C.F.C. Sec. 907.2.11.1. 50. Dumpster locations shall meet NBFD Guideline & Standard A.16. OB -10-19 1604 Planning Commission Resolution No. 2019-005 Paqe 21 of 23 51. Exterior walkways shall be designed to accommodate hand carrying of firefighter ladders for use of "ground" laddering of buildings. (The largest ladder utilized will be 35 - foot ladder with a storing length of 20.5 feet long.) 52. Exterior walkways shall be wide enough to accommodate gurneys. 53. Landscape shall not obstruct laddering to buildings. Trees shall be arranged to be absent from laddering areas of the building. 54. The emergency generator shall be filled from the exterior of the building via a remote fill pipe in a location approved by the Fire Department. 55. The mechanical ventilation system for the parking garage required by the California Mechanical Code ("CMC") 403.7, shall also include a manual switch. This allows the ventilation system to be operated (on or off) manually by emergency personnel. Building Division Conditions 56. The applicant is required to obtain all applicable permits from the City's Community Development Department - Building Division and Fire Department. The construction plans must comply with the most recent, City -adopted version of the California Building Code (C.B.C). The construction plans must meet all applicable State Disabilities Access requirements. 57. Prior to the issuance of grading permits, a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan ('SWPPP") and Notice of Intent ("NOI") to comply with the General Permit for Construction Activities shall be prepared, submitted to the State Water Quality Control Board for approval and made part of the construction program. The Project applicant will provide the City with a copy of the NOI and their application check as proof of filing with the State Water Quality Control Board. This plan will detail measures and practices that will be in effect during construction to minimize the project's impact on water quality. 58. Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the applicant shall prepare and submit a Final Water Quality Management Plan ("WQMP") for the proposed project, subject to the approval of the City's Building Division and Code and Water Quality Enforcement Division. The WQMP shall provide appropriate Best Management Practices ("BMPs") to ensure that no violations of water quality standards or waste discharge requirements occur. 59. A list of "good house -keeping" practices will be incorporated into the long-term post - construction operation of the site to minimize the likelihood that pollutants will be used, stored or spilled on the site that could impair water quality. These may include frequent parking area vacuum truck sweeping, removal of wastes or spills, limited use of harmful fertilizers or pesticides, and the diversion of storm water away from potential sources of pollution (e.g., trash receptacles and parking structures). The Stage 2 WQMP shall list and describe all structural and non-structural BMPs. In addition, the WQMP must also OB -10-19 105 Planning Commission Resolution No. 2019-005 Paqe 22 of 23 identify the entity responsible for the long-term inspection, maintenance, and funding for all structural (and if applicable Treatment Control) BMPs. 60. Prior to the release for recordation of the lot line adjustment, the applicant shall apply for a building permit to demolish the existing buildings on-site, and all work fulfilling this permit shall be completed by the applicant and finalized by the Building Division. Public Works Conditions 61. Prior to the release for recordation of the lot line adjustment, the applicant shall submit to the Public Works Department for final technical review. 62. All improvements shall be constructed as required by City Ordinance and the Public Works Department. 63. An encroachment agreement shall be obtained for any private improvements within the public right-of-way per City Council L-6, Private Encroachments in Public Rights -of -Way. 64. An encroachment permit shall be obtained for all work activities within the public right- of-way. 65. The curb and gutter shall be reconstructed along the Dove Street, Scott Drive, Corinthian Way and Martingale Way frontages per City Standards. 66. A minimum six (6) -foot wide sidewalk shall be reconstructed along the Dove Street, Scott Drive, Corinthian Way and Martingale Way frontages per City Standards. Sidewalk may be located at the back of curb upon the prior approval from the Public Works Department. 67. New ADA compliant curb access ramps shall be constructed at the intersection of Dove Street and Scott Drive, Scott Drive and Corinthian Way, Corinthian Way and Martingale Way, and Westerly Place and Dove Street per City Standards. 68. Drive aisles shall be clear of all obstructions, including but not limited to, door swing, mechanical equipment, etc. 69. All parking spaces within the Subterranean Parking Level 1 shall be assigned parking spaces and a minimum five (5) -foot hammerhead/drive aisle extension shall be provided. Dead-end drive aisles shall not be permitted in any other parking areas. 70. The proposed driveways shall be installed per City Standard STD -1 61-L with a minimum 15 -foot radius. Pedestrian easements may be necessary to accommodate ADA compliant paths. 71. The proposed parking layout and on-site circulation shall be reviewed and approved by the City Traffic Engineer. The proposed parking layout, including parking spaces and aisle widths, shall be per City Standard STD -805 -L-A and STD -805 -L -B. OB -10-19 100 Planning Commission Resolution No. 2019-005 Paqe 23 of 23 72. All proposed water and sewer connections for the proposed development shall be reviewed and approved by the Public Works and the Utilities Departments and constructed per City Standards. 73. A final sewer and water demand study shall be submitted for review and approval by the Public Works and Utilities Departments. The applicant is responsible for all required upgrades to the City's sewer and water system that is necessary to accommodate the proposed project. 74. A final hydrology and hydraulic analysis shall be prepared for the proposed direct connection into the City's storm drain line. The applicant is responsible for all required upgrades to the City's storm drain system necessary to accommodate the proposed project. 75. All improvements shall comply with the City's sight distance requirement per City Standard 110-L. Planting within the limited use area shall have a growth characteristic of less than twenty four (24) inches in height. 76. In case of damage done to public improvements surrounding the development site by the private construction, additional reconstruction within the public right-of-way shall be required at the discretion of the Public Works Inspector. 77. Prior to the issuance of building permits, City easements for pedestrian purposes, emergency vehicular access, and park access and parking, shall be recorded. 78. All move-ins/move-outs, deliveries and trash pickup shall be accommodated entirely on- site. Use of the public right of way shall be prohibited. 79. Prior to the issuance of building permits, a construction management plan shall be submitted, reviewed and approved by the Community Development Director and City Traffic Engineer. 80. Prior to the issuance of building permits, a parking management plan shall be submitted, reviewed and approved by the Community Development Director and City Traffic Engineer. 81. The final design of the bollards in the park shall be reviewed and approved by the Fire Department and Public Works Department. 82. All street trees planted within the public right-of-way shall be a minimum of thirty six (36) - inch box. Tree species shall be per City Council Policy G-6. Final review and approval of street trees and shrubs shall be per the Public Works Department's Municipal Operations Division. OB -10-19 zo7 102 Attachment No. PC 3 December 6, 2018 Planning Commission Study Session Minutes 109 110 VII. NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS — 100 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE THURSDAY, DECEMBER 6, 2018 REGULAR MEETING — 4:00 P.M. CALL TO ORDER — The meeting was called to order at 4:00 p.m. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE — Commissioner Koetting PRESEM, Chair Peter Zak (arrived at 5:42 p.m.), Vice Chair Erik Weigand, Secretary Lee Lowrey, Commissioner Lauren Kleiman (arrived at 4:01 p.m.), Commissioner Peter Koetting, ommissioner Kory Kramer ABSENT: Com 'ssioner Curtis Ellmore (excused) Staff Present: Communityvelopment Director Seimone Jurjis, Deputy Community Development Director Jim Campbell, Deputy City Attorney rmeen Komeili, City Traffic Engineer Tony Brine, Senior Planner Jaime Murillo, Principal Planner Gregg Ramirez, ociate Planner Benjamin Zdeba, Administrative Support Specialist Tiffany Lippman, Planning Technician Patric chis PUBLIC COMMENTS Jim Mosher suggested Commissioners share any i mn disclosure of ex parte communications. He expressed not have the visibility of the Planning Commission or City REQUEST FOR CONTINUANCES None ITEM NO. 1 MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 8, 2018 Recommended Action: 1. Approve and file they learned from ex parte communications during i regarding decisions being made by bodies that do Motion made by Commissioner Koetting and seconded by Commissioner Kleiman to approve the November 8, 2018 meeting as presented. AYES: Weigand, Lowrey, Kleiman, Koetting, Kramer NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Zak, Ellmore STUDY SESSION ITEM N0.2 NEWPORT CROSSINGS MIXED-USE PROJECT (PA2017-107) Site Location: 1701 Corinthian Way of the Summary: Development of a mixed-use residential project consisting of 350 residential dwelling units, 7,500 square feet of commercial space and a 0.5 -acre public park. An existing commercial center called MacArthur Square that is located on the 5.7 -acre project site would be demolished. Project implementation requires the approval of the Site Development Review, Lot Line Adjustment and Affordable Housing Implementation Plan. 1 of 12 111 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION 12/06/2018 Senior Planner Jaime Murillo reported the project site is located in the Airport Area, with John Wayne Airport to the west and the City of Irvine to the north and east. The Airport Area is predominantly developed with office uses and commercial and industrial uses. The General Plan Update, in 2006, identified the Airport Area as an area for potential redevelopment of underutilized sites for mixed-use residential development. The project site is located within the Newport Place Planned Community, which was developed in the early 1970s for office, retail, and hotel uses. In 2012, the Planned Community was amended to include a residential development overlay that allows the development of residential projects with a component of affordable housing. Projects with 30 percent of the units reserved for low-income households can be developed within the Newport Place Planned Community. The Uptown Newport mixed-use project is the first residential project approved in the Airport Area and is under construction. The project site is currently developed as MacArthur Square Shopping Center and contains three parcels totaling 5.69 acres. MacArthur Square Shopping Center contains 58,277 square feet of retail and commercial uses in eight single -story buildings. The project proposes the shopping center be demolished and replaced with a mixed-use development. The development consists of 350 rental residential units, of which 259 are considered base units and 91 are considered density bonus units; 7,500 square feet of nonresidential development, of which 2,000 square feet will be used for a casual restaurant use and 5,500 square feetfor general commercial and retail uses; and a half -acre public park. The General Plan and the Planned Community limit the density to be trip neutral and cannot exceed a maximum density of 50 dwelling units per acre. After deducting the half acre for the park, the remaining project site contains 5.19 acres. Multiplying 5.19 acres by 50 units (the maximum density) results in 259 dwelling units. However, because the project contains 78 affordable units, consistent with the residential overlay of the Planned Community, the project is eligible for a density bonus under the Newport Beach Municipal Code and the State Density Bonus Law. The project is eligible for the maximum density bonus, which is 35 percent of the number of base units or 91 bonus units. The residential units will wrap around a central parking structure comprised of six levels and up to 740 parking spaces. The commercial component of the project is located at the intersection of Martingale Way and Corinthian Way. Vehicular access will be through two driveways, one off Martingale Way and one off Scott Drive. The public park will be located on the southern portion of the site. The park will be dedicated to the City and be improved and maintained by the developer. Park amenities include a dog park, a bocce ball court, a pickleball court, a play lawn and playground structure, a fitness terrace, a dining terrace, and seating walls. The Recreation and Senior Services Department has reviewed and supports the plan. Staff will present the park design to the Parks, Beaches and Recreation Commission for review and recommendations on February 5, 2019, and return to the Planning Commission in February or March 2019. The residential buildings will have four and five -level facades that screen the central parking structure. For the Planning Commission's future consideration are applications for site development review, lot line adjustment, and Affordable Housing Implementation Plan (AHIP). The Newport Place Planned Community Residential Overlay is required by the City's Housing Element, provides zoning, and is intended to eliminate development constraints to affordable housing. The standards allow development of up to 50 dwelling units per acre plus any additional units allowed through a density bonus; require a minimum 30 -foot setback from streets and 10 -foot setbacks from interior property lines; establishes a 55 -foot height limit; allows a greater height limit through site development review; requires a higher level of amenities; and ensures neighborhood integration. The mixed-use development site will be divided into two parcels, one for the development and one for emergency access and parking for the public park. The third parcel consisting of 0.5 acre will be the public park. The AHIP will ensure development includes the minimum 30 -percent (78 units) allocation for low-income units. By providing affordable housing, the project is eligible for the 91 unit density bonus and entitled to reduced residential parking ratios, two development incentives, and a development waiver. Using the density bonus standard, the total number of required parking spaces is 474; however, the project proposes 661 parking spaces. The applicant requests only one development incentive to modify an overlay requirement such that the project could have a higher allocation of studio and one -bedroom units. The applicant requests a waiver of the 55 -foot height limit to allow rooftop features consisting of elevator shafts, stair towers, mechanical equipment, the highest level of the parking deck, and a rooftop amenity. PlaceWorks has prepared a Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the project, and the DEIR was released for public review on November 30, 2018. Potential significant impacts were identified in the DEIR areas of air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, hazards and hazardous materials, and public services; however, mitigation measures can reduce the potential impacts to less than significant levels. The public comment period for the DEIR ends on January 14, 2019. Dan Vittone of Starboard Realty Partners, the applicant, advised that the prior owner of the site submitted an application to develop a mixed-use project, and the Planning Commission denied the application in 2016. With respect to concerns raised regarding the prior application, the Newport Crossings project will adhere to and exceed setback requirements; comply with the 55 -foot height limit in all livable areas; have approximately 50 -percent more 2of12 112 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION 12/06/2018 retail space than the prior application; dedicate a public park to the City; have approximately 10 percent fewer units than the prior application; and the architecture and design of the project will be compatible with the surrounding development. R.C. Alley, project architect, noted the site has five sides and four street fronts. The greatest visibility of the site is on Corinthian Way. Retail spaces are located along Corinthian Way and are designed to fit a variety of uses. A plaza along Corinthian Way will be a good space for people to gather. Retail parking is located within the parking structure. With a central above -grade parking structure, a resident can park on the floor of the parking structure that corresponds to the floor of his residence. The project will have 30 -foot setbacks along Scott Drive, and ground - floor residential units will have stoops to the street. Along the southern end of Scott Drive, the building will step down and have a notch to vary the building mass. Buildings along Dove Street will step down to four stories. The recreation area of the project opens visually into the park. A vehicular entrance is located on Martingale Way, where most residents and retail users will enter the project. The leasing center will also be located off Martingale Way. The site is surrounded by many different types of projects. No buildings of a traditional style are located in the area of the project; thus, a soft contemporary style will be appropriate for the site. From Corinthian Way and Martingale Way, the focal point will be the retail space. An open walkway from the plaza to parking will separate the retail space into two components. The project will have a pool, a club and exercise facility, and a pet spa. Matt Jackson, project landscape architect, indicated the park will not be fenced or gated and will have exercise areas, a gathering space, a divided dog park, a pickle ball court, a tot lot, a bocce ball court, and seating areas. In response to Commissioner Koetting's and Vice Chair Weigand's questions, Senior Planner Murillo explained that, through the conditions of approval, the developer will enter into an agreement with the City regarding the park. The City will own the park, and the developer will construct the park and improvements, pay for the improvements, and maintain the park. The maintenance period will be indefinite. Deputy Community Development Director Campbell added that the arrangement will be the same as the arrangement for the Uptown Newport project. City Traffic Engineer Tony Brine indicated staff will monitor parking on Martingale once the project is fully occupied. Parking could be reviewed for time restrictions or parking restrictions. Senior Planner Murillo related that are four parking spaces devoted to park parking, one of which is an ADA space with a loading area. Any parking area is required to have at least one ADA space. The City will have an easement for emergency access and parking for the park. The space for emergency access can be used as flexible park space. Vice Chair Weigand preferred an evaluation of parking occur while the project is under construction. Commissioner Koetting suggested the applicant consider a fence between the park and the office building to the south to prevent park users from parking at the office building. Staff should invite neighboring property owners to the February meeting with the Parks, Beaches, and Recreation Commission. In reply to Commissioner Koetting's inquiries, Mr. Alley advised that the project will have three floors of residential units above retail space. Generally, the retail spaces will be 19 feet tall. The roof deck will extend above the 55 - foot height limit as shown on page A.2.7 of the project plans. Mr. Vittone reported 2,000 of the 7,500 square feet of retail space will be occupied by a casual restaurant. The remaining retail space will probably be occupied by ancillary services that benefit the residents. He wanted to find a grocer for 3,000-4,000 square feet of the space. Most of the existing landscaping and the berms will remain. The project will have 78 units of low-income housing, and the applicant has requested an incentive to allow a disproportionate share of studio and one -bedroom units. For a two-bedroom, two -bathroom unit containing approximately 1,150 square feet, the applicant can charge rent of $1,080 per month inclusive of a utility allowance. The cost of the 78 units will be approximately $37 million. Given the cost and rental income, the profit will be approximately $4,000 per unit per year. Mr. Murillo explained that households earning up to 80 percent of the area median income (AMI) for Orange County will be eligible for some units, and households earning up to 60 percent of AMI will be eligible for other units. Units will not be uniquely designated as affordable, and all units in the project will have the same interior finishes and access to amenities. Commissioner Kramer noted his criticisms of the prior application for the site and favored the intelligent design, the wrap structure, the siting of the retail space, and the design of the park in the current application. He supported the project. 3of12 113 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION 12/06/2018 Commissioner Koetting liked the setbacks along the streets because proper tree sizes can be planted in the larger space. Vice Chair Weigand opened the public hearing. Dorothy Kraus, SPON Vice President, remarked that SPON prefers projects of this scale and scope be considered after the City updates its General Plan and creates a specific plan for the Airport Area. The Newport Crossings team has been open to dialog and willing to apply feasible solutions to issues of mutual interest. SPON will continue to interact with the team to address issues. Linda Tang, Kennedy Commission, urged the Planning Commission to support the project. The project will provide much-needed affordable homes for lower-income households. The development will provide a community benefit and ease housing needs for low-income households. Greg Endsley commented that he worked with many business owners in selecting an office space. A key consideration for business owners is housing for their employees. Businesses will welcome the project because of its location in the area and the supply of housing. Carol Dru expressed concern regarding the children of the project attending Newport Beach schools. The park will have little space for the tot lot and play areas. Jodi Estwick, People for Housing Orange County, encouraged the Planning Commission to approve the project as the project complies with requirements. The City of Newport Beach needs more housing units. Rick Roshan expressed concern regarding the number of parking spaces provided by the project as on -street parking is not allowed in the area. Vice Chair Weigand closed the public hearing In response to comments, Planner Murillo reported any students residing within the project will attend schools in the Santa Ana Unified School District. The City requires 2.5 parking spaces per unit in a multifamily development containing more than four units. Without the density bonus, the project would be required to provide 875 spaces. Under the State Density Bonus Law, the applicant may request a reduced parking ratio, and the City has to grant the request. Under the reduced parking ratios, the applicant is required to provide one parking space per studio or one -bedroom unit and two spaces per two-bedroom unit, which equates to 474 parking spaces for the project. The applicant proposes 661 parking spaces. Vice Chair Weigand concurred with Commissioner Kramer's comments regarding the project. He commended the project team for engaging with community members. Commissioner Koetting advised that he read most of the DEIR and was amazed that the project had few environmental impacts. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS E ART GALLERY (PA2018-177) Site Location: 2721 East Coast Highway, Suite 104 Summary: A request for a min se permit to operate a tattoo studio (Personal Services, Restricted land use) and art gallery with art c s, within an existing commercial tenant space. Proposed hours of operation would be 10:00 a.m. to p.m. daily. Recommended Action: 1. Conduct a public hearing. 2. Find this project exempt from the California Enviro Mal Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15301 (Existing Facilities) of the CEQA Guidelines se it has not potential to have a significant effect on the environment; and, 4of12 Attachment No. PC 4 General Plan Land Use Element Figure LU22 115 110 CITY of NEWPORT BEACH GENERALPLAN FIGURE LU22 AIRPORT AREA Q Sub -Area Conceptual Development Plan Area Land Use Delineator Line ^i Highway 65 CNEL Noise Contour •Refer to anomaly table Bounce: any of Newport Beach and ESP Assoclates PROJECT NUMBER: 1057&B1 LAND USE POLICY OUnderlying Uses: Office, Hotel, Supporting Retail, © Airport -Supporting Businesses © Commercial and Office E T I P Residential Village: Housing and Mixed -Use (with Guidelines for Design and Development) :L27 it 050 reel 0 20 50 1 000 Bounce: any of Newport Beach and ESP Assoclates PROJECT NUMBER: 1057&B1 LAND USE POLICY OUnderlying Uses: Office, Hotel, Supporting Retail, © Airport -Supporting Businesses © Commercial and Office E T I P Residential Village: Housing and Mixed -Use (with Guidelines for Design and Development) :L27 -90 112 Attachment No. PC 5 Airport Area Residential & Mixed Use Adjustment Factors sig 120 111, jj� 1111, 111 1 y F FOR TRAFFIC ANALYSES IN NEWPORT BEACH July 2009 Prepared by: Richard M. Edmonston, PE Approved by: Antony E�Brine, E City Traffic Engineer 121 The General Plan provides for the conversion of existing land uses in the area adjacent to John Wayne Airport to residential use on a traffic neutral basis. There is a cap of 1650 units that can be developed on a conversion basis in addition to 550 units allowed as infill development. It is necessary to have a standardized set of conversion rates in order for all conversions to occur in a consistent and fair manner. The General Plan also includes provisions for mixed-use development in several areas of the City. One benefit of mixed-use development is a reduction in traffic due to the interaction between the residential and non-residential uses. It is intended that this benefit be considered during the project approval process including traffic impact studies and transportation impact fees. Airport Area Conversions to Residential Land Use The predominant land use in the Airport Area is office along with commercial, industrial, and some research and development. Both the AM and PM peak hour trip rates from the Newport Beach Transportation Model (NBTM) were reviewed and the more conservative of the two was selected for determining the conversion factors shown in the table below. Conversion factors were developed for each of these uses converting to mid or high-rise residential usage. If a different residential use is proposed, the Model Trip Generation Rates in the appendices can be used to calculate the appropriate factors. During the General Plan Update a residential use known as high-rise apartment was evaluated. According to the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE), high-rise residential is ten stories or more in height and the trip rates were found by ITE to be more than 20% lower than those of regular apartment developments. The Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation publication also includes a mid -rise residential category which applies to residential buildings of between three and ten stories. This category also has peak hour trip generation rates more than 20% lower than ITE's Apartment category. The use of a 20% trip reduction factor provides a conservative estimate for both mid -rise and high-rise residential development and was applied to all residential entitlement in the Airport Area provided for in the General Plan Update due to the expectation that all residential development in this area of the City would be in buildings with three or more floors of residential use. 7/28/2009 1 122 The factors in the following table were developed using trip generation rates from the Newport Beach Transportation Model (NBTM) including adjustments for the 20% lower trip generation rate applied to residential development in the Airport Area. Airport Area Land Use Conversion Factors STARTING LAND USE UNITS ENDING LAND USE UNITS FACTOR General Office TSF Residential DU 2.29 DU/KSF Research & Development TSF Residential DU 1.49 DU/KSF General Commercial TSF Residential DU 5.40 DU/KSF Industrial TSF Residential DU 1.16 DU/KSF TSF = Thousand Square Feet DU = Dwelling Unit The following examples illustrate how the factors from the table would be used to determine the amount of existing use that would have to be removed to accommodate residential development generating the same amount of traffic during the critical peak hour. Example 1. Demolishing 200,000 s.f. of General Office would allow how many Residential units? Answer: 200 X 2.29 = 458 apartment units. Example 2. How much R&D would need to be demolished to permit 300 Residential units? Answer: 300 = 1.49 = 201.34 or 201,340 square feet. Mixed -Use Developments The General Plan allows for mixed-use development in several areas of the City. The Traffic Study for the General Plan utilized an adjustment factor to account for the reduction in trip generation associated with mixed-use development. The Traffic Study applied a ten percent (10%) reduction factor to both residential and non-residential trip 7/28/2009 tj 123 generation rates for new development in mixed-use areas with the exception of residential development in the Airport Area where the twenty percent (20%) trip reduction factor discussed above was applied to residential development. If an Airport Area project includes new, residential -serving commercial uses, the ten percent (10%) mixed-use trip reduction factor would apply to those uses. Because of the requirement that projects in the Airport Area be traffic neutral, the calculations for projects with both residential and residential -serving commercial uses, the calculations require either two steps and several iterations or simple algebra. The following example illustrates the two step process: Example: If a developer wishes to demolish an existing 225,000 s.f. general office building and develop 425 apartments, how many square feet of residential - serving commercial can be built? Answer: Begin by converting the square footage to be demolished to apartment units: 225,000 X 2.29 = 515.25 apartment units. Since only 425 units are proposed, the remaining 90.25 units worth of traffic can be converted using the General Commercial rate with a 10 percent mixed-use adjustment as follows: The conversion rate from the above table of 5.40 DU/KSF is reduced by 10% to 4.86 DU _ KFS and divided into the remaining number of eligible units: 90.25 _ 4.86 = 18.57 or 18,570 s.f. of residential -serving commercial can be developed.' This ten percent (10%) trip reduction factor should be applied to both residential and residential -serving commercial uses in future traffic studies for projects in the mixed-use areas (outside the Airport Area) specified by the General Plan if the projects are determined to meet the criteria for the mixed-use designation. Each project should be evaluated to ensure the quantities of residential and non-residential use are adequate to result in interaction between uses likely to achieve the anticipated trip reduction. Only new development is eligible for the mixed-use trip generation reduction factor. For example, if residential units are added in an area with existing commercial development, no credit can be taken for the potential reduction of commercial trips due to the proximity of the new residential development. The mixed-use trip reduction factor would apply to both single and multi -family development trip generation rates. Application of Trip Generation Reductions The City uses different sources of trip generation rates for different purposes such as the Traffic Phasing Ordinance and the Fair Share Fee. The trip generation rate factors discussed above are intended to be applied at all steps of project review, approval, and impact fee determination regardless of the source of the trip generation rates. 7/28/2009 3 124 Appendices The following pages were extracted from various documents prepared by Urban Crossroads during the General Plan Update process. Also included are pages from ITE's Trip Generation, 81h Edition documenting mid and high-rise residential trip generation rates. Together they provide supporting documentation for the statements and factors contained in this report. 7/28/2009 0 125 41 Corporate Park, Suite 300 Irvine, CA 92606 Prepared by: Carleton Waters, P.E. Marlie Whiteman, P.E. Archie Tan, E.I.T. Prepared for: Mr. Elwood Tescher EIP ASSOCIATES 12301 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 430 Los Angeles, CA 90025 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL PLAN TRANSPORTATION STUDY NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA March 22, 2006 JN:01232-32 CW:MW:mt 120 TABLE MODEL TRIP GENERATION RATES NBTM LAND USE CODE NBTM LAND USE DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNITS _ TRIP RATE AM PEAK HOUR PM_ PEAK HOUR IN OUT TOTAL IN OUT TOTAL DAILY 1 Res -Low (SFD)-Coastal 1 DU 0.19 0.50 10.69 0.41 0.27 0.69 7.50 1 Res -Low (SFD) 1 DU 0.21 0.64 0.84 0.49 0.30 0.79 8.63 2 Res -Medium -(SFA) -Coastal 1 DU 0.12 DAA 0.53 0.32 0,19 0.52 5.64 2 Res -Medium (SFA) 1 DU 0.13 0.55 0.68 0.40 0.21 0.61 6.66 3 Apartment -Coastal 1 DU 0.11 0.38 0.49 0.3i 0.19 0.49 5.37 3 Apartment 1 DU 0.12 0.4B 0.60 0.36 0..20 0.56 6.12 4 Elderly Residential 1 DU 0.11 0.29 0.40 0.27 0.18 0.45 4.90 5 Mobile Home -Coastal 1 DU 0.10 0.34 0.44 0.29 0.18 0.46 5.06 5 _ Mobile -Home 1 DU 0.11 0.45 0 56 '0.34 7.29 0.54 5.92 6 Motel 1.ROOM 0.40 0.13 0.53 0.23 0.34 0.57 6.08 7 Hotel 1' ROOM 0.51 0.17 0.68 0.28 0.43 0.71 7.58 9 Regional Commercial 1 TSF 1.14 0.49 1.64 0.93 1.25 2.18 23.48 10 General Commercial 1 TSF 1.78 0.80 2.59 1.53 2.02 3.55. 38.24 11 Comm./Re 1 ACRE' 2.12 0.80 2.92 1.42 2.04 3.46 37.07 13 Restaurant 1 TSF 2.39 1.07 3.46 2.05 2.70 4.75 51,18 15 1,6 Fast Food Restaurant Auto Dealer/Sales 1 1 TSF TSF 2.94 1.74 1.32 0.74 4,25 2.48 2,51 1.38 3.32 1.86 6.83 3.24 62,78 34.84 17 18 Yacht Club Health Club 1 1 TSF TSF 1.30 1.30 0.49 0.49 1.79 1.79 0.87 0.87 1.25 1.25 2.12 2.12 22.71 22.71 19 Tennis Club 1 CRT 1.35 0.54 1.89 0.98. 1.37 2.35 25.26 20 Marina 1 SLIP 0.12 0.05 0.17 0.09 0.13 0.22 2.39 21 22 Theater1 Newport Dunes 1 SEAT ACRE 0.02 0.96 0.01 0.03 0.01 0.80 0,02 1.06 0.03 1.86 0.34 20.02 23 24 26 General0(fce Medical Office R&D Industrial1 1 1 1 TSF TSF TSF TSF 0.84•1.10 1.14 0.57 0.48 NO.421.39 1.53 0.74 0.62 0.39 0.64 0.250.42 0.18 0.65 0.98 0.33 1.04 1.63 0.67 0.52 11.08 17.38 710 5.48 27 28 Mini-Storage/Warehouse Pre-School/Da Care 1 1 TSF TSF 0,40 2:08 0.51 2,73 0.16 1.04 0.28 1.68 0.43 2.72 4.61 29.05 29 Elements /Private School 1 STU 0.18 . 0120. 0.04 0.07 0.11 1.30 30 31 32 Junior/High School Cultural/Learning Center Library 1 1 1 STU TSF TSF 0.18 1.13 1.13 0.02 0.35 0.35 0.20 1.48 1.48 0.04 0.54 0.54 0,07 0.89 0.89 0.11 1.43 1.43 1.30 15.22 15.22 33 Post Office 1 TSF 1.54 0.49 2.03 0.78 1.25 2.03 21.63 34 35 Hospital Nursing/Conv. Home 1 1 BEDS BEDS 1.10 0.12 0.32 0.08 1.42 0.20 0.47 . 0.08 0.80 0.10 1.27 0.18 13.57 2.00 36 Church i TSF 0.48 0.14 0.62 0.21 0.36 0.57 6.09 37 Youth Ctr/Se vice 1 TSF 2.08 0.65 2.73 1.04 1.68 2.72 29.05 38 Park 1 ACRE 0.18 0.06 0.23 0.09 0.14 0.23 2.49 39 Regional Park 1 ACRE 0.18 D.06 D.23 0.09 0.14 0.23 2.49 40 Golf Course 1 41 Resort Golf Course 1 I P11 In InY.cl nl0nnlneoan�rn-._i_rrr-.__i_.� ACRE ACRE 0.27 0.27 0.10 0.10 0.37 0.37 0.17 0.17 0.25 0.25 0.42 0.42 4.55 4.55 www 1 cow % I UCa,q i UUdlculatur5.Xlsf Kaes 12j 3.0 MODEL TRIP GENERATION FOR SUBAREA LAND USE ALTERNATIVES This chapter documents trip generation for each subarea land use scenario identified for evaluation (existing, without project and with project) in this phase of the General Plan update process. Previously published analysis of a broader range of subarea land use alternatives identified by the General Plan Advisory Committee (GPAC) was then considered in identifying these subsequent alternatives. Full analysis with the traffic model has been run on two comprehensive future alternatives derived from the subarea data and overall City-wide data for the remainder of the City. Thirteen subarea land use tables were provided to Urban Crossroads, Inc. staff. Each table contains land use data quantities and comparisons for existing, without and With Project conditions for the subarea. Urban Crossroads, Inc. staff has extracted trip generation results directly from the Newport Beach Traffic Model (NBTM) for each subarea. Daily and peak hour trips have been computed. Higher trip generation/volume may not necessarily increase congestion. The effects are dependent on many other factors, including peaking characteristics of traffic, directional split, even quantity of cross -street traffic. 3.1 Trip Generation Rates and Adjustments This section provides information on trip generation characteristics unique to the City of Newport Beach and/or the types of land uses contemplated in the General Plan (including adjustments to some standard/typical rates). Coastal trip generation for residential land use is compared with general residential trip generation by type. Mixed use trip rate refinements are discussed. High-rise apartments trip generation rates are evaluated in comparison to typical apartments. Trip generation for the subarea alternatives has been extracted directly from the traffic model. 3-1 122 3.1.1 Coastal Trip Generation As the Newport Beach Traffic Model (NBTM) was developed, Urban Crossroads, Inc. staff determined (during model validation) that the traffic patterns/trip generation rates in the coastal areas were different from elsewhere in the City of Newport Beach. The initial Existing conditions (validation) traffic model volumes were higher in the coastal areas than the actual traffic count data. Specialized occupancy factors and trip rates were therefore developed for residential uses in the coastal areas during the validation process. The shoulder season (spring/fall) occupancy rate for typical City of Newport Beach residential uses is 95%. For Coastal areas, the estimated occupancy rate is 90%. For total AM, total PM, and Daily trip rates, the trip generation range in Coastal areas is between 79% and 88% of typical residential trip rates. The PM peak hour is the timeframe in which the highest number of operational deficiencies has been identified, and in the PM peak hour, the coastal trip rates are between 85% and 87% of typical trip rates. 3.1.2 Mixed Use Developments Mixed use development is being contemplated in the General plan With Project scenario. Mixed use is anticipated in 8 of the 12 subareas, including: ® Airport Area ® Balboa Village • Cannery Village ® Lido Village ® Mariners Mile ® McFadden Square C Newport Center 9 Old Newport Boulevard 3-2 129 Based on research presented in this chapter, ten percent (10%) for both residential and commercial components of the proposed mixed use developments represent a conservative reduction in trip generation. Mixed use trip generation information and research compiled by Urban Crossroads, Inc. has been included as Appendix "U". Information has been gathered from sampling done by ITE and documented in Trip Generation, 51h Edition (ITE, 1991). More recent versions of ITE's Trip Generation do not include information on mixed use sites. There are two examples of mixed use developments containing residential uses in the 5th Edition. Internal capture (the proportion of traffic that would typically be generated, then distributed to the surrounding system that is instead served on-site as a result of the land use mix) has been identified. The first example contains 606 dwelling units and 64,000 square feet of commercial/office. The internal capture rates are 27% for the PM peak hour and 17% for the daily. The second example is for a larger site, with 2,300 dwelling units and over 160 thousand square feet of total commercial, office, restaurant, and medical center uses. This site also includes schools, a church, and a day-care center. The internal capture for this site is substantially higher (45% or more for all time periods). An additional data resource was the Santa Monica Civic Center study. The Santa Monica Civic Center study included a 50% reduction for the retail component, but no reduction was done on other uses. The net result in the analysis was an overall reduction of approximately 10%. A final data resource consulted was the San Diego Association of Governments trip generation handbook. The San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) trip generation handbook suggests up to a 10% reduction. 3-3 ISO Based on the examples cited, an adjustment factor of 10% of traffic for mixed uses will provide a conservative representation of trip generation. The factor is applied in cases where the land use has been defined as mixed use development. Where both the mixed use and coastal factors are applicable, only one is applied to avoid overstating trip generation benefits. Later sections of this report will discuss individual sub -area land use representation. Sample mixed use calculations showing internal capture are contained in Appendix "V". Sample calculations for Balboa Village reveal that 11-12% internal capture is predicted. Therefore, 10% is conservative. Sample calculations have been prepared to show the effect of introducing residential uses to a commercial and office environment. The introduction of residential uses results in an expected internal capture of 14%, greater than the 10% used in mixed use calculations for this study. In the Airport Area, the 20% high rise apartment reduction has been applied, with no accompanying reduction for mixed use. To assist with land use planning refinements in mixed use areas, conversion factors have been developed from the model trip generation rates. Table 3-1 contains the results of this analysis for the PM peak period. As shown in Table 3-1, for the PM peak hour, a reduction of one single-family detached residence allows 220 square feet of commercial without an increase in trip generation. A transfer the other direction (from commercial to single-family detached residential) could be performed to increase dwelling units by 4.49 for every thousand square feet of commercial lost. Similar conversion factors are included for single-family attached and apartment residential uses. The factors presented in Table 3-1 are related to the PM peak period (consistent with other trip generation calculations for Newport Beach modeling purposes). Conversion factors could potentially be related to 3-4 131 TABLE 3-1 CONVERSION FACTORS BASED ON PM TOTAL ONLY STARTING LAND USE UNITS ENDING LAND USE UNITS CONVERSION FAG I UN Res -Low (SFD) DU General Commercial TSF 0.22 Res -Medium (SFA) DU General Commercial TSF 0.17 Apartment General Commercial DU TSF General Commercial Res -Low (SFD) TSF DU 0.16 4.49 General Commercial TSF Res -Medium (SFA) DU 5.82 General Commercial TSF Apartment DU 6.32 ' TSF = thousand square feet DU =Dwelling Units U:U1cJobs\ 01200\01232\Excel\[01232-32.xlsIT3-1 3-5 132 daily traffic or AM peak hour, or a subset of AM or PM peak hour total. These factors are included in Table 3-2. The worst case conversion for each type of residential use is included in Table 3-3. To provide the most conservative conversion, AM peak hour inbound rates should govern for converting residential uses to commercial (approximately 70 to 120 square feet per dwelling unit). To convert from commercial to residential using the worst case conversion factor, the AM outbound should be used (and 1.25 to 1.67 units would result from a reduction of 1 thousand square feet of commercial). 3.1.3 High -Rise Apartments High-rise apartments are a special apartment use. As defined by ITE Trip Generation Manual, 7th edition (2003), high-rise apartments have more than 10 floors and typically include one or two elevators. Trip Generation rates for high-rise apartments are compared to general apartment trip generation rates in Table 3-4. As shown in Table 3-4, the ratio of trip generation for high-rise apartments to apartments ranges from 0.56 to 0.63 trips, depending on the time period. Because the ITE rates show a trip reduction of 37 to 43%, the reduction factor of 20% used for high-rise apartments in this General Plan analysis is conservative. 3.2 Subarea Land Use Alternatives Trip Generation Summaries Exhibit 3-A depicts the various subareas where detailed land use alternatives have been evaluated. 3.2.1 Airport Area The With Project scenario contains a total of approximately 4,300 residential units developed at urban densities. There is no residential component for the Existing or Without Project (currently adopted General 3-6 233 TABLE 3-2 OVERALL MIXED USE CONVERSION FACTORS STARTING LAND USE UNITS` ENDING LAND USE UNITS PEAK HOUR AM PM IN JOUTITOTAL IN OUT TOTAL DAILY Res -Low (SFD) Res -Medium (SFA) DU DU General Commercial General Commercial TSF TSF 0.12 0.07 0.80 -0.681 0.33 0.26 0.32 0.26 0.15 0.11 0.22 0.17 0.23 ! 0.17 Apartment General Commercial DU TSF General Commercial Res -Low (SFD) TSF DU 0.D7 8.68 0.60 1.25 0.23 1 3.06 0.24 3.12 0.10 6.71 1 0.16 4.49 0.16 4.43 General Commercial TSF Res -Medium (SFA) DU 13.94 1.46 3.83 3.87 9.42 5.82 5.74 General Commercial TSF Apartment DU 14.66 1.67 1 4.29 4.25 10.D5 6.32 6.24 Z TSF =thousand square feet DU =Dwelling Units U AU eJ obs\_01200\01232Excel\(01232-32.xisjT3-2 3-7 134 TABLE 3-3 ABSOLUTE WORST CASE CONVERSION FACTORS �eTell�L+�i�4�e r - STARTING LAND USE UNITS' ENDING LAND USE UNITS n DIRECTION FACTOR Res -Low (SFD) DU General Commercial TSF AM IN 0.12 Res -Medium (SFA) DU General Commercial TSF AM IN 0.07 Apartment DU General Commercial TSF AM IN 0.07 General Commercial TSF Res -Low (SFD) DU AM OU7 1.25 General Commercial 1 TSF Res -Medium (SFA) DU AM OUT 1.46 General Commercial 1 TSF jApartment DU AM OUT 1.67 z TSF =thousand square feet DU = Dwelling Units U:\UcJobs\_01200\01232\Excel\[01232-32.xlsIT3-3 3-g 135 Mid -Rose Apartment (223) Average Vehicle Trip Ends vs: Dwelling Units On a: Weekday, Peak Hour of Adjacent Street Traffic, One Hour Between 7 and 9 a.m. Number of Studies: 7 Avg. Number of Dwelling Units: 120 Directional Distribution: 31% entering, 69% exiting rip Generation per Dwelling Unit Average Rate Range of Rates Standard Deviation 0.30 0.06 - 0.46 0.56 uaia riot ana 2 90 20 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180 190 200 210 220 230 X = Number of Dwelling Units Actual Data Points Fitted Curve ------ Average Rate Fitted Curve Equation: T = 0.41(X) - 13.06 R2 = 0.83 IS Mid -Rise Apartment (223) Average Vehicle Trip Ends vs: Dwelling Units On a: Weekday, Peak Hour of Adjacent Street Traffic, One Hour Between 4 and 6 p.m. Number of Studies: 7 Avg. Number of Dwelling Units: 120 Directional Distribution: 58% entering, 42% exiting rip Generation per uwelnng unit Average Rate Range of Rates Standard Deviation – — — 0.39 0.15 - 0.54 0.63 Data Plot and Equation 50 60 70 80 90 too 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180 190 200 210 220 230 X = Number of Dwelling Units X Actual Data Points Fitted Curve ------ Average Rate Fitted Curve Equation: T = 0.48(X) - 11.07 R2 = 0.89 Trip Generation, 8th Edition 382 Institute of Transportation Engineers -IS7 High -Rise Apartment (222) Average Vehicle Trip Ends vs: Dwelling Units On a: Weekday, Peak Hour of Adjacent Street Traffic, One Hour Between 7 and 9 a.m. Number of Studies: 17 Avg. Number of Dwelling Units: 420 Directional Distribution: 25% entering, 75% exiting Trip Generation per Dwelling Unit Average Rate Range of Rates Standard Deviation 0.30 0.18 0.47 0.55 uata riot anu tquauon 400 ,----.—_.- 300-j ... .......... I o----—r----�� 1- 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 X = Number of Dwelling Units X Actual Data Points Fitted Curve ------ Average Rate Fitted Curve Equation: Ln(T) = 0.99 Ln(X) - 1.14 R2 = 0.88 Trip Generation, 8th Edition 370 Institute of Transportation Engineers 2��- g High -Rise Apartment (222) .Average Vehicle Trip Ends vs: Dwelling Units On a: Weekday, Peak Hour of Adjacent Street Traffic, One Hour Between 4 and 6 p.m. Number of Studies: 17 Avg. Number of Dwelling Units: 420 Directional Distribution: 61% entering, 39% exiting i rip uenerauon per Dweurng Unit Average Rate Range of Rates Standard Deviation 0.35 0.23 - 0.50 0.59 uata riot ana tquation 400 300 a 100 0 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 X = Number of Dwelling Units X Actual Data Points Fitted Curve ------ Average Rate Fitted Curve Equation: T = 0.32(X) + 12.30 R2 = 0.92 Trip Generation, 0th Edition 371 Institute of Transportation Engineers 140 Attachment No. PC 6 General Plan Land Use Element Figure LU 23 141 142 CITY of NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL PLAN Figure LU23 AIRPORT AREA RESIDENTIAL VILLAGES ILLUSTRATIVE CONCEPT DIAGRAM Legend OPPORTUNITY SITES - PROPOSED OPEN SPACES S IMPROVED RESIDENTIAL STREETS PROPOSED RESIDENTIALSTREETS PROPOSED PEDESTRIAN WAYS • �. 65 CNEL NOISE CONTOUR` CONCEPTUAL PLAN REQUIRED The 65 CNEL Noise Contour is shown for illustrative purposes only. Souroe: ROMA Oesigo Gru, PROJECT NUMBER: 10579-01 Osie: Oi -1 4.3 W Attachment No. PC 7 Lot Line Adjustment 145 140 EXHIBIT "A" SHEET 1 OF 7 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT NO. LA 2018 - 004 (LEGAL DESCRIPTION) EXISTING PARCELS PROPOSED PARCELS OWNERS AP NUMBER REFERENCE NUMBER STARBOARD MACARTHUR SQUARE, LP. 427-172-02 PARCEL 1 STARBOARD MACARTHUR SQUARE, LP. 427-172-03 PARCEL 2 STARBOARD MACARTHUR SQUARE, LP. 427-172-05 & 06 PARCEL 3 PARCEL 1: LOT 1 OF TRACT NO. 7770, IN THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH, COUNTY OF ORANGE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AS PER MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 299, PAGES 15 AND 16 OF MISCELLANEOUS MAPS, TOGETHER WITH THOSE PORTIONS OF PARCELS 1 AND 2 AS SHOWN ON A MAP FILED IN BOOK 53, PAGE 13 OF PARCEL MAPS, BOTH IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: COMMENCING AT THE CENTERLINE INTERSECTION OF CORINTHIAN WAY AND MARTINGALE DRIVE, AS SHOWN ON SAID TRACT NO. 7770, THENCE ALONG SAID CENTERLINE OF MARTINGALE DRIVE SOUTH 06'59'31" EAST 495.91 FEET; THENCE LEAVING SAID CENTERLINE SOUTH 8555'37" WEST 34.84 FEET TO THE WESTERLY LINE OF SAID MARTINGALE DRIVE AS SHOWN ON SAID TRACT NO. 7770, SAID POINT BEING ON A NON-TANGENT CURVE, CONCAVE WESTERLY, HAVING A RADIUS OF 90.00 FEET, A RADIAL LINE THROUGH SAID POINT BEARS SOUTH 89'21'49" EAST; THENCE NORTHERLY ALONG SAID CURVE 11.98 FEET THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 07'37'42; THENCE NORTH 06'59'31" WEST 14.65 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT BEGINNING; THENCE LEAVING SAID WESTERLY LINE OF MARTINGALE DRIVE SOUTH 85'55'37" WEST 324.79 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 42'56'12" WEST 51.51 FEET TO A POINT ON A NON-TANGENT CURVE, CONCAVE SOUTHWESTERLY, HAVING A RADIUS OF 634.00 FEET, A RADIAL LINE THROUGH SAID POINT BEARS NORTH 47'59'42" EAST; THENCE NORTHWESTERLY ALONG SAID CURVE 81.22 FEET THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 07'20'25"; THENCE NORTH 49'20'43" WEST 217.66 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A CURVE, CONCAVE EASTERLY, HAVING A RADIUS OF 15.00 FEET; THENCE NORTHWESTERLY, NORTHERLY, AND NORTHEASTERLY ALONG SAID CURVE 23.56 FEET THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 90'00'00" TO THE SOUTHEASTERLY LINE OF SCOTT DRIVE AS SHOWN ON SAID TRACT NO. 7770; THENCE ALONG SAID SOUTHEASTERLY LINE NORTH 40'39'17" EAST 486.55 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A CURVE, CONCAVE SOUTHERLY, HAVING A RADIUS OF 15.00 FEET; THENCE NORTHEASTERLY, EASTERLY, AND SOUTHEASTERLY ALONG SAID CURVE 19.22 FEET THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 7323'53" TO THE SOUTHWESTERLY LINE OF SAID CORINTHIAN WAY; THENCE ALONG SAID SOUTHWESTERLY LINE SOUTH 65'56'50" EAST 204.85 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A CURVE, CONCAVE SOUTHWESTERLY, HAVING A RADIUS OF 15.00 FEET; THENCE SOUTHEASTERLY ALONG SAID CURVE 15.43 FEET THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 5857'19" TO THE WESTERLY LINE OF SAID MARTINGALE STREET; THENCE ALONG SAID WESTERLY LINE SOUTH 06'59'31" EAST 439.84 FEET THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING. CONTAINING 5.080 ACRES. JN:1618-001-01 147 EXHIBIT "A" SHEET 2 OF 7 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT NO. LA 2018 - 004 (LEGAL DESCRIPTION) EXISTING PARCELS PROPOSED PARCELS OWNERS AP NUMBER REFERENCE NUMBER STARBOARD MACARTHUR SQUARE, LP. 427-172-02 PARCEL 1 STARBOARD MACARTHUR SQUARE, LP. 427-172-03 PARCEL 2 STARBOARD MACARTHUR SQUARE, LP. 427-172-05 & 06 PARCEL 3 PARCEL 2: THAT PORTION OF PARCEL 1, IN THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH, COUNTY OF ORANGE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AS SHOWN ON A MAP FILED IN BOOK 53, PAGE 13 OF PARCEL MAPS, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: COMMENCING AT THE CENTERLINE INTERSECTION OF CORINTHIAN WAY AND MARTINGALE DRIVE, AS SHOWN ON TRACT NO. 7770, RECORDED IN BOOK 299, PAGES 15 AND 16, IN THE OFFICE OF SAID COUNTY RECORDER; THENCE ALONG SAID CENTERLINE OF MARTINGALE DRIVE SOUTH 06'59'31" EAST 495.91 FEET; THENCE LEAVING SAID CENTERLINE SOUTH 85'55'37" WEST 34.84 FEET TO THE WESTERLY LINE OF SAID MARTINGALE DRIVE AS SHOWN ON SAID TRACT NO. 7770 AND THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE LEAVING SAID WESTERLY LINE SOUTH 85'55'37" WEST 15.96 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A CURVE, CONCAVE SOUTHEASTERLY, HAVING A RADIUS OF 1.50 FEET; THENCE WESTERLY, SOUTHWESTERLY, AND SOUTHERLY ALONG SAID CURVE 2.36 FEET THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 90'00'00"; THENCE SOUTH 04'04'23" EAST 16.50 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 85'55'37" WEST 52.00 FEET; THENCE NORTH 04'04'23" WEST 16.50 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A CURVE, CONCAVE SOUTHWESTERLY, HAVING A RADIUS OF 1.50 FEET; THENCE NORTHERLY, NORTHWESTERLY, AND WESTERLY ALONG SAID CURVE 2.36 FEET THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 90'00'00'; THENCE SOUTH 85'55'37" WEST 74.00 FEET; THENCE NORTH 04'04'23" WEST 26.60 FEET; THENCE NORTH 85'55'37" EAST 144.40 FEET TO SAID WESTERLY LINE OF MARTINGALE DRIVE; THENCE SOUTH 06'59'31" EAST 14.65 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A CURVE, CONCAVE EASTERLY, HAVING A RADIUS OF 90.00 FEET; THENCE SOUTHERLY ALONG SAID WESTERLY LINE AND CURVE 11.98 FEET THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 07'37'42" TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING. CONTAINING 0.110 ACRES. PARCEL 3: PORTIONS OF PARCEL 1 AND 2, IN THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH, COUNTY OF ORANGE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AS SHOWN ON A MAP FILED IN BOOK 53, PAGE 13 OF PARCEL MAPS, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID ORANGE COUNTY, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS. COMMENCING AT THE CENTERLINE INTERSECTION OF CORINTHIAN WAY AND MARTINGALE DRIVE, AS SHOWN ON TRACT NO. 7770, RECORDED IN BOOK 299, PAGES 15 AND 16, IN THE OFFICE OF SAID COUNTY RECORDER; THENCE ALONG SAID CENTERLINE OF MARTINGALE DRIVE SOUTH 06'59'31" EAST 495.91 FEET; 142 EXHIBIT "A" SHEET 3 OF 7 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT NO. LA 2018 - 004 (LEGAL DESCRIPTION) EXISTING PARCELS PROPOSED PARCELS OWNERS AP NUMBER REFERENCE NUMBER STARBOARD MACARTHUR SQUARE, LP. 427-172-02 PARCEL 1 STARBOARD MACARTHUR SQUARE, LP. 427-172-03 PARCEL 2 STARBOARD MACARTHUR SQUARE, LP. 427-172-05 & 06 PARCEL 3 PARCEL 3 (CONTINUED) THENCE LEAVING SAID CENTERLINE SOUTH 85'55'37" WEST 34.84 FEET TO THE WESTERLY LINE OF SAID MARTINGALE DRIVE AS SHOWN ON SAID TRACT NO. 7770 AND TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE LEAVING SAID WESTERLY LINE SOUTH 85'55'37" WEST 15.96 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A CURVE, CONCAVE SOUTHEASTERLY, HAVING A RADIUS OF 1.50 FEET; THENCE WESTERLY, SOUTHWESTERLY, AND SOUTHERLY 2.36 FEET THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 90'00'00"; THENCE SOUTH 04'04'23" EAST 16.50 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 8555'37" WEST 52.00 FEET; THENCE NORTH 04'04'23" WEST 16.50 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A CURVE, CONCAVE SOUTHWESTERLY, HAVING A RADIUS OF 1.50 FEET; THENCE NORTHERLY, NORTHWESTERLY, AND WESTERLY 2.36 FEET THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 90'00'00'; THENCE SOUTH 85'55'37" WEST 74.00 FEET; THENCE NORTH 04'04'23" WEST 26.60 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 8555'37" WEST 180.39 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 42'56'12" WEST 51.51 FEET TO THE NORTHEASTERLY LINE OF DOVE STREET AS SHOWN ON SAID TRACT NO. 7770, SAID POINT ALSO BEING A POINT ON A NON—TANGENT CURVE, CONCAVE SOUTHWESTERLY, HAVING A RADIUS OF 634.00 FEET, A RADIAL LINE THROUGH SAID POINT BEARS NORTH 47'59'42" EAST; THENCE SOUTHEASTERLY ALONG SAID NORTHEASTERLY LINE AND CURVE 52.47 FEET THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 04'44'31" TO THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF SAID PARCEL 1; THENCE ALONG SAID SOUTHERLY LINE NORTH 85'55'37" EAST 319.97 FEET TO SAID WESTERLY UNE OF MARTINGALE, SAID POINT ALSO BEING A POINT ON A NON—TANGENT CURVE, CONCAVE EASTERLY, HAVING A RADIUS OF 50.00 FEET, A RADIAL LINE THROUGH SAID POINT BEARS SOUTH 85'56'14" WEST; THENCE ALONG SAID WESTERLY LINE AND CURVE 21.58 FEET THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 24'43'53" TO A POINT OF REVERSE CURVE HAVING A RADIUS OF 90.00 FEET, A RADIAL LINE THROUGH SAID POINT BEARS NORTH 6919'53" WEST, THENCE NORTHEASTERLY AND NORTHERLY ALONG SAID CURVE 31.47 FEET THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 20'01'56" TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING. CONTAINING 0.500 ACRES. FAA �0�51- s THIS DOCUMENT WAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECTION. 9/07/2018 f� ry No. 7854 r KURT R. TROXELL, L.S. 7854 DATE:o� Op CA1.aS 149 EXHIBIT ABA SHEET 4 OF 7 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT NO. LA 2018 - 004 (MAP) EXISTING PARCELS PROPOSED PARCELS OWNERS AP NUMBER REFERENCE NUMBER STARBOARD MACARTHUR SQUARE, LP. 427-172-02 PARCEL 1 STARBOARD MACARTHUR SQUARE, LP. 427-172-03 PARCEL 2 STARBOARD MACARTHUR SQUARE, LP. 427-172-05 & 06 PARCEL 3 LEGEND: NOTES: 1) SEE SHEET 5 FOR DATA TABLES. EXISTING PROPERTY LOT LINE 2) SEE SHEET 7 FOR EASEMENT NOTES. NEW LOT LINE — — LOT LINE TO BE REMOVED — — RIGHT OF WAY LINE — CENTERLINE - — — — — — - EASEMENT LINE 6Y,q�, P.O.C. C3 ® DENOTES PLOTTED EASEMENT /QJ ?� S6SS¢8S' ssoF ,/ 2 TRACT N0, 7770 C4 MIA, 209/15-16 ^�° LOT I a W / \�, 3 T I SCALE: 1"=120' /— �_ M m P.M.B. 63/13 PARCEL 1 ;n d C2 o I PARCEL 2 5.080 AC. \W O ^�° �sry, / P.M.3. 53113 34 Q I w a 0 �,?0 PARCEL 1 PARCEL 2 g I \ / 0.110 AC.Lo o ------ — --� cF 77�69-79S3�Y I 5 cl PARCEL 3 NL F -AA?? �5ti��pp1 \ 0.500 AC. C6 �p N85`55'37"E 319.97' `S85µ56'14"W SEE SHEET 5 9 Ido. ?854 �•` V 9/07/2018 ltp� c KURT R. TROXELL, L.S. 7854 DATE: 150 EXHIBIT ABA SHEET 5 OF 7 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT NO. LA 2018 - 004 (MAP) EXISTING PARCELS PROPOSED PARCELS STARBOARD MACARTHUR SQUARE, LP. NO. 427-172-02 PARCEL 1 STARBOARD MACARTHUR SQUARE, LP. S85'55'37"W 427-172-03 PARCEL 2 STARBOARD MACARTHUR SQUARE, LP. 16.50' 427-172-05 & 06 PARCEL 3 LEGEND: EXISTING PROPERTY LOT LINE NEW LOT LINE LOT LINE TO BE REMOVED RIGHT OF WAY LINE CENTERLINE SCALE: 1"=60' PARCELI 5.080 AC. S85'55'37"W 324.79' 180.39' PARCEL 2 PARCEL 3 J 0.110 Ac. 0.500 AC. .00' S85*55'37"W SE'LY LINE PCL 1 WILY LINE OF MARTINGALE DRIVE WILY LINE DOVE STREET 319. T.P.O.B. PCL 1 S_89'21'49_ "E (RAD) 585'55'37"W LINE TABLE DATA NO. BEARING LENGTH Li S85°55'37"W 3 4.84' L2 S85'55'37"W 15.96' L3 SO4'04'23"E 16.50' L4 N04'04'23"W 16.50' L5 N04°04'23"W 26.60' L6 N06-59'31 "W 14.65' 319. T.P.O.B. PCL 1 S_89'21'49_ "E (RAD) 585'55'37"W °' w Lo > Id0 w M a� W ;n J co Q NI z C11� Q -T.P.O.B. PCL 2 & PCL 3 '9.1,, I 585'56'14"W \ (RAD) 151 CURVE DATA NO. DELTA RADIUS LENGTH Cl 12'04'56" 634.00' 133.69' C2 90°00'00" 15.00' 23.56' C3 73'23'53" 15.00' 19.22' C4 58'57'19" 15.00' 15.43' C5 27°39'38" 90.00' 43.45' C6 24'43'53" 50.00' 21.58' C7 90°00'00" 1.50' 2.36' C8 90'00'00" 1.50' 2.36' C9 04'44'31" 634.00' 52.47' C10 20'01'56" 90.00' 31.47' C11 07'37'42" 90.00' 11.98' C12 07°20'25" 634.00' 81.22' °' w Lo > Id0 w M a� W ;n J co Q NI z C11� Q -T.P.O.B. PCL 2 & PCL 3 '9.1,, I 585'56'14"W \ (RAD) 151 EXHIBIT 'C' SHEET 6 OF 7 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT NO. LA 2018 - 004 (SITE PLAN) EXISTING PARCELS PROPOSED PARCELS OWNERS AP NUMBER REFERENCE NUMBER STARBOARD MACARTHUR SQUARE, LP. 427-172-02 PARCEL 1 STARBOARD MACARTHUR SQUARE, LP. 427-172-03 PARCEL 2 STARBOARD MACARTHUR SQUARE, LP. 427-172-05 & 06 PARCEL 3 LEGEND: NOTES: 1) SEE SHEET 7 FOR EASEMENT NOTES. EXISTING PROPERTY LOT LINE 2) BUILDINGS SHOWN TO BE DEMOLISHED. NEW LOT LINE Cv — — LOT LINE TO BE REMOVED — — RIGHT OF WAY LINE — CENTERLINE — — — EASEMENT LINE ® DENOTES PLOTTED EASEMENT OQ� \\\ RKI/G// \ /. 4 \ \\ 2 \ ACT NO. — \\\ o 1vi,M. 209//516 — _ \\ �o LOT /— W fi >- / MRC SCALE: 1"=120' 4 — PARCEL 1 — — a- ✓B. \�\/\\\\\ \\\\ 53/1 RCeL 2 i -ul 4 \ ® a NGo�Q / �P R \ — z 4 Q /RING 1 /0 — PARCEL 2 A14Hi 4 I NL EAA'o G� `�' �• rRp o • 9 .854 L �6 O SOS 9/07/2018 F CA1,1 KURT R. TROXELL, L.S. 7854 DATE: 152 EXHIBIT 'C' SHEET 7 OF 7 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT NO. LA 2018 - 004 (EASEMENT NOTES) EXISTING PARCELS PROPOSED PARCELS OWNERS AP NUMBER REFERENCE NUMBER STARBOARD MACARTHUR SQUARE, LP. 427-172-02 PARCEL 1 STARBOARD MACARTHUR SQUARE, LP. 427-172-03 PARCEL 2 STARBOARD MACARTHUR SQUARE, LP. 427-172-05 & 06 PARCEL 3 EASEMENTS: 1. A PERPETUAL AIR OR FLIGHT EASEMENT, FROM OR TO THE ORANGE COUNTY AIRPORT, SAID EASEMENTS AND RIGHTS BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AND DEFINED IN AND GRANTED TO THE COUNTY OF ORANGE BY DEED RECORDED MARCH 17, 1964 IN BOOK 6965, PAGE 721, OFFICIAL RECORDS, UPON THE TERMS, COVENANTS AND CONDITIONS THEREIN. THE PLANES ABOVE WHICH SAID EASEMENT LIES ARE MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED IN SAID DEED AND SHOWN ON A MAP THEREIN REFERRED TO. NOTE: SAID EASEMENT IS BLANKET IN NATURE AND NOT PLOTTABLE Q2 AN EASEMENT FOR INGRESS AND EGRESS AND INCIDENTAL PURPOSES IN THE DOCUMENT RECORDED SEPTEMBER 08, 1972 AS BOOK 10316, PAGE 114 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS. 03 AN EASEMENT FOR UNDERGROUND LINES AND INCIDENTAL PURPOSES, RECORDED AS BOOK 10571, PAGE 384 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS. IN FAVOR OF: SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY, A CORPORATION AFFECTS: PARCEL A, AS DESCRIBED THEREIN NOTE: THE TERMS, PROVISIONS AND CONDITIONS CONTAINED IN A DOCUMENT ENTITLED "CONSENT TO BUILDING ENCROACHMENT", EXECUTED BY AND BETWEEN SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY AND MACARTHUR SQUARE, A GENERAL PARTNERSHIP, RECORDED JUNE 19, 1990 AS INSTRUMENT NO. 90-323807 OFFICIAL RECORDS. COVENANTS, CONDITIONS, RESTRICTIONS AND EASEMENTS IN THE DOCUMENT RECORDED AS BOOK 11170, PAGE 232 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS. DOCUMENT(S) DECLARING MODIFICATIONS THEREOF RECORDED AS BOOK 11454, PAGE 820 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS. ® DENOTES PLOTTED EASEMENT 153 157 Attachment No. PC 8 Affordable Housing Implementation Plan 155 150 NEWPORT CROSSINGS AFFORDABLE HOUSING IMPLEMENTATION PLAN AND DENSITY BONUS APPLICATION RESUBMITTED AUGUST 28, 2018 Prepared by Springbrook„ l' Realty Advisors, Inc. 157 NEWPORT CROSSINGS AFFORDABLE HO USING IMPLEMENTA TION PLAN AND DENSITY BONUS APPLICA TION AUGUST 28, 2018 Project Description & Affordability Level Starboard Realty Partners, LLC ("Starboard") is proposing the Newport Crossings mixed-use development on a 5.19 net acre site located in the Newport Place Planned Community. The site is generally bounded by Corinthian Way to the northeast, Martingale Way to the east, Scott Drive to the northwest, and Dove Street to the southwest. The Newport Beach General Plan designates the project site as Mixed -Use Horizontal 2 (MU -112) and the zoning is Planned Community 11, Newport Place (PC 11). The site is developed as a shopping center with multiple tenants; the shopping center is currently occupied by only a few remaining tenants. The Newport Crossings development will consist of 350 residential units and 7,500 square feet of commercial space to be developed on the site. Adjacent to the site Starboard intends to dedicate a 0.5 -acre public park to the City of Newport Beach in compliance with the Development Standards (defined below). The Newport Place Development Standards ("Development Standards") provide for a maximum residential density of 50 dwelling units per acre. The project is planned to consist of 259 units based on the current maximum residential density per the Development Standards (`Base" units) and 91 density bonus units. The Development Standards also provide that 30 percent of the Base units within a residential development shall be affordable to Lower Income households. Lower Income Households, as defined in California Health and Safe Code Section 50079.5, are defined as households earning 80 percent or less of area median income, adjusted for family size. The affordable housing requirement for this project is 78 units (30% of 259 Base units). Eligibility for Density Bonus and Compliance with Newport Place Development Standards Affordability Requirements In order to meet most of the project's affordable housing requirements, Starboard will be providing 52 units (20% of Base units) affordable to Lower Income households ("Required Density Bonus Lower Income Units"). This will comply with the provisions of Government Code Section 65915 and Section 20.32 of the City's Zoning Code applicable to a 35% density bonus and will also provide a majority of the affordable units required by the Newport Place Development Standards. Rents for the Required Density Bonus Lower Income Units will be computed in accordance with Health and Safety Code Sec. 50053, as required by Government Code Section 65915(c)(1). To meet the remainder of the affordable units required by the Development Standards, the project will provide 26 units affordable to Lower Income households ("Development Standards Additional Lower Income Units"). Rents for those units will be computed based on income limits for Lower Income households, as published annually by the Department of Housing and Community Development. 1 RM Newport Crossings Affordable Housing Plan August 28, 2018 Density Bonus Computation and Term of Affordability The density bonus computation for the project per Government Code Section 65915 is shown below: Table 1 Density Bonus Computation Net Acres 5.19 Allowable Density 50 per acre Allowable Units Utilized Before Density Bonus 259 Density Bonus Utilized (35%) 91 Total Units 350 Starboard intends to operate the apartment project as a rental community. The 52 Required Density Bonus Lower Income Units will remain rent restricted for a minimum of 55 years, per Government Code Section 65915(c)(1), well in excess of the 30 -year affordability term set forth in the Development Standards. Rents for the 26 Development Standards Additional Affordable Units will remain restricted for the required 30 -year term. Reduction in Parking The Newport Crossings project meets the criteria of subdivision (b) of Government Code Sec. 65915 and Section 20.32.030 of the City's Zoning Code by providing more than ten percent (10%) of the total units of a housing development (excluding any units permitted by the density bonus awarded pursuant to that section) for Lower Income households. Government Code Section 65915(p) and Section 20.32.040 of the City's Zoning Code provides the following: (1) Upon the request of the developer, no city, county, or city and county shall require a vehicular parking ratio, inclusive of handicapped and guest parking, of a development meeting the criteria of subdivision (b), that exceeds the following ratios: a. Zero to one bedrooms: one onsite parking space. b. Two to three bedrooms: two onsite parking spaces. (2) If the total number of parking spaces required for a development is other than a whole number, the number shall be rounded up to the next whole number. For purposes of this subdivision, a development may provide "onsite parking" through tandem parking or uncovered parking, but not through streetparking. zs9 Newport Crossings Affordable Housing Plan August 28, 2018 Table 2 below is a summary of Government Code Sec. 65915 parking requirements vs. spaces to be provided: Table 2 Parkinn Rea uirements owtV70M Number of Units Stalls/Unit Per Gov. Code 65915 Total Stalls Per Gov. Code 65915 Studio 29 1.0 29 l BR 197 1.0 197 2 BR 124 2.0 248 TOTAL PARKING STALLS REQUMM - 350 1.4 r 474 RESIDINTIAL UNITS TOTAL PARKING STALLS PROVIDED- 661 RES IDINTIAL UNM' PARKING PROVIDED IN EXCESS OF 187 M QW MRFQUME"FNTS Parking Provided for Retail/Leasing 79 TOTAL PARKING STALLS PROVIDED 740 1. Includes 6 EVCS stalls. Starboard requests that parking requirements be calculated in accordance with Government Code Sec. 65915(p). As shown above, the project will provide 661 onsite parking spaces for its residential units which is 187 spaces in excess of the requirements of Sec. 65915 (p). Development Incentive Request Pursuant to Government Code Section 65915(d)(1) and Section 20.32 of the City's Zoning Code, Starboard is entitled to two concessions or incentives as a result of providing at least twenty percent (20%) of the units as affordable for Lower Income households. Starboard requests the following development incentive: Section V.F.1 of the Development Standards provide that "Affordable units shall reflect the range of numbers of bedrooms provided in the residential development project as a whole." Starboard requests that the 78 Lower Income units be provided utilizing the unit mixes as shown on the following page: 2 100 Newport Crossings Affordable Housing Plan August 28, 2018 Table 3 Unit Mix As required by Government Code Sec. 65915(d)(1)(A), this incentive will result in additional rental income for the project as well as construction cost reductions for the affordable units, which will provide for the affordable rents to be set in accordance with Government Code Sec. 65915(c)(1). Starboard reserves the right to request the second incentive or concession in the future. Development Standards Waiver Request Government Code Sec. 65915(e)(1) provides that a city or county may not apply any development standard (including height limits) that will have the effect of physically precluding the construction of a density bonus project at the density permitted under the density bonus statute. For the Newport Crossings project, certain features are required to project beyond the 55 -foot height limit set forth by Section V.A. of the Development Standards. Those features are: 1. Stair towers - the Building Code and Newport Beach Fire Department require stair towers that extend to the roof. 2. Elevator over runs - The elevator manufacturer requires an elevator over run (tower) that extends beyond the 55' height limit. 3. Mechanical equipment - Located on top of the roof. 4. Parapets - CalOSHA requires fall protection that is 42" above the roof surface to protect workers from falling off the roof. 5. Portions of the parking structure and rooftop deck. These items are necessary for marketing purposes to meet the expectations of prospective tenants. The additional parking provided will also reduce the impact of the project on parking availability on neighboring streets. Starboard requests in accordance with Government Code Sec. 65915(e)(1), that a waiver be granted above the 55 -foot height limit. Without this waiver, the project will not be able to accommodate the 350 units permitted by the Development Standards and Government Code Sec. 65915. Income Limits and Examples of Eligible Tenants for Affordable Homes 3 101 Development Required Density Standards Bonus Lower Additonal Lower Total Affordable Unit Type Total Units Income Units t Income Units Units Studio 29 13 7 20 I Bedroom 197 38 18 56 2 Bedroom 124 1 1 2 Total 350 52 26 78 As required by Government Code Sec. 65915(d)(1)(A), this incentive will result in additional rental income for the project as well as construction cost reductions for the affordable units, which will provide for the affordable rents to be set in accordance with Government Code Sec. 65915(c)(1). Starboard reserves the right to request the second incentive or concession in the future. Development Standards Waiver Request Government Code Sec. 65915(e)(1) provides that a city or county may not apply any development standard (including height limits) that will have the effect of physically precluding the construction of a density bonus project at the density permitted under the density bonus statute. For the Newport Crossings project, certain features are required to project beyond the 55 -foot height limit set forth by Section V.A. of the Development Standards. Those features are: 1. Stair towers - the Building Code and Newport Beach Fire Department require stair towers that extend to the roof. 2. Elevator over runs - The elevator manufacturer requires an elevator over run (tower) that extends beyond the 55' height limit. 3. Mechanical equipment - Located on top of the roof. 4. Parapets - CalOSHA requires fall protection that is 42" above the roof surface to protect workers from falling off the roof. 5. Portions of the parking structure and rooftop deck. These items are necessary for marketing purposes to meet the expectations of prospective tenants. The additional parking provided will also reduce the impact of the project on parking availability on neighboring streets. Starboard requests in accordance with Government Code Sec. 65915(e)(1), that a waiver be granted above the 55 -foot height limit. Without this waiver, the project will not be able to accommodate the 350 units permitted by the Development Standards and Government Code Sec. 65915. Income Limits and Examples of Eligible Tenants for Affordable Homes 3 101 Newport Crossings Affordable Housing Plan August 28, 2018 Low Income Households are defined as households whose gross income does not exceed 80% of area median income, adjusted for household size. Table 4 on the following page shows the maximum income limits as determined by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development and the California Department of Housing and Community Development ("HCD") for Low Income households with household sizes appropriate for Newport Crossings: 0 1O2 Newport Crossings Affordable Housing Plan August 28, 2018 Table 4 Maximum Income Limits Higher income limits apply to larger families; those families however are not considered to be a target market for Newport Crossings, where the unit mix consists of studios, one -bedroom, and two-bedroom apartment homes. The 78 affordable homes that Starboard will provide will be rented to eligible Low Income Households. As shown in Table 4, Low Income Households includes incomes ranging from $61,250 per year for a one-person household to $87,450 per year for a four -person household. As such this could include City employees, school district employees, health care professionals, and other occupations which provide needed services to our community. While household size, overtime pay, summer jobs, or second jobs may affect eligibility, the income limits above are reflective of pay to many public or health care sector workers, as shown in Table 5 below: Table 5 r,xammes or uuanrvma naiaries Low Income Units Information Maximum Annual Household Size Income - 2018 1 Person $61,250 2Person 70,000 3Person 78,750 4Person 87,450 Higher income limits apply to larger families; those families however are not considered to be a target market for Newport Crossings, where the unit mix consists of studios, one -bedroom, and two-bedroom apartment homes. The 78 affordable homes that Starboard will provide will be rented to eligible Low Income Households. As shown in Table 4, Low Income Households includes incomes ranging from $61,250 per year for a one-person household to $87,450 per year for a four -person household. As such this could include City employees, school district employees, health care professionals, and other occupations which provide needed services to our community. While household size, overtime pay, summer jobs, or second jobs may affect eligibility, the income limits above are reflective of pay to many public or health care sector workers, as shown in Table 5 below: Table 5 r,xammes or uuanrvma naiaries The pay ranges shown above are as of 2017 and are subject to update. Retired persons or couples or young business professionals starting their careers may also qualify to rent the affordable homes at Newport Crossings. In order to provide opportunities to workers to live in one of the affordable homes, the City could provide guidelines providing for acceptance of applications on 'Derived from open job listings on City website May 2017 ' Derived from teacher pay scale listing on NMUSD website 5 163 Information Position Pay Range Source Continents Librarian 57,179-80,433 City Will qualify. Paralegal 62,129-87,422 City Will qualify except possibly upper end of pay range. Police Officer 66,185-118,872 City I Lower to middle areas of pay range will qualify. Hoag Memorial Hospital Registered Nurse 74,880-85,280 Glassdoor Will qualify except possibly upper end of Website pay range. Newport -Mesa Unified School District Teacher 54,043-82,689 NMUSD Credentialed teacher with no advanced Website 2 education or with Masters and up to 9 years experience will qualify except possibly upper end of pay range. The pay ranges shown above are as of 2017 and are subject to update. Retired persons or couples or young business professionals starting their careers may also qualify to rent the affordable homes at Newport Crossings. In order to provide opportunities to workers to live in one of the affordable homes, the City could provide guidelines providing for acceptance of applications on 'Derived from open job listings on City website May 2017 ' Derived from teacher pay scale listing on NMUSD website 5 163 Newport Crossings Affordable Housing Plan August 28, 2018 a priority basis from classes of individuals who qualify under the income limits in effect. The guidelines could provide for priority treatment for police officers, firemen, other City employees, employees of the local school district, and employees of major health care institutions or other categories identified by the City for priority treatment. Rental Rate Limits for Affordable Homes The 52 Required Density Bonus Lower Income Units shall be rented at an affordable rent calculated in accordance with the provisions of Section 50053 of the Health and Safety Code. Section 50053 of the Health and Safety Code limits affordable rent to 30% of total income for a Low Income household, as calculated in Table 6 below. That section also requires that the rent for a studio unit assumes a one-person household for rent calculation purposes, a one -bedroom unit assumes a two -person household, and a two-bedroom unit assumes a three-person household. The rents calculated are then adjusted by a utility allowance as determined annually by the County of Orange Housing & Community Services Department. As of November 1, 2017, the reduction for the utility allowance is $96.00 per month for a studio unit, $104.00 per month for a one - bedroom unit, and $132.00 per month for a two-bedroom unit. The utility allowance utilized assumes gas cooking, gas space heating, gas water heating, as well as water, and sewer, and trash fees which will be paid by the tenant. The 26 Development Standards Additional Lower Income Units will be rented at an affordable rent calculated based on 30% of the income limits for Lower Income households, as published annually by the Department of Housing and Community Development. Those rents will be calculated at 30% of total income utilizing the income limits for Lower Income households as shown in Table 4. Assumptions of household size for each type of unit and utility allowances are consistent with the prior paragraph. M 104 Newport Crossings Affordable Housing Plan August 28, 2018 Table 6 Maximum Rents by Bedroom Count Bedrooms Maximum Annual Rent Maximum Monthly Rent Utility, Allowance Affordable Rent Low Income -Density Bonus 60% ofAM13 Studio $11,682 $974 $96 $878 1 Bedroom 13,347 1,112 104 1,008 2 Bedroom 15,021 1,252 132 1,120 Low Income -Development Standards- 80% ofAM74 Studio $18,375 $1,531 $96 $1,435 1 Bedroom 21,000 1,750 104 1,646 2 Bedroom 23,625 1,969 132 1,837 Starboard will enter into an affordable housing agreement, in recordable form, with the City prior to obtaining the first building permit for any residential unit. That agreement will ensure that the maximum rents for the affordable apartment homes will be calculated using the methodologies as utilized in Table 6. The rental rates shown will be updated prior to the commencement of rental activities and on an ongoing basis to reflect then current income limits, utility allowances, and any changes in applicable regulations and statutes. Unit Mix, Design, and Location of Affordable Homes While the exact location of each of the affordable homes within the Newport Crossings site has not yet been determined, the affordable homes will be spread throughout the development to avoid concentration of affordable homes in any area. The affordable homes shall be comparable in the quality of construction and exterior design to the market rate homes. As provided for in the Development Standards, all affordable homes will have access to the facilities and amenities offered by the development. Requested City of Newport Beach Assistance Financial Assistance ' Rents for Required Density Bonus Lower Income units calculated in accordance with Section 50053 of the Health and Safety Code. 'Rents for Development Standards Additional Lower Income Units calculated based on income limits for Lower Income households, as published annually by the Department of Housing and Community Development. 7 105 Newport Crossings Affordable Housing Plan August 28, 2018 Starboard is not requesting any direct financial assistance from the City of Newport Beach for this project. H 100 Attachment No. PC 9 Final EIR Response to Comments Revisions to DEIR 10� 102 February 2019 I Final Environmental Impact Report State Clearinghouse No. 2017101067 NEWPORT CROSSINGS MIXED USE PROJECT (PA2017-107) City of Newport Beach Preparedfor: City of Newport Beach Contact: Jaime Murillo, Senior Planner 100 Civic Center Drive Newport Beach, California 92660 949.644.3209 Prepared by. PlaceWorks Contact: JoAnn C. Hadfield, Principal 3 MacArthur Place, Suite 1100 Santa Ana, California 92707 714.966.9220 info@placeworks.com www.placeworks.com PLACEWORKS 2o9 170 NEWPORT CROSSINGS MIXED USE PROJECT (PA2017-107) FINAL EIR CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Table of Contents Section Page 1. INTRODUCTION...........................................................................................................................1-1 1.1 INTRODUCTION.............................................................................................................................................1-1 1.2 FORMAT OF THE FEIR......... ........................................................................................................................ 1-1 1.3 CEQA REQUIREMENTS REGARDING COMMENTS AND RESPONSES.................................1-2 2. RESPONSE TO COMMENTS......................................................................................................2-1 3. REVISIONS TO THE DRAFT EIR................................................................................................3-1 3.1 INTRODUCTION................................................... .......................................................................................... 3-1 3.2 DEIR REVISIONS IN RESPONSE TO WRITTEN COMMENTS.....................................................3-1 APPENDICES Appendix A. FAA Determination of No Hazard to Air Navigation Appendix B. Evaluation of Key Intersections and Roadways for 2024 With Project Conditions February 2019 Page i 2�2 NEWPORT CROSSINGS MIXED USE PROJECT (PA2017-107)FINAL EIR CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Table of Contents Thi page int.-ntionully deft blank. Page ii PlaceWorkr 172 1. Introduction 1.1 INTRODUCTION This Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) has been prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) as amended (Public Resources Code §5 21000 et seq.) and CEQA Guidelines (California Code of Regulations 4§ 15000 et seq.). According to the CEQA Guidelines, Section 15132, the FEIR shall consist of: (a) The Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) or a revision of the Draft; (b) Comments and recommendations received on the DEIR either verbatim or in summary; (c) A list of persons, organizations, and public agencies comments on the DEIR; (d) The responses of the Lead Agency to significant environmental points raised in the review and consultation process; and (e) Any other information added by the Lead Agency. This document contains responses to comments received on the DEIR for the Newport Crossing Mixed Use Project during the public review period, which began November 30, 2018, and dosed, January 14, 2019. This document has been prepared in accordance with CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines and represents the independent judgment of the Lead Agency. This document and the circulated DEIR comprise the FEIR, in accordance with CEQA Guidelines, Section 15132. 1.2 FORMAT OF THE FEIR This document is organized as follows: Section 1, Introduction. This section describes CEQA requirements and content of this FEIR. Section 2, Response to Comments. This section provides a list of agencies and interested persons commenting on the DEIR; copies of comment letters received during the public review period, and individual responses to written comments. To facilitate review of the responses, each comment letter has been reproduced and assigned a number: A-1 through A-14 for letters received from agencies and organizations, and I-1 for letters a received from one individual. Individual comments have been numbered for each letter and the letter is followed by responses with references to the corresponding comment number. Febmaey 2019 Page 1-1 2j 3 NEWPORT CROSSINGS MIXED USE PROJECT (PA2017-107) FINAL EIR CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 1. Introduction Section 3. Revisions to the Draft EIR. This section contains revisions to the DEIR text and figures as a result of the comments received by agencies and interested persons as described in Section 2, and/or typographical errors and omissions discovered subsequent to release of the DEIR for public review. The responses to comments contain revisions that will be added to the text of the MR. City of Newport Beach staff has reviewed the revisions and determined that none of the revisions constitute significant new information that requires recirculation of the DEIR for further public comment under CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5. None of the revisions indicate that the project will result in a significant new environmental impact not previously disclosed in the DEIR. Additionally, none of this material indicates that there would be a substantial increase in the severity of a previously identified environmental impact that will not be mitigated, or that there would be any of the other circumstances requiring recirculation described in Section 15088.5. 1.3 CEQA REQUIREMENTS REGARDING COMMENTS AND RESPONSES CEQA Guidelines Section 15204 (a) outlines parameters for submitting comments, and reminds persons and public agencies that the focus of review and comment of DEIRs should be "on the sufficiency of the document in identifying and analyzing possible impacts on the environment and ways in which significant effects of the project might be avoided or mitigated. Comments are most helpful when they suggest additional specific alternatives or mitigation measures that would provide better ways to avoid or mitigate the significant environmental effects. At the same time, reviewers should be aware that the adequacy of an EIR is determined in terms of what is reasonably feasible. ...CEQA does not require a lead agency to conduct every test or perform all research, study, and experimentation recommended or demanded by commenters. When responding to comments, lead agencies need only respond to significant environmental issues and do not need to provide all information requested by reviewers, as long as a good faith effort at full disclosure is made in the EIR." CEQA Guidelines Section 15204 (c) further advises, "Reviewers should explain the basis for their comments, and should submit data or references offering facts, reasonable assumptions based on facts, or expert opinion supported by facts in support of the comments. Pursuant to Section 15064, an effect shall not be considered significant in the absence of substantial evidence." Section 15204 (d) also states, "Each responsible agency and trustee agency shall focus its comments on environmental information germane to that agency's statutory responsibility." Section 15204 (e) states, "This section shall not be used to restrict the ability of reviewers to comment on the general adequacy of a document or of the lead agency to reject comments not focused as recommended by this section." In accordance with CEQA, Public Resources Code Section 21092.5, copies of the written responses to public agencies will be forwarded to those agencies at least 10 days prior to certifying the environmental impact report. Page 1-2 PlaceWorkr 2�.C� 2. Response to Comments Section 15088 of the CEQA Guidelines requires the Lead Agency (City of Newport Beach) to evaluate comments on environmental issues received from public agencies and interested parties who reviewed the DEIR and prepare written responses. This section provides all written responses received on the DEIR and the City of Newport Beach's responses to each comment. Comment letters and specific comments are given letters and numbers for reference purposes. Where sections of the DEIR are excerpted in this document, the sections are shown indented. Changes to the DEIR text are shown in underlined text for additions and swkeetrt for deletions. The following is a list of agencies and persons that submitted comments on the DEIR during the public review period. Number Reference Commenting PersonlAgency Date of Comment Page No. Agencies & Organizations Al California Cultural Resource Preservation Alliance December 3, 2018 2-3 A2 Irvine Ranch Water District December 6, 2018 2-7 A3 Orange County Fire Authority December 19, 2018 2-11 A4 Department of Toxic Substances Control January 3, 2019 2-15 A5 City of Irvine January 7, 2019 2-23 A6 The Kennedy Commission January 10, 2019 2-27 A7 Santa Ana Unified School District January 10, 2019 2-33 A8 South Coast Air Quality Management District January 11, 2019 2-39 A9 California Department of Transportation January 11, 2019 2-47 A10 Airport Land Use Commission January 14, 2019 2-51 All OC Public Works January 14, 2019 2-57 Al2 Wittwer Parkin, LLP (for Southwest Regional Council of Carpenters) January 14, 2019 2-61 A13 Gabrielefic Band of Mission Indians— Kizh Nation December 17, 2018 2-89 A14 State Clearinghouse January 15, 2019 2-93 Individuals 11 Jim Mosher January 14, 2019 2-105 Februaey 2019 Page 2-1 175 NEWPORT CROSSINGS MIXED USE PROJECT (PA2017-107) FINAL EIR CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 2. Response to Comments Thasage ententionadly left blank. Page 2-2 PlaceWorkr 170 NEWPORT CROSSINGS MIXED USE PROJECT (PA2017-107) FINAL EIR CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 2. Response to Comments LETTER Al — California Cultural Resource Preservation Alliance (1 page) a. GC.RP.A California Cultural Resource Preservation Alliance, Inc. P.O. 90264132 An alliance of American Indian and scientific communities working for prM9. CA 9253114131 the preservation of archaeological wiles and other cultural rewtorces. December 3, 201 g Jaime Murillo, Senior Planner City of Newport Beach Re: Drafl Environmental Impact Report for Newport Crossings Mixed Use Project Dear Mr. Murillo: Thank you for the opportunity to review the above-mentioned Draft Environmental Impact Report. We concur with the determination that the project arca is considered moderately sensitive for buried resources. Given the urban development, the mitigation measures presented in 5.4.7 that include retaining a qualified archaeologist to periodically monitor ground -disturbing activities and to a lesser extent, training project construction workers to recognize archaeological resources seem appropriate. We also Al -1 concur with the measures to be taken should cultural materials including human remains be discovered. Since the project includes a public park, them is an opportunity for preservation. Finally, we suggest that a culturally related Native American monitor also be retained to periodically monitor ground -disturbing activities. Sincerely. Patricia Martz, II President Februaey 2019 Page 2-9 L�� NEWPORT CROSSINGS MIXED USE PROJECT (PA2017-107) FINAL EIR CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 2. Response to Comments Thasage ententionadly left blank. Page 24 PlaceWorkr 1-72 NEWPORT CROSSINGS MIXED USE PROJECT (PA2017-107) FINAL EIR CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 2. Response to Comments Al. Response to Comments from California Cultural Resource Preservation Alliance, Patricia Martz, President, dated December 3, 2015. Al -1 The commenter concurs with the findings, conclusions and mitigation measures outlined in Draft EIR Section 5.4, Cultural Resources. The commenter also suggests that a culturally - related Native American monitor be retained to periodically monitor ground -disturbing activities at the project site. No impacts to tribal cultural resources were identified. As described in Section 5. 15, Tribal Cultural Resources, of the Draft FIR, no Native American tribes responded to the City's AB 52 consultation request or requested mitigation measures. februaey 2019 In response to this comment, however, Mitigation Measure CUL -1 on pages 5.4-10 and 5.4-11 of Draft EIR Section 5.4 has been revised, as follows. The revision is also provided in Chapter 3, Revisions to the Draft EIR, of the Final EIR. The revision does not change the findings or conclusions of the Draft EIR. Changes made to the Draft EIR are identified here in s`�a Huf text to indicate deletions and in bold underlined text to signify additions. 5.4 CULTURAL RESOURCES Impact 5.4.2 CUL -1 Prior to the issuance of a grading permit by the City of Newport Beach, the project applicant shall retain a qualified archaeologist to periodically monitor ground -disturbing activities onsite and provide documentation of such retention to the City of Newport Beach Community Development Director. The archaeologist shall train project construction workers on the types of archaeological resources that could be found in site soils. The archaeologist shall periodically monitor project ground -disturbing activities. Du�n� construction activities, the project applicant shall allow representatives of cultural organizations, including traditionally -/culturally -affiliated Native American tribes (e.g., Gabrieletio Band of Mission Indians- Kizh Nation,Juaneno Band of Mission Indians Acjachemen Nation), to access the project site on a volunteer basis to monitor grading and excavation activities. If archaeological resources are encountered, all construction work within 50 feet of the find shall cease, and the archaeologist shall assess the find for importance and whether preservation in place without impacts is feasible. Construction activities may continue in other areas. If, in consultation with the City and affected Native American tribe (as deemed necessary), the discovery is determined to not be important, work will be permitted to continue in the area. Any resource that is not Native American in origin and that cannot be preserved in place shall be curated at a public, nonprofit institution with a research interest in the materials, such Page 2-5 2�q NEWPORT CROSSINGS MIXED USE PROJECT (PA2017-107) FINAL EIR CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 2. Response to Comments Page 2-6 as the South Central Coastal Information Center at California State University, Fullerton. PlaceWorkr NEWPORT CROSSINGS MIXED USE PROJECT (PA2017-107) FINAL EIR CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 2. Response to Comments LETTER A2 — Irvine Ranch Water District (1 page]) ' Irvine RanchcvavEn e, COMMUNITY ,V, OPMENI December 6, 2018 I)FC 10 2018 Jaime Murillo, Senior Planner City of Newport Beach h`t>mnnr 'ad' Community Development Department 100 Civic Center Drive Newport Beach, CA 92660 Re: Notice of Availability — Newporl Crossings Mixed Use Project EIR Dear Jaime Murillo: Irvine Ranch Water District (IRWD) has reviewed the Notice of Availability (NOA) for the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the Newport Crossings Mixed Use Project, located in Newport Beach. IRWD wishes to milerate the comments indicated in our November 17. 2017, comment letter towards the project's Notice of Preparation (NOP). IRWD understands that this project should have no impacts to IRWD since the project is outside IRWD's service ama. If this is not correct or if there are any future changes to the project which could impact IRWD's facilities, Newport Beach is required to notify IRWD. IRWD appreciates the opportunity to review the NOP for the Newport Crossings Mixed Use Pmject EIR. If you have any questions, please contact the undersigned or Jo Ann Comy, Environmental Compliance Specialist at (949) 453-5326. Fiona M. Sanchez Director of Water Resoumes cc: Jo Ann Corey, IRWD A2-1 Irvlm Wm6 WNvMVM-PWo SxrOCa-vw hm.i'n.(A W16'8-MNI.+u Aov, DU O w 5=0 It vvn. C6W6%.0 •M.1S"M•hvwYNU Februaey 2019 Page 2-7 Zg2 NEWPORT CROSSINGS MIXED USE PROJECT (PA2017-107) FINAL EIR CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 2. Response to Comments Thasage ententionadly left blank. Page 2-8 PlaceWorkr 122 NEWPORT CROSSINGS MIXED USE PROJECT (PA2017-107) FINAL EIR CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 2. Response to Comments A2. Response to Comments Irvine Ranch Water District, Fiona. M. Sanchez, Director of Water Resources, dated December 6, 2018. A2-1 The commenter noted that the project site is outside of the Irvine Ranch Water District's JRWD) service area and, as such, the project would not impact 1RWD. As confirmed in Draft EIR Section 5.16, Utilztier and Service Systems, the City of Newport Beach Water Services, and not IRWD, provides water to the project site. February 2019 Page 2-9 Zg3 NEWPORT CROSSINGS MIXED USE PROJECT (PA2017-107) FINAL EIR CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 2. Response to Comments Thispage intentionally left blank. Page 2-10 PlaceWorks 124 NEWPORT CROSSINGS MIXED USE PROJECT (PA2017-107) FINAL EIR CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 2. Response to Comments LETTER A3— Orange County Fire Authority (1 page) JoAnn Hadfield From: Murillo, Jaime <JMurillo@newpertbeachca.gov> Sent: Wednesday, December 19. 2018 9.30 AM To: Jorge Estrada. JoAnn Hadfield Subject: FW: Notice of Availability Newport Crossings Mixed Use Project From: Rivers, Tarry <TamyRivers@ocfa.org> Sem: Wednesday, December 19, 2018 9:04 AM To: Murillo, Jaime <JMurillo@newportbeachca.gov, Subject: Notice of Availability Newport Crossings Mixed Use Project Thank you for the opportunity to review subject document. Orange County Fire Authority has no comments regardingI A3-1 this project. Have a great day. Tamara Rivol; Management Analyst Y Orange County Fire Authority Office. -714-573-6199 tamvrivers@ocfa.org We visualize problems and solutions through the eyes of those we serve. February 2019 Page 2-11 125 NEWPORT CROSSINGS MIXED USE PROJECT (PA2017-107) FINAL EIR CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 2. Response to Comments Thasage ententionadly left blank. Page 2-12 PlaceWorkr MM NEWPORT CROSSINGS MIXED USE PROJECT (PA2017-107) FINAL EIR CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 2. Response to Comments A3. Response to Comments from Orange County Fire Authority, Tamera Rivers, Management Analyst, dated December 19, 2019. A3-1 The comment does not concern the content or adequacy of the Draft EIR. The comment is acknowledged. February 2019 Page 2-19 2g� NEWPORT CROSSINGS MIXED USE PROJECT (PA2017-107) FINAL EIR CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 2. Response to Comments Thasage ententionadly left blank. Page 2-14 PlaceWorkr f NEWPORT CROSSINGS MIXED USE PROJECT (PA2017-107) FINAL EIR CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 2. Response to Comments LETTER A4 — Department of Toxic Substances Control (4 pages) January 3, 2019 Mr. James Murillo Senior Planner City of Newport Beach Community Development Department 100 Civic Center Drive Newport Beach, California 92660 J Mu n I to @ newoo dbeachca. qov DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT, NEWPORT CROSSING MIXED USE PROJECT (PA 2017-107). NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA STATE CLEARINGHOUSE #2017101067 Dear Mr. Murillo: The Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) reviewed the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) received from the City of Newport Beach (City) as lead agency, dated November 2018, for the Newport Crossing Mixed Use Project (Project), located in Newport Beach, California. The Project proposal is to demolish an existing 5.69 -acre -shopping center known as MacArthur Square to build a multistory building that would house 350 apartment units, 2,000 square feet of 'casual -dining" restaurant space, 5,500 square feet of retail space, and a 0.5 -acre public park. The site was formerly used as an agricultural land from 1938 to 1963 and developed to a commercial use in phases from the early 1970s through the 1980s. Two dry cleaners operated formerly onsite: (1) Green Hanger Cleaners reportedly operated at 4250 Scott Drive from 2002 through 2015 and (2) Enjay Cleaners, operated onsite at 1701 Corinthian Way. Suite H from 1984 to 1997. In addition, the east adjoining 4341 McArthur Boulevard building contains a dry cleaner tenant which has been in operation since 1996. Chlorinated solvent was used by the former Enjay Cleaners and petroleum-based solvents were used by Green Hanger. February 2019 A4-1 A4-2 Page 2-15 vBarbara Department of Toxic Substances Control A. Lee, Drecta araenew rromgoa: 5796 Cor poste Avenue Em .r G. Brown Jr. secre'ary w Enwonrnamat ProfxOon Cypress, Calrfwnia 90630 G.. January 3, 2019 Mr. James Murillo Senior Planner City of Newport Beach Community Development Department 100 Civic Center Drive Newport Beach, California 92660 J Mu n I to @ newoo dbeachca. qov DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT, NEWPORT CROSSING MIXED USE PROJECT (PA 2017-107). NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA STATE CLEARINGHOUSE #2017101067 Dear Mr. Murillo: The Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) reviewed the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) received from the City of Newport Beach (City) as lead agency, dated November 2018, for the Newport Crossing Mixed Use Project (Project), located in Newport Beach, California. The Project proposal is to demolish an existing 5.69 -acre -shopping center known as MacArthur Square to build a multistory building that would house 350 apartment units, 2,000 square feet of 'casual -dining" restaurant space, 5,500 square feet of retail space, and a 0.5 -acre public park. The site was formerly used as an agricultural land from 1938 to 1963 and developed to a commercial use in phases from the early 1970s through the 1980s. Two dry cleaners operated formerly onsite: (1) Green Hanger Cleaners reportedly operated at 4250 Scott Drive from 2002 through 2015 and (2) Enjay Cleaners, operated onsite at 1701 Corinthian Way. Suite H from 1984 to 1997. In addition, the east adjoining 4341 McArthur Boulevard building contains a dry cleaner tenant which has been in operation since 1996. Chlorinated solvent was used by the former Enjay Cleaners and petroleum-based solvents were used by Green Hanger. February 2019 A4-1 A4-2 Page 2-15 NEWPORT CROSSINGS MIXED USE PROJECT (PA2017-107) FINAL EIR CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 2. Response to Comments Mr. James Murillo January 3, 2019 Page 2 Former investigations along the project site boundary detected perchloroethylene (PCE) in the sub slab at concentrations exceeding acceptable residential regulatory levels using the California Human Health Hazard Screening Level (CHHSL) of 0.48 microgram A4-4 per liter(pgll) for residential land use. PCE was also detected at concentrations above wnrd the residential screening levels. As a result, the Project includes a proposal for a passive ventilation system as a vapor Intrusion mitigation measure (MM HAZ-1) in the DEIR for Impact 5.7-2. DTSC recommends that mitigation measures for Impact 5.7-2 should also include further investigation, human health risk assessment, and remediation including a land A4J use covenant and monitoring to ensure this mitigation will be protective of public health in perpetuity. DTSC comments are listed below. 1. Soil Vapor Sampling and testing: 2013, Page 5.7-8. A typographical error was noted for CHHSL which stands for California Human Health Screening Level, not 1144 California Health Hazard Screening Levels as stated on this page. 2. Soil and Soil Vapor Sampling and Testing: 2017, Page 5.7-9 and Onsite Soil and Soil Vapor Testing Results, Page 5.7-18. Both sections conclude that the detections of PCE were likely associated with regional groundwater impacts because higher concentration of PCE in soil gas was detected at 15 feet below ground surface (bgs) compared with concentrations at 5 feet bgs. This conclusion may be inadequate as PCE may have migrated vertically over time. Based on Appendix F3 (Phase II Investigation Report, dated April 22, 2013), soil vapor samples were not collected beneath the former Enjay Cleaners but along the project site boundary. In addition, the Site was used for agricultural land from 1938 to 1963. Appendix F1 (Phase I Environmental Site Assessment) does not consider historical agricultural use as a recognizable environmental condition due to the site redevelopment DTSC recommends that agricultural related chemicals, organochlorine pesticides (OCP), be considered as potential chemicals of concern as the OCPs may have been spread across the site. There is no information regarding whether during development of the commercial shopping center, the shallow soils were removed for offsite disposal or reused onsite. If reused onsite, historical contamination may have been distributed in these areas. Soil investigation is needed to determine whether the soil beneath the project site was impacted by the former use of OCPs. In conclusion, the sources of the potential releases and potential chemicals of concern were not properly identified and investigated at the project site. There is no sufficient investigation data to demonstrate that the VOC detected in soil vapor samples are associated with the groundwater impacts. Further soil, soil vapor and groundwater investigations are recommended for the project site. Page 2-16 PA -5 Placelf7arks 29 � NEWPORT CROSSINGS MIXED USE PROJECT (PA2017-107) FINAL EIR CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 2. Response to Comments Mr. James Murillo January 3, 2019 Page 3 DTSC recommends the soil gas investigations be conducted in accordance with DTSC Advisory -Active Soil Gas Investigation (htips://www.disc.ca.gov/SiteCleanuo/uploadNi ActiveSoilGasAdvisory FINAL D ia-5 df) and Final Guidance for Evaluation and Mitigation of Subsurface Vapor morn Intrusion to Indoor Air (https://www.dtsc.ra.gov/AssessingRisk/upload/Final VIG Oct 2011 odf) 3. Human Health Risk Assessment 2017, Page 5.7.9. Based on the Appendix F3a, only soil vapor samples at 5 feet bgs were used for human health risk assessment. The human health risk assessment should Include soil gas samples taken at 15 feet bgs. Groundwater should also be considered in the human health risk assessment if it is Impacted by PCE. Risk to human health should be re -assessed after the extent of soil gas and groundwater contamination Is fully defined. This assessment will then be used to design the vapor mitigation system and associated monitoring program. DTSC recommends the multi -media human health risk assessment be conducted in accordance with the Preliminary Endangerment Assessment Guidance Manual. section 2.5 and Human Health Risk Assessment A4-6 4. Section 5.7.3.1 Regulatory Requirements, Page 5.7.15. RR HI addresses the transportation of any project -related hazardous materials and hazardous waste. Please note that transportation of hazardous waste should also be A4 7 transported in accordance with California Code of Regulations, title 22, division 4.5, chapter 13. 5. Section 5.7.7 Mitigation Measures, Page 5.7-21. MM HAZ-1 requires a passive ventilation system for the proposed project. Please note that a land use covenant and long-term monitoring is required because the site was not remedialed to meet the residential land use. In addition, confirmation sampling (e.g., indoor sampling or sub -slab sampling) is recommended after the installation of a vapor mitigation measure to verify the effectiveness of the mitigation measure. DTSC recommends any vapor intrusion mitigation be implemented in accordance with DTSC Vapor Intrusion Mitigation Advisory (httos:l/www.disc.ca.covfSiteCleanuDluoloadNlMA Final Oct 20111 odf). A4a 6. Any further investigation, human health risk assessment, vapor intrusion mitigation measures and remediation should be overseen by a regulatory agency with jurisdiction to oversee hazardous substance cleanup. Due to the potential of A4-9 vapor intrusion into residential properties, DTSC's oversight is recommended. A request for DTSC's oversight can be found at: February 2019 Page 2-17 292 NEWPORT CROSSINGS MIXED USE PROJECT (PA2017-107) FINAL EIR CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 2. Response to Comments Mr. James Murillo January 3, 2019 Page 4 htlps://www disc ca oovlSiteCleanuolBrownfields/voluntary-agreements- A4-9 guide.cfm (click on "Request for lead Agency Oversight Application"), I confd DTSC looks forward to a conference call or a meeting to discuss further DTSC's concerns regarding this project. Should you have any questions regarding this letter, please contact me at (714) 484-5392 or e-mail chlann.venCo)dtsc.ca.gov. Sincerely, Chia Rin Yen Environmental Scientist Brownfields Restoration and School Evaluation Branch Site Mitigation and Restoration Program ara/cy/yg cc: Governor's Office of Planning and Research (via e-mail) State Clearinghouse P.O. Box 3044 Sacramento, California 95812-3044 State clearinghouseC@opr.ca.Uov Mr. Dave Kereazis (via e-mail) Office of Planning & Environmental Analysis Department of Toxic Substances Control da ve. kerea zi s (aT,d tsc. ca. gov Ms. Yolanda M. Garza (via e-mail) Brownfields Restoration and School Evaluation Branch Site Mitigation and Restoration Program Yolandaga rza C&d tsc. ca-gov Page 2-18 PlaceWorkr 192 NEWPORT CROSSINGS MIXED USE PROJECT (PA2017-107) FINAL EIR CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 2. Response to Comments A4. Response to Comments from Department of Toxic Substances Control, Chia Rin Yen, Environmental Scientist, dated January 3, 2019. A4-1 The comment does not concern the content or adequacy of the Draft EIR. The Department of Toxic Substances Control's (DTSC) summary of the project description is acknowledged. A4-2 The comment does not concern the content or adequacy of the Draft EIR. DTSC summary of the project site history and site investigations and findings is acknowledged. A4-3 Responses to the individual comments raised by DTSC's are provided herein. A4-4 The typographical error under the Soil Vapor Sampling and Testing: 2013 discussion on page 5.7-8 of Draft EIR Section 5.7, Ha.Zards and Hazardous Materials, has been revised, as follows. The revisions are also provided in Chapter 3, Revisions to the Draft EIR, of the Final EIR. Changes made to the Draft FIR are identified here in str4eeeut text to indicate deletions and in bold underlined text to signify additions. Soil Vapor Sampling and Testing: 2013 The 2013 Phase II investigation included three subslab soil -vapor samples collected from directly beneath the slab below the former dty cleaner at 4250 Scott Drive. In addition, seven subsurface soil vapor samples were collected from the property perimeter at depths of 5 feet bgs. The PCE concentration in one of the three subslab samples was 0.73 µg/l, (that is, 0.73 part per billion), above the California Health WHP.Hr4 Health Screening Level (CHHSL) of 0.48 µg/l, for residential land use; concentrations in the other two samples were below the CHHSL. The location this sample was taken from is shown in Figure 5.7- 1, SoilandSoil MporSanzplinguLocations. Soil vapor samples from two of the seven locations sampled on the site perimeter yielded PCE concentrations of 1.5 and 1.4 µg/L, respectively, also above the CHHSL for residential use. One location is on the northwest site boundary, and the other is on the northern part of the eastern site boundary (see Figure 5.7-1). The concentrations of PCE detected indicated groundwater contamination may be present A4-5 DTSC is recommending the following additional studies and analysis be conducted for the project site: February 2019 Soil vapor samples be collected from beneath the former Enjay Cleaners. • Additional soil samples be collected site -wide for analysis of OCPs. • Additional soil vapor samples be collected in accordance with DTSC Advisory for Active Soil Gas Investigation and DTSC Final Guidance for Evaluation and Mitigation of Subsurface Vapor Intrusion to Indoor Air. Page 2-19 29 3 NEWPORT CROSSINGS MIXED USE PROJECT (PA2017-107) FINAL EIR CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 2. Response to Comments • Groundwater samples be collected to show that PCE in deeper soil gas is associated with regional groundwater impacts. Following are response to the additional studies and analysis requested by DTSC: DTSC's statement that "based on Appendix F3 (Phase II Investigation Report, dated April 22, 2013), soil vapor samples were not collected beneath the former Enjay Cleaners but along the project site boundary" is not accurate as the report does present results for three sub -slab samples that were collected from beneath the former Enjay Cleaners. These soil vapor sample results were at low levels and are not indicative of a release to soil having occurred. In order to confirm that a release did not occur, soil samples from the beneath the former Enjay Cleaners should be collected after demolition of the existing structures in that area. • Because much of Orange County was used in the past for agricultural land, residual pesticides can often be detected at low concentrations in near -surface soil. The City agrees with the conclusion of the Phase I report that redevelopment of the site has likely further reduced these concentrations. However, because a public park is planned and the DTSC will be concerned with dermal contact, it may be prudent to collect surface (or near -surface) soil samples from the proposed park area to document the absence of, or presence of, low concentrations of residual pesticides. The area of the Project planned for the public park is currently under asphalt or existing buildings. Sample collection for analysis of OCPs would be completed in the area where the park will be constructed after demolition of the existing structures. Based on our experience sampling similar sites for residual OCPs, it is likely that concentrations will be below levels of concern or at levels that do not pose significant human health risks to future site development. In the unlikely event that OCPs are discovered and are determined to be RCRA hazardous waste or California -only hazardous waste, affected soils will be removed consistent with State protocols. PCE in soil gas appears to be a result of downward migration of vapors. This is supported by two facts: (1) soil vapors are lowest in the sub -slab vapor and the highest in the deeper soil gas samples collected at 15 feet bgs (groundwater may be encountered at approximately 20 feet bgs); and (2) there were no detections of PCE in any soil samples collected from the soil vapor sample locations. The average PCE concentration in soil vapor at 15 feet bgs is less than 3 lAg/I. For PCE, soil gas levels may not become a threat to impact groundwater until they exceed 100 µg/I. t To verify this, AECOM back -calculated the equilibrium concentration (Ceq) expected after 5 years for a GW concentration of 5 µg/L of PCE (MCL). The Ceq would be 1 Sources: https://iavi.rd.org/attachments/Resources/Hartman= _Soil _Gas _Sampling_Methods _and_Approaches_ for VI_ Assessments.pdf and file:// /C:/Users/jes=da/AppData/Local/Microsoft/Windows/INetCache/ContencOuttook/S840ZOHA/The%2ODownward %20Migration°/ 20oN20Vapors.htm. Page 2-20 PlaceWorkr : 94 NEWPORT CROSSINGS MIXED USE PROJECT (PA2017-107) FINAL EIR CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 2. Response to Comments approximately 180 µg/L. Multiplying by the dimensionless Henry's Law Constant for PCE (0.754) gives a corresponding soil gas concentration of approximately 135 µg/L. This supports the statement that for PCE, soil gas levels may not become a threat to impact groundwater until they exceed 100 µg/L. For the project site, the greatest soil vapor concentration of PCE was 4.4 µg/L (and was fairly near groundwater). Dividing by Henry's Law Constant for PCE (0.754) gives a Ceq of less than 6 µg/l, and an expected PCE concentration in groundwater of less than 0.2 µg/l, after 5 years. If contact time with groundwater is less than 5 years, which is more typical, the expected PCE concentration in groundwater at this Site would be less than 0.01 µg/L. Collection of groundwater samples to show that PCE in deeper soil gas is associated with regional groundwater impacts is not warranted because the planned passive ventilation system will be installed to mitigate vapors already detected. A4-6 In response to this comment, PCE in soil gas is more likely a result of downward migration of vapors and not associated with regional groundwater impacts. Any increase in the estimated cancer risk for the residential land use scenario shown by further soil vapor samples would be reduced through the passive ventilation system. It is anticipated that these results will not significantly affect the current design of the planned vapor mitigation system, as required by Mitigation Measures HAZ-1. A4-7 In response to the commenter, the text for regulatory requirement RR HAZ-1 on pages 5.7-15 and 5-7-16 of Draft EIR Section 5.7, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, has been revised, as follows. The revisions are also provided in Chapter 3, Revisions to the Draft EIA, of the Final EIR. Changes made to the Draft EIR are identified here in orikeau# ext to indicate deletions and in bold underlined text to signify additions. February 2019 RR HAZ-2 Any project -related hazardous waste generation, transportation, treatment, storage, and disposal will be conducted in compliance with the Subtitle C of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Part 263), including the management of nonhazardous solid wastes and underground tanks storing petroleum and other hazardous substances. The proposed project will be designed and constructed in accordance with the regulations of the Orange County Environmental Health Department, which serves as the designated Certified Unified Program Agency and which implements state and federal regulations for the following programs: (1) Hazardous Waste Generator Program, (2) Hazardous Materials Release Response Plans and Inventory Program, (3) California Accidental Release Prevention, (4) Aboveground Storage Tank Program, and (5) Underground Storage Tank Program. Transportation of hazardous waste will also be transported in accordance with California Code of Regulations, Title 22, Division 4.5. Chapter 13. Page 2-21 295 NEWPORT CROSSINGS MIXED USE PROJECT (PA2017-107) FINAL EIR CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 2. Response to Comments Page 2-22 A4-8 After demolition of existing structures, additional soil and soil gas sampling in the area of the former Enjay Cleaners may be warranted to determine if concentrations are decreasing, limited in extent, and in soil or soil gas or both. With limited soil removal and/or soil vapor extraction, levels which are suitable for unrestricted use of the land could be achieved and a land use covenant would not be required. If the vapor mitigation measure is implemented in accordance with DTSC Vapor Intrusion Mitigation Advisory, an operation and maintenance (O&M) plan should be prepared and include general guidelines for monitoring, including establishing baseline conditions and number and frequency of monitoring events necessary to meet the performance goals and measures. A4-9 In response to the commenter, the following mitigation measure has been added to further reduce the significant impact already identified under Impact Statement 5.7-2, of Draft EIR Section 5.7, Hazards and Ha.Zardous Materials. Subsection 5.7.7, Mitigation Measures, of Section 5.7 has been revised, as follows. The revisions are also provided in Chapter 3, Revisions to the Draft EIR, of the Final EIR. The additional mitigation measure does not change the findings, conclusions, or recommendations of the Draft EIR and does not result in the identification of any new or increased significant impacts. Also, the revisions do not constitute the type of significant new information that requires recirculation of the Draft EIR for further public comment under CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5. Changes made to the Draft EIR are identified here in strikeeut text to indicate deletions and in bold underlined text to signify additions. 5.7.7 Mitigation Measures Impact 5.7-2 MM RAZ -2 Prior to issuance of the first buildine nermit. soil and soil vapor samples shall be collected from beneath the former Enja Cleaners and so l samples shall be collected from beneath the proposed 0.5 -acre public park site and tested for PCE and OCPs. respecdvely. The results shall be submitted to the Orange Count}' Health Care Agency and City Building Official. In the event that soil concentrations exceed site-specific cleanup goals, affected soils shall be removed and properly treated/disposed of Should soil vapor concentrations exceed site-specific cleanup goals, short-term soil vapor extraction and treatment shall be performed to reduce soil vapor concentrations. Placell'/orks NEWPORT CROSSINGS MIXED USE PROJECT (PA2017-107) FINAL EIR CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 2. Response to Comments LETTER A5 — City of Irvine (2 pages) January 7. 2019 Mr. Jamie Murillo City of Newport Beach Community Development Department 100 Civic Center Drive Newport Beach, CA 92880 Subject: Draft Environmental Impact Report (PA2017-107) for the Newport Crossings Mixed Use Project located in the City of Newport Beach Dear Mr. Munllo. Staff reviewed the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the Newport Crossings Mixed Use project in the City of Newport Beach. The project site is within the Newport Place Planned Community of the Airport Area, and bounded by Corinthian Way to the northeast, Martingale Way to the east, Scott Drive to the northwest, and Dove Street to the southwest. The proposed project involves demolishing an approximately 58,277 A5.1 square -foot shopping center to develop a mixed use site consisting of 350 residential units. 2,000 square feet of casual dining restaurant space, 5,500 square feet of commercial space, and a 0.5 -acre public park. Staff completed its review and offers the following comments on the project: 1. The City recommends including the following study area intersections: • Jamboreel1-405 ramps • Jamboree/Michelson A5-2 • Jamboree/Dupont Additionally, the arterial segments should include City of Irvine roadways that are bounded by 1-405 to the north, MacArthur to the west, and Jamboree to the east 2. On Page 5.14-4, under the City of Irvine section, discuss how a significant impact also occurs when the proposed project causes the study area intersection to A53 operate from an acceptable level of service to an unacceptable level of service. February 2019 Page 2-29 197 NEWPORT CROSSINGS MIXED USE PROJECT (PA2017-107) FINAL EIR CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 2. Response to Comments Mr. Jamie Murillo January 7, 2019 Page 2 If you have any questions, you may contact me at 949-7246364 or at jequina@cityofirvine.org. Sincerely. Jus i Equina Associate Planner cc: Kerwin Lau, Manager of Planning Services Bill Jacobs, Principal Planner Lisa Thai, Supervising Transportation Analyst Page 2-24 PlaceWorkr NEWPORT CROSSINGS MIXED USE PROJECT (PA2017-107) FINAL EIR CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 2. Response to Comments A5. Response to Comments from City of Irvine, Justin Equina, Associate Planner, dated January 7, 2019. AS -1 The comment does not concern the content or adequacy of the Draft FIR. The comment is acknowledged. A5-2 The commenter requested that three additional intersections, beyond those analyzed in the Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) prepared for the proposed project, be analyzed, and that the arterial segments include certain City of Irvine roadways. The TIA, which is included as Draft EIR Appendix j, includes the relevant study area intersections in Irvine. As noted in the Study Area subsection/discussion of the TIA (see page J-9), the study area locations were selected in consultation with the City of Irvine. The project's trip distribution, as presented in the TIA, shows nominal AM and PM peak -hour project - related traffic on the intersections and segments along Jamboree Road in Irvine that were not analyzed, including those requested by the commenter. Approximately five percent of the project's total traffic would travel on Jamboree Road north of Dupont Drive, which is approximately 6 AM peakhourtrips (5 northbound and 1 southbound), 4 PM peak - hour trips (2 northbound and 2 southbound), and 54 daily trips. Furthermore, the project's traffic volume contribution is less than 0.001 of the peak -hour lane capacity and daily segment capacity of Jamboree Road. As such, the project would not significantly impact the intersections of Jamboree Road/Dupont Drive, Jamboree Road/Michelson Drive, and Jamboree Road/I-405 ramps, or the]amboree Road segment north of Dupont Drive. In addition, the project is not anticipated to add vehicles to Dupont Drive or Michelson Drive. Based on the preceding, the project study area is not required to be expanded to include additional Irvine intersections or segments. A5-3 In response to the commenter, the text on page 5.14-4 of Draft EIR Section 5.14, Transportation and Traffic, has been revised, as follows. The revisions are also provided in Chapter 3, Revisions to the Draft EIR, of the Final EIR. The text revisions do not change the findings, conclusions, or recommendations of the TIA or Draft FIR and do not result in the identification of any new or increased significant impacts. Changes made to the Draft FIR are identified here in s�text to indicate deletions and in bold underlined text to signify additions. February 2019 5.14 TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC City of Irvine In Irvine; LOS E (peak hour ICU less than or equal to 1.00) is considered acceptable in the Irvine Business Complex (IBC) intersections. At other study area intersections in Irvine, LOS D (peak hour ICU less than or equal to 0.90) is acceptable. Ae project e8atfibutieft is 0.02 of grefftef, ffiiegfftien is requifed to bring interseetion ba Page 2-25 NEWPORT CROSSINGS MIXED USE PROJECT (PA2017-107) FINAL EIR CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 2. Response to Comments Page 2-26 At Irvine intersections and, if project traffic causes the study area intersection level of service to drop from acceptable to unacceptable level of service, mitigation is required, where feasible, to bring the intersection back to an acceptable level of service or to no project conditions. Also, if the intersection would operate at unacceptable level of service and the proiect contribution is 0.02 or greater, mitigation is required, where feasible, to bring intersection back to an acceptable level of service or to no project conditions. PlaceWorkr NEWPORT CROSSINGS MIXED USE PROJECT (PA2017-107) FINAL EIR CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH LETTER A6 — The Kennedy Commission (3 pages) January 10, 2019 Mr. Jaime Murillo, Senior Planner City ol'Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, CA 92658-8915 2. Response to Comments �., �uuw.AI, ni..unary '1U1 l'uwan , e A%fftZM Ini2614 %92 V W9zhJ(MO! 4n WV:F)fWtl RE: Newport Crossings Mixed -Use Development Draft Environmental Impact Report Dear Mr. Murillo: the Kennedy Commission (the Commission) is a coalition of residents and community organizations that advocates for the production of homes affordable for families eaming tens than S20.000 annually in Orange County. Formed in 2001, the Commission has been successful in parmering with Orange Coumyjurisdictions to create effective housing policies that have led to the new construction of homes affordable to lower income working families. As the City considers how to effectively address the housing needs for all income segments of the community, the Commission urges the City to support and approve the proposed Ncw port Crossings Mixed -Use development that will set aside 78 units to lower income working households. The Commission supports planning efforts in developing new homes that provide a community benefit, such as affordable homes to lower income working families. The proposed Newport Crossing Mixed -Use development will not only provide quality and affordable homes for the City's work force, but it will also build and contribute to a more economically competitive and opportunity rich community. In addition, locating homes such as affordable homes nearjob centers (i.e. John Wayne airport and corporate offices). mass transit and neighborhood amenities will create a more walkable, healthier and sustainable Newport Beach. Affordability for Lower Income Households to address the City's existing and projected housing needs, Newport Place Planned Community was amended in 2012 to facilitate the development of affordable homes in the City. A residential development overlay was established to allow residential developments that sct-aside 30 percent of wits affordable to lower-income households.' It has been over five years since the amendment and the proposed Newport Crossings Mixed -Use development could be the first development implemented in the Newport Place Planned Community Residential Overlay. The City should take this golden opportunity and move forward with the proposed Newport Place project to ensure the implementation of the residential overlay will be successful and come to fruition. In addition, the Newport Crossings proposed development was identified in the City's 2014-2021 Housing Element as a housing opportunity site (Site la I b. Ic and Id) in Area 9 - Airport Area.2 ('a) N scrPnn 8r banal Plan 11u-,,,, I v, p 1-rR Scpmlbn 2013 21 -11 -If '4r Mn ae Bans) RanIl I.,. p5^!, 5[p/s 21,U February 2019 A6.2 Page 2-27 201 NEWPORT CROSSINGS MIXED USE PROJECT (PA2017-107) FINAL EIR CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 2. Response to Comments Mr. Jaime Murillo January 10, 2019 Page 2 of 3 Ranked among the top ten (cast affordable metropolitan areas in the cotmtry3, Orange County is suBering from an affordable housing crisis. A resident must earn at least 536.08 per hour to ,afford a two-bedroom apartment at a fair market rent of $1,876 a month.' Over the past seven years, Orange County renters have paid an average of $355 more a month and rents arc projected to continually iise.5 During 2000 to 2015, Orange County's inflation-adjusted median rent increased by 28 percent while the median renter income decreased by 9 percent.' The impact of this crisis is dire. Many Orange County renters arc rent burdened where they spend more than 30% of their income towards housing costs. Struggling to make ends meet, many households take on morejobs or live in overcrowded substandard households. With high rents, low vacancy rates and an increasing number of residents needing affordable homes, the supply of affordable homes being built for lower income households has also not kept up with the demand. An additional 92,738 affordable rental homes are needed to address Orange County's housing needs for lower income mmers-.7 Compared to other cities in Orange County, housing costs are significantly higher and out -of - reach for many working households in Newport Beach. Ranked second for Southern California's most expensive city for renters, Newport Beach's average two-bedroom asking rent was $2,760 a rronth.e With die serious lack of affordable home and with wages that are not keeping up with rising rent, many working families, especially those who earn lower wages, struggle financially to work and live in Newport Beach. In Newport Beach, tourism is one of the. City's leading industries and it generates substantial revenue and jobs for the City. Of the top 12 principal employers in the City, four provide leisure and hospitality services9; however, jobs related to leisure and hospitality services, restaurants and retail that greatly contributes to the City's tourism market typically offers lower wages. The average salary for occupations in the tourism market is approximately less than 530,000 a year10, which is not enough to rent an apartment home in the City without overpaying and being rent burdened. Affordable flumes Decretuc9 Environmental Impacts A6.2 cant'd With high housing costs and significant lack of affordable homes, many workers and families, A6.3 especially those who earn lower wages, struggle financially to live in the city they work in. These impacts not only hurt workers and families but may also impact the city's economic competitiveness and attractiveness to major employers to provide jobs. Locating homes: 'rRa of Rcnch 2018 -The Hiah Cost of Housing. Nwianal I.,, In.,m 1lmaing Cwtarpn, p,14. 2018. '0ulofRuch 20111 -The High Castof Housing Nwlonul Ina hzc o Hw,siry Cwlitton. p.33.2018. ' Ruullgn Cuafurniue, Scrimp w Get ay'A, Aremge Renu Hit S1.900.0,m,gc Canny R,6u , J4bmwy I5, 2018. ° Cnlil'amin Rents Harm Risen m Santa ofdse Naian's lfislms,. Ile,e's Ilne 11h,Imprm Resulmas.0.,pt &,my R,imn, 1'ubniar}' 15.2018. omw. county's Ilausing R,, g tym,d1'np,ud SMmians.Cnlifomin Housing Ya ,Y,ip e'apwvtim, p. 1,x1uy 2018. 't,11A.1111 Rq. Neo W n Its Ilam Region's Highut Rous. luwen?'fnIIisIdnW, 0rmsW Camp Rcgrster.O tllber 13.2017. " Cityof No,ptri auab Compclrmi Finuewl A,muu1 Rgart,p. 22; lune3a 2013, "'GC Conm,miily Indicataft 2018, p. 31, NIIX, Page 2-28 MaceffXorks 202 NEWPORT CROSSINGS MIXED USE PROJECT (PA2017-107) FINAL EIR CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 2. Response to Comments Mr. Jaime Murillo January 10, 2019 Page 3 of 3 specifically affordable homes, near transit, job centers and neighborhood services will decrease travel costs and allow individuals to save money and spend it elsewhere in the City. In particular. the environmental impacts of a development are especially less drastic when a person can afford to live and spend their money in the same community in which they work in. In 2016, the average commute time to work for Orange County residents was approximately 29 minutes and approximately 82% of commuters drove alone. 11 Improving location accessibility and connectivity reduces the dependency for residents, especially for lower income households and workers, to drive their automobiles. This will lead to decreased environmental impacts, such as vehicles miles traveled (VMT) and greenhouse gas emissions, which will contribute to the project's overall purpose and intent to create a sustainable transit oriented neighborhood. The project will also align with the Sustainable Communities and Climate Protection Act of 2008 (SB 375) and help the City implement and comply with SB 375 goals of reducing VMT and greenhouse gas emissions. The Commission looks forward to partnering with the City to increase affordable home opportunities for lower income working households in the City. Please keep us informed of any updates and meetings regarding the Newport Crossings Mixed -Use Development. If you have any questions, please contact me at (949) 250-0909 or ce @kennedycommission.org. /Sincerely, Cesar Covartubias Executive Director "Pmak of Olnnpc launn.tiwJMnt'eliamu AwwmMn uftinamm�m,.p I9,%1,2017 February 2019 A&3 ownrd Page 2-29 203 NEWPORT CROSSINGS MIXED USE PROJECT (PA2017-107) FINAL EIR CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 2. Response to Comments Thispage intentionally left blank. Page 2-30 PlaceWorks 204 NEWPORT CROSSINGS MIXED USE PROJECT (PA2017-107) FINAL EIR CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 2. Response to Comments AG. Response to Comments from Kennedy Cotmnission, Cesar Covarrubias, Executive Director, dated January 10, 2019. A6-1 The comment does not concern the content or adequacy of the Draft EIR. The City of Newport Beach acknowledges the commenters support of the proposed project. A6-2 The comment does not concern the content or adequacy of the Draft EIR. The comment is acknowledged. A6-3 The comment does not concern the content or adequacy of the Draft EIR. The comment is acknowledged. February 2019 Page 2-31 205 NEWPORT CROSSINGS MIXED USE PROJECT (PA2017-107) FINAL EIR CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 2. Response to Comments Thasage ententionadly left blank. Page 2-32 PlaceWorkr NEWPORT CROSSINGS MIXED USE PROJECT (PA2017-107) FINAL EIR CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 2. Response to Comments LETTER A7 — Santa Ana Unified School District (2 pages) « Santa Ana Unified School District Fauiflfin 6 (:nvemarnruf Reiarinns Stefanie P. Phillips, Ed.D. Jeremy Coxan, DirMor of F'0cwhes Hanning Supe%""8Sclimb COMMUN(T January 10, 2019 DEVELOPMENT Jaime Murillo, Senior Planner JAN 112019 City of Newport Beach Community Development Department 100 Civic Center Drive CITY or Newport Beach, CA 92660 *11ow stFt?' Re: Environmental Imoact Reoart for the Newnan Crossines Mixed Use Prosect Dear Mr. Murillo The Santa Ana Unified School District ("District") appreciates the opportunity to provide the following comments with respect to the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Newport Crossings Mixed Use Project (hereafter, `the Project-). The proposed project consists of the development of 350 multi -story residential units in addition to other retail+mixed use, and is located AM on a 5.69 -acre project site. The site is currently within the "Airport Area" planning subarea of the City of Newport Beach. The District has an obligation to serve students generated in the project arca. The proposal project lies within the attendance boundaries of the following District schools: Table 1- District Schools The District's 2018 School Facilities Needs Analysis, prepared April 27, 2018, finds student generation factors as follows: Table 2 - Student Generation School Level Elementary School Multi -Family Attached Units 02367 I Number of I Proposed Units 1 350 Approximate Scholl Served Address Traveling Distance Hi School 0.1533 350 Dram the Project Monroe Elementary K-5 417 E. Central Ave. 5 miles McFadden yg 2701 S. Raid St 5 miles Intermediate Century Hi 9.12 1401 S. Grand Ave. 5.8 maw The District's 2018 School Facilities Needs Analysis, prepared April 27, 2018, finds student generation factors as follows: Table 2 - Student Generation School Level Elementary School Multi -Family Attached Units 02367 I Number of I Proposed Units 1 350 Students Potentially Generated by the Project 83 Intermediate School 0.1218350 43 Hi School 0.1533 350 54 Total 03118 350 180 1601 Fast Chestnut Avenue, Santa Ana, CA 92701-6322.(714) 41105349 BOARD OF EDUCATION Valerie Amacua, Presidaa • Rigo Rodriguez Ph.D., Vice President Alfonso Alvarez Ed.D., Clerk • John Palacio, Member Februa6y 2019 A7-2 Page 2-33 207 NEWPORT CROSSINGS MIXED USE PROJECT (PA2017-107) FINAL EIR CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 2. Response to Comments As the data in the above table was made available subsequent to outreach to SAUSD, the District recommends the Draft EIR reflect the newer information. An analysis of current enrollment, current permanent capacity, and students potentially generated by the project finds that the District is able to accommodate the anticipated student growth. While such an analysis considers the capacity to serve additional students, it does not take into consideration enrollment variations and educational program changes that will impact school capacity district -wide. In accordance with Government Code Section 65995, the District requires all new development within the District to pay fees to help offset the impacts to school facilities from new residential and commercial/industrial development. The Draft EIR for this project makes note of the State Allocation Board's adjustment to level -on residential school fees in 2016, however this should be updated to reflect the SAB's 2018 action. As of September 17, 2018, the District's developer fees are as follows: Table 3 — Im act Fee Type of Development Fee it' ective 9/17/1 Commercial/Industrial $0.61 Residential $3.79 While the developer foes are intended to help offset impacts from the students generated by new development, the fees may not be sufficient to provide adequate comprehensive school facilities, including classrooms, athletic equipment and playficlds, kitchen and dining facilities, library space, pools, or other educational or recreational facilities. A7 7 A, 4 Having reviewed the Draft EIR prepared for the Project, the District recommends mitigation measures in line with the recommendations of the EIR. In addition, at least one reference was A7-5 found in the Draft EIR referring to " LAUSD" which should be corrected to SAUSD" Pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21092.2, the District requests that the City of Newport Beach, as lead agency, provide to the District copies of all notices and documents prepared A7-6 pursuant to CEQA relative to the project. All notices should be sent to the attention of the Assistant Superintendent of Facilities & Governmental Relations. Sincerely, Jerem gan Director of Facilities Planning Facilities and Governmental Relations m: Stefanie P. Phillips, Superintendent Thomas A. Stekol, Deputy Superintendent Orin Williams, Assistant Superintendent, Facilities & Government Relations 1601 Fast Chestnut Avenue, Santa Ana, CA 92701-6322. (714) 480.5349 BOARD OF EDUCATION Valerie Amezcua. President • Rigo Rodriguez Ph.D., Vice Resident Alfonso Alvarez Ed.D.. Clerk • John Palacio, Member Page 2-34 PlaceWorkr NEWPORT CROSSINGS MIXED USE PROJECT (PA2017-107) FINAL EIR CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 2. Response to Comments A7. Response to Comments from Santa Ana Unified School District, Jeremy Cogan, Director of Facilities Planning, dated January 11, 2019. A7-1 The comment does not concern the content or adequacy of the Draft EIR. The comment is acknowledged. A7-2 The comment states the number of students potentially generated by the project. As requested in Comment A7-3, the Draft EIR has been revised to reflect the updated student generation factors and resultant student generation numbers. See response to Comment A7-3, below. A7-3 The commenter requests that the student generation numbers provided in Draft EIR Section 5.12, Public Services, be revised to reflect the District's updated student generation estimate. As requested, the text on page 5.12-13 of Section 5.12 has been revised, as follows. The revisions are also provided in Chapter 3, Revisions to the Draft EIR, of the Final EIR. The text revisions do not change the findings or conclusions of the Draft EIR and do not result in the identification of any new or increased significant impacts. Changes made to the Draft EIR are identified here in s�text to indicate deletions and in bold underlined text to signify additions. February 2019 5.12 PUBLIC SERVICES Impact Analysis: The proposed project is estimated to generate about 39180 students— using SAUSD student generation factors for multifamily units—consisting of 22 83 elementary school students, 8 43 intermediate students, and 4 54 high school students (see Table 5.12-3). Table 5.12.3 Estimated Project Student Generation (350 Proposed Multifamily Unitsl School Level Generation Factor per Household (multifamily attached units Students Generated Elementary (K-5) 9.9629 0.2367 2283 Intermediate (6-8) 9-92290.1218 843 High (9-12) 002510.1533 954 Total I)A i 39180 Source: Cogan 28782019. The three schools serving the project site have sufficient capacities for the proposed project's student generation, as shown in Table 5.12-4. Project development would not require SAUSD to add school capacity as the schools serving the project site would have more than adequate capacity. Page 2-35 2qJ NEWPORT CROSSINGS MIXED USE PROJECT (PA2017-107) FINAL EIR CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 2. Response to Comments Page 2-36 Table 5.12.4 Project Impacts on School Capacities Source: Cogan 2018. Additionally, the need for additional school services and facilities is addressed by compliance with school impact assessment fees per Senate Bill 50, also known as Proposition 1A. SB 50—codified in California Government Code Section 65995—was enacted in 1988 to address how schools are financed and how development projects may be assessed for associated school impacts. To address the increase in enrollment at IAi3SB SAUSD schools that would serve the Proposed Project, the project applicant/developer would be required to pay school impact fees to reduce any impacts to the school system, in accordance with SB 50. These fees are collected by school districts at the time of issuance of building permits. As stated in Government Code Section 65995(h), A7-4 The comment states that the Draft EIR should be updated to reflect the State Allocation Board's most recent adjustment to level -on residential school fees. As requested, the text on page 5.12-11 of Draft EIR Section 5.12 has been revised, as follows. The revisions are also provided in Chapter 3, Revisions to the Draft EIR, of the Final EIR. The text revisions do not change the findings or conclusions of the Draft EIR and do not result in the identification of any new or increased significant impacts. Changes made to the Draft EIR are identified here in`sa� text to indicate deletions and in bold underlined text to signify additions. Additionally, the commencer noted that while developer fees are intended to help offset the students generated by the project, the fees may not be sufficient to provide adequate comprehensive school facilities. As noted under impact statement 5.12-3 (pages 5.12-13 and 5.12-14) of Draft EIR Section 5.12, pursuant to Government Code Section 65995(h), "The payment or satisfaction of a fee, charge, or other requitement levied or imposed ... are hereby deemed to be full and complete mitigation of the impacts of any legislative or adjudicative act, or both, involving, but not limited to, the planning, use, or development of real property, or any change in governmental organization or reorganization ... on the provision of adequate school facilities." PlaceWorkr 210 Project Student Existing Available Capacity Generation Available Capacity After School from Table 5.12-2 from Table 5.12-3 Project Student Generation Monroe Elementary 191 2283 469108 School McFadden 609 643601566 Intermediate School Century High School 127 4 54 44976 Source: Cogan 2018. Additionally, the need for additional school services and facilities is addressed by compliance with school impact assessment fees per Senate Bill 50, also known as Proposition 1A. SB 50—codified in California Government Code Section 65995—was enacted in 1988 to address how schools are financed and how development projects may be assessed for associated school impacts. To address the increase in enrollment at IAi3SB SAUSD schools that would serve the Proposed Project, the project applicant/developer would be required to pay school impact fees to reduce any impacts to the school system, in accordance with SB 50. These fees are collected by school districts at the time of issuance of building permits. As stated in Government Code Section 65995(h), A7-4 The comment states that the Draft EIR should be updated to reflect the State Allocation Board's most recent adjustment to level -on residential school fees. As requested, the text on page 5.12-11 of Draft EIR Section 5.12 has been revised, as follows. The revisions are also provided in Chapter 3, Revisions to the Draft EIR, of the Final EIR. The text revisions do not change the findings or conclusions of the Draft EIR and do not result in the identification of any new or increased significant impacts. Changes made to the Draft EIR are identified here in`sa� text to indicate deletions and in bold underlined text to signify additions. Additionally, the commencer noted that while developer fees are intended to help offset the students generated by the project, the fees may not be sufficient to provide adequate comprehensive school facilities. As noted under impact statement 5.12-3 (pages 5.12-13 and 5.12-14) of Draft EIR Section 5.12, pursuant to Government Code Section 65995(h), "The payment or satisfaction of a fee, charge, or other requitement levied or imposed ... are hereby deemed to be full and complete mitigation of the impacts of any legislative or adjudicative act, or both, involving, but not limited to, the planning, use, or development of real property, or any change in governmental organization or reorganization ... on the provision of adequate school facilities." PlaceWorkr 210 NEWPORT CROSSINGS MIXED USE PROJECT (PA2017-107) FINAL EIR CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 2. Response to Comments 5.12 PUBLIC SERVICES Regulatory Background Senate Bill 50 (Chapter 407 of Statutes of 1998) (SB 50) SB 50 sets forth a state school facilities construction program that includes restrictions on a local jurisdiction's ability to impose mitigation for a project's impacts on school facilities in excess of fees set forth in Education Code 17620. It establishes three potential limits for school districts, depending on the availability of new school construction funding from the state and the particular needs of the individual school districts. Level one is the general school facilities fees imposed in accordance with Government Code Section 65995 as amended. Level two and three fees are alternate fees that are intended to represent 50 percent or 100 percent of a school district's school facility construction costs per new residential construction as authorized by Government Code Sections 65995.5, 65995.6, and 65995.7. On Februffy '", 2046 September 17, 2018, the State Allocation Board adjusted the maximum level ��-poneresidential school fee to be $3.48 $3.79 per square foot for residential development; and $0.61 per square foot for commercial, industrial, and senior housing projects; and $0 .406 _ sq�ffe feet c__ h6te 7_._..i Development fees authorized by SB 50 are deemed by Section 65996 of the California Government Code to be "full and complete school facilities mitigation." A7-5 The commenter concurs with the mitigation measures outlined in the Draft EIR. The comment is acknowledged. Also, in response to the commenter's minor edit requested, the text on page 5.12-13 of Section 5.12 has been revised, as shown in response to Comment A7-3, above. The revision is also provided in Chapter 3, Revisions to the Draft EIR, of the FEIR. A7-6 As requested, the City will continue to provide the District with all CEQA-related project notices and documents in accordance pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21092.2, and to the attention of the Assistant Superintendent of Facilities & Government Relations. February 2019 Page 2-37 211 NEWPORT CROSSINGS MIXED USE PROJECT (PA2017-107) FINAL EIR CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 2. Response to Comments Thispage ententionally left blank. Page 2-38 PlaceWorks 212 NEWPORT CROSSINGS MIXED USE PROJECT (PA2017-107) FINAL EIR CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 2. Response to Comments LETTER AS — South Coast Air Quality Management District (4 pages) ®South Coast Air Quality Management District 21865 Copley Drive, Diamond Bar, CA 91765-4178 • • a (909) 396-2000 • vv w.agmd.gov SENT VIA EMAIL AND USPS: January 11, 2019 imurillownewpombeachca.eov Jaime Murillo. Senior Planner City of Newport Beach, Community Development Department 100 Civic Center Drive Newport Beach, CA 92660 Dlafl fm iron mental Impact Remarl (Draft 1':I R) far the Proposed Nenrwrl (C mssinrs Mixed-Dse Praiccl ISCII No.: 201 71 01 0671 South Const Air Quality- hlnnagemem District (SC'AQMDi staff appreciates the opportunity to comment on the above-mentioned document. The following comments are meant as guidance for the Lad Agency and should he incorporated into the Final EIR. SCAOMD Stairs Summary of Project Description The Lead Agency is proposing to demolish 5877 square fect of the existing structures for the construction of a mixed-use development consisting of 350 residential units, a 2,018) -square -fou mWurant, and 5.500 Abi square feel of retail uses on 5.69 acres (Proposed Project). The Proposed Project is located on the southeast comer of Corinthian Way and Scon Drive. Construction of the Proposed Project is expected to occur over approximately 38 months, beginning in December 2019'. SCAOMD Stairs Summary of Air Quality Analysis In the Air Quality Analysis section. the Lead Agency quantified the Proposed Projects construction and operational emissions and compared those emissions to SCAQMD's regional and localiml air quality CFQA significance thresholds. The Proposed Project would result in a daily maximum of 217 pounds per day (lbs/day) of NOx emissions during construction, which would exceed SCAQMD's regional air quality CEQA significance threshold of 100 Ibsidey for Nos, After the implementation of mitigation measures A&2 (MM) AQ -1 through MM AQ -3, conSlruclion-Vtimed Nos emissions would he mitigated to be leas than significant. MM AQ -1 would limit the hauling of soil to a maximum 269 mocks per day and restrict overlapping between rough grading and associated soil hauling activities and other construction activities'. MM AQ -2 would limit the hauling of building demolition debris to a maximum 47 trucks per day and restrict overlapping between demolition and associated debris hauling activities and other construction activities such as rough grading and site preparation'. MM AQ -3 would require that construction equipment meet or exceed the U.S. EPA Tier 3 emissions standards for off-road diesel -powered construction equipment with more than 50 Mursepower`. SCAOMD's 2016 Air Quality Manaccmcr Plan On March 3, 2017, the SCAQMD's Governing Board adopted the 2016 Air Quality Management Plan (2016 AQMP)", which was later appressed by the California Air Resources Board on March 23, 2017. Built upon AB -3 the progress in implementing the 2007 and 2012 AQMPs, the 22016 AQMP provides a regional prrspeclive on air quality and the challenges facing the South Coast Air Basin. The most signilicanl air quality challenge ' otm. Paas 5.2'1. ' DEIR. Task 5_2-12, Pages 51-34 and 35. ' DFIR. Paas 51.32. Ibid. ' Ibid. Paan 52-32 war 31. • Sours Coast Air Qurriiy Managemon Divokr. Numb 3. 2017. V/6 Air thkAo Slmmgexnwr Plan. Accessed at: hau.xww.;sarzut.mn InnugiMwa rkwi-:tie-oWnaairawuinmat-plan. February 2019 Page 2-39 223 NEWPORT CROSSINGS MIXED USE PROJECT (PA2017-107) FINAL EIR CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 2. Response to Comments Jaime Murillo -2- January 11, 2019 in the Basin is to achieve an additional 45 percent reduction in nitrogen oxide (NOx) emissions in 2023 andI A&3 m an additional 55 percent NOx reduction beyond 2031 levels for ozone attainent, cant 5CAQMp�1 Q pyY mmenls As described in the 2016 AQMP, achieving NOx emissions reductions in a timely manner is critical to attaining the National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) for ozone before the 2023 and 2031 deadlines. SCAQMD is committed to attaining the ozone NAAQS as expeditiously as practicable. While A84 nstr couction-related NOx emissions were mitigated to be less than significant with the implementation of MM AQ -1 through MM AQ -3, to further reduce NOx emissions during construction. SCAQMD staff recommends that the Lead Agency incorporate changes to MM AQ -3 and include additional mitigation measures in the Final FIR. Details are provided in the attachment. Conclusion Pursuant to California Public Resources Code Section 21092.5(a) and CEQA Guidelines Section 1508816), SCAQMD staff requests that the t.ead Agency provide SCAQMD stall with written responses to all comments contained herein prior to the cenification of the Final FIR. In addition, issues mired in the comments should be addressed in detail giving reasons why specific comments and suggestions arc not accepted. There should be good faith, reasoned analysis in response. Conclusory statements unsupported by factual information will not suffice (CEQA Guidelines Section 15088(c)). Conclusory statements do not facilitate the purpose and goal of CEQA on public disclosure and arc not meaningful or useful to decision makers and to the public who arc interested in the Proposed Project. SCAQMD staff is available to work with the Lead Agency to address any air quality questions that may arise from this comment letter. Please contact Robert Dalbeck. Assistant Air Quality Specialist, at rdalbeck'a aamd.eoc or (909) 396-2139, should you have any questions. Anochmcm ISAID ORC181205-10 C.uol Nimrber Page 240 Sincerely, .Ce#* .5" Lijin Sun, J. D. Program Supervisor, C'FQA IGR Planning. Rule Development & Area Sources A84 PlaceWorkr 21-4 NEWPORT CROSSINGS MIXED USE PROJECT (PA2017-107) FINAL EIR CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 2. Response to Comments Jaime Murillo -3- January 11, 2019 AT'I'ACHI19ENf Ail' Quality Analysis Overlapping Construction and Operation Scenario According to the Draft EIR', construction of the Proposed Project would occur over 38 months beginning in December 2019 and be completed by the end of January 2023. However, based on a rcviewv of the CalEEA7od output File, SCAQA91) staff found that the Proposed Project would he operational in 2022'. Therefore, it is recommended that the Lead Agency clarify in the Final EIR if any of the construction activities would overlap with operation. ht the cvcnl that there is an overlapping construction and operation scenario, SCAQMD stall recommends that the I.ead Agency identify the overlapping phases, combine construction emissions with operational emissions, and compare the combined emissions to SCAQMD's regional and localized air quality CEQA significance thresholds for oaeration to detennine the level of significance in the Final EIR. Should the Lead Agency, alley revising the Air Quality Analysis, find that the Proposed Project's air quality impacts would be significant, the Lead Agency is required to consider feasible mitigation measures and determine if new mitigation measures would be warranted in addition to (lie existing Mitigation Measure (MNI) AQ -I through MINI AQ -3. Mitination Measures Reconnteneled Changes to £.risting ,14.44 A Q-3 2. While the Proposed Project's NOx emissions during construction (i.e., approsinmredy 217 Ibslday) were mitigmed to be less than significmt with the implementation of MM AQ -1 through MM AQ -3, to further reduce NOx emissions during construction. SCAQMD recommends that the Lead Agency incorporate the following changes to MM AQ -3 and include additional mitigation measures in the Final EIR. AQ -3 Construction contractors shall. at minimum, use equipment that meets the EPA's Tier 3 4 emissions standards for o0=road diesel -powered construction equipment With inure than of 50 horsepower or greater, for all building and asphalt dentol i titin, buildion, mid ae6vities-phases of construction activity, unless it can be demonstrated to the City of Newport Beach Building Division with substantial evidence drat such equipment is not available. Any emissions control device used by the contractor shall achieve emissions reductions that are no less than what could be achieved by Tier 3 4 emissions standards for it similarly sired engine, as defined by the California Air Resources Board's regulations. Successful contractorts) must demonstrate the abilitv to sunDIv con qucti n activitie . A cofty oreach unit'S certified tier specification or model year snecification and CARB or SCAQMD operating permit (if anplicable) shall he available upon rcpucsl at the time of mobilimtion of each applicable unit of equipment. To ensure that Tier 4 construction equipment or better will be used during the Proposed Project's construction. SCAQA9D sudT rcconmends that the Lead Agency include this requirement in applicable bid documents, purchase orders, and contracts. The Lead Agency should also require periodic reporting and provision of written construction documents by construction contructor(s), and conduct ieLnda inspections to the maximum extent feasible 10 ensure and enforce compliance. ' DEIR. Page 5.2-31. e DEIR. Apprndix D,.lir QuuHro mrd Greeufmuse G¢w',lfnrfeling. t'ebruafy 2019 A8-6 A8.7 Pgoe 241 225 NEWPORT CROSSINGS MIXED USE PROJECT (PA2017-107) FINAL EIR CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 2. Response to Comments Jaime Murillo -t- January 11, 2019 Additional Reanmmended Mitigation Memurer 3. CEQA requires that all feasible mitigation measures that go beyond what is required bylaw be utilized to minimize or eliminate any significant adverse air quality impacts. SCAQMD staff recommends that the Lead Agency incorporate the following mitigation measures in the Final EIR. Require zero -emissions or near -zero emission on -road haul tacks such as heavy-duty trucks with natural gas engines that meet the C'ARB's adopted optional NOx emissions standard at 0.02 gams per brake horsepower -hour (e bhp -hr). if and when feasible. Ata minimum, require that construction vendors. contractors. ander haul truck operators commit to using 2010 model year trucks (e.g.. material deliver), trucks and soil importexpot) that meet C'ARB's 2010 engine emissions standards at 0.01 gbhp-hr of particulate matter (PM) and 0.20 gbhp-hr of NOx emissions or newer, cleaner trucks. Operators shall maintain records of a0 trucks associated with project construction To document that each truck used meets these emission standards The Lead Agenc) should include this requirement in applicable hid documents, purchase orders, and contracts. Olocrators shall maintain recoils orf all trucks associated with project construction to document that each truck used meets these emission standards, and make the records available for inspection. The Lead Agency should conduct regular inspections to the maximum extent feasible to ensure and enforce compliance. • Suspend all on-site construction activities when wind speeds las instantaneous gusts) exceed 25 miles per hour. • All trucks hauling din, sand, soil or other louse materials arc to be covcmd, or should maintain w lust two feet of freeboard in accordance with California Vehicle Code Section 23114 (freeboard means vertical space between the top of the load and top of the trailer). Enter into applicable bid documents, purchase orders, and contracts to notify all construction vendors, contractors, and/or haul truck operators that vehicle mrd construction equipment idling time will be limited to no longer Than five minutes, consistent with the California Air Resources, Board's policy". For any idling that is expected to take longer than five minutes, the engine should be shut off. Notify construction vendors, contractors, andlor haul truck opramrs of these idling requirements at the time that the purchase order is issued and again when vehicles enter the Proposed Project site. To further ensure that drivers understand the vehicle idling requirement, post signs at the Proposed Project entry gate and throughout the Proposed Project site, where appropriate, stating that idling longer than five minutes is not permitted. " CdlWmia Air RR"oureea Bara. lime SIx19. a'Nnen lJllrp; PdiryfuiMur-s. Aadetd a4' W16i:: W N_w a14 ti9,a41_nm�4Y:RfJ£Sf1L' ll1} In e'wr'uenidlina¢u do rest: Page 242 A&8 PlaceWorkr 210 NEWPORT CROSSINGS MIXED USE PROJECT (PA2017-107) FINAL EIR CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 2. Response to Comments A8. Response to Comments from South Coast Air Quality Management District, Lijin Sun, Program Supervisor CEQA IGR, dated January 11, 2019. A8-1 The comment does not concern the content or adequacy of the Draft EIR. The South Coast Air Quality Management District's (SCAQMD) summary of the project description is acknowledged. A8-2 The comment does not concern the content or adequacy of the Draft EIR. SCAQMD's summary of the potential air quality impacts of the project and mitigation measures is acknowledged. A8-3 The comment does not concern the content or adequacy of the Draft EIR. SCAQMD's summary of the goals of the 2016 Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP), including the substantial nitrogen oxides (NOx) reductions necessary to achieve the 2023 and 2031 targets, is acknowledged. A8-4 SCAQMD requests changes to Mitigation Measure AQ -3 to further reduce NOx emissions during construction activities. As identified in response to Comment A8-7 below, the commenter's recommendation to utilize certain construction equipment that meets the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Tier 4 emissions standards has been incorporated into Mitigation Measure AQ -3. A8-5 The comment requests that the City provide written responses to all of the SCAQMD's comments. As requested, responses to SCAQMD's comments are provided herein in accordance with the Public Resources Code and CEQA Guidelines. A8-6 The comment questions whether any construction activities would overlap with project operation. As noted in Subsection 3.3.4, Pr jest Phasing and Construction, of Draft FIR Chapter 3, Pryeet Description, the proposed project would be constructed in one phase. There would be no overlap of project operation with project -related construction activities. No revisions are necessary to the air quality modeling; and additional mitigation measures are not warranted to reduce impacts below the SCAQMD significance thresholds. A8-7 The comment requests that Mitigation Measure AQ -3 be revised to require the use of certain construction equipment that meets the EPAs Tier 4 emission standards. As substantiated in Draft FIR Section 5.2, AirQuality, use of Tier 3 construction equipment would be sufficient to reduce emissions below the SCAQMD significance thresholds. However, in an effort to further reduce NOx emissions during construction activities, Mitigation Measure AQ -3 has been revised to require the construction contractor to utilize construction equipment with engines that achieve the US EPA Tier 4 rating. The mitigation text on pages 5.2-32 and 5.2-33 of Section 5.2, has been revised, as follows. The revisions are also provided in Chapter 3, Revisions to the Draft ETIs, of the Final EIR- The IRThe text revisions do not change the findings or conclusions of the Draft EIR and do not February 2019 Page 243 �2� NEWPORT CROSSINGS MIXED USE PROJECT (PA2017-107) FINAL EIR CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 2. Response to Comments Page 244 result in the identification of any new or increased significant impacts. Changes made to the Draft EIR are identified here in str4leeaut text to indicate deletions and in bold underlined text to signify additions. 5.2 AIR QUALITY Impact 5.2-2 AQ -3 Construction contractors shall, at minimum, use equipment that meets the EPAs Tier 34 emissions standards for off-road diesel -powered construction equipment with of 50 horsepower or greater for all beilding and phases of construction activity, unless it can be demonstrated to the City of Newport Beach Building Division with substantial evidence that such equipment is not available. Any emissions control device used by the contractor shall achieve emissions reductions that are no less than what could be achieved by Tier 34 emissions standards for a similarly sized engine, as defined by the California Air Resources Board's regulations. Prior to construction, the project engineer shall ensure that all construction (e.g., demolition and grading) plans clearly show the requirement for EPA Tier 34 emissions standards for construction equipment ever of 50 horsepower or greater for the specific activities stated above. During construction, the construction contractor shall maintain a list of all operating equipment in use on the construction site for verification by the City of Newport Beach. The construction equipment list shall state the makes, models, and numbers of construction equipment onsite. Equipment shall be properly serviced and maintained in accordance with the manufacturer's recommendations. Construction contractors shall also ensure that all nonessential idling of construction equipment is restricted to 5 minutes or less in compliance with Section 2449 of the California Code of Regulations, Title 13, Article 4.8, Chapter 9. A8-8 The comment requests that various additional mitigation measures should be required. As substantiated in Draft EIR Section 5.2, AirQuadity, additional mitigation measures are not necessary to reduce impacts below the SCAQMD significance thresholds. The SCAQMD AQMP emissions forecast include emissions from construction activities in the air basin. The additional measures identified by the commenter would not eliminate the fact that construction activities would generate criteria air pollutant emissions. As substantiated in Draft EIR Section 5.2, Air Quality, with implementation of Mitigation Measures AQ -1 through AQ -3, the proposed project would not exceed the SCAQMD significance thresholds. Additionally, the request to require zero -emissions or near -zero -emission on - PlaceWorkr 212 February 2019 NEWPORT CROSSINGS MIXED USE PROJECT (PA2017-107) FINAL EIR CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 2. Response to Comments road haul trucks is potentially not feasible for a project with a buildout in year 2023 as these types of trucks are in the "demonstration" phase and not readily available by most construction sub -contractors at this time. SCAQMD Rule 403 already requires that onsite activities be suspended when wind speeds exceed 25 miles per hour (mph). This is an existing regulation that requires project applicant compliance and therefore is, not required as a mitigation measure. Similarly, the California Vehicle Code requires that trucks hauling dirt are tarped/covered and/or maintain six inches of freeboard and the California Air Resources Board's in -use off-road diesel vehicle regulations prohibit non essentially idling for more than five consecutive limits. These are also existing regulations that the project applicant would have to comply with and not required as mitigation measures. Page 245 NEWPORT CROSSINGS MIXED USE PROJECT (PA2017-107) FINAL EIR CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 2. Response to Comments Thasage ententionadly left blank. Page 246 PlaceWorkr 220 NEWPORT CROSSINGS MIXED USE PROJECT (PA2017-107) FINAL EIR CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH LEVER A9 — Caifornia Department of Transportation (2 pages) DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTA'T'ION DISFRIM' 12 1750 EAST FOURTH STREET• SUITE 100 SANTA ANA, CA 92705 VI 10NL' (657) 323-U67 FAX (657)328.6510 TTY 711 w.do raeav January 11, 2019 Jaime Murillo City of Newport Beach 100 Civic Center Drive Newport Beach, CA 92660 Dear Mr. Murillo, 2. Response to Comments Fvtvig e'mam ,M a(7.4( no traygfLo.. File: IGR/CEQA SCIAP: 2017101067 12 -ORA -2018-01031 SR 73, PM 25.198 Thank you for including the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) in the review of the Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Newport Crossings Mixed Use project in the City of Newport Beach. The mission of Caltrans is to provide a safe, sustainable, integrated and efficient transportation system to enhance California's economy and livability. The proposed project consists of the development of a multistory building that would house 350 apartment units, 2,000 square feet of "casual -dining" restaurant space, 5,500 square feet of retail space, and a 0.5 -acre public park. The project site is approximately 0.6 miles north of State Route (SR) 73 and 1.3 miles south of Interstate 405 (1405). Caltrans is a commenting agency on this project and upon review, we have the following comments: LM 'transportation Planning The City's Bicycle Master Plan (2014) recommends that Class II facilities be constructed on several streets surrounding the project site, including Birch Street, MacArthur Boulevard, AD -2 Westerly Place, and Dove Street. Please consider these recommended facilities when developing the project's circulation element. Encroachment Permit Please be advised that any project work proposed in the vicinity of the State Highway System (SITS) will require an Encroachment Permit and all environmental concerns must be adequately addressed. If the environmental documentation for the project does not meet Caltrans' requirements, additional documentation would be required before the approval of the Encroachment Permit. For specific details for Encroachment Permits procedure, please refer to the Caltrans' Encroachment Permits Manual. The latest edition of the Manual is available on the web site: hnp://www.dot.ca.RovPoo/tmfl'oms/develonsendocrmits/ Please continue to keep us informed of this project mid any future developments which could potentially impact the SHS. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact Joseph .lamomlin, at (657) 328-6276 or Josemh.Jamoralinra doi t_ca.gw. 'Ytovfeeoto)6 mrnim C fi=&z vadey=d vanymtaGm µ+nm W eMonu Cwt mid. arwwnYwtlwahVar' t'ebruaty 2019 A9.3 Pgoe 247 221 NEWPORT CROSSINGS MIXED USE PROJECT (PA2017-107) FINAL EIR CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 2. Response to Comments Newport Crossings Mixed Use Project January 11, 2019 Page 2 / Sincerely SCOTT Y Branch Chief, Regional-IGR-Transit Planning District 12 •arenar n 3WP su,mi�ael•, mttprKeeara eJ/rlem nansporr000n SKrem lO PM1MttCOM17dNO3 Kd1M1y OI14LSy(4Y1)'� Page 248 Placell'/orks 222 NEWPORT CROSSINGS MIXED USE PROJECT (PA2017-107) FINAL EIR CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 2. Response to Comments A9. Response to Comments from California Department of Transportation, Scott Shelley, Branch Chief, Regional-IGR-Transit Planning, dated January 11, 2019. A9-1 The comment does not concern the content or adequacy of the Draft EIR. The comment is acknowledged. A9-2 The commenter requested that the City consider the recommended Class II (on -street) bicycle facility along Dove Street, which forms the southwestern boundary of the project site. Specifically, the recommended Class II bicycle facility- is called out in Figure 5-1 (Recommended Bicycle Facilities Network) of the City's Bicycle Master Plan (2014). The project does include improvements to the sidewalk along Dove Street, which would be demolished and reconstructed to City standards, and the project will provide new ADA compliant curb access ramps at Dove Street/Scott Drive in accordance with City standards. Further, although designated bike lanes are not located on the local streets surrounding the project site (i.e., Corinthian Way, Martingale Way, Scott Drive, and Dove Street), Class II bicycles lanes are provided on both sides of Campus Drive—Irvine Avenue from MacArthur Boulevard to Cliff Drive in the vicinity of the project. However, the recommendation for a Class II bicycle facility along Dove Street remains conceptual at tris time and has yet to be determined feasible though a study and public outreach process, which would be initiated by the City. The recommended Class II bicycle facility along Dove Street is not planned for implementation at this time in connection with the proposed project. A9-3 The comment is acknowledged. The proposed project does not require an encroachment permit as no work is being proposed on, adjacent to, or in proximity of a State Highway System. February 2019 Page 249 223 NEWPORT CROSSINGS MIXED USE PROJECT (PA2017-107) FINAL EIR CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 2. Response to Comments Thasage ententionadly left blank. Page 2-50 PlaceWorkr NEWPORT CROSSINGS MIXED USE PROJECT (PA2017-107) FINAL EIR CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH LETTER A10 — Airport Land Use Commission for Orange County (2 pages) ORANGE COUNfY .ILIIG February 2019 2. Response to Comments AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION FOR ORANGE COUNTY 3160 Airway Avenue • Costa Mesa, California 92626 - 949.252.5170 fax: 949.252.6012 January 14, 2019 Jaime Murillo, Senior Planner City of Newport Beach Community Development Department 100 Civic Center Drive Newport Beach, CA 92660 Subject: DEIR for Newport Crossings Mixed Use Project Dear Mr. Murillo Thank you for the opportunity to review the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the proposed Newport Crossings Mixed (Jse Project in the context of the Airport Land Use Commission's (ALUC) Airport Environs Land Use Plan (AELUP) for John Watwe Airport UWA). The proposed project consists of 350 residential dwelling units, 2,000 square feet of casual -dining restaurant space, 5,500 square feet of commercial space, and a 0.5 -acre public park. The proposed project is bounded by Corinthian Way to the northeast, Martingale Way to the cast, Scott Drive to the northwest, and Dove Street to the southwest. The proposed project is located within the Federal Aviation Regulation (FAR) Part 77 Notification Arca for J WA. The DEIR states that the proposed maximum building height for the project area is 153 feet above ground level (AGL). However, the DEIR does not address if the proposed project penetrates the FAA Notification surface. We recommend that the project proponent utilize the Notice Criteria Tool on the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) website hitris"oeaaa.(aa.¢orocaaa+extemal:bortal iso to detemine if the proposed project penetrates the notification surface and requires filing Form 7460-1 Notice of Proposed Construction or Alteration with the FAA. The results from the Notice Criteria'I ool should be included in the DEIR. Additionally, if the project requires Form 7460-1 filing, the resulting FAA airspace determination should be included in the project submittal package to ALUC. A10 A10-2 Additionally, the DEIR states that the maximum ground elevation at the project site is 53 feet above mean sea level (AMSL). With a proposed building height of 153 feet added to the ground elevation, the total proposed elevation of the building would be 206 feet A10-3 AMSL. The 1 WA horizontal imaginary surface at the location of this project is 206 feet AMSL and should not be penetrated. Although the proposed structure is not proposed to Page 2-51 225 NEWPORT CROSSINGS MIXED USE PROJECT (PA2017-107) FINAL EIR CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 2. Response to Comments ALUC Co nn- Ntwpm Cr inp MIR 1114/20t, 9V20n plat, penetrate the 206 fcct AMSL elevation, the ALUC does not recommend that structures beI A10.7 built to this elevation. mnrd With respect to raise, the proposed project is located within the 60 dBA CNEL noise contour and is located within Safety Zone 6 for 1WA which will subject the proposed A10-4 project to overflight from general aviation operations. The DEIR discusses how the proposed project will address noise and safety concerns. With respect to noise requirements, the City will require that the project applicant demonstrate that interior noise levels from aircraft be reduced to 45 dBA CNEL or less in all habitable rooms per the California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Building Standards Administrative Code, Pan 2. The DEIR states that an acoustic study shall be performed by a qualified professional that demonstrates compliance with these standards. The City is also requiring that signage be posted in public parks and outdoor common or recreational areas informing the public of the presence of operating aircraft and noise. We concur with these requirements. A10-5 A referral by the City to the ALUC may be required for this project due to the close proximity of the proposal to JWA. In this regard, please note that the Commission wants such referrals to be submitted and agendized by the ALUC staff between the Local Agency's expected Planning Commission and City Council hearings. Since the ALUC Atm meets on the third Thursday afternoon of each month, submittals must be received in the ALUC office by the first of the month to ensure sufficient time for review, analysis, and agendizing. Thank you again for the opportunity to comment on the DEIR. Please contact Lea Choum at (949) 252.5123 or via email at Ichoumrocair.com should you have any questions related to the Airport Land Use Commission for Orange County. Sincerely, Kari A. Rigoni Executive Officer Page 2-52 PlaceWorks 220 NEWPORT CROSSINGS MIXED USE PROJECT (PA2017-107) FINAL EIR CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 2. Response to Comments A10. Response to Comments from Airport Land Use Commission of Orange County, Kari A. Rigoni, Executive Director, dated January 14, 2019. A10-1 The comment does not concern the content or adequacy of the Draft EIR. The comment is acknowledged. A10-2 Impact Statement 5.7-3 of Draft EIR Section 5.17, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, provides a discussion of the FAR Part 77 Notification Area and the potential impacts to JWA navigable air space resulting from the proposed project's building heights. See Response to Comment A10 3, below, regarding the discrepancy in the proposed building height. As noted in that response, the building heights noted in the Daft EIR were incorrect. The correct building height proposed is 130 feet AMSL, which is well below the 206 foot AMSL height limit for the project site. Therefore, it is not necessary to use the Notice Criteria Tool to determine if the proposed building would penetrate the Part 77 Notification Area, as the building would not penetrate notification area. However, in response to the commenter, a formal submittal was made to the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to determine if the proposed building would penetrate the notification surface and require filing Form 7460-1, Notice of Proposed Construction or Alteration, with the FAA. Upon submittal, the FAA conducted an aeronautical study, which revealed that the proposed building does not exceed obstruction standards and would not be a hazard to air navigation provided that FAA Form 7460-2, Notice of Actual Construction or Alteration, be e -filed within 5 days after the construction reaches its greatest height (see Appendix A). The FAA -issued "Determination of No Hazard to Air Navigation" is provided as Appendix A to this FEIR. Applicant submittal of FAA Form 7460-2 form will be ensured through the City's site development review process, as it will be included as a condition of approval. A10-3 The commenter stated the project's maximum building height would be 153 AMSL, which is text directly taken from page 5.7-20 under Impact Statement 5.7-3 of Draft EIR Section 5.7, Hazards and Ha.Zardous Materials. Adding the proposed building height of 153 feet AMSL with the highest ground level of the site of 53 feet AMSL would result in the building reaching the maximum FAA allowed height for the site of 206 AMSL, which is of concern to the commenter and JWA operations. februaiy 2019 The building height of 153 feet AMSL referenced on Draft EIR page 5.7-14 is incorrect. The maximum height would be approximately 130 AMSL, which is the sum of the maximum proposed building height of 77 feet 9 inches (tallest structure proposed) plus the highest ground level of the site of 53 feet AMSL. This would put the proposed building height well below the 206 foot AMSL height limit. The text on pages 5.7-14 and 5.7-20 under Impact Statement 5.7-3 of Draft EIR Section 5.7 has been revised, as follows. The revisions are also provided in Chapter 3, Revisions to the Draft EIR, of the Final EIR. The text revisions do not change the findings or conclusions of the Draft EIR Page 2-53 227 NEWPORT CROSSINGS MIXED USE PROJECT (PA2017-107) FINAL EIR CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 2. Response to Comments Page 2-54 and do not result in the identification of any new or increased significant impacts. Changes made to the Draft EIR are identified here in ^'-tea l�a�text to indicate deletions and in bold underlined text to signify additions. 5.7 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS Airport -Related Hazards The proposed project is in Safety Zone 6 designated in the Airport Environs Land Use Plan (AELUP) fox John Wayne Airport QWA) issued by the Orange County Airport Land Use Commission in 2008. Outdoor stadiums and similar uses with very high intensities are prohibited in Zone 6. Children's schools, large day care centers, hospitals, and nursing homes should be avoided. Residential uses and most nonresidential uses are permitted (OCALUC 2008). There are no heliports within one mile of the project site other than JWA (Airnavcom 2018). The proposed project is also in an area surrounding JWA where structure heights are regulated under Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Regulations Part 77 for preservation of navigable airspace. The maximum structure height permitted at the project site is 206 feet above mean sea level (amsl) (OCALUC 2008). The elevation onsite ranges from 48 feet amsl at the southwest corner of the site to 53 feet amsl at the northeast corner. Thus, the maximum structure height proposed onsite would be based on the higher of those two elevations, the iiiff-affi� stf�ev�e height pefffimed an site is about '- 53 `eef above gro� R'_ 1-- _--1_ plus the proposed building height. a Impact Analysis: The project site is in Safety Zone 6 designated in the Airport Environs Land Use Plan for John Wayne Airport. Outdoor stadiums and similar uses with very high intensities are prohibited in Zone 6. Children's schools, large day care centers, hospitals, and nursing homes should be avoided. Residential uses and most nonresidential uses are permitted (OCALUC 2008). The proposed project does not propose any land uses prohibited or discouraged by the AELUP and would not subject people on the ground to substantial hazards from crashes of aircraft approaching or departing JWA. The project site also in an area surrounding JWA where structure heights are regulated under FAA Regulations Part 77 for preservation of navigable airspace. The maximum structure height permitted at the project site is 206 feet amsl (OCALUC 2008). The elevation onsite ranges from 48 feet amsl at the southwest corner of the site to 53 feet amsl at the northeast corner. Thus, based on the higher of those two elevations, the maximum structure height is approximately 130 amsl, which is the sum of the maximum proposed building height of 77 feet 9 inches (tallest structure proposed)_plus the highest elevation of the site of 53 feet amsl. This would put the proposed building height well below PlaceWorkr 222 NEWPORT CROSSINGS MIXED USE PROJECT (PA2017-107) FINAL EIR CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 2. Response to Comments the 206 foot amsl height limit for the site. The proposed buildings would be approximately 55 feet high for residential living spaces, with limited ancillary structures to 77 feet 9 inches for stair towers architectural features (including parapets), parking, roof decks, elevator shafts, and mechanical equipment. The proposed project would conform with structure heights permitted on-site under FAA regulations and would not adversely affect navigable airspace surrounding JWA. A10-4 As provided in the Draft EIR, the comment states that the project site is within the 60 dBA CNEL noise contour and within Safety Zone 6 of the JWA, and acknowledges that the Draft EIR includes a discussion of measures intended to address safety and noise concerns for the project. The comment is acknowledged. Al0-5The commenter concurs with the noise requirements outlined in Draft EIR Section 5.10, Noise, including those related to the project applicant's requirement to prepare an acoustic study to ensure that airport related noise impacts are adequately addressed for future residents. It should be noted that the reference to the need for an acoustic study was provided for reference purposes only (see regulatory requirement SC N0I-1 on page 5.14- 14), and not in response to any of the impact statements/questions of Section 5.10. Under CEQA, a project's impact on the environment are required to be analyzed; however, an analysis of the environments impact on a project is not required. Al0-6The commenter stated that a referral to the Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) may be required for the proposed project due to its close proximity to JWA. The City of Newport Beach General Plan was found consistent with the Airport Environs Land Use Plan (AELUP) for John Wayne Airport by ALUC on July 20, 2006. As such, the City of Newport Beach is considered a consistent city. Per Policy LU 3.8 of the Newport Beach General Plan Land Use Element, and per ALUC Referral Requirements for Consistent Cities, projects within the JWA planning area that include the adoption or amendment of a general plan, zoning code, specific plan, or planned community development plan require review by ALUC. The policy also states that development projects that include buildings with a height greater than 200 feet above ground level require ALUC review. The proposed project does not meet either of these criteria, and therefore, does not require ALUC review. Also, see responses to Comments A10-2 and A10-3, above. Based on these responses, no ALUC review is necessary. February 2019 Page 2-55 2:�J NEWPORT CROSSINGS MIXED USE PROJECT (PA2017-107) FINAL EIR CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 2. Response to Comments Thasage ententionadly left blank. Page 2-56 PlaceWorkr 230 NEWPORT CROSSINGS MIXED USE PROJECT (PA2017-107) FINAL EIR CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 2. Response to Comments LETTER A11— OC public Works (1 page) ._�C PublicWorks Integrity, Accourf&b Mly, Service, rruct Shane L. SiNny, Director January 14, 2019 NCL -18.061 Janne Murillo, Senior Planner City of Newport Beach Community Development Department 100 Civic Center Drive Newport Beach, CA 92660 Subject: Newport Crossings Mixed I;m PmJect: Notice of Availability of a Draft Environmental Impact Report Dear Mr. Murillo The County of Orange has reviewed the Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Newport Crossings Mixed Use Project and has no comments at this time. We would like Ail -1 to be advisod of further developments on the project. Please continue to keep us on the distribution list for future notifications related to the project. If you have any questions regarding these comments, please contact Cindy Salazar at (714) 667-8870 in OC Development Services. Sin icherd Nkm& Manager, Planning Division OC Public Works Service Area/0C Development Services 300 North Flower Street Santa Ana, California 92702-4048 Richard. Vuong@y,cpw.ocgov_win 31101% Fb" SNar, Sant Ary CA WM P.O. Btu 1010. Sarft Ane, CA 977024010 February 2019 vrow.oNulit vaha.COm 711.667.8930 i IrdoQOCPw.tayov Page 2-57 231 NEWPORT CROSSINGS MIXED USE PROJECT (PA2017-107) FINAL EIR CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 2. Response to Comments Thasage ententionadly left blank. Page 2-58 PlaceWorkr 232 NEWPORT CROSSINGS MIXED USE PROJECT (PA2017-107) FINAL EIR CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 2. Response to Comments All. Response to Comments from OC Public Works, Richard Vuong, Manager, Planning Division, dated January 14, 2019. A11-1 The comment does not concern the content or adequacy of the Draft EIR. The comment is acknowledged. February 2019 Page 2-59 233 NEWPORT CROSSINGS MIXED USE PROJECT (PA2017-107) FINAL EIR CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 2. Response to Comments Thasage ententionadly left blank. Page 2-60 PlaceWorkr Em NEWPORT CROSSINGS MIXED USE PROJECT (PA2017-107) FINAL EIR CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 2. Response to Comments LETTER Al2 — Wittwer Parkin, LLP representing the Southwest Regional Council of Carpenters (14 pages) wittwer /parkin January 14, 2019 VIA E-MAIL Jamie Murillo, Senior Planner City of Newport Beach Community Development Department 100 Civic Center Drive Newport Beach, California jmurillo(dnewportbeachcagov Re: Newport Crossings Mixed Use Project Draft Environmental Impact Rcpurt (PA2017-017) Dear Ms. Murillo: Wiltwer Parkin, LLP represents the Southwest Regional Council of Carpenters (-Southwest Carpenters") and submits this letter un the above -referenced project on its behalf. Southwest Carpenters represents 50,000 union carpenters in six states, including in Southern California. Southwest Carpenters has a strong interest in addressing the environmental impacts of development projects, including the proposed Newport Crossings Mixed -Use Project (-Project") at 1701 Corinthian Way, 1660 Dove Street, 4251, 4253, 4255 Martingale Way, and 4200, 4220, and 4250 Scott Drive in Newport Beach, California The Project is located in the "Airport Area" region of the City of Newport Beach ("City"). (DEIR, p. 1-4.) It is located near the John Wayne Airport, and is surrounded by offices, retail uses, and hotels. (!d at Figure 3.3a [depicting project site and surrounding area], p. 4-0.) The Project site is approximately 5.69 acres, and is currently used as a shopping center, with eight retail and commercial buildings, surface parking, and nees. (Id. at p. 14.) The Project, if approved, would result in the demolition of these facilities and the construction of 350 apartment units, 2.000 square feet of restaurant space, 5,500 square feet of retail space, a six - level, five story parking structure, and a half -acre park. (Ibid.) Of the 350 apartment unim 91 would be constructed under a 35% density bonus, and 30% of the total units would be reserved for affordable housing. (Id at pp. 14, 3.12.) In order to construct the Pmjmt, the Project Applicant would need to receive two "development concessions': approval to build to 77 feet and 9 inches, rather than 55 feet, as required by the zoning code, and permission to build mom one -bedroom and studio apartments than is typically permitted. (1d. at pp. 14 — 1-5, 3.33.) It would also need a lot line adjustment to consolidate three parcels into one large parcel for the mixed-use project, a half -acre parcel for the park, and a small parcel for emergency access improvements needed for the Project. (1d at p. 3.33.) Al2.1 WITTWER PARKIN LLP / 147 S. RIVER ET., STE. vt / SANTA CRua, CA 195060 / 831.439.4055 W W W. WITTW ERPARKIN.COM 1 LAWOPPICEOWITTWERPAKKIN.CoM February 2019 Page 2-61 235 NEWPORT CROSSINGS MIXED USE PROJECT (PA2017-107) FINAL EIR CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 2. Response to Comments Jamie Murillo Re: Newport Crossings Mixed Use Project DEIR January 14, 2018 Page 2 In the DEIR, the City concludes that the Project would not result in any significant and unavoidable adverse impacts. (DEIR p. 6-I.) It determines that the Project would result in potentially significant impacts to air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, hazards and hazardous materials, and fire protwion and emergency services. (Id at pp. 1-9, 1.11, 1-13 — 1- 14, 1-15.) It asserts that mitigation would reduce these impacts to below a level of significance. (]bid) This is incorrect. As discussed more fully below, the DEIR is confusing, missing key analysis, and does not provide sufficient support for conclusions that the Project will have less than significant impacts in a number of areas. The DEIR's Cumulative Projccls List Does Not Provide Sufficient Information. The data provided in the Cmnulative ]'rejects List is insufficient to fully examine the listed projects. (DEIR. pp. 4-I3 —4-14.) The list does not include a description of related development or indicate when the developments will be constructed, nor does the list identify how close the developments are to the Project site. (Ibid.) It is, therefore, difficult for Southwest Carpenters to determine how these developments will have cumulative effects in conjunction with the proposed Project. Please update the Cumulative Projects List to, at minimum, include a description of each development, an address for each development and their distance from the Project site, as well as projected construction dates. 11. The DEIR's Air Quality Analysis is Incomplete. A. The air quality analysis is uninformative. "IA]n EIR is 'an informational document"' aimed at providing "'detailed information about the effect which a proposed project is likely to have on the environment...."' (Laurel Heights hnprovemew Assn. v. Regents of University ofColifurnia (1988) 47 Cal.3d 376, 391 I"Laurel Heights"], citing Pub. Resources Code § 21061 and Col. Code Regs., lit. 14, § 15003(b) -(e).) An EIR that is unclear fails to adequately inform the public about a potential project's impact on the environment. The Project is located in the South Coast Air Basin (`SCAB"). (DEIR, p. 5.2.1.) The SCAB is in non-attomment for California Ambient Air Quality Standards for ozone ("Os"), inhalable paniculate matter ("PMro"), and fine particulate matter CTM2.5'), and is in non - attainment for PM2,s and the 8 -hour standards for 03 under the National Ambient Air Quality Standards. (Id at pp. 5.2.5 — 5.2-7, 5-2-12.) Page 2-62 Al2.2 Al2.3 A124 PlaceForks 2s o NEWPORT CROSSINGS MIXED USE PROJECT (PA2017-107) FINAL EIR CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 2. Response to Comments Jamie Murillo Re: Newport Crossings Mixed Use Project DEIR January 14, 2018 Page 3 The City does not clearly explain whether it considered all of the information about rhe Project to reach its conclusions about Project impacts. It explains (hut the Project is consistent with Impact 5.2-1 ("the proposed project is consistent with the applicable air quality management plan"). (DF[R, pp. 5.2-22 — 5.2-23.) It explains: "projects that are consistent with the local general plan are considered consistent with the air quality -related regional plan," because such projects etre consistent with geneml-plan related demographic projections, and thus, they reason, will not have unexpected impacts on airquality. (Ibid.) The DEIR notes that "changes in population, housing, or employment growth projections have the potential to affect SCAG's demographic projections." (Id at p. 5.2-23.) The evidence demonstrates that the Project will redevelop a commercial retail space into a hybrid-residentiallretail/restaurant development, which will increase the population. (Ibid.) The DEIR states that this should not impact the Project's ability to comply with the Air Quality Management Plan, and summarily states that the Project would be within the projected housing growth, but it does not explain why. (Ibid.) In nddition, it fails to address how the Project's 35% density bonus for above what is typically permitted for housing on site will increase the population density or how this, in tum, could impact the Project's consistency with the applicable Air Quality Management Plan. (See in. at pp. 3-12, 5.2-23) [density bonus].) Please update the Air Quality analysis to better explain Al2-4 how this would be within projected housing growth and address the density bonus's potential caned impacts on compliance with air quality standards. Further, the City does not explain how compliance with various regulatory requirements (RR AIR -1, RR AIR -2, and RR AIR -3) have any bearing on the potential of the Project to conflict with the Air Quality Management Plan, such that compliance with these unrelated regulations would reduce Project impacts to less than significant prior to mitigation. (See id. m p.5.2-23.) In fact, much of the air quality analysis frequently references regulations that the Project must comply with or measures to reduce impacts that are contained in other portions of the DEIR, without a description of the measures, reference to where they are described, or, most importantly, how these measures serve to reduce Project impacts. (See, e.g., DEIR, pp. 5.2.22 - 5.2-31.) As another example, the DEIR explains, "wish implementation of RR AIR -1, RR AIR - 2, and RR AIR -4, Impact 5.2-3 would be less than significant," etc. (!d. ai p. 5.2-26.) Butthe DEIR fails to explain or clearly indicate what these impacts or measures entail. This is uninfammative and does not allow Southwest Carpenters to understand the City's conclusions about air quality impacts. Please update the air quality analysis to adequately explain what the measures or procedures and impacts it references entail and explain how these measures will reduce Project impacts. rebruaiy 2019 Pgoe 2-63 2S7 NEWPORT CROSSINGS MIXED USE PROJECT (PA2017-107) FINAL EIR CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 2. Response to Comments Jamie Murillo Re: Newport Crossings Mixed Use Project DEIR January 14, 2018 Page 4 R. The DEIR dues not adequately examine cumulative air quality impacts. When conducting an environmental impact analysis, an agency's determinations must be supported by evidence in the record. (Col. Code Civ. Proe. § 10945 [providing that agency findings must be supported by record evidence); Cal. Pub. Resources Code § 21168 [applying the Section 1094.5 standard to CEQA actions].) An agency cannot simply draw conclusions without analysis. (See Toponga Association for a Scenic Community v. County of Los Angeles (1974) 11 Cal.3d 506, 511-512, 515 "Topanga" 1.) 11 "nmst set forth findings to bridge the analytic gap between the mw evidence and ultimate decision or order." (Ibid.) The City's conclusion that "air pollutant emissions associated with the proposed project would not be cumulatively considerable" is not supported by the evidence. (DEIR, p. 5.2-3 1.) Nearby development, in conjunction with the Project, will have significant and unavoidable cumulative air quality impacts. The data provided in the Cumulative Projects List shows that file developments listed will result in significant construction and will increase residential, hotel, connnereial, office, mid other uses. (See id. at pp. 4-13 — 4.14.) This will result in increased vehicle trips, and will ultimately delay the air basin's timely attainment With air quality standards qt2 5 designed to protect human health and the environment. (ibid.)'Tellingly, the City does not disclose whether fray of the cumulative projects it lists have been found to have significant and unavoidable impacts, to which the Project will cumulatively contribute. The evidence in the record docs not support a conclusion that the Project will result in a less than cumulatively considerable impact. In reaching this conclusion, the DEIR fails to comply with its obligations under CEQA. CEQA requires an agency drafting an EIR to conduct "[a] reasonable analysis of the cumulative impacts of the relevant projects." (Cal. Code Regs., til. 14, § 15130(b)(5).) An agency must "examine reasonable, feasible options for mitigating or avoiding the project's contribution to an, significant cumulative effects" in an EIR, (ibid), and `must. use its best efforts to find out and disclose all thot it reasonably tali' (San Franciscans for Reasonable Griawh v. City & C'ounly u San F)•arcisco (1984) 151 Cal.App.3d 61, 74 ["San Franciscans,]). The DEIRdoes not "use in best efforts to find out and disclose all it reasonably can." (Ibid.) In the cumulative air quality impacts analysis, the DEIR docs not analyze, let alone mention, any of the projects on the Cumulative Projects List included in the DEIR, or other projects in the greater South Coast Air Basin region, nor does it disclose the air quality impacts of each project. (DEIR, pp. DEIR, p. 5.2.31.) As described supra, the Cumulative Projects List also lacks sufficient information to determine whether each project might contribute to cumulative air quality impacts, either on a local or regional level. (See id at pp. 4.13 —4.14.) Please confimn whether the City analyzed the actual impacts of surrounding projects or provide estimates of project emissions firm Page 2-64 Place Forks 2S2 NEWPORT CROSSINGS MIXED USE PROJECT (PA2017-107) FINAL EIR CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 2. Response to Comments Jamie Murillo Re: Newport Crossings Mixed Use Project DEIR January 14, 2018 Page 5 construction or operation of such projects. The City must, at a minimum, provide information on all potential related projects included in the Cumulative Projects List. The DEIR also segregates the cumulative air quality impacts of construction from impacts from the operation of other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects. (DEIR, p. 5.2.3 1 .) This makes it difficultto understand the overarching emissions of pollutants from this and other projects. Please provide information that discusses these projects' total air quality impacts — rather than providing separate analyses ofconstruction and operations related impacts. In an FEIR or a recirculated DEIR, please provide specific pollutant projections for, at minimum, each of the approved projects listed in the DEIR and explain the projected cumulative impact of the Project in conjunction with additional development. Further, please provide a list of all past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects in the SCAB that have been found to result in significant and unavoidable air quality impacts. 111. The DEIR's Greenhouse Gas ("GHG") Emissions Analysis Is Insufficient. A. The GHG analysis incorrectly relies on federal and statewide regulations that do not apply to individual projects. The Legislature and Califamiu Supreme Court have indicated that. "an EIR is'an informational document'... and that '[Qhe purpose of an environmental impact report is to provide public agencies and the public in general with detailed information about the effect which a proposed project is likely to have on the environment..... " (Laurel Heights, supro, 47 Cal.3d at 391, citing Cal. Pub. Resources Code § 21061 and Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, § 15003(b) - (e).) Yet the DEIR's discussion of potential impacts on greenhouse gas emissions (`GHCrs") fails to clearly identify or analyze applicable regulations and plans in the context of the Project. The City incorrectly relies on federal and statewide plans and regulations which were not designed to be applied at the project -level. (See Center for Biological Diversity v. Dept of Fish & Wildlife (2015) 62 Cal.4th 204 ["Newhall Ranch"]; DEIR, pp. 5.6-5 - 5.6-15.) The City provides little analytical connection between these plans and requirements for the Project itself. (See ibid.) These plans, for example, discuss GI -IG emissions requirements for manufacturers of vehicles and suggestions for local governments, but do not provide project -specific standards for development projects. (Id at pp. 5.6-6 — 5.6-9.) This information is unnecessary and undermines the DEIR's function as a transparent, educational document. February 2019 Al2s wnrd Al2-6 Pgoe 2-65 239 NEWPORT CROSSINGS MIXED USE PROJECT (PA2017-107) FINAL EIR CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 2. Response to Comments Jamie Murillo Re: Newport Crossings Mixed Use Project DEIR January 14, 2018 Page 6 The DEIR's discussion of Impact 5.6-2 does not clearly explain how it selected "applicnble" plats. The City states that Impact 5.6-2, which provides "[i]mplementation of the proposed project would not conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of GHGs," would he "less than significant." (DEIR, pp. 5.6- 22, 5.6-25.) In reaching this conclusion, the City discusses two policies: the California Air Resources Board ("CARB") Scoping Plan and the Southern California Association of Governments' ("SCAG") Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy. (/d at pp. 5.6-23 — 5.6-25.) But the City does not explain why, of the many plans and regulations listed, these are "applicable" plans. (Ibid.) In fact, it admits that the CARB Scoping Plan "is not directly applicable to cities/counties and individual projects; end, is, thus, not a proper document against which to measure the impacts of Project. (to. at p. 5.6-23.) B. The GHG analysis does not clearly explain how certain measures would ensure that the Project would have less than a significant impact on CHC emissions. As discussed supra, an EIR is an "an informational document." (Laurel Ldeights, supra, 47 Cal.3d 376, 391, citing Pub. Resources Code § 21061 and Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, § 15003(b) -(e).) An agency cannot simply state conclusions without analysis — it "must set forth findings to bridge the analytic gap between the raw evidence and ultimate decision or order." (Toponga. supro, I 1 Cal.3d 506, 511-5122 515.) The DEIR concludes that certain regulations and/or practices would ensure that the Project does not result in significant environmental impacts, but does not explain how. (See DEIR, p. 5.6-22.) The impact annlysis sates: "with implementation ol'RR 01-10-1, RR 0IIG-2, W2 014C-3, and RR-GHG-4, Impact 5.6.1 would be less than significant." (Ibid.) In reaching this conclusion, the City does not explain what RR GHG-I — RR GFIG4 are, nor how the implementation of these intensities would ensure that Impact 5.6-1 would be `less than significant." (See ibid; id. at p. 5.619 [describing briefly RR GI[G-1 — RR GH0-4].) This makes it difficult for Southwest Carpenters to understand the City's conclusions about GHG emission impacts. Please update the discussion of GIIG emissions to explain what the mitigation measures or impacts it references entail. C. The DEIR's cumulative Greenhouse Gas Emissions analysis is not sufficiently specific. According to the California Supreme Court: With respect to climate change, an individual project's emissions will most likely not have any appreciable impact on the global problem by themselves, but they will Page 2-66 Ail -6 conrd Al2.7 Al2-8 PlaceForks 240 NEWPORT CROSSINGS MIXED USE PROJECT (PA2017-107) FINAL EIR CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 2. Response to Comments Jamie Murillo Re: Newport Crossings Mixed Use Project DEIR January 14, 2018 Page 7 contribute to the siymificant cumulative impact caused by greenhouse gas emissions from other sources around the globe. The question therefore becomes whether the project's incremental addition of greenhouse gases is `cumulatively considerable' in light of the global problem, and thus significant. (Newhall Ronch, supra. 62 Cal.4th 20'4, 219, citing Crockett, Addressing the Significance of Greenhouse Gas Emissions Under CEQA: California's Search for Regulatory Certainty in an Uncertain World (July 2011) 4 Golden Gate U. Envtl. L.J. 203,207-208.) The City does not provide sufficient information in the DEIR to determine whether the Project's incremental addition of greenhouse gasses would be cumulatively considerable and thus significant. The City concludes that, because the Projcct does not exceed South Coast Air Quality Management District's ("SCAQMD") screening threshold for individual projects, "impacts would be less than significant." (DEIR, pp. 5.6-22, 5.6-25.) But the DEIR does not examine projected growth in the City of Newport Beach, estimate or examine what cumulative emissions from other concurrent projects might be, nor does it examine how this might relate to the Project's and the City's contributions to global GHG emissions. (Ibid.; see id. at pp. 4-13 — 4-14 ]Cumulative Projects List, including other concurrent projected developments]) Furhennore, the DEIR does not provide sufficient threshold information about existing GHG emissions in the City. (Seo. Cal. Code Rcgs., tit. 14, § 15125(a); DEIR, § 5.6.) The DEIR does not analyze what the City's current per -capita GHG emissions are, or whether the City as a whole is on track to meet the 2030 GHG emission goals set forth in SB 32, as broadly outlined in the 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan or provide any other quantitative benchmark to determine whether the Project, in conjunction with other development, would significantly impact GFIG emissions. (See id. at § 5.61 p. 5.6-8.) What are the projected GHG emissions from construction and operation of the other projects listed in the Cumulative Projects List? Is there additional projected growth in Newport Beach that would contribute to GHG emissions? If so, what are the estimated emissions from such growth? What are the cumulative estimated emissions? How would such emissions comply with quantitative GHG emissions thresholds? Arc them any projects within the City or nearbyjurisdictions that have been found to result in significant and unavoidable greenhouse gas impacts? Is the City ol'N'ewpor Beach on track to meet GHG emissions SB 32 greenhouse gas reductions goals, as outlined in the 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan? Are there other qualitative thresholds for GI -IG emissions that the City could use to determine the City's current contributions to GHGs and how the Project might impact this contribution in conjunction with other development? Please provide specific, estimates, data, and analysis. rebruaiy 2019 Al2-8 cont'd Pgoe 2-67 241 NEWPORT CROSSINGS MIXED USE PROJECT (PA2017-107) FINAL EIR CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 2. Response to Comments Jamie Murillo Re: Newport Crossings Mixed Use Project DEIR January 14, 2018 Page 8 D. The DEIR does not provide adequate mitigation for GHG emissions. The City fails to provide adequate mitigation to reduce GHG-related impacts. The City's findings that the Project would result in less than significant impacts and, thus, not require mitigation measures are not supported by evidence in die record. (Sec DEIR, p. 5.6-25; Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 1094.5; Cal. Pub. Resources Code § 21168.) The City, therefore, has failed to provide appropriate and enforceable mitigation for the greenhouse gas impacts of the Project. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, § 15126A(a)(1) ["An EIR shall describe feasible measures wlilch could minimize significant adverse impacts, including where relevant, inefficient and unnecessary consumption of energy"]; Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, § 15126.4(a)(2) ["Mitigation measures must be fully enforceable through permit conditions, agreements, or other legally -binding instruments"].) Please revisit the GHG analysis, as described,supro, and update GHG mitigation measures accordingly. IV. The DEIR Does Not Provide Sufficient Enforcement Mechanisms for Mitigation of Impacts to Biological or Cultural Resources. An agency "shall provide that measures to mitigate or avoid significant effects on the environment are fully enforceable through permit conditions, agreements, or other measures," and must have a monitoring program to ensure the implementation of mitigation. (Cal. Pub. Resources Code, § 21081.6 (a) and (d).) "77te purpose ofthese requirements is to ensure that .feasible mitigation measures will actually be implemented ar a condition of development, and not rnerely adapted and then neglected or disregarded." (California Clear Energy Committee v. City of Woodland (2014) 225 Cal.App.41h 173, citing Federation ofllillside & Canyon Associations v. City of Los Angeles (2000) 83 Cal. AppAth 1252, 1260-1261, Cal. Pub. Resources Code, § 21002.1(6) [emphasis in origino11.) The DEIR's biological resources analysis states that the Project may have "potentially significant" impacts to nesting migratory binds, if nests exist in on-site trees. (DEIR, p. 5.3-0.) It proposes, as mitigation, that a biologist determine whether there are migratory bird nests in on- site tars, and, if them are, create a buffer zone around the nest until the nest is no longer active. (Id. at pp. 5.3-7 — 5.3-8.) It requires the biologist to submit documentation regarding whether there are migratory bird nests on site to the City, but does not require that the City monitor the protection of migratory bird nests, should they exist. (Ibid) This does not ensure that mitigation will actually be implemented. Please update the EIR to include requirements that ensure that, should migratory bird nests exist on site, the City will ensure that a buffer zone unload such nests Page 2-68 Al2-9 Al2-10 PlaceForks 242 NEWPORT CROSSINGS MIXED USE PROJECT (PA2017-107) FINAL EIR CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 2. Response to Comments Jamie Murillo Re: Newport Crossings Mixed Use Project DEIR January 14, 2018 Page 9 is circled and construction docs not occur within that buffer until these nests are no longer active. In the DEIR's cultuml resources analysis, the City finds that the Project has "potentially significant' impacts and hus the potential to damage buried archeological resources and paleontological resources. (DEIR, p. 5.4-10.) It states that, if archeological resources are discovered during grading, `all construction work within 50 feet of the find shall cease and the archeologist will assess the rind for importance." (Nd.) If the find is not important, then the DEIR states that "work will be permitted to continue in the area.' (1d. at pp. 5.4.10 — 5.4-11.) But the DEIR does not explain what should occur if the find is important or if the find is Native American in origin, and does not provide enforceable mitigation measures to protect such a fine (Ibid.) If paleontological resources are discovered during grading, the DEIR likewise provides that the if the discovery is determined "not to be important", then work may continue, but does not explain what should occur if the find is important and does not provide enforceable mitigation measures to protect such a find. (Id. at p. 5.4.11.) This does not ensure enforceable protection of important resources. Please update the DEIR to provide enforceable mitigation mechanisms to provide for the protection of important archeological and paleontological resources. V. The DEIR's Land Use Analysis is Inadequate. A. The DEIR does not adequately explain how the Project complies with existing land use regulations. An EIR that is unclear or omits key information fails to adequately inform the public about a potential project's impact on the enviromnent. (See Laurel Heighis, .supra, 47 Cnl.3d 376, 391 [`an EIR is an informational doc a lent' that should provide "detailed information about the effect which a proposed project is likely to have on the environment ..... '1, citing Cal. Pub. Resources Code § 21061, Cul. Code Regs., tit. 14, § 15003(6)-(e) (citations omitted).) The DEIR appears to conflict with itself with respect to land use. In the Housing and Population component of the DEIR, the DEIR states "most of the proposed development is consistent with the general plan," yet Table 5.9.1, which analyzes land use consistency, states that the Project is consistent with all "Applicable Goals mid Policies" of the Newport Beach General Plan ("General Plan"). (Compare DEIR, p. 5.11-10 with pp. 5.9-12 - 5.9-25.) Is the Project, in its entirely, consistent with the City's General Plan? If it is not, what components r the Project are not compliant with the General Plan? Please provide specific references to exe General Plan policies and provisions. rebruaiy 2019 Al2-10 cant'd Al2.11 Pgoe 2-69 243 NEWPORT CROSSINGS MIXED USE PROJECT (PA2017-107) FINAL EIR CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 2. Response to Comments Jennie Murillo Re: Newport Crossings Mixed Use Project DEIR January 14, 2018 Page 10 The DEIR does not clearly explain how the Project complies with existing land use regulations. According to the DEIR Executive Summary, in order to be constructed, the Project must receive a `density bonus," a development concession to allow the construction of more studios and one -bedroom units than are currently permitted under the building code, mid a waiver of existing building requirements to permit the developer to construct a project that is 77 feet 9 inches in height, rather then 55 feet, as permitted by code. (DEIR, p. 1-4.) The DEIR discusses the density bonus in several places, but does not explain how the Project, in fact, meets lie requirements for such a density bonus. (See id at § 5.9.) In addition, when analyzing the Project's compliance with the General Plan, the DEIR slates that `(clxacl rent prices have not been determined at this time" for `affordable" units, and docs not provide any assurance that the City will require that the Project provide an appropriate number of colts that are actually affordable. (Id at p. 5.9-12.) It is also unclear in the land use section %%,hot the requirements am for a mix of unit sizes, where these requirements are derived, nor why the project does not have to comply with these requirements. (Id. at § 5.9.) Nor does it explain how the Project qualifies for a waiver of existing height requirements, such that it may be constructed more than 20 feet liiglter than what is permitted by existing land use regulations. (Ibid.) All of these factors impact the Project's consistency with land use requirements, and should be adequately explained in the land use analysis- Please update and recirculate the DEIR with this information, so that Southwest Carpenters can better understand how the Project does or does not comply with existing land use regulations and whether the Project qualifies for exemptions or exceptions from such regulations, and thus better understand homy the Project will impact land use in Newport Beach. The DEIR states that the Project is consistent with the zoning code. (DEIR, p. 5.9-25.) It states that the code only permits a maximum of 50 dwelling units per acre under the MU -112 land use designation. (Ibid) But according to the DEIR the Project site, alter the dedication of a public park, is 5.19 acres, and the project includes 350 dwelling units. (Ibid) This would result in 67.437 dwelling units per acre. (See ibid.) If the Project will have 67.437 dwelling units per acre, how does the it comply with the zoning code's limitation of 50 dwelling units per acre? B. The DEIR dams not explain how various regulations or practices would ensure that the Project will not result in significant land use impacts. As in other portions of the DEIR, the City concludes that certain regulations and/or practices would ensure that the Project would not result in significant environmental impacts, but. docs not explain how. (See DEIR, p. 5.9-26.) This makes it difficult for Southwest Carpenters to understand the City's analysis of land use impacts. Please explain what the regulations, practices, mid impacts referenced in this section of the DEIR entail and how these will minimize land use impacts. Page 2-70 Al2-11 confd Ail -12 Place Forks V NEWPORT CROSSINGS MIXED USE PROJECT (PA2017-107) FINAL EIR CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 2. Response to Comments Jamie Murillo Re: Newport Crossings Mixed Use Project DEIR January 14, 2018 Page I C. The City's cumulative impacts conclusions are not supported by an analysis of the facts. The City's discussion of cumulative impacts to land uses does not bridge the analytic gap between raw evidence and its conclusions. (DEIR p. 5.9-27; see Topango, supra, 1 I Cal.3d at 511-512.515; Cal. Code Civ. Prot. § 1094.5; Cal. Pub. Resources Code § 21168.) The City's cumulative impacts analysis also fails to provide a sufficient "summary of the expected environmental effects to be produced by those projects" on the Cumulative Projects List. (See Cal Code Regs., tit. 14, § 15130(b)(4).) The DEIR makes conclusory statements, without analysis of individual projects, that the project would not contribute to cumulatively considerable impacts, because other developments "would be subject to compliance with regional and local plans." (DEIR p. 5.9-27.) But it docs not examine any of the developments listed on the Cumulative Projects List, describe whether they are compatible with existing land uses, or discuss if, together, they would result in a considerably cumulative impact. (!d.) Likewise, it states that the area around the Project is "in transition from strictly nonresidential uses... to a wider range of mixed uses," but does not explain how this transition complies with an existing land use plan, the Newport Beach General Phan, or zoning regulations. (!d.) The DEIR also states that this "transition is creating rather than dividing a community,' but this is illogical. (/d.) If developers are constructing projects with residences amid an area that is currently non-residential, how would this not divide an existing community? Please explain. Please update die cumulative impacts analysis to specifically examine and discuss the developments included on the Cumulative Projects List. Please explain how close these developments are to the Project; whether these developments, specifically, comply with applicable zoning, General Plan, and other land use designations; whether they are receiving density bonus or other variances, waivers, or incentives; and how these developments could foreseeably result in significant cumulative land use impacts. Vi. The City's Conclusion that the Project Would Not Contribute to A Cumulative Effeel on Traffic and Transportation is not Supported by Sufficient Analysis. An EIR's cumulative impacts analysis "shall reflect the severity of the impacts and their likelihood of occurrence ... i' (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, § 15130(b).) Providing incomplete information "contenting the severity and significance of cumulative impacts impedes meaningful public discussion and skews the decisio maker's perspective concerning the environmental consequences ol'the project, the necessity for mitigation measures, and the rebruaiy 2019 Al2-14 Pgoe 2-71 245 NEWPORT CROSSINGS MIXED USE PROJECT (PA2017-107) FINAL EIR CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 2. Response to Comments Jamie Murillo Re: Newport Crossings Mixed Use Project DEIR January 14, 2018 Page 12 appropriateness of project approval." (L'ilizens to Preserve the Ojai v. Counly of Veniurtr (1980 176 Cal.App.3d 421, 431.) The DEIR does not provide complete information to support its analysis that the Project would not result in cumulatively considerable impacts to traffic and transportation. The DEIR states that the "proposed project would not result in either project -specific significant or cumulatively considerable impacts" to traffic and transportation. (DEIR, p. 5.14-31.) But the City does not clearly explain how it reaches these conclusions. (ibid) It states that "the traffic study included traffic from 25 projects in Newport Beach," but does not provide a direct citation or reference for the traffic study, nor does it discuss which projects were examined, where they were located. or what the objective traffic impacts arc from each project. (See ibid) The DEIR also does not mention or examine the Cumulative projects List, or how developments on this list that are located in the immediate vicinity of the Project might impact traffic and transportation in conjunction with the existing project. (See ibid.) Further, the City's conclusions in the DEIR do not align with the information in the Traffic Impact Analysis. For instance, under a Future Year 2022 Plus Project scenario, the Traffic Impact Analysis found that MacArthur Boulevard/Michelson Drive and MacArthur Boulevard/Campus Drive intersections would operate at levels of service (LOS) of 'T" and "E," respectively. (DEIR, Appx. J, p. J-31.) Without further explanation, the Traffic Impact Analysis states "LOSE is acceptable" at these intersections. (Ibid.) No reasoning supports this conclusion, nor does this statement address that one of these intersections was found to operate at IAS F. Moreover, by only considering cumulative conditions from a "Future Year 2022 Plus Project" scenario, the Traffic Impact Analysis, and, thus, the DEIR entirely fails to provide an adequate evaluation of cumulative impacts. The Project will remain operational well beyond 2022. Crucially, the Project will not even be constructed or occupied by 1022, as "the project would be built in a single phase spinning approximately 38 months, from December 2019 to February 1013." (DEIR, p. 3-33 (emphasis added).) Thus, the cumulative traffic impacts analysis fails to evaluate the traffic impacts from the vast majority of ['reject trips, including all of the tmflic impacts generated during the decades of Project operation. This failure clearly results in an inadequate cumulative impacts analysis and must be revised - In a recirculated DEIR, please evaluate the following: Which developments were examined/excluded in the cumulative traffic study? What are the quantitative traffic impacts? flow will development listed on the Cumulative Projects List and located near the Project impact traffic and transportation with respect to project constriction, operation, and us a whole? Please explain these topics in detail. Page 2-72 Al2.14 cont'd Place Forks 240 NEWPORT CROSSINGS MIXED USE PROJECT (PA2017-107) FINAL EIR CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 2. Response to Comments Jamie Murillo Re: Newport Crossings Mixed Use Project DEIR January 142 2018 Page 13 VIT. The DEIR's Alternatives Analysis is Incomplete. The CEQA alternatives analysis has been described by the California Supreme Court as the "core of an EIR." (Citizens of Goleta Valley v. Board ofSupervicors (1990) 52 Cal.3d 553, 564.) CEQA provides a "substantive mandate that public agencies rcfmin from approving projects for which there are feasible alternatives or mitigation measures' that can lessen the environmental impact of proposed projects. (Mountain Lion Foundation v. Fish R Game Com. (1997) 16 CalAth 105, 134, citing Pub. Resources Code § 21081 [emphasis added].) It "compels government... to mitigate... adverse effects through... the selection of feasible alternatives." (Sierra Club v. State Board of Forerny (1994) 7 Cal.4th 1215, 1233; see also Pub. Resources Code § 21002.) A lead agency's ability to comply with this mandate is predicated on a clear analysis of correct findings of a project's impacts. "Without meaningful analysis of alternatives in the EIR, neither the courts nor the public can fidtill their proper roles in the CEQA process." (Laurel Heights, supra, 47 Cal.3d at 404: Preservation Action Council v. City of Son Jose (2006) 141 Cal.App.4th 1336, 1350.) An EIR's review of Project alternatives must analyze alternatives "which are capable of avoiding or substantially lessening any significant effects of the project-" (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, § 15126.6(6).) An EIR's very purpose is to identify ways to reduce or avoid significant environmental impacts. (Laurel !!eights, supra, 47 Cal.3d at 403.) In order to achieve this purpose, the EIR must correctly identify project impacts. Yet, the Project alternatives analysis, as drafted, does not adequately assess whether alternatives would avoid or substantially lessen significant Projcct effects, because the DEIR either does not provide a sufficient analysis or incorrectly finds impacts to be less than significant, including in the areas of air quality, greenhouse gases, land use, and traffic and transponation. The DEIR's alternatives analysis, therefore, does not identify feasible alternatives that lessen adverse impacts, nor does it sufficiently examine whether the alternatives listed would mitigate or avoid Project impacts. (See DEIR, § 7.) This is improper. Please revise the DEIR as requested throughout this correspondence. Should a reexamination of the DEIR result in altered findings or information, please concurrently update the alternatives analysis to include options that would lessen or avoid all significant and inadequately mitigated impacts. Vlll. Conclusion Al2-15 Southwest Carpenters dtanks the City for providing an opportunity to comment on the DEIR. Please update the DEIR to adequately address the issues raised in these comments, then A112-16 recirculate the revised DEIR. rebruaty 2019 Pgoe 2-73 2-47 NEWPORT CROSSINGS MIXED USE PROJECT (PA2017-107) FINAL EIR CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 2. Response to Comments Jamie Murillo Re: Newport Crossings Mixed Use Project DEIR January 14, 2018 Page 14 Pursuant to Section 21092.2 of the Public Resources Code and Section 65092 of the Government Code, please notify Southwest Carpenters of all CEQA actions and notices of any public hearings concerning this Project. including any action taken pursuant to California Planning and Zoning Laws. In addition, pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21167(1), please provide a copy of each Notice of Determination issued by the City or any other public entity in connection with this Project and add Southwest Carpenters to the list of interested parties in connection with this Project. All notices should be duetted to my attention. Please send all notices by email, or if email is unavailable, by U.S. Mail to: Nicholas Whipps Ashley McCarroll Winwer Parkin LLP 147 S. River St., Ste. 221 Santa Cruz, CA 95060 nwhipps@wittwerparkin.com amccarrollCwinwerperkin.com Page 2-74 Very truly yours, WI'ITWER PARKIN LLP icholas \Vh�i ' PPs Al2-17 PlaceWorks 242 NEWPORT CROSSINGS MIXED USE PROJECT (PA2017-107) FINAL EIR CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 2. Response to Comments Al2. Response to Comments from Wittwer Parkin LLP representing the Southwest Regional Council of Carpenters (Southwest Carpenters), Nicholas Whipps, dated January 14, 2019. Al2-1 The comment does not concern the content or adequacy of the Draft FIR. The comment is acknowledged. Al2-2The commenter made a general statement that the significance conclusions provided in the Draft EIR are incorrect and that the Draft EIR is confusing, missing key analysis, and does not provide sufficient support for the less -than significant findings, as discussed in more detail in Comments Al2-3 through Al2-17. No evidence was provided in this comment to support this general statement. Please refer to responses to Comments Al2- 3 and Al2-17 below. Al2-3 The Draft EIR adequately identifies all cumulative projects causing related impacts in the area that will be affected by the proposed project. See Citizens to Preserve the Ojai v County of Ventura (1985) 176 CA3d 421, 429. The information provided in the cumulative projects list is sufficient to identify reasonably foreseeable and approved projects and analyze the proposed project's potential cumulative impacts. Table 4-1, Cumulative Pr yeas List, of Chapter 4, Environmental Setting, identifies all of the cumulative projects within the relevant geographic area, describes the land use for each project, and specifies the number of dwelling units and/or total non-residential square footage for each project. Figure 4-3, Cumulative Developments Location Map, illustrates the location of each cumulative project relative to the proposed project. Consistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15130(b)(2), the cumulative analysis considers the nature of the resource affected and the location of the project, as well as the type of project under review. For example, the cumulative projects considered in connection with the public services analysis reflect the fact that potential public service impacts are specific to the boundaries of the project's service providers (e.g., Newport Beach Fire Department and Newport Beach Police Department). Although not stated with the degree of specificity that the commenter may prefer, all of the information regarding each project is provided and may be used, as desired by the commenter, to seek additional information. Additional information regarding the cumulative projects is publicly available, much of it provided on the City's website. However, the information provided in the Draft EIR regarding the cumulative projects is sufficient to allow for analysis of the cumulative impacts and of the project's contribution to that cumulative impact The commenter also has not identified how the omission of more detailed information regarding these projects has misled the public or otherwise resulted in prejudice. Al2-4 Draft EIR Section 5.2, Air,Quality, provides a quantified analysis of the project's potential air quality impacts based on the methodology recommended by the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) for projects within the South Coast Air Basin February 2019 Page 2-75 2-4- NEWPORT CROSSINGS MIXED USE PROJECT (PA2017-107) FINAL EIR CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 2. Response to Comments Page 2-76 (SoCAB) in order to inform decision makers and the public about the project's potential environmental impacts. The commenter states that the air quality analysis is not informative because the Draft EIR does not assess potential impacts associated with the increase in population from redevelopment of a commercial site under Impact 5.2-1. As stated under Impact 5.2-1, projects that are consistent with the local general plan are considered consistent with the air quality -related regional plan. Impact 5.2-1 refers readers to Draft EIR Section 5.9, Land Use and Planning, which concludes that the project would be permitted under the existing land use and zoning designations of the City's general plan (including bonus density units). Impact 5.2-1 also refers readers to Draft EIR Section 5.11, Population and Housing, which demonstrates that the project with the bonus density would not induce substantial population growth. Furthermore, the long-term emissions generated by the proposed project would not generate criteria air pollutants that exceed the SCAQMD significance thresholds, which also substantiates the conclusion that the project would not conflict with the AQMP. The Draft EIR identified various regulatory requirements that the proposed project is required to adhere to. These regulations were adopted by SCAQMD, the California Air Resources Board, the California Energy Commission, and other agencies to reduce air pollutant, greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, and energy use. Subsection 5.2-3, Regulatory Requirements and Standard Conditions, details the measures that are listed in the section under the Impact Statement, "Level of Significance before Mitigation". Subsection 5.2.1.1, Regulatory Background, also provides additional detail on the SCAQMD regulations that are in place that have the potential to reduce emissions associated with the proposed project. Table 5.2-10 shows the project's maximum daily regional operational emissions of the project with implementation of the regulatory requirements identified in Subsections 5.2.1.1 and 5.2-3 and demonstrates that impacts would be less than significant. As substantiated under Impact 5.2-1, the proposed project is consistent with the SCAQMD air quality management plan. Al2-5 The commenter states that the Draft EIR does not adequately examine cumulative air quality impacts. In particular, the commenter claims that the evidence does not support a conclusion that the proposed project will result in less than cumulatively considerable impacts because the Draft EIR does not disclose whether any of the listed cumulative projects have been found to have significant and unavoidable impacts. Page 5.2-1 of Section 5.2, Air,Quality, states, "Cumulative impacts related to air quality are based on the regional boundaries of the SoCAB." Subsection 4.4, Assumpt ons Regarding Cumulative Impacts, of Draft EIR Section 4, Environmental Setting, also describe the methodology regarding cumulative impacts. PlaceWorks 2.50 February 2019 NEWPORT CROSSINGS MIXED USE PROJECT (PA2017-107) FINAL EIR CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 2. Response to Comments Similar to GHG emissions impacts; the air quality impact analysis is also a cumulative impact analysis because regional emissions (lbs/day) generated by the proposed project describe the potential for the project to cumulatively contribute to the SoCAB's nonattamment designations (see page 5.2-31). Impact 5.2-2 (construction) and Impact 5.2- 3 (operation) of Section 5.2 evaluate emissions of the project compared to the SCAQMD regional significance thresholds in order to determine if the project would result in project -level and cumulative impacts. The findings of these impact statements are reiterated in the subheadings under Subsection 5.2.5, Cumulative Impacts. As identified in this section, criteria air pollutants generated during construction (with mitigation) and operation of project would not exceed the SCAQMD regional significance thresholds; and therefore, would not make a cumulatively considerable contribution to the nonattainment designations of SoCAB. Additionally, as stated on pages 4-14 and 5.2-31 of the Draft EIR, cumulative air quality impacts were analyzed based on the regional boundaries of the SoCAB, not by reference to the specific projects identified in Table 4-1. This type of approach is permissible under CEQA, which sets forth two methods for satisfying the cumulative impacts analysis requirement: the "list of projects" approach and the "summary of projections" approach. (CEQA Guidelines § 15130(6).) Consistent with the latter of these approaches, the Draft EIR analyzes cumulative air quality impacts in accordance with SCAQMD's methodology, which considers a project cumulatively significant when project -related emissions exceed the regional emissions thresholds shown in Table 5.2-5. Here, with incorporation of mitigation, the Draft EIR finds that the project's contribution to air quality impacts would not be cumulatively considerable. The comment also states that the segregation of air quality impacts associated with construction from those associated with operations makes it difficult to understand the total emissions that will be produced. Again, the Draft EIR's analysis of cumulative air quality impacts was done in accordance with established SCAQMD methodology, which method is regularly used to assess air quality impacts in the SoCAB. The comment does not indicate that a potentially significant cumulatively considerable impact would result from using a different methodology, but instead insists that the EIR should have disclosed whether each project in the cumulative projects list, alone, would result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to a cumulatively significant impact. Such project -level analysis of the impacts of each project in the cumulative project list is not useful to the evaluation of the proposed project's cumulative impacts and is not required by CEQA. Further, such analysis of each of the cumulative projects is available to the public as part of each project's separate CEQA analysis. To the extent that the comment reiterates concerns regarding the amount of information provided in the cumulative projects list in Table 4-1, please refer to Response to Comment Al2-3. Page 2-77 251 NEWPORT CROSSINGS MIXED USE PROJECT (PA2017-107) FINAL EIR CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 2. Response to Comments Page 2-78 Al2-6 The commenter states that the Draft FIR does not clearly identify or analyze applicable regulations and plans in the context of the project. Specifically, the commenter cited the Newhall Ranch decision where the court found there was no analytical connection between the state-wide reductions of the California Air Resources Board's (CARB) 2008 Scoping Plan (which applies to new development and existing development) and the percent reduction that would be needed for new projects. This decision is not directly applicable to the proposed project since the project does not utilize significance thresholds that are tied to CARB's GHG emissions forecasts and the Scoping Plan. As identified under Subsection 5.6.2, Thresholds of Signocance, of Section 5, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, SCAQMD's Working Group identified a significance threshold of 3,000 metric tons of carbon dioxide -equivalent (MTCO2e) based on a 90 percent capture rate of CEQA projects in the SoCAB. This methodology was identified in the California Air Pollution Control Officer's Association 2008 Whitepaper, CEQA & Climate Change, Evaluating and Addressing Greenhouse Gas Emissions From Project Subject to the California Environmental Quality Act. Consequently, the threshold is both based on new projects and projects within the SoCAB region. Impact 5.6-2 analyzes GHG plans that have been adopted for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions. The Draft EIR includes an analysis of the project's consistency with the 2017 Scoping Plan because it is a plan adopted for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions. The City of Newport Beach has not adopted a GHG reduction plan. As identified in the Draft EIR, the individual measures in the Scoping Plan are not directly applicable to local governments because they are mandates for state agencies. Nonethe- less, the regulations adopted by the state agencies (e.g., CARB, California Energy Commission, etc.) have the potential to reduce existing and new emissions generated in California. These regulations are described in detail in Subsection 5.6.3, Regulatory Requirements and Standard Conditions, and under Subsection 5.6.1.2, Regulatory Setting. Regarding the applicability of the targets of the Scoping Plan to new development, new development is substantially more energy efficient than existing development. The Scoping Plan forecast includes emissions from both new development and existing development. The state's goal is to reduce emissions below existing levels despite growth anticipated in the state. In order to achieve the GHG reductions goals, the state must substantially reduce emissions from existing development and implement increasingly more stringent building energy efficiency regulations to reduce emissions from new development. Efficiencies in building energy efficiency from new development alone do not achieve the steep reductions needed to achieve the State's GHG reduction goals of 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030 and 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050. To emphasize this point, the Scoping Plan relies on top-down measures, such as improvements in vehicle fuel efficiency standards, penetration of zero emission vehicles into the marketplace, low carbon fuel standards, renewables portfolio standard (RPS), and carbon neutrality in the energy sector which has a much greater effect on reducing the PlaceWorks 2.52 NEWPORT CROSSINGS MIXED USE PROJECT (PA2017-107) FINAL EIR CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 2. Response to Comments magnitude of emissions from existing land uses within the state than the magnitude of reductions in building energy efficiency that only apply to new development. If greater magnitude of reductions is needed from existing land uses to achieve the State GHG reduction goals, CEQA cannot disproportionately require that incremental increase from new development provide more than their fair share of reductions necessary to achieve this "gap" because the extractions must bear a "rough proportionality" to the project's adverse impacts. Despite new development being more efficient, the measures in the Scoping Plan affect existing development to a much greater extent because they are top down. Consequently, thresholds that are derived from the 2017 Scoping Plan and CARB's emissions forecast may be applicable despite the fact that the measures in CARB's scoping plan do not clearly identify the percent reduction achieved from existing and new development. While the Scoping Plan may assume that new development on a per capita basis may be more efficient than existing development because of the greater building energy efficiency, this diminishes over time as our energy- system becomes carbon neutral under SB 100 (50 percent RPS by 2030) and Executive Order B-55-18 (carbon neutrality by 2045). Likewise, the reductions applied to the transportation sector apply evenly across new development and existing development. The per capita efficiency goals cited in the 2017 Scoping Plan reduce per capita emissions below existing levels. Since the measures in the Scoping Plan reduce existing emissions and a zero threshold is not an appropriate significance threshold (i.e., one molecule" of contribution to a cumulative condition is not significant); the efficiency thresholds identified in the Scoping Plan that result in a reduction from existing may be overly stringent if CEQA only requires emissions not result in a substantial increase. Alt -7 See also Response to Comment Al2-4 above regarding the description of regulations applicable to the project. Regulations adopted by the state agencies (e.g., CARB, California Energy Commission, etc.) have the potential to reduce existing and new emissions generated in California. Subsection 5.6-3, Regulatory Requirements and Standard Conditions, details the measures that are listed in the section under the Impact Statement, "Level of Significance before Mitigation". Subsection 5.6.1.2, Regulatory Background, also provides additional detail on the SCAQMD regulations that are in place that have the potential to reduce emissions associated with the proposed project. Table 5.6-7 shows the project's operational GHG emissions with implementation of the identified regulatory requirements, and demonstrates that impacts would be less than significant. Al2-8 See also response to Comment Al2-6 above regarding the threshold used to evaluate the proposed project's cumulative contribution to GHG emissions impacts. Page 5.6-1 states, "Because no single project is large enough to result in a measurable increase in global concentrations of GHG, climate change impacts of a project are considered on a cumulative basis." Subsection 4.4, Assumptions Regarding Cumulative Impacts, of the Draft EIR also describe the methodology regarding cumulative impacts. Emissions February 2019 Page 2-79 253 NEWPORT CROSSINGS MIXED USE PROJECT (PA2017-107) FINAL EIR CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 2. Response to Comments (MTCO2e/yr) generated by the project describe the potential for the project to cumulative contribute to the GHG emissions in California. Subsection 5.6.1, California's GHG Sources and Relative Contribution, describes existing GHG emissions based on the Scoping Plan sectors. Existing levels of GHG emissions in the City or in the vicinity of the project are not directly relevant for describing the project's cumulative contribution to GHG emissions impact in the State. The City has not adopted a GHG reduction plan. Al2-9See responses to comments Al2-6 through Al2-8, above. The proposed project would have a less than significant contribution to GHG emissions impacts since emissions would not exceed the 3,000 1\TCO2e significance threshold. As a result, mitigation measure are not warranted for GHG emissions impacts. Al2-10 The commenter stated that the Draft EIR does not provide sufficient enforcement mechanisms for mitigation of impacts to biological and cultural resources. The mitigation measure outlined in Section 5.3, Biological Resources, regarding impacts to migratory birds, and the mitigation measures outlined in Section 5.4, Cultural Resources, regarding archeological and paleontological resources, will be enforced by the City through the project's Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP), which will be presented to the City's approval body for adoption. The measures will also be enforced by the City as conditions of approval, as all mitigation measures of the adopted MMRP will be included as conditions of approval. Therefore, sufficient enforcement will be provided and the applicant compliance with all mitigation measures of the MMRP will be ensured. The commenter stated that Mitigation Measures BIO -1 does not provide a requirement for the City to monitor the protection of migratory birds. As noted in this mitigation measure, the completed survey report/memorandum, if one is required to be prepared, will be submitted to the City by the monitoring biologist. Pursuant to the adopted MMRP, the City will ensure that the monitoring and all related activities and findings have been conducted in accordance with this mitigation measure and under the purview of a qualified biologist. The commenter stated that the Draft EIR, specifically Mitigation Measures CUL -1 and CUL -2, do not explain what would should occur if the find is identified as important or Native American in origin. Both of these mitigation measures provide clarification to this point. For example, as noted in Mitigation Measure CUL -1, if archaeological resources are encountered, the archaeologist is required to assess the find for importance and whether preservation in place without impacts is feasible. The measure further states that any resource that is not Native American in origin and that cannot be preserved in place shall be curated at a public, nonprofit institution with a research interest in the materials. Similarly, Mitigation Measure CUL -2 states that if fossils are encountered, the paleontologist shall assess the find for importance. The measure further states that any resource encountered is required to be curated at a public, nonprofit institution with a research interest in the materials. Page 2-80 PlaceWorks 254 NEWPORT CROSSINGS MIXED USE PROJECT (PA2017-107) FINAL EIR CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 2. Response to Comments Additionally, Mitigation Measure CUL -1 on pages 5.4-10 and 5.411 of Draft EIR Section 5.4, Cultural Resources, has been revised to provide clarification that, consistent with CEQt1s requirements, a culturally -related Native American monitor shall be allowed to monitor ground -disturbing activities at the project site, as follows. The revision is also provided in Chapter 3, Revisions to the Draft EIR, of the Final EIR. The revision does not change the findings or conclusions of the Draft FIR. Changes made to the Draft FIR are identified here in stskeeut text to indicate deletions and in bold underlined text to signify additions. 5.4 CULTURAL RESOURCES Impact 5.4-2 CUL -1 Prior to the issuance of a grading permit by the City of Newport Beach, the project applicant shall retain a qualified archaeologist to periodically monitor ground -disturbing activities onsite and provide documentation of such retention to the City of Newport Beach Community Development Director. The archaeologist shall train project construction workers on the types of archaeological resources that could be found in site soils. The archaeologist shall periodically monitor project ground -disturbing activities. Du�n� construction activities, the project applicant shall allow representatives of cultural organizations, including traditionally -/culturally -affiliated Native American tribes (e.g., Gabrieletio Band of Mission Indians- Kizh Nation, Juaneno Band of Mission Indians Acjachemen Nation), to access the project site on a volunteer basis to monitor grading and excavation activities. If archaeological resources are encountered, all construction work within 50 feet of the find shall cease, and the archaeologist shall assess the find for importance and whether preservation in place without impacts is feasible. Construction activities may continue in other areas. If, in consultation with the City and affected Native American tribe (as deemed necessary), the discovery is determined to not be important, work will be permitted to continue in the area. Any resource that is notNative American in origin and that cannot be preserved in place shall be curated at a public, nonprofit institution with a research interest in the materials, such as the South Central Coastal Information Center at California State University, Fullerton. Al2-11 The commenter states that conclusionary statements provided in Draft EIR Section's 5.9, Land Use and Planning, and 5.11, Population and Housing, are inconsistent. Specifically, the analysis in Table 5.9-1 of Section 5.9 concludes that the project is consistent with all applicable goals and policies of the Newport Beach General Plan; however, under Subsection 5.11.5, Cumulative Impacts, of Section 5.11, it is noted that "most of the proposed development is consistent with the general plan". The statement provided in February 2019 Page 2-81 2.5115 NEWPORT CROSSINGS MIXED USE PROJECT (PA2017-107) FINAL EIR CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 2. Response to Comments Page 2-82 Subsection 5.11.5 is incorrect. As substantiated in Section 5.9, the project is consistent with all applicable goals and policies of the Newport Beach General Plan. The statement provided in Subsection 5.11.5 has been revised to correct this discrepancy, as follows. The revision is also provided in Chapter 3, Revisions to the Draft EIA, of the Final EIR. The revision does not change the findings or conclusions of the Draft EIR. Changes made to the Draft EIR are identified here in ^"i'�"at text to indicate deletions and in bold underlined text to signify additions. The commenter also points out that Draft EIR Chapter 1, Executive Summary, states that in order to be constructed, the proposed project "must" receive a density bonus and accompanying development concessions and waivers. The commenter also states that the land use section of the Draft EIR does not explain how the project meets the requirements for density bonus units. The commenter is incorrect as a statement to this affect is not provided in Chapter 1, or anywhere else in the Draft EIR. As clearly stated in Subsection 1.4, Project Summary, the proposed project would be providing density bonus units and based on the provision of affordable housing, development incentives are available to developers pursuant to Chapter 20.32 of the City's zoning code and Government Code Section 65915(d)(1). As further clarified in Subsection 3.3.1.3, Affordable Housing and Development Incentives/Concessions and fVaivers, of Section 3, Pr ject Description, As encouraged by the Residential Overlay and pursuant to Chapter 20.32 (Density Bonus) of the City's zoning code and Government Code Section 65915 (Density Bonus Law), with a 30 percent allocation for lower-income households, the proposed project is entitled to the maximum 35 percent density bonus...". Through the provision of affordable units onsite, which is encouraged and permitted, the project is entitled to development incentives/concessions and waivers. Subsection 3.3.1.3 also clearly explains how the project qualifies for a density bonus. Further, in various places of Section 5.9, it clarifies how the project meets and qualifies for the density bonus. For example, refer to the consistency analysis text provided under Policy 6.2.3 of Table 5.9-1 (page 5.9-18). The commenter pointed out a statement made in Table 5.9-1 of Section 5.9, regarding rent prices, and stated that the Draft EIR does not provide any assurance that the City will require that the project provide an appropriate number of affordable units. As noted in Table 5.9-1 (page 5.9-12) under Goal H2.1, "Exact rent prices have not been determined at this time." This is a general statement provided in the response to Goal H2.1 of the General Plan Housing Element and is not needed to show consistency with this goal. Goal H2 states, "Encourage preservation of existing and provision of new housing affordable to extremely low-, very low-, low-, and moderate -income households". As stated under the consistency analysis of this goal, the proposed project is consistent with this goal as the proposed project includes 78 new housing units that would be affordable to lower- income residents. Through its site development review process, the City is working with the developer to ensure that the appropriate number of affordable units are provided. PlaceWorks 250 February 2019 NEWPORT CROSSINGS MIXED USE PROJECT (PA2017-107) FINAL EIR CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 2. Response to Comments Also, in order for the City to issue the development incentives/concessions and waivers requested for the project, the appropriate number of affordable units must be provided. Further, to the extent the commenter is suggesting that the project cannot be consistent with the zoning code density limitations due to the application of the density bonus, that is incorrect. See Wollmer v. City of Berkeley, where the court determined that modifications required by the density bonus law do not render a density bonus project inconsistent with applicable development standards. Finally, the commenter stated that Draft EIR Section 5.9 does not explain how the project qualifies for a waiver for building heights, or the requirements for unit size mixes, where these requirements are derived from, and why the project does not have to comply with them. The commenter is correct, this information was inadvertently left out of Section 5.9. In response to the commenter, the analysis under the zoning consistency analysis discussion on page 5.9-25 of Section 5.9 has been revised, as follows. The revision is also provided in Chapter 3, Revisions to the Draft EIA, of the Final EIR. The revision does not change the findings or conclusions of the Draft EIR. Changes made to the Draft EIR are identified here in sfi3lteaut text to indicate deletions and in bold underlined text to signify additions. 5.9 LAND USE AND PLANNING Zoning Code Consistency As stated above, the project site is zoned Newport Place Planned Community (PC -11). PC -11 allows for residential development, with a minimum of 30 du/ac and a maximum of 50 du/ac, consistent with the MU -H2 land use designation. More specifically, the project site within PC -11 is designated General Commercial Site 6. The General Commercial designation allows retail commercial, office, and professional and business uses. The site also has a residential overlay option given its general plan designation of MU -1-12. The projects consistency with the Residential Overlah development standards of the NPPC, which apply to the project site and function as zoning for the site, is discussed below. The proposed retail, restaurant, and residential uses under the proposed project are allowed under the existing zoning, and no zone change is required or proposed. Thus, the proposed project would be consistent with the existing zoning on-site, and impacts would be less than significant. See also RR LU -1 and RR LU -2. Newport Place Planned Community Development Standards Consistency Development standards for utilization of the NPPC's vResidential eOverlay, which applies to the project site, are found aft Page 46 of 6te PGDP in the NPPC development Page 2-83 25 NEWPORT CROSSINGS MIXED USE PROJECT (PA2017-107) FINAL EIR CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 2. Response to Comments Page 2-84 standards. Table 5.9-2 demonstrates the proposed project's consistency with those development standards. Table 5.9-2 NPPC Consistency Analysis Development Standard Required Project Consistent Minimum Site Area None N/A Density (base units)l 30-50 units/acre 50 units/acre Minimum Percent Affordable 30 percent 30 percent Maximum Building Height 55 feet (exceptions allowed) 77 feet, 9 inches (livable space would be 55 feet max) Minimum Street Setback 30 feet 30 feet Minimum Interior Setback 10 feet 10 feet (to park) Parking See Chapter 3 See Chapter 3 'Density bonus units are allowed to increase a project's gross density to be higher than that required for the project's 'base' units. Additionaliv as noted in Table 5.9-1. the Residential Overlav of the NPPC. which anolies to the project site. implements General Plan Housing Element Program 3.2.2, which creates an exception to the 10 -acre site requirement for residential development projects in the Airport Area that include a minimum of 30 percent of the units affordable to lower income households. Residential developments, such as the proposed project, that qualify for the residential overlay are subsequently exempt from General Plan Land Use Policy LU 6.15.6 and have no minimum site area requirement. In addition to the site size exception and affordable housing requirements. the NPPC details additional residential development regulations addressing setbacks, building height, parking requirements, landscaping, signs, utilities requirements, and amenities and neighborhood integration. With the exception of the unit mix and building height requirements, the proposed project would be developed in accordance with the NPPC development regulations. As described in Chapter 3. Project DeLMr fzon, of this Draft EIR. the project's Affordable Housing Implementation Plan includes a request for one development concession for the unit mix and one waiver for the height. as described below, • Develonment Concession (Unit Mix). Pursuant to Section V.E1 of the Residential Overlay. Affordable units shall reflect the range of numbers of bedrooms provided in the residential development project as a whole." In the case of the proposed project, the project applicant is requesting a unit mix that includes a greater percentage of studio and one -bedroom units, as illustrated in Table 3-2 of Chapter 3. Granting this incentive will result in identifiable, financially sufficient and actual project cost reduction b3 -reducing the long-term rental subsidy costs associated with the two - PlaceWorkr 252 NEWPORT CROSSINGS MIXED USE PROJECT (PA2017-107) FINAL EIR CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 2. Response to Comments bedroom units and affording additional rental income for the project to ensure financial feasibility. • Waiver/Concession of Development Standard (Height Increase). Pursuant to Section VA of the Residential Overlay: the maximum building heights are limited to 55 feet, but may be increased with the approval of a site development review after making certain findings for approval. Government Code Section 65915(e)(1) provides that a city may not a12& a development standard that will have the effect of lhysicallp precluding the construction of a density bonus project at the densit�: permitted under the density bonus law. In the case of the proposed project, the project ap2plicant is requesting a waiver of the 55 -foot building height limit to 77 feet 9 inches in order to accommodate the parapet, rooftop mechanical equipment, elevator shafts, emergency staircase, rooftop terrace, and a portion of the parking garage. Without the height allowance for the stairs, elevators, mechanical equipment, and parapet. 63 of the 91 density, bonus units would need to be eliminated. Furthermore, limiting heights to 55 feet would result in elimination of the rooftop amenity deck and upper level of parking structure, which are necessary for marketingpurposes to meet expectations of prospective tenants and market -rate rents, provide the level of onsite amenities encouraged by the Residential Overlay, and reduce the impact of parking availability on neighboring streets. Approval of the aforementioned concession and waiver would not result in a land use conflict with the regard to the NPPC development standards. 5.11 POPULATION AND HOUSING 5.11.5 Cumulative Impacts The area considered for cumulative impacts is the City of Newport Beach. Impacts are analyzed using General Plan projections in SCAG's 2016 Growth Forecast. Development activity in the City includes residential projects (see Table 4-1 in Chapter 4, Environmental Sett ng). The proposed project is consistent with the City of Newport Beach General Plan and would therefore be expected to be consistent with SCAG's growth projections. Alt -12 The analysis of the proposed project's compliance with regulatory requirements RR LU - 1 and RR LU -2, which outline the City's development standards applicable to the project, is provided under Impact Statement 5.9-2 (see pages 59-25 and 5.9-26) of Draft EIR Section 5.9, Land Use and Planning. See also response to Comments Al2-11 and Al2-13. Al2-13See response to comment Al2-6 regarding the required scope of cumulative analysis and analysis of projects in cumulative projects list. As stated on pages 4-17 and 5.9-27 of the Draft EIR, cumulative land use and planning impacts were analyzed based on applicable February 2019 Page 2-85 NEWPORT CROSSINGS MIXED USE PROJECT (PA2017-107) FINAL EIR CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 2. Response to Comments Page 2-86 jurisdictional boundaries and related plans, including the City of Newport Beach General Plan and applicable regional land use plans, not by reference to the specific projects identified in Table 4-1. This type of approach is permissible under CEQA, which sets forth two methods for satisfying the cumulative impacts analysis requirement: the "list of projects" approach and the "summary of projections" approach. (CEQA Guidelines 15130(b).) Consistent with the latter of these two approaches, the Draft EIR finds that cumulative projects would be subject to the same regional and local plans, and that it is reasonable to assume these projects would implement local and regional planning goals and policies. Based on this regional analysis, the Draft EIR finds that, upon implementation of any cumulative development, cumulative adverse land use impacts would be less than significant. With respect to the Draft EIR's statement that the surrounding Airport Area is transitioning from strictly nonresidential uses to a wider range of mixed uses, including residential uses, the Draft EIR explains that such transition is anticipated by the Newport Beach General Plan and would not represent a cumulative adverse land use impact. The Draft EIR's conclusion that this transition is "creating rather than dividing a community" is not illogical. This finding is described in more detail on page 5.9-10, which explains that, given the distance and physical separation of existing residential communities from the project site, development of the project would not divide an established residential community. Instead, over time, with development of mixed uses in the area, a more cohesive community actually would be created. To the extent that the comment reiterates concerns regarding the amount of information provided in the cumulative projects list in Table 4-1, please refer to Response to Comment Al2-3. Al2-14The commenter stated that the Draft EIR, specifically Section 5.14, Transportation and Traffic, does not dearly identify the cumulative projects included in the traffic analysis, not does it explain how the City reached the less than significant conclusions. Draft EIR Section 4.4, Assumptions Regarding Cumulative Impacts summarizes the CEQA requirements for cumulative project analysis. As detailed in this section, the CEQA Guidelines (Section 15130[b] [1]) state that the information utilized in an analysis of cumulative impacts should come from one of two sources: A. A list of past, present and probable future projects producing related cumulative impacts, including, if necessary, those projects outside the control of the agency. B. A summary of projections contained in an adopted General Plan or related planning document designed to evaluate regional or area -wide conditions. The traffic analysis is based on Method A. As stated under Impact Statement 5.14-1 (page 5.14-15), the traffic study included traffic from 25 projects in Newport Beach and 30 PlaceWorkr MEN NEWPORT CROSSINGS MIXED USE PROJECT (PA2017-107) FINAL EIR CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 2. Response to Comments projects in Irvine. The detailed lists and location maps for these projects are included in Draft EIR Appendix J, Traffic Impact Analysis, pages J20 to J27. In addition to evaluating the potential traffic impact of 55 related development projects, and traffic analysis conservatively added an ambient growth rate of traffic of 1 percent per year (5 percent total) for MacArthur Boulevard, Jamboree Road and Irvine Avenue. The analysis fully complies with CEQA requirements. The commenter also stated that the conclusions in the Draft EIR do not align with the information in the traffic study. For example, the commenter stated that under the Future Year 2022 Plus Project scenario, the traffic study found that Macarthur Boulevard/Michelson Drive and Macarthur Boulevard/Campus Drive would operate at LOS F and E, respectively, and that no further explanation was provided in the traffic study regarding LOS E being acceptable. With respect to the MacArthur Blvd/Campus Drive intersection, LOS E is considered acceptable by the City of Irvine, as noted on page 6 of the traffic study. Under the year 2022 baseline (no project) and with project analysis, the MacArthur Boulevard/Michelson Drive intersection is forecasted to operate at LOS F with a V/C increase of 0.002, which is not considered a significant impact. Therefore, the analysis and significance findings and conclusions in the Draft EIR and traffic study are in alignment. As explained under footnote 2 on Draft FIR page 5.14-15, the traffic analysis was based on a projected opening year of 2022 for the project. The estimated opening date was revised to 2023 after the draft traffic study was completed. To confirm whether the study results would still be valid for the updated opening year, an analysis was performed at key intersections for 2024 (since the City of Newport Beach evaluates potential conditions for one year after project opening). The analysis to verify conditions for the year 2024 is summarized on Draft EIR page 5.1423 and the level of service calculations performed for this analysis are included as Appendix B of this FEIR. Al2-15 The commenter states that the Draft EIR's alternatives analysis is insufficient because the underlying evaluation of environmental impacts is inadequate. Therefore, the commenter claims, the alternatives analysis does not identify feasible alternatives that lessen adverse impacts or examine whether the alternatives would mitigate or avoid impacts. February 2019 To the extent that the comment reiterates concerns regarding the Draft EIR's evaluation of environmental impacts, please refer to Responses to Comments Al2-4 through Al2- 14, above. Given the adequacy of the underlying environmental analysis, the Draft EIR's evaluation of alternatives likewise is sufficient. An EIR only must evaluate a range of reasonable alternatives to the extent they would avoid or substantially lessen any of the project's significant effects and feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the project. (CEQA Guidelines § 15126.6(a); see also In re Bay Delta Programmatic Environmental Impact Report Coordinated Proceedings (2008) 43 Cal.4th 1143, 1163.) Here, the Draft E1R evaluated two alternatives: (1) a "no project" alternative; and (2) a "reduced height Page 2-87 201 NEWPORT CROSSINGS MIXED USE PROJECT (PA2017-107) FINAL EIR CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 2. Response to Comments Page 2-88 and density" alternative. Each alternative would lessen certain environmental impacts as compared to the proposed project. The "no project" alternative, however, would not achieve project objectives, and while the "reduced height and density alternative" would achieve project objectives, it would do so to a lesser extent. Together, these two alternatives comprise a reasonable range of alternatives, and the commenter does not otherwise allege any particular deficiency in the alternatives analysis Al2-16The commenter requested that the Draft FIR be updated to address the comments raised in this comment letter and that the Draft EIR be recirculated. See individual responses to Comments Al2-1through Al2-15, above. Based on responses provided to the individual comments, the revisions to the Draft FIR outlined above, and the findings and conclusions of the Draft FIR and this Final FIR, recirculation of the Draft FIR is not warranted. Additionally, none of this material indicates that there would be a substantial increase in the severity of a previously identified environmental impact that will not be trligated, or that there would be any of the other circumstances requiring recirculation described in Section 15088.5. Al2-17 The commenter requested that they be notified of any additional notices related to the proposed project pursuant to Section 21092.2 of the Public Resources Code, Section 21167(fl of the Public Resources Code, and Section 65092 of the Government Code. The commenter also requested that they be added to the list of interested parties for the proposed project. The City will continue to provide the commenter with all planning and CEQA-related project notices and documents in accordance with these requirements. The City will also add the commenter to the list of interested parties. PlaceWorkr 202 NEWPORT CROSSINGS MIXED USE PROJECT (PA2017-107) FINAL EIR CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 2. Response to Comments LETTER A13 — Gabrieleno Band of M ssion Indians — Kizh Nation (1 page) ya��fA� CA5RIFII=NOf5ANDOFMI.551ONINDIANS -KIZIINATION l I 1-tnnca119 known ns The Son Ga6nel 15 -ed of Muencir Indians /Ga6rieliro Tribal Council 1 rehued 69 the St.,ts of C.,Lfoutm as 6. AI w6.4 rl.a Lrie Aogg6 6 -sin Nm� Cly oCf W.Wrt firarh 100 ivic Center !k. Nvottpoet Beach. CA 92560 December 17, 2018 Re: A852 Cortsultatwn request for the NCNTmrt Crooning. Mtxrd Use IhojM Dear Marinem B.h. Plma find this letter as a anon inquest far consultation mgarding the above-mentioned project pursuant to Public Resourme Code g 21080.3.1, wind. fill. Your project lies within our Anmual tribal temtop, meaning belonging to or inherited from. whxdt is s higher degree of kinship than traditional or cultured affiliation. Your pmjert is located within a sensitive ares end may mum a wbetantiW adverse change in the ugnmcantt of sur toOW cid mml rcsoun,s. Moat nllen. a monads search for our tribal cultural rceoutm will result in a'no meoeds found' for the project area. The Native American Heritage Commia m. INAHCI. e11-toag7aphers. htaorwoui, and pri esewnat archaeologmts can c my pmydr limited information that has been previously doeu.mrnted about California Native Tribes. Per this crown, the NAHC will slwms refer the lead agency to the respecto, Nath, American Tribe of the ams. The NAHC is onN swore of general information and are not the experts on each California Tobe. Our Elder Committee As tribal historians are the enperts for our Tobe and can provide a more complete history Iboth written and oral) regarding the location of historic villages, trade routes, trmrteriea and sacred/religious sites in the project area. Addmmudiv. CEQA many, defines Tribal Cultural Resources ITClial as their own independent element separate from archaeolog mil resources En oronmemal documents shall now address a separate Tribal Cultural Resource section why. n includes a thorough anah'ais of the impacts w only Tribal Cultural Reaourem(ICRsl and includes independent mitiga.inn A13-1 .,.a.m. created with Tribal input during AB -52 consultations. As a roup, all matmimn measures. conditions of approval and ap,emrnts regarding TCR; Ile. prehistoric reamncesl shall be handled solely with the Tribal Government and not through an Environmental/Archaeological firm. In effort to avoid adverse eRms to our tribal culu ml resources. sur woWd like to consul with you and your et.9 to provide you with a more complete understanding of the prehistoric maps) of the pmjm, area and the potential maks for causing a substantial advrne change to the significance ofour tribal cultural meaurm. Consultation appointments art available on Wednesdays orad T rairsdt6s at our oRm at 910 N. Citrus Ave. C.na, CA 91722 or mer the phone. Please call toll free 1.844.390-0787 or email adminegabrlelawindusnsorg to uheduk, an appointment. ^ Prior to the first mosuffa ion u.aih sur Tiobw. vas ask all those indimduals pvnitipanny in ilia r asolm ion to tvew a wilm produced and proAded by C.XPA and the HABC for aeaslnafay and undaamodinp 0AB52. You inn maw then M. at: hflFl/eafe/xung4C(1'rINWftgvurvy', or legpwl9gtK a,yvt:�:S!15, 1-/uby2-plb n. ..... nC With Respect. Mdrew 5alati Cbairman Alw.t roo. s....—I M.th.C,6, L"v— 11 K -b-,4 -1—C,M—oddeC—J..tr'.-- POB—aif,.Caea.CA 9i725 www.gabriekroiridiane.org gabnelenuimidiarteE4ya600.com February 2019 Page 2-89 203 NEWPORT CROSSINGS MIXED USE PROJECT (PA2017-107) FINAL EIR CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 2. Response to Comments Thasage ententionadly left blank. Page 2-90 PlaceWorkr 204 NEWPORT CROSSINGS MIXED USE PROJECT (PA2017-107) FINAL EIR CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 2. Response to Comments A13. Response to Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians — Kizh Nation, LLP, Nicholas Whipps, dated December 17, 2015. A13-1 This letter requests tribal consultation with the City in accordance with AB52. However, dated December 17, 2018, it appears to be written in response to the Notice of Availability for the Draft EIR. February 2019 The AB 52 tribal consultation process conducted for this project is described in Draft FIR Section 5.15., Tribal Cultural Resources. Entails notifying tribes of the project and inviting early consultation were sent to each of the tribes on January 3, 2018. No comments or requests for consultation were received. The 30 -day noticing requirement under AB 52 was completed on February 3, 2018. Therefore, the City completed its noticing requirements in accordance with the requirements of AB 52. (See Pub. Resources Code § 21082.3(d).) In response to the current letter (12/17/18), on December 20, 2018, the City's Project Manager, Jaime Murillo, forwarded the commenter copies of Draft FIR Sections 5.4 and 5.15, Cultural Resource, and Tribal Cultural Resources, respectively. The Cultural Resources Technical Memo supporting the Draft EIR was also forwarded (Draft EIR, Appendix D). In the letter, Mr. Murillo also offered to meet with the commenter to discuss the EIR analysis and recommended mitigation in more detail. And finally, Mr. Murillo followed up with a phone call to Mr. Salas. To date, there has been no response back from the commenter. Further, Mitigation Measure CUL -1 on pages 5.4-10 and 5.4-11 of Draft EIR Section 5.4, Cultural Resources, has been revised to provide clarification that a culturally -related Native American monitor shall be allowed to monitor ground -disturbing activities at the project site, as follows. The revision is also provided in Chapter 3, Revisions to the Draft EM of the Final EIR. The revision has shown below, does not change the findings or conclusions of the Draft EIR. Changes made to the Draft EIR are identified here in strikeeee text to indicate deletions and in bold underlined text to signify additions. 5.4 CULTURAL RESOURCES Impact 5.4.2 CUL -1 Prior to the issuance of a grading permit by the City of Newport Beach, the project applicant shall retain a qualified archaeologist to periodically monitor ground -disturbing activities onsite and provide documentation of such retention to the City of Newport Beach Community Development Director. The archaeologist shall train project construction workers on the types of archaeological resources that could be found in site soils. The archaeologist shall periodically monitor project ground -disturbing activities. Durin 7 Page 2-91 205 NEWPORT CROSSINGS MIXED USE PROJECT (PA2017-107) FINAL EIR CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 2. Response to Comments construction activities, the project applicant shall allow representatives of cultural organizations, including traditionally -/culturally -affiliated Native American tribes (e.g., Gabrieletio Band of Mission Indians- Mzh Nation,Juaneno Band of Mission Indians Acjachemen Nation), to access the project site on a volunteer basis to monitor grading and excavation activities. If archaeological resources are encountered, all construction work within 50 feet of the find shall cease, and the archaeologist shall assess the find for importance and whether preservation in place without impacts is feasible. Construction activities may continue in other areas. If, in consultation with the City and affected Native American tribe (as deemed necessary), the discovery is determined to not be important, work will be permitted to continue in the area. Any resource that is not Native American in origin and that cannot be preserved in place shall be curated at a public, nonprofit institution with a research interest in the materials, such as the South Central Coastal Information Center at California State University, Fullerton. Page 2-92 PlaceWorkr NEWPORT CROSSINGS MIXED USE PROJECT (PA2017-107) FINAL EIR CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 2. Response to Comments LETTER A14 — State Clearinghouse (9 pages) STATE OF CALIFORNIA �r Governor's Office of Planning and Research %arra State Clearinghouse and Planning LIZ Cavin Newmm Gotemor ACEIVED ap COMMUNITY January 15,2019 DEVELOPMENT )AN 2 2 2019 Jaime Murillo CITY OF City of Newport Beach 100 Civic Center Drive *1 ,'�/�nT Newport Beach, CA 92660 0001' Subject: Newport Crossings Mixed Use Residential Project SCHN: 2017101067 Dear Jaime Murillo: The Store Clearinghouse submitted the above named Draft EIR to selected nate agencies for review. On the enclosed Document Details Report please ince that the Clearinghouse has listed the state agencies that revlewtd your document. The review period closed on January 14, 2019, and the comments from the responding agency (ies) is (arc) enclosed. If this comment package is not in order, please notify the State Clearinghouscimmediataly. Please refer ta the project's ten -digit State Clearinghouse number in future correspondence so that we my respond promptly. Please note that Section 21104(c) of the California Public Resources Code states that - "A responsible or other public agency shall only make substmtive comments regarding those activities involved in a project which are within an area ofe,tpenise of the agency or which are mquimd to be canted out or appmved by the agmy. Those comments shall be supported by specific documentation." These comments are forwarded for use in preparing your final environmental document Should you need mom mime anon or clarification of the enclosed comments, we rocammend that you contact the commenting agency dimctly. This letter acknowledges that you have complied with the State Clearinghouse review rnluirements for -" drifi environmental documents, pursuant to the Califomia Envirmemental Quality ACL Pleare contact the State Clearinghouse at (916) 445-0613 if you have my queatiom regarding the environmental review process. Sincerely -, jam Si�Y'/nrgm ,il. Director. State Clearinghouse Enclosures cc: Resotuees Agency 14WTENTII STREET PO. BOX Lor SACRAMENTO.CALIFORNIA 91117.30 TELI-9l""11 w .OIX CLtpv February 2019 A14-1 Page 2-99 207 NEWPORT CROSSINGS MIXED USE PROJECT (PA2017-107) FINAL EIR CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 2. Response to Comments Document Details Report State Clearinghouse Data Base SCHa 2017101067 Project Tide Newport Crossings Mixed Use Residential Project Lead Agency, Newport Beach, City of Type EIR Draft EIR Description The proposed project would consist of 350 residential dwe0ing units. 2,000 square feet of'casual dintng'restaufant space. 3,500 square feet of commercial space, and a 0.5 - acre public park. A six -story parking structure (one level subterranean and Me;ovals above ground) Is proposed In the center of the site to be surrounded and swooned from public views by the resiciemial and commercial buildings on all sides. Outdoor residential amenities include pool, entertairunerfl, and lounge courtyards and a raofsdop lemace. A commercial /retail plaza would provide a social hub srareurding the retail and neslatm nl uses vnth fire pits, sell furnilture, landscaping. and festival fighting. The community park would include a dog park, dining lemxe, shade sinctures, games terrace, lawn area, pickleball courts, and a parking lot. Lead Agency Contact Name Jaime klurillo Agency City of Newport Beach Phone (949)644-3209 Fax email Address 100 Civic Center Drive City Newport Such State CA Zip 92660 Project Location - County Orange City Newport Beach Region Lat/Long 33'39'57"N 1117'5'1'57"W Cross Shoots Dove Stree95cotl Drive, Scott DrivelCodnthian Way. Corithian WaytiAartingale Way Fencer No. vad0us Township Range Section ease Proximity to: Highways 73,55, IdD5 Airports John Wayne Airport Ralltvays Waterways Newport Bay, San Diego Creek, Poularino Channel Schools Various Land Use OF Destination -MU H2lf fixed Use Horizontal): Zoning - PC .11 (Planned Communily 11, Newport placel Project Issues AgdculWral Land; Air Quality: Archaeologlo-Hisloric; Biological Resources; GeobgkJSelsmic: Minerals: Noise; PopuladordHoudng Balance: Public Services; RecreationlParks: ToAcillazardow,, T mffct0raufalian; Landless; Other Issues; Aesihefic,Vesual; Cumulative Effects; Dri inageiAbsarption; EconomlcsiJobs; Flood Plain7Flooding; Forest Lend7Fbe Hazard; Growth Inducing; SchooWUniversilies: Septic System: Sewer Capacity: Soil Erosion/CompacdaVGrading; Solid Waste: Vegetation: Water Quality, Water Supply, W ellandiRipadan Reviewing Resources Agency, Department; of Fish and Wildlife. Region 5; Department at Pals and Recreation; Agencies Department of Water Resources; Caltrans, Division a/Aeramautics; California Highway Patrol; Coltrane, District 12; Regional Water Quality Control Board, Region 8; Native American Heritage Commission: State Water Resources Control Board. Division of Water Quality, Department of Toxic Substances Control Note: Blanks in data fields result Iron insufficient information provided by lead agency. Page 2-94 Place Forks 202 NEWPORT CROSSINGS MIXED USE PROJECT (PA2017-107) FINAL EIR CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 2. Response to Comments Document Details Report Stale Clearinghouse Data Base Date Rwelved 11297018 Slan of Ravlow 1129+2018 &M OI Ravtew 01/1417019 NoteBlanks In data fields maull from insuf ivenl inlomwtion provided by lead agatcy. Februafy 2019 Page 2-95 2 oq NEWPORT CROSSINGS MIXED USE PROJECT (PA2017-107) FINAL EIR CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 2. Response to Comments �AlocreAl,nosMN-cAlny,v "TATat.¢, a. DF.PARTMF.NT OF TRANSPORTATION DISTTUCI' 12 1750 EAST FOUR'ITI ST'RELM SUITE 100 S. NTAANA, CA92705 1ldina Ca�annricn PHONE (657)328-6267 aCd�mfa f9uy a( UA. FAX (657)326.6510 TTY 711 .u�vw_doico civ January 11, 2019 Jaime Murillo City of Newport Beach 100 Civic Center Drive Newport Beach, CA 92660 Dew Mr. Murillo, 'oYnnohOH ceaf P7m ing8 Piasrct JAN 14 2019 STATE CLEARINGHOUSE File: 1GR/CEQA SCPIk: 2017101067 12 -ORA -2018-01031 SR 73, PM 25.198 Thank you for including the California Department of romsporuuion (Caltrans) in the review of the Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Newport Crossings Mixed Use project in the City of Newport Beach. The mission of Caltrans is to provide a safe, sustainable, integrated and efficient transportation system to enhance California's economy and livability. The proposed project consists of the development of a multistory building that would house 350 apartment units, 2,000 square feet of "casual -dining' restatnant space, 5,500 square feet of retail space, and a 0.5 -acre public park. The project site is approximately 0.6 miles north of State Route (SR) 73 and 1.3 miles south of Interstate 405 (1-405). Caltrans is a commenting agency on this project and upon review, we have the following comments: Transportation Plannine The City's Bicycle Master Plan (2014) recommends that Class fl facilities be constructed on several streets surrounding the project site, including Birch Street, MacArthur Boulevard, Westerly Place, and Dove Street. Please consider these recommended facilities when developing die project's circulation element. Encroachment Permit Please be advised that any project work proposed in the vicinity of the State Highway System (51 -IS) will require an Encroachment Permit and all environmental concerns must be adequately addressed. If the environmental documentation for the project does not meet Caltrans' requirements, additional documentation would be required before the approval of the Encroachment Permit. For specific details for Encroachment Permits procedure, piens: refer to the Caltrans' Encroachment Permits Manual. The latest edition of the Manual is available on the web site: httnl/www.dot.ca.eov/ha/traffons/deNeloMn2ry permits/ Please continue to keep us informed of this project and any future developments which could potentially impact the SHS. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact Joseph Jamoralin, at (657) 328-6276 or L90,ph.Jamoralin(aldot,ca.nov. 9mvfd[Olafe. 1121O41PLIG.NI[.r10Ni MEd=JINbII aGRIn01G(rEll i7flM m T:MK[lSGtmb'. KMMnv uMgvM'Mry" Page 2-96 A14-2 PlaceffXorks 270 NEWPORT CROSSINGS MIXED USE PROJECT (PA2017-107) FINAL EIR CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Newport Crossings Mixed Use Project January 11, 2019 Page 2 Sincerely SCOTT LEY Branch Chief. Regional-IGR-Transit Planning District 12 ROYLMogk mbeladG NCWIXMo+O!%1kYM 4vmpalofro• ryfMn 10lMdNl C00fOIlYY'3 TLTYT/ TJ FVCG(M1YY- February 2019 2. Response to Comments A14-2 owrd Page 2-97 272 NEWPORT CROSSINGS MIXED USE PROJECT (PA2017-107) FINAL EIR CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 2. Response to Comments Mmhew Roddquor Seaolarylor Ensfroieneibl Pmleeii. January 3, 2019 out t � t41tiai9 Department of Toxic Substances Control Garbam A. Lee, Director 5796 Corporate Avenue Cypress, California 96630 Edmund G. Brawn Jr. GYmmor Mr. James Murillo o0*17))04Oft ofFfitItAry8RM=V, Senior Planner JAN 03 1019 City of Newport Beach Community Development Department STATE CLEARINGH 100 Civic Center Drive OUSE Newport Beach, California 92660 JMuri I lo(cDne W Don bea chca.Apv DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT, NEWPORT CROSSING MIXED USE PROJECT (PA 2017-107), NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA STATE CLEARINGHOUSE #2017101067 Dear Mr. Murillo: The Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) reviewed the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) received from the City of Newport Beach (City) as lead agency, dated November 2018, for the Newport Crossing Mixed Use Project (Project), located in Newport Beach, California. The Project proposal is to demolish an existing 5.69 -acre -shopping center known as PolacArthur Square to build a multistory building that would house 350 apartment units, 2,000 square feet of `casual -dining" restaurant space, 5,500 square feel of retail space, and a 0.5 -acre public park. The site was formerly used as an agricultural land from 1938 to 1963 and developed to a commercial use in phases'from the early 1970s through the 1980s. Two dry cleaners operated formerly onsite: (1) Green Hanger Cleaners reportedly operated at 4250 Scott Drive from 2002 through 2015 and (2) Enjay Cleaners, operated onsite at 1701 Corinthian Way, Suite H from 1984 to 1997. In addition, the east adjoining 4341 McArthur Boulevard building contains a dry cleaner tenant which has been In operation since 1996. Chlorinated solvent was used by the former Enjay Cleaners and petroleum-based solvents were used by Green Hanger. (D 17 _,.-,,,I-,- Page 2-98 AIS3 PlaceffXorks 272 NEWPORT CROSSINGS MIXED USE PROJECT (PA2017-107) FINAL EIR CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 2. Response to Comments Jamie Murillo Re: Newport Crossings Mixed Use Project DEIR January 14, 2018 Page 7 contribute to the significant cumulative impact caused by greenhouse gas emissions from other sources around the globe. 'llme question therefore becomes whether the prcjecfs incremental addition of greenhouse gases is 'cumulatively considerable' in light of the global problem, and thus significant. (Newhall Ranch, suprtr, 62 Cal.4th 20'4, 219, citing Crockett, Addressing the Significance of Greenhouse Gas Emissions Under CEQA: California's Search for Regulatory Certainty in an Uncertain World (July 2011) 4 Golden Gate U. Envd. L.J. 203, 207-208.) The City does not provide sufficient information in the DEIR to determine whether the Project's incremental addition of greenhouse gasses would be cumulatively considerable and thus significant. The City concludes that. because the Project does not exceed South Coast Air Quality Management District's ("SCAQMD") screening threshold for individual projects, "impacts would be less than significant." (DEIR, pp. 5.6-22, 5.625.) But the DEER does not examine projected growth in the City of Newport Beach, estimate or examine what cumulative emissions from other concurrent projects might be, nor does it exanine how this might relate to the Project's and the City's contributions to global GHG emissions. (Ibid.; see id at pp. 4-13 — 4-14 [Cumulative Projects List, including other concurrent projected developments]) Funhenrtore, the DEIR does not provide sufficient threshold information about existing GHG emissions in the City. (Ser: Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, § I5125(a); DEIR, § 5.6.) The DEIR does not analyte what the City's current per -capita GHG emissions are, or whether the City as a whole is on rank to meet the 2030 GHC emission goals set forth in SB 32, as broadly outlined in die 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan or provide any other quantitative benchmark to determine whether the Project, in conjunction with other development, would significantly impact 01 -IG emissions. (See id. at § 5.6, p. 5.6-8.) What are the projected GHG emissions from construction and operation of the other projects listed in the Cumulative Projects List? Is there additional projected growth in Newport Beach that would contribute to GHG emissions? If so, what are the estimated emissions from such growth? What are the cumulative estimated emissions? How would such emissions comply with quantitative GHG emissions thresholds? Are them any projects within the City or nearbyjurisdictions that have been found to result in significant and unavoidable greenhouse gas impacts? Is the City ol'Newpon Beach on track to meet GHG emissions SB 32 greenhouse gas reductions goals, as outlined in the 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan? Are there other qualitative thresholds for GHG emissions that the City could use to determine the City's current contributions to GI4Gs and how the Project might impact this contribution in conjunction with other development? Please provide specific, estimates, data, and analysis. rebruaiy 2019 Al2.8 conrd Pgoe 2-99 27S NEWPORT CROSSINGS MIXED USE PROJECT (PA2017-107) FINAL EIR CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 2. Response to Comments Mr. James Murillo January 3, 2019 Page 3 DTSC recommends the soil gas investigations be conducted in accordance with DTSC Advisory -Active Soil Gas Investigation (https:/lwev-,v.disc.ca.gov/SiteCleanupluploadN] ActiveSoilGasAdvisory FINAL.p df) and Final Guidance for Evaluation and Mitigation of Subsurface Vapor Intrusion to Indoor Air (haps:llvavw.dtso.ca.govlAssessingRisklupload/Final VIG Oct 2011.pdf1 3. Human Health Risk Assessment 2017, Page 5.7-9. Based on the Appendix F3a, only soil vapor samples at 5 feet bgs were used for human health risk assessment. The human health dsk assessment should include soil gas samples taken at 15 feet logs. Groundwater should also be considered in the human health risk assessment if It Is Impacted by PCE. Risk to human health should be re -assessed after the extent of soil gas and groundwater contamination is fully defined. This assessment will then be used to design the vapor mitigation system and associated monitoring program. DTSC recommends the multl-media human health risk assessment be conducted in accordance with the Preliminary Endangerment Assessment Guidance Manual, section 2.5 4. Section 5.7.3.1 Regulatory Requirements, Page 5.7.15. RR HAZ-1 addresses the transportation of any project -related hazardous materials and hazardous waste. Please note that transportation of hazardous waste should also be transported In accordance with California Code of Regulations, title 22, division 4.5, chapter 13. - Section 5.7.7 Mitigation Measures, Page 5.7-21. MM HAZ-1 requires a passive ventilation system for the proposed project. Please note that a land use covenant and long -tens monitoring Is required because the site was not remediated to meet the residential land use. In addition, confirmation sampling (e.g., indoor sampling or sub -slab sampling) is recommended after the installation of a vapor mitigation measure to verily the effectiveness of the mitigation measure. DTSC recommends any vapor intrusion mitigation be Implemented in accordance with DTSC Vapor Intrusion Mitigation Advisory (httl3S7/lw,y.v.disc.ra.gov/SiteCleE,nvp/LiploadIVIMA Final Oct 20111.pd1). 6. Any further investigation, human health risk assessment, vapor intrusion mitigation measures and remediation should be overseen by a regulatory agency with jurisdiction to oversee hazardous substance cleanup. Due to the potential of vapor intrusion Into residential properties, DTSC's oversight is recommended. A request for DTSC's oversight can be found at: Page 2-100 A143 confit Placef Xorks 27 NEWPORT CROSSINGS MIXED USE PROJECT (PA2017-107) FINAL EIR CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 2. Response to Comments Mr. James Murillo January 3, 2019 Page 4 hnos:I www.dtsc.ca.aov/SiteCleanuo/Brownfiieldslyolyntarv-agreements- ui e. m (click on "Request for lead Agency Oversight Application'). DTSC looks forward to a conference call or a meeting to discuss further DTSC's concerns regarding this project. Should you have any questions regarding this letter, please contact me at (714) 484-5392 ore -mail chiann.ven(cDdlsc.ca.gov. Sincerely, Chia Rin Yen Environmental Scientist Brownfields Restoration and School Evaluation Branch Site Mitigation and Restoration Program eralcylyg cc: Governor's Office of Planning and Research (via e-mail) Stale Clearinghouse P.O. Box 3044 Sacramento, California 95812-3044 Stale.clea ringhousetcDoor. ca.co v Mr. Dave Kereazis (via e-mail) Office of Planning & Environmental Analysis Department of Toxic Substances Control d ave. kereazisadlsc. ca.gov Ms. Yolanda M. Garza (via e-mail) Brownfields Restoration and School Evaluation Branch Site Mitigation and Restoration Program voland a. garza ra disc. ca.gov February 2019 A14-3 mnrd Page 2-101 2715 NEWPORT CROSSINGS MIXED USE PROJECT (PA2017-107) FINAL EIR CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 2. Response to Comments Thasage ententionaddy deft blank. Page 2-102 PlaceWorkr 270 NEWPORT CROSSINGS MIXED USE PROJECT (PA2017-107) FINAL EIR CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 2. Response to Comments A14. Response to State Clearinghouse, Scott Morgan, Director, dated January 15, 2019. Al4-1The comment acknowledges that the City of Newport Beach has complied with State Clearinghouse review requirements for the Draft EIR, pursuant to CEQA. The comment also acknowledges that the State Clearinghouse received the Draft EIR and accompanying Notice Availability and submitted them to select state agencies for review. The comment is acknowledged and no response is necessary. A14-2 Please refer to comment letter A9 for responses to comments raised by Caltrans. A14-3 Please refer to comment letter A4 for responses to comment raised by DTSC. Februaey 2019 Page 2-103 NEWPORT CROSSINGS MIXED USE PROJECT (PA2017-107) FINAL EIR CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 2. Response to Comments Thasage ententionadly left blank. Page 2-104 PlaceWorkr 272 NEWPORT CROSSINGS MIXED USE PROJECT (PA2017-107) FINAL EIR CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 2. Response to Comments LETTER I1 —Jim Mosher (6 pages) Comments on Newport Crossings DER The following comments on items on the Draft ElR (SCH #2017101067) are submitted by Jim Mosher ( iimmosher[10 yahoo tom ), 2210 Private Road, Newport Beach 92660 (949-546.6229) 1. For at least this member of the public, reviewing the Newport Crossings DEIR in Its electronic form has been a more daunting task than it needed to be. The main document consists of a 493 -page PDF file, reproducing the 10 -page printed Table of Contents, but providing no bookmarks and no links to the items highlighted in it. Readers are apparently n 1 expected to somehow locate chapters of interest within the 493 pages, and then the pages within the chapters. It seems to me the lack of an effort to make the information more accessible diminishes the information -imparting function of an EIR. 2. Whatever the format, the text seems focused more on repetitive. methodical thoroughness than on clarity of presentation For example, on page 5-2, under "Organization of Environmental Analysis" we see a pattern repeated 14 times in the Table of Contents for Chapter 5, and another 8 times in the two sedans (5.12 PUBLIC SERVICES and 5.16 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS) where, for reasons that are not explained the standard pattern doesn't seem to be followed. but is applied to sub-lopics. a. That may seem very methodical- The problem is that while the logic behind this methodology may be understood by CEOA practitioners, it Is not, as best I can tell, and despite the DEIR's great length, explained to the public. b. As an example of the confusion this creates for the public, after each "Impact" presented under the third bullet of the announced method ("Environmental Impacts") we see a statement of "Level of Significance before Mitigation" (for example, on page 5.1-7). But this seems redundant with the fifth bullet of the method, which comes after the fourth bullet ("Cumulative Impacts'), and is itself filled 'Level of Significance before Mitigation" (for example, on page 5.1-16). One can only guess one of these is the City and consultant's estimate of the significance before the cumulative impacts have been considered and the other is after that has been factored in - but it is not explained. c. Moreover, and more importantly, while tiling thresholds of significance from Appendix G of the CERA Guidelines, the 'Impact Analysis" seems to be confined to what look like a series of project -specific "Impact" statements whose source (like much else) Is unexplained. i. We are repeatedly told (at least 21 times) "The following impact analysis addresses thresholds of significance for which the Notice of Preparation (see Appendix A) disclosed potentially significant impacts." That would imply the Impact Statements were developed in the NOP. But mere is no trace of them in the NOP or Appendix A. As best I can tell. it contains only the generalized list of standard CEOA topics (on page A-5). d. In addition, many of the Impact statements are reduced to insignificance, even without mitigation, by citing "Regulatory Requirements and Standard Conditions." As February 2019 n-2 Page 2-105 ��q NEWPORT CROSSINGS MIXED USE PROJECT (PA2017-107) FINAL EIR CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 2. Response to Comments Comments on Newport Crossing DEIR - Jim Mosher Page 2 of 6 best I can tell, the DEIR does not explain where the "Standard Conditions" and, to a lesser extent, the specific "Regulatory Requirements; come from, and what assurance there is any will be adhered to. 1. Without further explanation, this Is particularly confusing because page 4-2 of the Harbor Pointe Senior Living DEIR (also currently circulating in Newport Beach, but seemingly not relying on standard conditions) says "The City of Newport Beach does not have an adopted set of standard conditions: however, they may impose additional conditions during the approval process, as appropriate. These requirements may be specific to the proposed Project or standard to all projects.' I. Apparently there is an unwritten assumption that the project will include all the Regulatory Requirements and Standard Conditions mentioned in the EIR, but taking that logic to an extreme, it would seem the City could dispense with EIR's entirely if it simply passed an overarching regulation saying "approved projects shall not have significant impacts," or more simply, by adding a standard condition to the project saying "all significant impacts must be avoided." 3. Regarding the Notice of Preparation/Scoping process, I see from Table 2-2 that I asked about consistency with the City's General Plan and about the consistency of the 0.5 acre park with the City's requirement for 5 acres per 1,000 residents. a. Regarding GP consistency, it is good to see the extensive listing in Table 5.9.1. I. Many of the policies, however, seem quite subjective, and the conclusions rather arbitrary. I. As an example, despite the DEIR's conclusion to the contrary, I am unable to rind the proposed park consistent with GP Policy LU 6.15.14, stating 'Each park shall be surrounded by public streets on at least two sides (preferably with on -street parking to serve the park).' 1. The policy appears intended to ensure the required park will be highly visible to the public. 2. The proposed park is, instead, situated on the least visible frontage of the project site, surrounded by private development to the south and flowing into the project's private pool and recreation area on the north. 3. The relatively tiny frontages on Dove and Martingale (which may even be masked by landscaping), hardly seem to fit the policy. How will the park be made inviting and readily identifiable as a public amenity from those sides? And is there even on -street parking on Dove? I don't think the EIR explains, yet it concludes the park is consistent with LU 6.15.14 (on page 5.9-21). 1 would think placing the park on any of the site's four other sides would be a better fit with LU 6.15.14. Page 2-106 11.2 wnYd It -3 Place Forks 220 NEWPORT CROSSINGS MIXED USE PROJECT (PA2017-107) FINAL EIR CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 2. Response to Comments Comments on Newport Crossing DEIR - Jim Mosher Page 3 of 6 iii. The proposal similarly seems dearly inconsistent with GP Policy LU 6.15.6, calling for Airport Area "mixed-use residential villages, each containing a minimum of 10 acres and centered on a neighborhood pads." 1. I believe the analysis on page 5.9-20 may be misstating the later - adopted Housing Element Program HP 3.2.2 as "waiving the minimum 10 -acre site requirement for affordable housing projects.' 2. As adopted in November 22, 2011, Program HP 3.2.2 called for the City to "amend the General Plan and/or establish a waiver or exception to the minimum 10 -acre site requirement." 3. As revised on September 24, 2013, the Housing Element claimed that "This program has been implemented with the adoption of Ordinance N0. 2012-14 that amended the Newport Place Planned Community (PC -11) to allow residential development that includes a minimum of 30 percent of the units affordable to lower-income households, and also created a waiver to the 10 -acre site requirement for such projects." However, the 10 -acre requirement of Policy LU 6.15.6 has never been amended, so the City appears to have created an internal inconsistency in its General Plan — with Zoning regulations claiming to waive the GP. 4. In addition, Program HP 3.2.2 requires "design considerations for the future integration into a larger residential village, and a requirement to ensure collaboration with future developers in the area." The concept appears to be that although the initial project may be less than 10 acres, over time the 10 -acre threshold will be achieved through effective combination with neighboring projects. I cannot find either of the requirements needed to achieve this — the design features and the collaboration — addressed in the DEIR. It assumes they are somehow ensured by the amended PC -11, but I don't see them adequately addressed in PC -11, either. b. Regarding the City's requirement of 5 acres per 1,000 residents, we are referred to Section 5.13, which tells us first, on page 5.13-2, that Newport Beach has more than 5 acres of parkland per 1,000 residents, and on page 5.13.6 that the requirement applies only to residential subdivisions. i. While that is helpful, I believe the DEIR is misstating the intent of the regulation, which is to ensure new parkland is added as now residents are added, irrespective of the current balance. it. As to the project not requiring subdivision, it might be noted: 1. The City's case log indicates the application originally included a request for a tentative tract map. February 2019 113 wnrd 11-0 Page 2-107 221 NEWPORT CROSSINGS MIXED USE PROJECT (PA2017-107) FINAL EIR CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 2. Response to Comments Comments on Newport Crossing DEIR - Jim Mosher Page 4 of 6 2. It seems now to involve only a lot line adjustment, apparently necessary to avoid the proposed structures not spanning across lot lines. 3. Setting aside that the authors of the 5 acres per 1000 requirement may not have envisioned that substantial numbers of new residents could be added without subdivision, is a lot line adjustment not a variety of subdivision? 114 wnrd 4. In connection with the lot line adjustment, the Project Description on page 3-33 is confusing in referring to "the three existing parcels" when the Notice of Availability indicates the County Assessor regards the site as consisting of flourparosls (APN 427-172-02. 03, 05, 11-5 and 06), not three, with, according to the City's GIS mapping, the building at 4220 Scott Dr. being on a 0.2 acre parcel of its own (APN 427-172-05), a kind of island within the surrounding APN 427-172-06. 5. In connection with SCAG's 2016-2040 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy. page 4-2 promises "The proposed project's consistency with the applicable 2016-2040 RTP/SCS policies is analyzed in detail in Section 5.9. Land Use and 11-6 Planning.' In apparent contradiction to this, the paragraph at the top of page 5.9-2 says "this section does not address the proposed project's consistency with SCAG's regional planning guidelines and policies" [emphasis added). 6, The Cumulative Projects List provided In Table 4-1 is similarly confusing. a. As acknowledged in the DEIR, it lists Newport Beach projects only, even though projects outside Newport Beach (or conducted by other agencies within Newport Beach) may be equally, or more, important in assessing many kinds of impacts. b. Even for projects within the exclusive jurisdiction of Newport Beach, the list appears to be outdated and inaccurate - and the rules for whether a project is on the list, or not, do not seem to be explained. I. For example, the 4 -unit Ullman Sail Lofts is listed as "foreseeable' project F3. but it was approved by the Planning Commission on July 20, 2017. And it seems to be left to the reader to guess why it is more important to list than many other projects that have passed through the Planning Commission. ii. Several of the other 'foreseeable" projects similarly, appear to have been approved some time ago, while new foreseeable projects (such as the 21 -unit Ford Road Residential) don't seem to be listed. iii. As for additional inaccuracies: 1. The ENC Preschool certainly has a "non-residential area. 2. Villas Fashion Island consists of 524 apartments, not 94. 11 7 7. Also in Chapter 4, in describing the overall Environmental Setting, Subsection 4.3.3.3 (PREVIOUS DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION FOR THE PROJECT SITE) mentions the 111.8 similar earlier proposal for the 38D -unit Residences at Newport Place at the same site, but A Page 2-108 PlaceWorkr 222 NEWPORT CROSSINGS MIXED USE PROJECT (PA2017-107) FINAL EIR CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 2. Response to Comments Comments on Newport Crossing DEIR - Jim Mosher Page 5 of 6 does not mention that a Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared for that, which might 117.8 be relevant for comparison with the current analysis. km1 8, As for Chapter 5: a, In Section 5.1, the treatment of Aesthetics Threshold AE -3 seems weak. Much is said about the change in the appearance of the site in Comparison to what is presently there, but little, it anything, is provided as to how the new construction, once the old is gone, will blend into its surroundings. Why aren't mere any simulations accurately showing how the project will look from various vantage points in both the immediate area and the larger Airport Area in juxtaposition to the existing buildings? b. In Section 5.7: 114 I. In describing the contamination of the soil with perchlorcethylene (PCE) from dry cleaning businesses, on page 5.7-8, under "Soil Vapor Sampling and Testing: 2013." the DEIR preparer says 0.73 pglL is the same as '0.73 part per billion." That suggests the preparer is not familiar with his or her field. 1 pglL is roughly equivalent to 1 ppb for something like pollutants in water, where 1 L = 1000 g. But it is not at all We for vapors, where 1 L of air weighs much less than 1000 g, and where ppb is conventionally expressed in terms of relative "partial volumes' (closely proportional to number of molecules) rather than relative weights. The EPA's unit conversion calculator indicates that for tetrachloroethylene (another name for PCE), 0.73 pglL would, by volume, be about 0.11 parts per million, or 111 parts per billion (not 0.73 part per billion). ii. Given the preparer's lack of understanding of the basic units of vapor 1140 measurement, one has to wonder how accurate his or her estimates of the effectiveness of the mitigation measures are. One also has to wonder how long-lasting the proposed membrane barrier will be, and. should it fail, whether the subslab ventilation system will. by itself, be adequate. iii. Page 5.7-16 says "Thresholds HAZ-7 and HAZ-B have no impacts and will be included under Chapter 8.' Judging from Page 5.7-15, this was intended to read 'Thresholds H-7 and H-8 have no impacts and will be included under Chapter B' - but even then, it's difficult to understand how "thresholds" could have'impacts." The City Is possibly Vying to say'As will be explained in Chapter 8. no impacts exceeding thresholds H-7 and H-8 were identified." The reference, incidentally, appears to be to Section 6.5 (pages 84 & 5) where two statements vaguely similar to the H-7 and H-8 of page 5.7-15 appear as 'A' and "B.' c. Page 5.10-15 indicates that a noise study will be conducted pnor to construction. What mitigation will be possible if the exterior noise levels at the site are found to 11-11 exceed City thresholds? February 2019 Page 2-109 223 NEWPORT CROSSINGS MIXED USE PROJECT (PA2017-107) FINAL EIR CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 2. Response to Comments Comments on Newport Crossing DEIR - Jim Mosher Page 6 of 6 d. In Chapter 5.12: I. Why do the Fire, School and Library subsections all cite a Regulatory Requirement that "New development shall pay a property excise tax per the City's Municipal Code Chapter 3. 1Z Property Development Tax," but the Regulatory Requirements part of the Police subsection says "No existing regulations are applicable to police protection impacts of the proposed project'? Doesn't part of the same property tax that goes to fund fire, school and library services go to fund police services? it. With regard to subsection 5.12.3, the fact that residents in Newport Beach's Airport Area are not in the Newport -Mesa Unified School District has been regarded as an issue. Is it not still and issue or matter of controversy? 11-12 e. Table 5.13-1 refers to "acers" (as does the Second bullet under Section 5.13.6 on page 5.13-8). Shouldn't that be "acres'? I1-13 I. Subsection 5.16.1.4 projects a massive increase in wastewater generation. Despfle 5.16.1 being titled 'Waster Treatment and Collection; the required CEQA analysis appears to be confined to wastewater treatment. Would this increased now 11-14 overwhelm the City's collection infrastructure, requiring construction of new sewer mains? 9. Regarding Chapter 7: a. The description of Alternatives and the CEQA requirements surrounding them is so muddled that I, at least, was unable to tell if CEQA actually requires an alternative to be considered when, as here, the City claims the project itself has no significant impacts. b. I was similarly baffled trying to reconcile with Table 7-6 the statement at the end of Section 7.7 that "the No Project alternative would not be considered environmentally superior." The *No Project Alternative" column of Table 7-6 has many more minuses (meaning, it says, "The alternative would result in less of an impact than the proposed project') than pluses. Given the preponderance of minuses for the "No Project Alternative" I have trouble, without further explanation, understanding why it is worse, environmentally, than the project. Apparently some of the pluses or minuses are more important than others? 10. Regarding Chapter 9: 11.15 a. Four questions regarding growth -inducing impacts are posed on page 9.2. b. Only three of the questions appear to be answered on page 9.3. 11-16 c. What is the answer to the missing one? Page 2-1 /0 Placef Xorks 22 NEWPORT CROSSINGS MIXED USE PROJECT (PA2017-107) FINAL EIR CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 2. Response to Comments Il. Response to Comments from Jim Mosher, dated January 14, 2019 I1-1 The Draft EIR (including the format) was prepared in accordance with the requirements of Article 9 (Contents of Environmental Impact Reports) of the CEQA Guidelines, which covers Sections 15120 to 15132. As stated in Section 15120, "Environmental Impact Reports shall contain the information outlined in this article, but the format of the document may be varied. Each element must be covered, and when these elements are not separated into distinct sections, the document shall state where in the document each element is discussed." As further stated in in Section 15122, "An EIR shall contain at least a table of contents or an index to assist readers in finding the analysis of different subjects and issues." A table of contents is provided at the beginning of the Draft EIR, which helps guide readers to the various chapters and sections of the Draft EIR. Also, the digital version (PDF) of the Draft EIR provided on the City's website allows the reader to use the "search and find" tool to help navigate the reader through the Draft EIR. Further, the CEQA Guidelines do not enumerate a page limit (either minimum of maximum) for FIRS. 11-2 The commenter seems unhappy with the overall format, organization, and content of the Draft EIR. However, the format, organization, and content are in line with the requirements of Article 9 of the CEQA Guidelines, as noted in response to Comment 11- 1, above. Also, the format and pattern of the Draft EIR topical sections is consistent with and follows the outline provided on page 5-2, under Organization of Environmental Analysis. Februaey 2019 The commenter appears confused as to the source of the impact statements used in the Draft EIR. However, as noted by commenter, the source of the impact statements is noted as being Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines. Commenter does not challenge or otherwise question the use of these thresholds of significance for the analysis in the Draft EIR. With respect to the NOP, as noted by the commenter, the Draft FIR states that "The following impact analysis addresses thresholds of significance for which the Notice of Preparation disclosed potential impacts." Commenter seems to confuse this statement as meaning that the thresholds are contained in the NOP, when, in fact, the statement is noting only that the NOP did not scope out the impact thresholds from detailed analysis in the Draft EIR because the NOP disclosed that the impacts could be potentially significant and so required further analysis in the EIR. This is consistent with Public Resources Code 4 21080.4. Regarding standard conditions and regulatory requirements, these will be enforced by the City as conditions of approval, which will be required to be adhered to through its site development review and building plan check process. Therefore, sufficient enforcement will be provided and the applicant compliance with all standard conditions and regulatory requirements will be ensured. Page 2-111 2815 NEWPORT CROSSINGS MIXED USE PROJECT (PA2017-107) FINAL EIR CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 2. Response to Comments I1-3 No evidence was provided in this comment to support the commenters general statement that many of the policies noted in Table 5.9-1 of Draft EIR Section 5.9, Land Use and Planning, are subjective and the conclusions rather arbitrary. The comment is acknowledged. Page 2-112 In response to the comment about the projects consistency with General Plan Policy LU 6.15.14, the proposed location, layout, and improvements of the 0.5 -acre park are consistent with the requirements of this policy. As stated in Table 5.9-1 under the consistency analysis of Policy LU 6.15.14, the proposed park space would be clearly public due to the lack of perimeter fencing and signage and would be easily accessible to residents and the neighboring community through pedestrian connections. The park would be bordered by streets on two sides, would include a parking area, and would be visible (and accessible) from Dove Street and Martingale Way. As noted in Table 5.9-1 of Section 5.9, the Residential Overlay of the NPPC that applies to the project site, implements General Plan Housing Element Program 3.2.2, which states that the City shall maintain an exception to the 10 -acre site requirement for residential development projects in the Airport Area that include a minimum of 30 percent of the units affordable to lower income households. As the comment states, Ordinance No. 2012-14 amended the Newport Place Planned Community to include the Residential Overlay and includes the 10 -acre site exception requited to be maintained by General Plan Housing Element Program 3.2.2. Residential developments, such as the proposed project, that qualify for the residential overlay are subsequently exempt from General Plan Land Use Policy LU 6.15.6 and have no minimum site area requirement. Section VF (Amenities and Neighborhood Integration) of the Residential Overlay includes a requirement that the residential development include sufficient amenities (e.g. parks, clubhouse, pool, etc.) for the use of the residents and incorporate necessary improvements (e.g. pedestrian walkways, open space, recreational space, pedestrian, and bicycle connections) to allow integration into the existing community and larger residential developments in the future. This determination is implemented through the City's site development review process. In addition to the 0.5 -acre public park and as detailed in Subsection 3.3.1.6 of Draft EIR Chapter 3, Prjed Descaption, the project provides extensive onsite recreational amenities, including separate pool, entertainment, and lounge courtyards with eating, seating, and barbeque space; a rooftop terrace; a fifth -level view deck; a club room for entertainment and gatherings; and a fitness facility. In addition, a public plaza is located in front of the retail shops facing the main corner of the project at Corinthian Way and Martingale Way. The provided amenities total 22,696 square feet (65 square feet per unit), exceeding the 15,400 square -foot (44 square feet per unit) onsite recreational amenities requirement, and lessening the demand on existing recreational facilities in the City. PlaceWorkr R NEWPORT CROSSINGS MIXED USE PROJECT (PA2017-107) FINAL EIR CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 2. Response to Comments 11-4 The Draft EIR is not misstating the intent of the park acreage per resident requirement. As stated under Impact Statement 5.13-1 (page 5.13-6), "...the City's five acres of parkland per 1,000 persons requirement, as set forth in the City's Park Dedication Fee Ordinance (Chapter 19.52 [Park Dedication and Fees] of the City's Municipal Code) and General Plan Policy 111.1 do not apply to the proposed project, as the project is not a residential subdivision. The project does not involve or require a subdivision map because it is a for -lease apartment development. Subdivision maps are associated with for -sale residential developments, both single- and multifamily. Therefore, the ordinance is not applicable to the proposed project. However, as detailed above, the proposed project would provide a half -acre park in accordance with the requirement of General Plan Policy LU 6.15.13." Further, the City's case log indicates that the application originally included a request for a tentative tract map because the initial request included the ability to sell each unit as a condominium, which would have necessitated a tentative tract map approval; however, the application was later revised to include for -rent apartment units only. Therefore, a tentative tract map was no longer required and a lot line adjustment is only needed to reconfigure the existing underlying parcels. 11-5 In response to the commenter, the project site consists of three legal lots (Lot 1 of Tract No. 7770, M.M. 299/15-16, and Parcels 1 and 2 of P.M.B. 53-13), but four tax parcels (APNs 427-172-02, 03, -05, and -06). Therefore, the information provided in the NOA and Draft EIR are correct and no discrepancy exists. 11-6 Subsection 4.2.2, Regional Planning Considerations, of Draft FIR Section 4.2, Environmental Sett ng, states (not "promises", as noted by the commenter) that the proposed project's consistency with SCAG's regional planning guidelines and policies is provided in Section 5.9, Land Use and Planning. As stated on page 5.9-2 of Section 5.9, "The proposed project is not considered a project of "regionwide significance" pursuant to the criteria in SCAG's Intergovernmental Review Procedures Handbook (November 1995) and Section 15206 of the CEQA Guidelines. Therefore, this section does not address the proposed project's consistency with SCAG's regional planning guidelines and policies." In response to the commenter and the statement provided in Section 5.9, the text in Subsection 4.2.2 (page 4-2) has been revised, as follows. The revisions are also provided in Chapter 3, Revisions to the Draft EIR, of the Final EIR. Changes made to the Draft EIR are identified here in sti4eec3e text to indicate deletions and in bold underlined text to signify additions. februaey 2019 4. Environmental Setting SCAG Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy The SCS outlines a development pattern for the region, which, when integrated with the transportation network and other transportation measures and policies, would reduce Page 2-113 �BJ� NEWPORT CROSSINGS MIXED USE PROJECT (PA2017-107) FINAL EIR CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 2. Response to Comments GHG emissions from transportation (excluding goods movement). The SCS is meant to provide growth strategies that will achieve the regional GHG emissions reduction targets identified by the California Air Resources Board. However, the SCS does not require that local general plans, specific plans, or zoning be consistentwith the SCS; instead, it provides incentives to governments and developers for consistency. The proposed project's eaftsistefiey with the applieahl relation to SCAG's 2016-2040 RTP/SCS pekoes—is ana4red-in detail discussed in Section 5.9, Land Use and Planning. I1-7 Table 4-1, Cumulative Projects List, of Draft EIR Chapter 4, Environmental Setting, identifies all of the cumulative projects within the relevant geographic area of the project site. Figure 4-3, Cumulative DevelopmentsL.ocationMap, illustrates the location of each cumulative project relative to the proposed project. Consistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15130(b)(2), the cumulative projects consider the nature of the resource affected and the location of the project, as well as the type of project under review. As stated on page 4-14 of Chapter 4, "Cumulative impact analyses for several topical sections are also based on the most appropriate geographic boundary for the respective impact" With regard to cumulative traffic impacts, Section 5.14, Transportation and Traffic, identifies the cumulative projects included in the traffic analysis, which includes projects in the City of Irvine. As stated on page 4-14 of Chapter 4, "Several potential cumulative impacts that encompass regional boundaries (e.g., air quality and traffic) have been addressed in the context of various regional plans and defined significance thresholds." Page 2-114 Additionally, the list of cumulative projects provided in Table 4-1 of Draft EIR are not outdated or inaccurate. The list of cumulative projects listed in Table 4-1 were provided by the City of Newport Beach and are those that were available at the time of release of the Notice of Preparation (NOP), as further detailed below. As noted on page 4-13 of the Draft EIR, "The City compiled a list of cumulative projects for analysis under CEQA. ...The list has two parts: Reasonably Foreseeable Projects and Approved Projects." The comment states that the Ford Road project should have been included in the Draft EIR's list of reasonably foreseeable projects for purposes of conducting a cumulative impacts analysis. While an application for Ford Road was submitted on October 30, 2017, it was not entered into the City's records system until November 3, 2017, two days after circulation of the NOP for the proposed project. The City treated circulation of the NOP as the cutoff date pursuant to the CEQA Guidelines; therefore, the Ford Road project was not identified in the cumulative projects list. Similar approaches have been upheld by courts. (See Gray v. County of Madera (2008) 167 Cal.App.4th 1099, 1127 [holding that lead agency has discretion to set date of application as a reasonable cutoff date for determining what other projects are pending and should be included in the cumulative impacts analysis]; San Franciscans for Reasonable Growth v. City & County of San Francisco (1984) 151 Ca1.App.3d 61 [same].) In addition, the Ford Road project proposes only 21 residential condominium units, which represents a very small percentage (less than 1%) of the total number of dwelling units identified in the cumulative projects fist and PlaceWorks f NEWPORT CROSSINGS MIXED USE PROJECT (PA2017-107) FINAL EIR CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 2. Response to Comments utilized for purposes of analyzing cumulative impacts. (See Concerned Citizens of South Central L.A. v Los Angeles Unified School Dist. (1994) 24 Cal.AppAth 826, 837-838 [upholding cumulative housing impacts analysis where petitioners were able to show only a small amount of housing loss in addition to that identified in the cumulative impact analysis].) The ENC Preschool project was a minor use permit approval to allow a preschool/general day care with approximately 72 students. The development includes the construction of a 6,498 -square -foot facility. The cumulative traffic analysis of the proposed project's traffic study analyzed the addition of 72 students (see Appendix J of the Draft EIR). The Villas Fashion Island project was a 524 apartment project. However, the project referenced in the table was the 2012 approval of an amendment to the North Newport Center Planned Community Plan (NNCPC) increasing the residential development allocation from 430 units to a total of 524 units (increase of 94 units) and allocating the units to the San Joaquin Plaza sub -area of the NNCPC. The addendum to the General Plan Update EIR and traffic study analyzed the 94 unit increase. The construction permits for the Villas Fashion Island apartments was finalized on October 6, 2017. As also noted above, the City treated circulation of the NOP as the relevant date for identifying those projects that would be included as cumulative projects. Although Villas Fashion Island was listed as an "approved project" on the cumulative projects list, construction permits for that project actually were finalized on October 6, 2017 (as noted above), approximately four weeks prior to circulation of the NOP. Therefore, with final construction permits in place prior to issuance of the NOP, Villas Fashion Island was an existing condition and not a cumulative project for purposes of the Draft EIR's environmental analysis. I1-8 The environmental document (Mitigated Negative Declaration) that was prepared for the 380 -unit Residences at Newport Place project has no relevance to the proposed Newport Crossings project or the environmental analysis conducted as a part of an included in the project's Draft EIR. I1-9 No evidence was provided in this comment to support the commenters general statement that the aesthetic analysis provided in Section 5.1, Aesthetics, does not provide adequate discussion as to how the propose project will blend in with its surroundings. A detailed discussion that describes the visual change in the environment due to project development as well as how the project would fit in to the surrounding environment is provided under Impact Statement 5.1-2, starting on page 5.1-8. I1-10 The commenter is correct that 0.73 ug/L of PCE is equivalent to approximately 110 ppbV. However, this does not affect the vapor intrusion risk assessment results (as concentrations in ug/L are used) and is not expected to impact the design of the vapor mitigation system membrane at these relatively low levels. Februaey 2019 Page 2-115 NEWPORT CROSSINGS MIXED USE PROJECT (PA2017-107) FINAL EIR CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 2. Response to Comments Also, the statement provided on page 5.7-16 of Draft FIR Section 5.7 is correct. Thresholds HAZ-7 and HAZ-8 were determined to have no impacts, as substantiated in Draft FIR Chapter 8, Impacts Found Not to Be Significant. In response to this comment and to correct a minor error, the text on page 5-7-8 of Draft EIR Section 5.7, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, has been revised, as follows. The revisions are also provided in Chapter 3, Revisions to the Draft EIR, of the Final FIR. The text revisions do not change the findings or conclusions of the Draft EIR. Changes made to the Draft FIR are identified here intext to indicate deletions and in bold underlined text to signifv additions. 5.7 Hazards and Hazardous Materials Soil Vapor Sampling and Testing: 2013 The 2013 Phase II investigation included three subslab soil -vapor samples collected from directly beneath the slab below the former dry cleaner at 4250 Scott Drive. In addition, seven subsurface sod vapor samples were collected from the property perimeter at depths of 5 feet bgs. The PCE concentration in one of the three subslab samples was 0.73 µg/L , above the California Health Hazard Screening Level (CHHSL) of 0.48 µg/L for residential land use; concentrations in the other two samples were below the CHHSL. The location this sample was taken from is shown in Figure 5.7- 1, Soil and Soil Vapor Sampling Locations. Soil vapor samples from two of the seven locations sampled on the site perimeter yielded PCE concentrations of 1.5 and 1.4 µg/L, respectively, also above the CHHSL for residential use. One location is on the northwest site boundary, and the other is on the northern part of the eastern site boundary (see Figure 5.7-1). The concentrations of PCE detected indicated groundwater contamination may be present. I1-11 CEQA requires that a project's impact on the environment be analyzed; however, it does not require an analysis of the environments impacts on a project be analyzed. Also, the requirement for the preparation of an acoustic study is pursuant to the provisions of City's the Noise Ordinance and Municipal Code Section 20.48.130.E, Mixed -Use Projects Sound Mitigation, as stated on page 5.10-14 of the Draft EIR Section 5.10, Noise. The City requires acoustic studies to be prepared for projects such as the proposed Newport Crossing project to ensure that future project residents will not be exposed to excessive noise sources and that the buildings are designed and constructed to meet the City's noise regulations. The acoustic study is required to be submitted to the Community Development Department prior to the issuance of building permits for each structure. Through its review process, the City will ensure that all noise attenuation measures are incorporated into the project's buildings, in compliance with the findings of the acoustic study. Page 2-116 PlaceWorks NEWPORT CROSSINGS MIXED USE PROJECT (PA2017-107) FINAL EIR CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 2. Response to Comments I1-12 As stated on page 5.12-2 of Draft FIR Section 5.12, Public Services, Chapter 3.12 (Property Development Tax) of the City's Municipal Code outlines the need for collecting necessary funds to provide adequate fire stations and fire -fighting equipment, public City libraries, and public City parks—which cannot be met by the City's ordinary revenues—through an excise tax upon the construction and occupancy of residential, commercial, and industrial units or buildings in the City. The funds collected under Chapter 3.12 do not apply to police services or facilities. I1-13 As discussed in Draft Section 5.12, the project site is within the boundaries of and would be served by the Santa Ana Unified School District (District). The District has indicated that it can serve the school needs of the students generated by the project. Section 5.12 also substantiates the District's schools that serve the project site have capacity for to accommodate the project's students. Further, irrelevant of the school district that serves the project site, the project applicant/developer will be required to pay school impact fees under per Senate Bill 50. 11-14 The analysis provided under Impact Statement 5.16-6 of Draft FIR Section 5.16, Utilities and Service Systems, is in response to the Appendix G CEQA Guidelines questions regarding wastewater treatment which are listed on page 5.14-6. As stated on Page 5.14-6, according to Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, a project would normally have a significant effect on the environment if the project (empbasis added. U-2 Would 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. U-5 Would result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has inadequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments. I1-15 No evidence was provided in this comment to support the commenters general statement that the description of alternatives provided in Draft EIR Chapter 7, Alternatives, is muddled. The comment is acknowledged. Februaey 2019 In response to the commenter's confusion of how the environmental superior alternative is selected and why the No Project Alternative was not selected as the superior alternative over the proposed project, please refer to the explanation provided in Subsections 7.1.1, Purpose and Scope, of Draft EIR Chapter 7. As stated in the third bullet point of Subsection 7.1.1 (page 7-1), "...If the environmentally superior alternative is the `no project' alternative, the EIR shall also identify an environmentally superior alternative among the other alternatives." (CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6[e] [2]). Page 2-117 292 NEWPORT CROSSINGS MIXED USE PROJECT (PA2017-107) FINAL EIR CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 2. Response to Comments I1-16 In response to the commenter, the missing response to the fourth question regarding growth -inducing impacts outlined on page 9-2 of Draft EIR Chapter 9, Other CEQA Considerations, is probed below. The revision is also provided in Chapter 3, Revisions to the Draft EIA, of the Final FIR. The revision does not change the findings or conclusions of the Draft EIR. Changes made to the Draft EIR are identified here in . `-ems text to indicate deletions and in bold underlined text to signify additions. Page 2-118 9. Other CEQA Considerations Would this project encourage or facilitate economic effects that could result in other activities that could significantly affect the environment? Implementation of the proposed project would encourage or facilitate economic effects. During project construction, a number of design, engineering, and construction -related jobs would be created. This would last until the project is constructed over two years. Construction related jobs would not result in a significant population increase because they would be filled by workers in the region. The construction phase would be temporary and the buildings are being developed based on market demand. Buildout of the proposed project would not increase employment in the project area by a substantial amount. The project's 7,500 square feet of retail and restaurant uses is estimated to generate approximately 12 permanent jobs, while the apartment complex is estimated to generate approximately 4 permanent jobs. Total estimated employment generation by the proposed project is about 16 jobs. Also, the proposed apartments would introduce up to 550 additional residents. The increase in residents could spur new economic investment in commercial uses serving the project site. Future residents would also represent an increased demand for economic goods and services and could, therefore, encourage the creation of new businesses and/or the expansion of existing businesses in the area. While the proposed project would have an indirect growth -inducing effect, this would be accommodated by the surrounding Airport Area and its ability to absorb local business growth. PlaceWorks 292 3. Revisions to the Draft EIR 3.1 INTRODUCTION This section contains revisions to the DEIR based on (1) additional or revised information required to prepare a response to a specific comment; (2) applicable updated information that was not available at the time of DEIR publication; and/or (3) typographical errors. This section also includes additional clarification and/or revisions to mitigation requirements included in the DEIR. The provision of these revised mitigation measures does not alter any impact significance conclusions as disclosed in the DEIR. Changes made to the DEIR are identified here in str k o to text -to indicate deletions and in underlined text to signify additions. 3.2 DEIR REVISIONS IN RESPONSE TO WRITTEN COMMENTS The following text has been revised in response to comments received on the DEIR. Pages 2-10 and 2-11, Chapter 1, Executive Summaty. The following text is revised to correct a minor error. This DEIR is being circulated for public review for 45 days. Interested agencies and members of the public are invited to provide written comments on the DEIR to the City address shown on the title page of this document. Upon completion of the 45 -day review period, the City will review all written comments received and prepare written responses for each. A Final EIR (FEIR) will incorporate the received comments, responses to the comments, and any changes to the DEIR that result from comments. The FEIR will be presented to the Newport Beach City- 6erne1 Planning Commission for potential certification as the environmental document for the project. All persons who comment on the DEIR will be notified of the availability of the FEIR and the date of the public hearing before the City. 2.6 MITIGATION MONITORING Public Resources Code, Section 21081.6, requires that agencies adopt a monitoring or reporting program for any project for which it has made findings pursuant to Public Resources Code 21081 or adopted a Negative Declaration pursuant to 21080(c). Such a program is intended to ensure the implementation of all mitigation measures adopted through the preparation of an FIR or Negative Declaration. Febmaey 2019 Page 3-1 :�9 s NEWPORT CROSSINGS MIXED USE PROJECT (PA2017-107) FINAL EIR CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 3. Revisions to the Draft EIR The Mitigation Monitoring Program for the Newport Crossings Mixed Use project will be completed in conjunction with the Final EIR, prior to consideration of the project by the Newport Beach City ce�oeil Planning Commission. Pages 1-9, 1-10, 1-13, 1-15 and 1-16 of Table 1-2, Chapter 1, Executive Summary. The following mitigation measures are revised/added in response to Comment Al -1 from the California Cultural Resource Preservation Alliance, Comment A4-9 from the Department of Toxic Substances Control, and Comment A8-7 from the South Coast Air Qualin- Management District. Table 1-2 Summary of Environmental Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Levels of Significance After Levelof Significance I Level of Significance Environmental Impact Before Mitigation Mitigation Measures After Mitigation 5.2 Air Quality Impact 5.2-2: Potentially significant AQ -3 Construction contractors shall, at minimum, use Less than significant with Construction activities equipment that meets the EPA's Tier 34 emissions mitigation associated with the standards for off-road diesel -powered construction proposed project would equipment with '.nca^n m'^^of 50 horsepower or generate short-term rg eater for all 19Y ldiRg and asphalt dernol tMan, by Id ng emissions in and asphalt dawal t 9A 6819F S exceedance of and rough grad ng `o 1 hauling ^^r' '`'ashao ses of SCAQMD'S threshold construction activity, unless it can be demonstrated to criteria for NOx. the City of Newport Beach Building Division with substantial evidence that such equipment is not available. Any emissions control device used by the contractor shall achieve emissions reductions that are no less than what could be achieved by Tier 34 emissions standards for a similarly sized engine, as defined by the California Air Resources Board's regulations. Prior to construction, the project engineer shall ensure that all construction (e.g., demolition and grading) plans clearly show the requirement for EPA Tier 24 emissions standards for construction equipment aver of 50 horsepower or greater for the specific activities stated above. During construction, the construction contractor shall maintain a list of all operating equipment in use on the construction site for verification by the City of Newport Beach. The construction equipment list shall state the makes, models, and numbers of construction equipment onsite. Equipment shall be properly serviced and maintained in accordance with the manufacturer's recommendations. Construction contractors shall also ensure that all nonessential idling of construction equipment is restricted to 5 minutes or less in compliance with Section 2449 of the California Code of Regulations, Title 13, Article 4.8, Chapter 9. Page 3-2 PlaceWorkr :9.4. NEWPORT CROSSINGS MIXED USE PROJECT (PA2017-107) FINAL EIR CITY OF IRVINE 3. Revisions to the Draft EIR Table 1-2 Summary of Environmental Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Levels of Significance After Mitigation Level of Significance Level of Significance Environmental Impact I Before Mitigation Mitigation Measures I After Mitigation 5.4 CULTURAL RESOURCES Impact 5.4.2: Project Potentially significant CULA Prior to the issuance of a grading permit by the City of Less than significant with development could the former Eniav Cleaners and soil samples shall be Newport Beach, the project applicant shall retain a mitigation result in an impact on Health Care Agency and City Building Official. In the qualified archaeologist to periodically monitor ground - cleanup goals, affected soils shall be removed and archaeological concentrations exceed site-specific cleanup goals, disturbing activities onsite and provide documentation performed to reduce soil vapor concentrations. resources. of such retention to the City of Newport Beach Community Development Director. The archaeologist shall train project construction workers on the types of archaeological resources that could be found in site soils. The archaeologist shall periodically monitor project ground -disturbing activities. Du) ring construction activities, the project applicant shall allow representatives of cultural organizations, including traditionally -/culturally -affiliated Native American tribes (e.g., Gabrieleho Band of Mission Indians-Kizh Nation, Juaneno Band of Mission Indians Aciachemen Nation), to access the project site on a volunteer basis to monitor grading and excavation activities. If archaeological resources are encountered, all construction work within 50 feet of the find shall cease, and the archaeologist shall assess the find for importance and whether preservation in place without impacts is feasible. Construction activities may continue in other areas. If, in consultation with the City and affected Native American tribe (as deemed necessary , the discovery is determined to not be important, work will be permitted to continue in the area. Any resource that is not Native American in origin and that cannot be preserved in place shall be curated at a public, nonprofit institution with a research interest in the materials, such as the South Central Coastal Information Center at California State University, Fullerton. 5.7 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS Impact 5.7-2: The project site is on a list of hazardous materials sites. Potentially significant HAZ-2 Prior to issuance of the first building permit, soil and Less than significant with mitigation soil vapor samples shall be collected from beneath the former Eniav Cleaners and soil samples shall be collected from beneath the proposed 0.5 -acre public park site and tested for PCE and OCPs, respectively. The results shall be submitted to the Orange Couniv Health Care Agency and City Building Official. In the event that soil concentrations exceed site-specific cleanup goals, affected soils shall be removed and properly treated/disposed of. Should soil vapor concentrations exceed site-specific cleanup goals, short-term soil vapor extraction and treatment shall be performed to reduce soil vapor concentrations. February 2019 Page 3-3 X95 NEWPORT CROSSINGS MIXED USE PROJECT (PA2017-107) FINAL EIR CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 3. Revisions to the Draft EIR Pages 5.2-32 and 5.2-33, Section 5.2, Air Quality. The following mitigation measure is revised in response to Comment A8-7 from the Air Quality Management District. 5.2.7 Mitigation Measures Impact 5.2-2 V )_3 Construction contractors shall, at minimum, use equipment that meets the EPAs Tier 34 emissions standards for off-road diesel -powered construction equipment •-" Hn of 50 horsepower or greater for all demolitioti debris hatAing, rough grftding, atid rotigh grading soil Itauling aetivifies phases of construction activiri, unless it can be demonstrated to the City of Newport Beach Building Division with substantial evidence that such equipment is not available. Any emissions control device used by the contractor shall achieve emissions reductions that are no less than what could be achieved by Tier 14 emissions standards fora similarly sized engine, as defined by the California Air Resources Board's regulations. Prior to construction, the project engineer shall ensure that all construction (e.g., demolition and grading) plans clearly show the requirement for EPA Tier 34 emissions standards for construction equipment ave p of 50 horsepower or greater for the specific activities stated above. During construction, the construction contractor shall maintain a list of all operating equipment in use on the construction site for verification by the City of Newport Beach. The construction equipment list shall state the makes, models, and numbers of construction equipment onsite. Equipment shall be properly serviced and maintained in accordance with the manufacturer's recommendations. Construction contractors shall also ensure that all nonessential idling of construction equipment is restricted to 5 minutes or less in compliance with Section 2449 of the California Code of Regulations, Title 13, Article 4.8, Chapter 9. Pages 5.4-10 and 5.4-11, Section 5.4, Cultural Resources. The following mitigation measure is revised in response to Comment Al -1 from the California Cultural Resource Preservation Alliance. 5.4.7 Mitigation Measures Impact 5.4-2 Cl L- Prior to the issuance of a grading permit by the City of Newport Beach, the project applicant shall retain a qualified archaeologist to periodically monitor ground -disturbing activities onsite and provide documentation of such retention to the City of Newport Beach Community Development Director. The archaeologist shall train project construction workers on the types of archaeological resources that could be found in site soils. The archaeologist shall periodically monitor project ground -disturbing activities. During construction activities, the project applicant shall allow representatives of cultural organizations, including traditionally - Page 34 PlaeeWorks NEWPORT CROSSINGS MIXED USE PROJECT (PA2017-107) FINAL EIR CITY OF IRVINE 3. Revisions to the Draft EIR /culturally -affiliated Native American tribes (e.g.. Gabrieleho Band of Mission Indians-Kizh Nation. luaneno Band of Mission Indians Acjachemen Nation), to access the project site on a volunteer basis to monitor grading and excavation activities. If archaeological resources are encountered, all construction work within 50 feet of the find shall cease, and the archaeologist shall assess the find for importance and whether preservation in place without impacts is feasible. Construction activities may continue in other areas. If, in consultation with the City and affected Native American tribe (as deemed necessary)., the discovery is determined to not be important, work will be permitted to continue in the area. Any resource that is not Native American in origin and that cannot be preserved in place shall be curated at a public, nonprofit institution with a research interest in the materials, such as the South Central Coastal Information Center at California State University, Fullerton. Page 5.7-8, Section 5.7, Ha..Zards and Ha.Zardous Materials. The following text is revised in response to Comment A4-4 from the Department of Toxic Substances Control and Comment I1-10 from Jim Mosher. Soil Vapor Sampling and Testing: 2013 The 2013 Phase II investigation included three subslab soil -vapor samples collected from directly beneath the slab below the former dry cleaner at 4250 Scott Drive. In addition, seven subsurface soil vapor samples were collected from the property perimeter at depths of 5 feet bgs. The PCE concentration in one of the three subslab samples was 0.73 µg/L , above the California Human Health � Screening Level (CHHSL) of 0.48 µg/L for residential land use; concentrations in the other two samples were below the CHHSL. The location this sample was taken from is shown in Figure 5.7-1, Soil and Soil Vapor Sampling Locations. Soil vapor samples from two of the seven locations sampled on the site perimeter yielded PCE concentrations of 1.5 and 1.4 µg/L, respectively, also above the CHHSL for residential use. One location is on the northwest site boundary, and the other is on the northern part of the eastern site boundary (see Figure 5.7- 1). The concentrations of PGE detected indicated groundwater contamination may be present. Page 5.7-14, Section 5.7, Hazards and Ha.ZardousMaterials. The following text is revised in response to Comment A10-3 from the Airport Land Use Commission. Airport -Related Hazards The proposed project is in Safety Zone 6 designated in the Airport Environs Land Use Plan (AELUP) for John Wayne Airport JWA) issued by the Orange County Airport Land Use Commission in 2008. Outdoor stadiums and similar uses with very high intensities are prohibited in Zone 6. Children's schools, large day care centers, hospitals, and nursing homes should be avoided. Residential uses and most nonresidential uses are permitted (OCALUC 2008). There are no heliports within one mile of the project site other than JWA (Airnavcom 2018). February 2019 Page 3-5 297 NEWPORT CROSSINGS MIXED USE PROJECT (PA2017-107) FINAL EIR CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 3. Revisions to the Draft EIR The proposed project is also in an area surrounding JWA where structure heights are regulated under Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Regulations Part 77 for preservation of navigable airspace. The maximum structure height permitted at the project site is 206 feet above mean sea level (amsl) (OCALUC 2008). The elevation onsite ranges from 48 feet amsl at the southwest corner of the site to 53 feet amsl at the northeast corner. Thus, the maximum structure height proposed onsite would be based on the higher of those two elevations, lus the proposed building height. Pages 5.7-15 and 5.7-16, Section 5.7, Hazards and Ha.Zardous Materials. The following text is revised in response to Comment A4-4 from the Department of Toxic Substances Control. RR HAZ-2 Any project related hazardous waste generation, transportation, treatment, storage, and disposal will be conducted in compliance with the Subtitle C of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Part 263), including the management of nonhazardous solid wastes and underground tanks storing petroleum and other hazardous substances. The proposed project will be designed and constructed in accordance with the regulations of the Orange County Environmental Health Department, which serves as the designated Certified Unified Program Agency and which implements state and federal regulations for the following programs: (1) Hazardous Waste Generator Program, (2) Hazardous Materials Release Response Plans and Inventory Program, (3) California Accidental Release Prevention, (4) Aboveground Storage Tank Program, and (5) Underground Storage Tank Program. Transportation of hazardous waste will also be transported in accordance with California Code of Regulations. Title 22, Division 4.5, Chapter 13. Page 5.7-20, Section 5.7, Hazards and Ha.Zardous Materials. The following text is revised in response to Comment Al0-3from the Airport Land Use Commission. Impact Analysis: The project site is in Safety Zone 6 designated in the Airport Environs Land Use Plan for John Wayne Airport. Outdoor stadiums and similar uses with very high intensities are prohibited in Zone 6. Children's schools, large day care centers, hospitals, and nursing homes should be avoided. Residential uses and most nonresidential uses are permitted (OCALUC 2008). The proposed project does not propose any land uses prohibited or discouraged by the AELUP and would not subject people on the ground to substantial hazards from crashes of aircraft approaching or departing JWA. The project site also in an area surrounding JWA where structure heights are regulated under FAA Regulations Part 77 for preservation of navigable airspace. The maximum structure height permitted at the project site is 206 feet amsl (OCALUC 2008). The elevation onsite ranges from 48 feet amsl at the southwest corner of the site to 53 feet amsl at the northeast corner. Thus, based on the higher of those two elevations, the maximum structure height :.-- _'-' aftske is _t._... 4S3 c___ _t__. g_...._d !eve is approximately 130 amsl, which is the sum of the maximum proposed building height of 77 feet 9 inches (tallest structure proposed)_plus the highest elevation of the site of 53 feet amsl. This would put the proposed building height well below the 206 foot amsl Page 3-6 PlaceWorks NEWPORT CROSSINGS MIXED USE PROJECT (PA2017-107) FINAL EIR CITY OF IRVINE 3. Revisions to the Draft EIR height limit for the site. The proposed buildings would be approximately 55 feet high for residential living spaces, with limited ancillary structures to 77 feet 9 inches for stair towers architectural features (including parapets), parking, roof decks, elevator shafts, and mechanical equipment. The proposed project would conform with structure heights permitted on-site under FAA regulations and would not adversely affect navigable airspace surrounding JWA. Page 5.7-22, Section 5.7, Hazards and Ha.ZardousMaterials. The following mitigation measures has been added in response to Comment A4-9 from the Department of Toxic Substances Control. 5.7.7 Mitigation Measures Impact 5.7-2 MM HAZ-2 Prior to issuance of the fust building17ermit, soil and soil vapor samples shall be collected from beneath the former Enja Cleaners and soil samples shall be collected from beneath the nronosed 0.5 -acre public park site and tested for PCE and OCPs, respectively. The results shall be submitted to the Orange Count;- Health Care Agency and City Building Official. In the event that soil concentrations exceed site-specific cleanup goals, affected soils shall be removed and properly- treated/disposed of. Should soil vapor concentrations exceed site-specific cleanup goals, short-term soil vapor extraction and treatment shall be performed to reduce soil vapor concentrations. Page 5.9-25, Section 5.9, Land Use and Planning. The following text is revised in response to Comment Al2-11 from Wittwer Parkin, LLP. Zoning Code Consistency As stated above, the project site is zoned Newport Place Planned Community (PC -11). PC -11 allows for residential development, with a minimum of 30 du/ac and a maximum of 50 du/ac, consistent with the MU - 1 -12 land use designation. More specifically, the project site within PC -11 is designated General Commercial Site 6. The General Commercial designation allows retail commercial, office, and professional and business uses. The site also has a residential overlay option given its general plan designation of MU -H2. The projects consistency with the Residential Overlay development standards of the NPPC, which ably to the project site and function as zoning for the site, is discussed below. The proposed retail, restaurant, and residential uses under the proposed project are allowed under the existing zoning, and no zone change is required or proposed. Thus, the proposed project would be consistent with the existing zoning on-site, and impacts would be less than significant. See also RR LU -1 and RR LU -2. February 2019 Page 3-7 29 q NEWPORT CROSSINGS MIXED USE PROJECT (PA2017-107) FINAL EIR CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 3. Revisions to the Draft EIR Newport Place Planned Community Development Standards Consistency Development standards for utilization of the NPPC's (Residential o0verlay, which applies to the project site, are found on Page 46 of the PC=PP in the NPPC development standards. Table 5.9-2 demonstrates the proposed project's consistency with those development standards. For example, as noted in Table 5.9-2. the Residential Overlay of the NPPC, which applies to the project site. implements General Plan Housing Element Program 3.2.2, which creates an exception to the 10 -acre site requirement for residential development projects in the Airport Area that include a minimum of 30 percent of the units affordable to lower income households. Residential developments, such as the proposed project, that qualify for the residential overlay are subsequently exempt from General Plan Land Use Policy LU 6.15.6 and have no minimum site area requirement. In addition to the site size exception and affordable housing requirements, the NPPC details additional residential development regulations addressing setbacks, building height, parking requirements, landscaping, signs_ utilities requirements, and amenities and neighborhood integration. With the exception of the unit mix and building height requirements, the proposed project would be developed in accordance with the NPPC development regulations. As described in Chapter 3, Project De ration, of this Draft EIR, the project's Affordable Housing Implementation Plan includes a request for one development concession for the unit mix and one waiver for the height, as described below. Development Concession (Unit Mix). Pursuant to Section V.E1 of the Residential Overla,: Affordable units shall reflect the range of numbers of bedrooms provided in the residential development project as a whole." In the case of the proposed project, the project applicant is requesting a unit mix that includes a greater percentage of studio and one -bedroom units_ as illustrated in Table 3-2 of Chapter 3. Granting this incentive will result in identifiable, financially sufficient, and actual project cost reduction by reducing the long-term rental subsidy costs associated with the two-bedroom units and affording additional rental income for the project to ensure financial feasibility Waiver/Concession of Development Standard (Height Increase). Pursuant to Section V.A of the Residential Overlay, the maximum building heights are limited to 55 feet, but may be increased with the approval of a site development review after making certain findings for approval. Government Code Section 65915(ee)(1) provides that a city may not apply a development standard that will have the effect of phvsicall - precluding the construction of a density bonus project at the density permitted under the density bonus law. In the case of the proposed project, the project applicant is requesting a waiver of the 55 -foot building height limit to 77 feet 9 inches in order to accommodate the parapet, roof top mechanical equipment, elevator shafts, emergency staircase, rooftop terrace, and a portion of the parking garage. Without the height allowance for the stairs, elevators, mechanical equipment, and parapet. 63 of the 91 densiW bonus units would need to be eliminated. Furthermore, limiting heights to 55 feet would result in ehntlnation of the rooftop amem1y deck and upper level of parking structure, which are necessary for marketing purposes to meet expectations of prospective tenants and market -rate rents, provide the level of onsite amenities encouraged by the Residential Overlay, and reduce the impact of parking availability on neighboring streets. Page 3-8 PlaceWorks 300 NEWPORT CROSSINGS MIXED USE PROJECT (PA2017-107) FINAL EIR CITY OF IRVINE 3. Revisions to the Draft EIR Approval of the aforementioned concession and waiver would not result in a land use conflict with the regard to the NPPC development standards. Page 5.11.10, Section 5.11, Population and Housing. The following text is revised in response to Comment Al2- 11 from Wittwer Parkin, LLP and to provide a minor revision. 5.11.5 Cumulative Impacts The area considered for cumulative impacts is the City of Newport Beach. Impacts are analyzed using General Plan projections in SCAG's 2016 Growth Forecast. Development activity in the City includes residential projects (see Table 4-1 in Section 4.0, Environmental Setting). The proposed project is consistent with the City of Newport Beach General Plan and would therefore be expected to be consistent with SCAG's growth projections. Page 5.12-11, Section 5.12, Public Services. The following text is revised in response to Comment A7-4 from the Santa Ana Unified School District. Regulatory Background Senate Bill 50 (Chapter 407 of Statutes of 1998) (SB 50) SB 50 sets forth a state school facilities construction program that includes restrictions on a local jurisdiction's ability to impose mitigation for a project's impacts on school facilities in excess of fees set forth in Education Code 17620. It establishes three potential limits for school districts, depending on the availability of new school construction funding from the state and the particular needs of the individual school districts. Level one is the general school facilities fees imposed in accordance with Government Code Section 65995 as amended. Level two and three fees are alternate fees that are intended to represent 50 percent or 100 percent of a school district's school facility construction costs per new residential construction as authorized by Government Code Sections 65995.5, 65995.6, and 65995.7. On Febrttary-24, 2946 September 17.2018, the State Allocation Board adjusted the maximum level -one residential school fee to be $3-. $3.79 per square foot for residential development; $0.-`56 and $0.61 per square foot for commercial, industrial, and senior housing projects, i . Development fees authorized by SB 50 are deemed by Section 65996 of the California Government Code to be "full and complete school facilities mitigation." Page 5.12-13, Section 5.12, Public Services. The following text is revised in response to Comments A7-3 and A7- 5 from the Santa Ana Unified School District. Impact Analysis: The proposed project is estimated to generate about 39180 students—using SAUSD student generation factors for multifamily units—consisting of 22 83 elementary school students, S 43 intermediate students, and 9 54 high school students (see Table 5.12-3). February 2019 Page 3-9 301 NEWPORT CROSSINGS MIXED USE PROJECT (PA2017-107) FINAL EIR CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 3. Revisions to the Draft EIR Table 5.12.3 Estimated Project Student Generation 350 Proposed Multifamily Units School Level(multifamily Generation Factor per Household attached units + Students Generated Elementary (K-5) 006200.2367 2-283 Intermediate (6-8) 0:02290.1218 843 High (9-12) 0-9244 0.1533 954 Total 0.43— 39 180 Source: Conan 29382019. The three schools serving the project site have sufficient capacities for the proposed project's student generation, as shown in Table 5.12-4. Project development would not require SAUSD to add school capacity as the schools serving the project site would have more than adequate capacity. Table 5.12.4 Project Impacts on School Ca acities Source: Cogan 2016. Additionally, the need for additional school services and facilities is addressed by compliance with school impact assessment fees per Senate Bill 50, also known as Proposition IA. SB 50—codified in California Government Code Section 65995—was enacted in 1988 to address how schools are fmanced and how development projects may be assessed for associated school impacts. To address the increase in enrollment at4 ASH SAUSD schools that would serve the Proposed Project, the project applicant/developer would be required to pay school impact fees to reduce any impacts to the school system, in accordance with SB 50. These fees are collected by school districts at the time of issuance of building permits. As stated in Government Code Section 65995(h), Page 5.14-4, Section 5.14, Transportation and Traffic. The following text is revised in response to Comment A5-3 from the City of Irvine. City of Irvine In Irvine, LOS E (peak hour ICU less than or equal to 1.00) is considered acceptable in the Irvine Business Complex (IBC) intersections. At other study area intersections in Irvine, LOS D (peak hour ICU less than or equal to 0.90) is acceptable. At if -Ane - _____ _______, fteeepeftble level 8f s -At Irvine intersections and, if project traffic causes the study area intersection level of service to drop from acceptable to unacceptable level of service, mitigation is required, where feasible, to bring the intersection back to an acceptable level of service or to no project Page 3-10 PlaceWorks 302 Existing Available Capacity Project Student Generation Available Capacity After School from Table 5.12-2)1 from Table 5.12-3 Project Student Generation Monroe Elementary School 191 2283 469108 McFadden Intermediate School 609 843 — 604566 — Century High School 127 954 418 76 Source: Cogan 2016. Additionally, the need for additional school services and facilities is addressed by compliance with school impact assessment fees per Senate Bill 50, also known as Proposition IA. SB 50—codified in California Government Code Section 65995—was enacted in 1988 to address how schools are fmanced and how development projects may be assessed for associated school impacts. To address the increase in enrollment at4 ASH SAUSD schools that would serve the Proposed Project, the project applicant/developer would be required to pay school impact fees to reduce any impacts to the school system, in accordance with SB 50. These fees are collected by school districts at the time of issuance of building permits. As stated in Government Code Section 65995(h), Page 5.14-4, Section 5.14, Transportation and Traffic. The following text is revised in response to Comment A5-3 from the City of Irvine. City of Irvine In Irvine, LOS E (peak hour ICU less than or equal to 1.00) is considered acceptable in the Irvine Business Complex (IBC) intersections. At other study area intersections in Irvine, LOS D (peak hour ICU less than or equal to 0.90) is acceptable. At if -Ane - _____ _______, fteeepeftble level 8f s -At Irvine intersections and, if project traffic causes the study area intersection level of service to drop from acceptable to unacceptable level of service, mitigation is required, where feasible, to bring the intersection back to an acceptable level of service or to no project Page 3-10 PlaceWorks 302 NEWPORT CROSSINGS MIXED USE PROJECT (PA2017-107) FINAL EIR CITY OF IRVINE 3. Revisions to the Draft EIR conditions. Also, if the intersection would operate at unacceptable level of service and the project contribution is 0.02 or greater, mitigation is required, where feasible, to bring intersection back to an acceptable level of service or to no project conditions. Page 9-3, Chapter 9, Other CEQA Considerations. The following text is revised in response to Comment I1-16 from Jim Mosher. Would this project encourage or facilitate economic effects that could result in other activities that could significantly affect the environment? Implementation of the proposed project would encourage or facilitate economic effects. During_project construction, a number of design, en4neering, and construction -related jobs would be created. This would last until the project is constructed over two years. Construction related jobs would not result in a significant population increase because they would be filled by workers in the region. The construction phase would be temporary and the buildings are being developed based on market demand. Buildout of the proposed project would not increase employment in the project area by a substantial amount. The project's 7.500 square feet of retail and restaurant uses is estimated to generate approximately 12 permanent jobs, while the apartment complex is estimated to generate approximately 4 permanent jobs. Total estimated employment generation by the proposed project is about 16 jobs. Also, the proposed apartments would introduce up to 550 additional residents. The increase in residents could spur new economic investment in commercial uses serving the project site. Future residents would also represent an increased demand for economic goods and services and could, therefore, encourage the creation of new businesses and/or the eexpansion of existing businesses in the area. While the proposed project would have an indirect growth - inducing effect, this would be accommodated by the surrounding Airport Area and its ability to absorb local business aroma February 2019 Page 3-11 303 NEWPORT CROSSINGS MIXED USE PROJECT (PA2017-107) FINAL EIR CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 3. Revisions to the Draft EIR Thasage mtentionaddy deft blank. Page 3-12 PlaceWorkr SO4 NEWPORT CROSSINGS MIXED USE PROJECT (PA2017-107) FINAL EIR CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Appendix Appendix A. FAA Determination of No Hazard to Air Navigation February 2019 305 NEWPORT CROSSINGS MIXED USE PROJECT (PA2017-107) FINAL EIR CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Appendix Thasage intentionally left blank. PlaceWorks SOO Mail Processing Center Federal Aviation Administration Southwest Regional Office Obstruction Evaluation Group 10101 Hillwood Parkway Fort Worth, TX 76177 Issued Date: 02/07/2019 Dan Vittone Starboard Realty Partners 1301 Dove Street Suite 1080 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Aeronautical Study No. 2018 -AWP -17902 -OE Prior Study No. 2014 -AWP -7280 -OE ** DETERMINATION OF NO HAZARD TO AIR NAVIGATION ** The Federal Aviation Administration has conducted an aeronautical study under the provisions of 49 U.S.C., Section 44718 and if applicable Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations, part 77, concerning: Structure: Building Newport Crossings Location: Newport Beach, CA Latitude: 33-39-59.30N NAD 83 Longitude: 117-51-57.56W Heights: 50 feet site elevation (SE) 80 feet above ground level (AGL) 130 feet above mean sea level (AMSL) This aeronautical study revealed that the structure does not exceed obstruction standards and would not be a hazard to air navigation provided the following condition(s), if any, is(are) met: It is required that FAA Form 7460-2, Notice of Actual Construction or Alteration, be e -filed any time the project is abandoned or: At least 10 days prior to start of construction (7460-2, Part 1) X Within 5 days after the construction reaches its greatest height (7460-2, Part 2) Based on this evaluation, marking and lighting are not necessary for aviation safety. However, if marking/ lighting are accomplished on a voluntary basis, we recommend it be installed in accordance with FAA Advisory circular 70/7460-1 L Change 2. This determination expires on 08/07/2020 unless: (a) the construction is started (not necessarily completed) and FAA Form 7460-2, Notice of Actual Construction or Alteration, is received by this office. (b) extended, revised, or terminated by the issuing office. (c) the construction is subject to the licensing authority of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and an application for a construction permit has been filed, as required by the FCC, within 6 months of the date of this determination. In such case, the determination expires on the date prescribed by the FCC for completion of construction, or the date the FCC denies the application. Page 1 ofA_1 3O7 NOTE: REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF THE EFFECTIVE PERIOD OF THIS DETERMINATION MUST BE E -FILED AT LEAST 15 DAYS PRIOR TO THE EXPIRATION DATE. AFTER RE-EVALUATION OF CURRENT OPERATIONS IN THE AREA OF THE STRUCTURE TO DETERMINE THAT NO SIGNIFICANT AERONAUTICAL CHANGES HAVE OCCURRED, YOUR DETERMINATION MAY BE ELIGIBLE FOR ONE EXTENSION OF THE EFFECTIVE PERIOD. This determination is based, in part, on the foregoing description which includes specific coordinates, heights, frequency(ies) and power. Any changes in coordinates, heights, and frequencies or use of greater power, except those frequencies specified in the Colo Void Clause Coalition; Antenna System Co -Location; Voluntary Best Practices, effective 21 Nov 2007, will void this determination. Any future construction or alteration, including increase to heights, power, or the addition of other transmitters, requires separate notice to the FAA.This determination includes all previously filed frequencies and power for this structure. If construction or alteration is dismantled or destroyed, you must submit notice to the FAA within 5 days after the construction or alteration is dismantled or destroyed. This determination does include temporary construction equipment such as cranes, derricks, etc., which may be used during actual construction of the structure. However, this equipment shall not exceed the overall heights as indicated above. Equipment which has a height greater than the studied structure requires separate notice to the FAA. This determination concerns the effect of this structure on the safe and efficient use of navigable airspace by aircraft and does not relieve the sponsor of compliance responsibilities relating to any law, ordinance, or regulation of any Federal, State, or local government body. If we can be of further assistance, please contact our office at (424) 405-7643, or karen.mcdonald@faa.gov. On any future correspondence concerning this matter, please refer to Aeronautical Study Number 2018 - AWP -17902 -OE. Signature Control No: 391674963-396012618 (DNE ) Karen McDonald Specialist Attachment(s) Map(s) Page 2 of 3 A -z 302 TOPO Map for ASN 2018 -AWP -17902 -OE raw, 4 MA •I V6'4��'T����`t Owl V _ UP t. .. ��+'��- a lel �" •• ; as •��'' - ri IN Y 5 n , ¢1 ♦ � sY^ y ti � � =� Q • � ti YP _ ' I s s n ,-Yr= 1 • � - �• Sri, _ Page 3 of 3 A-3 309 slo NEWPORT CROSSINGS MIXED USE PROJECT (PA2017-107) FINAL EIR CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Appendix Appendix B. Evaluation of Key Intersections and Roadways for 2024 With Project Conditions February 2019 311 NEWPORT CROSSINGS MIXED USE PROJECT (PA2017-107) FINAL EIR CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Appendix Thasage intentionally left blank. PlaceWorks 312 Summary Table 'From LSA Study B-1 313 Future Year 2022* Future Year 2024 No Project With Project No Project With Project ICU Sig Intersections WC LOS V/C LOS V/C LOS V/C LOS Increase Impact? 1. MacArthur Blvd/Campus Dr (PM Peak Hour) 0.917 E 0.917 E 0.929 E 0.929 E 0.000 No 13. MacArthur Blvd/Jamboree Rd (PM Peak Hour) 0.811 D 0.813 D 0.825 D 0.826 D 0.001 No 18. MacArthud4405 NB (AM peak hour, HCM) 42.0 D 41.9 D 42.7 D 42.7 D 0.000 No 20. MacArthur/Michelson Dr (PM peak hour). 1.050 F 1.052 F 1.058 F 1.059 F 0.001 No RoadwaySe ment 0.88 D 0.88 D 0.89 D 0.90 D 0.01 No 1. MacArthur Blvd between I-405 SB Ramps to Michelson Dr 'From LSA Study B-1 313 Intersection Capacity Utilization LOCATION: City of Newport Beach NORTH -SOUTH ST. MacArthur Blvd EAST -WEST STREET: Campus Dr TRAFFIC SCENARIO: Future 2024 (No Proj) Movement of Capacity PM Peak Hour GEOMETRIC: Existing Date: 09/19/2018 B-2 Intersection Capacity Utilization LOCATION: Number NORTH -SOUTH ST. P.M. Peak Hour vaWma VIC C_.1 Movement of Capacity PM Peak Hour Lanes Existing Rai. VIC Leh 1 1,600 140 0.09 0.09 Northbound Thin 4 6,400 1434 0.22 - Right 1 1,600 86 0.05 Leh 1 1,6W 214 0.13 - Smahbound Thin 4 6,400 1361 0.21 - Right 1 1,600 963 0.48 0.48 Left 2 3,200 355 0.11 0.11 Eastbound Th. 3 4,800 621 0.13 - Right I 1,600 69 0.04 Let 2 3,200 184 0.06 - Westbound Thou 3 4,80(1 1213 0.25 025 Right 0 0 0 Sum of Critical VIC Ratios 0.929 Adjustment for Lost Time 0.00 Intersection Capacity UOlizadon (ICU) (ICU) O 929 Level of Service ( LOS) Level of Service ( LOS) E B-2 Intersection Capacity Utilization LOCATION: City of Newport Beach NORTH -SOUTH ST. MacArthur Blvd EAST -WEST STREET: Campus Dr TRAFFIC SCENARIO: Future 2024 (+Praj) Movement of Capacity PM Peak Hour GEOMETRIC: Existing Date: 09/19/2019 311 Number P M. Peak Hour V.— VIC cmr.l Movement of Capacity Lanes Reno VIC Leh 1 1,600 140 0.09 0.09 Northbound Tom 4 6,400 1446 023 Right 1 1,600 86 0.05 Lek 1 1,600 214 0.13 - Southbound Then 4 6,400 1395 0.22 - Right 1 1,600 763 0.48 OAS Left 2 3,200 355 0.11 0.11 Eastbound Thum 3 4,800 621 0.13 - Right 1 1,600 69 0.04 Left 2 3,200 184 0.06 - Wenbound Thin 3 4,800 1213 0.25 0.25 Right 0 0 0 Sum of Critical Vic Ratios 0929 Adjustment for Lost Time 0.00 lntersectlon Capacity Utilization (ICU) 0.929 Level of Service ( LOS) E 311 Intersection Capacity Utilization Intersection Capacity Utilization LOCATION: City of Newport Beach LOCATION: City of Newport Beach NORTH -SOUTH ST. MacArthur Blvd NORTH -SOUTH ST. MacArthur Blvd EAST -WEST STREET: Jamboree Rd EAST -WEST STREET: Jamboree Rd TRAFFIC SCENARIO: Future 2024 (No Proj) TRAFFIC SCENARIO: Future 2024 (+Proj) 2 PM Peak Hour 341 PM Peak Hour GEOMETRIC.: Existing GEOMETRIC: Existing Date: 09/19/2018 Date: 09/19,12018 B-3 S15 Number P.M. Peak Hour V.I.. Vic coeur Movement of Capacity Lanes Relic VIC Left 2 3,200 341 0.11 0.11 Northbound Thry 3 4,800 911 0.19 - Right 1 1,600 398 0.25 Left 2 3,200 192 0.06 - Somhbo.nd Th. 3 4,800 19M 040 0.40 Right 0 0 0 Left 2 3,200 280 0.09 0.09 Eastbound Thr. 4 6,400 1110 0.17 - Right 1 1,600 137 0.09 Left 3 4,800 596 0.12 - Westbound Thm 3 4,800 1116 0.23 0.23 Ri t 1 1,600 176 0.11 Sum of Critical VIC Ratios 0.825 Adj.smem for Lost Time 0.00 Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) 0.826 0.825 Level of Service ( LOS ) D D B-3 S15 Number P.M. Peak Hour V[.. VIE Calot Movement of Capacity Lanes Ratio VIC Left 2 3,200 341 0.11 0.11 Nordtbonnd Thr. 3 4,800 915 0.19 - Ri nt 1 1,600 398 0.25 Left 2 3,200 192 0.06 - Snmhbo.nd Thr. 3 4,800 1907 0.40 0.40 Right 0 0 0 Left 2 3,200 284 0.09 00) Eastbotmd Th", 4 6,400 1110 0.17 Right 1 1,600 137 0.09 Left 3 4,800 596 0.12 - Westbound Thru 3 4,800 1116 0.23 0.23. Right 1 1,600 176 0.11 Sum of Critical WE Ratios 0.826 Adjustment Por That Tlme 0.00 Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) 0.826 Level of Service ( LOS) D B-3 S15 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 18: MacArthur Boulevard & 1-405 NB Ramps 6sn6r2619 4rt i P 4 Percent HeauyVeh,% 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap,3ehih 1299 1048_2147 931 207 2792 Arne On Green 0A2 0A2 075 075 007 0.49 Sat Flow. vehrn 3092 2496 5991 2496 3092 5991 Grp Volume(v), veh@ 946 1266 2057 487 179 1619 Grp Sat Blow(syvehkdjn 1546 7248 7439 1248--1 5.46--J439 OServe(9 s),s 256 42.0 31,8 8.1 57 20.2 Cycle O.Clear(g c),s 25.6 42.0_31.8_8.1_5.7_20.2 Approach Dela(, sNeh 865 17.2 24.9 P-0pmach.LOS F 8 C Rimer -Assigned Pas 1 2 6 8 phs,0ura6on.((34Ac), s X1.2_42.8 54.0 46,0 ntersechan Summary HCM6th Ctrl Delay 42.7 HCM Rh LOS D B-4 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 18: MacArthur Boulevard & 1-405 NB Ramps 0971&2018 < t T P 1 Ped -Bike Adj(_a_pbT) 100 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus. Adj 1.0011.0011.0011.0011 loo1,00 Grp Volume(v), vehlh 952 1266 2062 502 179 1621 Grp_Sal FIOw(s),vehlhlln1546_1248 1439_1248_1546 1439 O Serve(q_s),5 25.8 420 31.8 8.5 5.7 20.2 pyd OClear(g c);s 25.8 42.0_31.8_8.5_5.7 20,2 Intersection Summary HCM6th;CtdDelay 42.7 HCM 6th LOS 0 S20 Intersection Capacity Utilization Intersection Capacity Utilization LOCATION: City of Irvine LOCATION: City ol'Irvine NORTH -SOUTH ST. MacArthur Blvd NORTH -SOUTH ST. MacArthur Blvd EAST -WEST STREET: Michelson EAST -WEST STREET: Michelson TRAFFIC SCENARIO: Future 2024 (No Proj) TRAFFIC SCENARIO: Future 2024 (+Proj) 1 PM Peak Hour 187 PM Peak Hour GEOMETRIC: Existing GEOMETRIC: Existing Date: 09/192018 Date: 09119/2018 B-5 327 Number P.M. Peak Hour Volumes VIC Critical Movement of Capacity Lance Santa WC Left 1 1,7131) 187 0.11 - Nontimund Than 4 6,800 -1303 0.34 0.34 Right 1 1.700 147 0.119 Left 2 3,400 502 0.15 015 Southbound Thru 4 6,800 1564 0.23 - Right 0 0 fi Left 2 3,400 351 0.10 U Eastbound Than 1 1,700 95 0.06 - Right 1 1,700 117 0.07 Left 2 3,400 406 0.12 - Westboumd Tlw 1 1,700 119 0.07 - Right 1 1,700 711 0.42 012 Sum of Critical V/C Farina 1.008 Adjustment for Lost Time 0.05 Intersection Capacity Utilizafion TCU) 1.059 1.058 Level of Service ( LOS) F F B-5 327 Number P.M. Peak How Vummer VIC ulnnl Movement of Capacity Lance Ratio VIC Left 1 1,700 187 0.11 - NoNtbonnd Tom 4 6,800 2315 0.34 0.34 Right 1 1,700 147 0.09 Left 2 3,400 502 0.15 0.15 Somhbound Tow 4 6,500 1575 0.23 - Right 0 0 6 Left 2 3,400 351 0.10 010 Eastbmmd Tom 1 1,700 95 0.06 Eight 1 1,700 117 0.07 Left 2 3,400 406 0.12 - Westbound TT. 1 1,700 119 0.07 - RRia 1 1,7W 711 0.42 0.42 Sum of Critical VIC Ratios 1.009 Adjustment for Lost Time 0,05 Intersection Capacity Utilization (TCU) 1.059 Level of Service ( LOS) F B-5 327 B-6 318 Capacity Future Year 2024 Project ADT Future Year 2024 With Project V/C increase ADT V/C LOS ADT V/C LOS 1. MacArthur Blvd between 1-405 southbound ramps 72,000 64,274 0.893 D 377 64,651 0.898 D 0.005 to Michelson Drive B-6 318 Attachment No. PC 10 Fiscal Analysis Sig 320 MEMO TO: Jaime Murillo, AICP, Senior Planner City of Newport Beach FROM: Doug Svensson, AICP DATE: December 18, 2018 SUBJECT: Fiscal Analysis for Newport Crossings Project INTRODUCTION The fiscal analysis uses the Newport Beach Fiscal Impact Model to help calculate revenue and cost Impacts of the proposed project. This model was initially developed in support of the General Plan Update, which was adopted in 2006.1 The model has been updated to reflect Fiscal Year 2018-2019 costs and revenues from the Newport Beach City Budget. The fiscal impact model calculates public service impacts for specific land uses that support the residential population, the employment base and the visitor population in Newport Beach. It also calculates the public revenues that each type of land use typically generates for the City, including property taxes, sales taxes and other taxes as well as a variety of user charges and fees. The fiscal impact model is designed to calculate the average cost of public services required by new development, on the assumption that new development affects City services in approximately the same way that existing development does. The model nets out certain costs that are unlikely to change wlth expansion of City government, such as the number of City Department Directors and Division managers, as well as the City Council and City Clerk expenditures, but otherwise assumes that City administrative support and overhead tends to increase as City government activities grow to provide services to an expanding population and employment base. Over the long term, this is clearly the dynamic that local governments experience. In the short term, development projects may have lower or higher cost impacts depending on the existing capacity of City services to accommodate more ' A technical description of the fiscal impact model may be found in: Applied Development Economics, Fiscal Impact Analysis and Model, Newport Beach General Plan Update, January 2004. 1,acassie Avenue, 5uite 100, Walnut Creek, CA 94596 ■ Tel 925.934.8712 www.adeusa.corm 321 development, and the level of expenditure needed to expand services incrementally if existing capacity is not available. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The proposed project would convert the existing MacArthur Square retail center to a mixed-use apartment complex with a small retail center. The site is 5.7 acres and is generally bounded by Scott Dr., Corinthian Way and Dove St. in the Airport Area Planning Sub -Area of the General Plan. The project would include 350 rental apartments, of which 78 would be priced for lower income households. The retail center in the proposed project would include 7,500 sq. ft. of building space. The project would dedicate 0.5 acres of the site for a public park. In order to calculate the fiscal effects of the proposed changes, it is necessary to estimate certain socio-economic characteristics of the land uses, including population and employment, assessed value and taxable sales. The Draft Environmental Impact Report for the project cites the 2010 Census for the average household size of 1.57 persons, based on renters in buildings of 50 units or more. With 350 units planned, the total population in the project is estimated at 550 persons. In addition, the retail space would support 12 retail jobs. The assessed value for the project has been derived from a review of multi -family property sales in 2018 in Newport Beach, in combination with a review of Zillow rent indexes for Newport Beach back to 2015 when the prior version of this project, called the Residences, was analyzed. Overall rent levels in Newport Beach have changed less than 2% in the past few years. For this analysis, we have escalated the property values from the prior 2015 fiscal analysis, but also made adjustments for the smaller unit sizes proposed in the Newport Crossings project. The resulting property values range from $430 per sq. ft. to $720 per sq. ft. as shown in Table 1. The assessed values for affordable units are discounted from market rates based on the difference between affordable and market rate rents as shown in the City Housing Element.z The total residential assessed value in the project is estimated at $178.4 million, for an average of $509,600 per unit, including the affordable units. This approach assumes that the affordable units remain in private ownership and are counted in the tax rolls. If the units are sold to a tax-exempt non-profit or governmental organization, the total project assessed value would be reduced by $29.0 million. The analysis uses the updated rent levels from the Housing Element to estimate household income and taxable retail spending, as shown in Table 2. We assume that rent comprises 30 percent of household income. We then use a retail demand model to calculate the portion of income normally spent on taxable retail sales. We have assumed for purposes of these calculations that households would spend two-thirds of their annual retail budget in Newport Beach, and the remaining one-third would be spent at retail centers in other cities or on out-of-town trips. The City receives sales tax at the rate of one percent of taxable sales. z City of Newport Beach, Housing Element. Table H13, page 5-20. The data in this table are for 2012. ADE updated the figures assuming income levels have grown 3% per year while market rents have grown 5% per year. Applied Development Economics I Page 2 322 Source: ADE, Inc, based on the project description in the DEIR, prepared by PlaceWorks, December 2018, and property transactions downloaded from CoreLogic ListSource and the Zillow, Rent Index for Newport Beach. ESTIMATED TABLE HOUSEHOLD MARKET RATa,000 2: INCOME AND RETAIL TALES TAX AFFORDABLE UNIT TYPE SIR _ INCOME @30%30%a SALESINCOME SALES TAX Studio L 755 70 220 4 61 250 2 626 1 Bdrm $2,270 $90,804 70 000 8 404 2 Bdrm 2 704 $108 160 78 750 338 Total $57,097 $ $11,369 Source! ADE, Inc. FISCAL IMPACTS The analysis, summarized in Table 3 below, estimates the current fiscal impact of the MacArthur Square retail center and compares it to the projected fiscal impact of the proposed Newport Crossings Project. The MacArthur Square center was built in 1974 and the current assessed value of the site is estimated at $5.3 million, well below the current market value for a retail center of this size (58,277 sq. ft.). Therefore, the existing property taxes are relatively low compared to what a new retail center would generate. In addition, it is likely the existing sales tax generated on the site is below market, although specific figures for the development are not available. ADE has estimated average taxable sales of $257 per sq. ft., which is well below the average in Newport Beach, but is intended to account for the fact that some of the tenants are office users rather than retail or restaurant businesses. The proposed project generates much more property tax, but less than half of the sales tax of the existing retail use on the site. Total revenues projected for the proposed project are about three times the estimated current revenue generated by MacArthur Square, at $604,700 compared to $203,100. Applied Development Economics I Page 3 32s .5OurCe: AVt, tnC. Note: 1otaiS may nor aoa aue ro roaming. However, the proposed project would likely require a much higher level of services. The DEIR indicates that the proposed project would not create adverse impacts on most City services, although there may be a cumulative impact on Emergency Medical Response. However, the levels of service needed for residential development is typically higher than for retail commercial development. Therefore, the fiscal analysis assumes there would need to be an increase in City staff costs for most City services. Based on City service level standards as reflected in the fiscal model, police protection costs for the residential population are about twice the current retail use, while fire protection and emergency Applied Development Economics I Page 4 S24- TABLE 3: PROJECTED FISCAL IMPACT OF THE NEWPORT CROSSINGS PROJECT COMPARED TO THE EXISTING MAcARTHUR SQUARE RETAIL CENTER Annual Revenues Costs MacArthur Newport Budget CategorV Crossings Difference REVENUES GENERALFUND Property Tax $10,608 $365,129 $354,521 Property Tax in lieu of Sales Tax $1,085 $37,343 $36,258 Sales Tax $149,702 $68,465 ($81,237) Transient Occupancy Tax $0 $0 $0 Franchise Fees $3,045 $10,666 $7,621 Business Licenses $5,504 $4,920 ($584) Other Intergovernmental $912 $5,421 $4,509 Charges for Service $8,529 $50,715 $42,186 Fines, Penalties, and Forfeitures $2,015 $11,984 $9,968 Licenses and Permits $204 $1,212 $1,008 Use of Property $4,939 $29,367 $24,428 Other Revenue $472 $2,806 $2,334 Interest Income 867 $2,727 $1,860 SUBTOTAL GENERAL FUND _ 1187,880 1590,754 _ $402,874 GAS TAX $0 $13,772 $13,772 MEASURE M $15,213 $139 ($15,074) SUBTOTAL OTHER FUNDS $15,213 $203,093 $13 91.1 ($1,302) TOTAL REVENUE $604,665 $401,572 EXPENDITURES GENERAL FUND General Government $11,506 $57,799 $46,293 Police $78,386 $167,661 $89,276 Fire $24,207 $174,781 $150,574 Public Works $20,221 $120,244 $100,023 Community Development $1,898 $11,286 $9,388 Community Services $0 $152,505 $152,505 CIP Streets $11,458 $4,803 ($6,655) Other CIP Projects $1,445 445 $ 8 591 $7,146 SUBTOTAL GENERAL FUND $149,120 97 670 1 1§4$,549 549 GAS TAX $16,044 $6,725 ($9,319) MEASURE M $15,049 $6,305 ($8,744) 513,031 ($18,063) SUBTOTAL OTHER FUNDS $31,093 TOTAL EXPENDITURES _ _ $180,214 .710 700 - 530487 _ 306 035 ($128,915) NET COST REVENUE $22,880 .5OurCe: AVt, tnC. Note: 1otaiS may nor aoa aue ro roaming. However, the proposed project would likely require a much higher level of services. The DEIR indicates that the proposed project would not create adverse impacts on most City services, although there may be a cumulative impact on Emergency Medical Response. However, the levels of service needed for residential development is typically higher than for retail commercial development. Therefore, the fiscal analysis assumes there would need to be an increase in City staff costs for most City services. Based on City service level standards as reflected in the fiscal model, police protection costs for the residential population are about twice the current retail use, while fire protection and emergency Applied Development Economics I Page 4 S24- services would be more than seven times higher. In addition, the residential project would require parks and recreation, library and senior services provided by the City Community Service Department, which are generally not used by the existing retail use. The retail center does produce higher costs for streets maintenance, reflected in the Streets CIP, the gas tax and Measure M, based on assumptions in the fiscal model about relative traffic generation between residential and retail uses. Overall, City costs are about four times higher for the proposed residential project than for the existing retail use. The proposed project would generate an annual net fiscal cost to the City of about $128,900, as compared to the estimated current fiscal surplus from the site of $22,900. CONCLUSION The proposed residential use of the site would require a higher level of City services than the current MacArthur Square retail center and would produce a negative annual cost/revenue balance for the site, considered by itself. However, it is important to recognize that the proposed project is consistent with the 2006 General Plan. Overall, the General Plan increased development potential for commercial and lodging uses substantially, in addition to the new residential units it would permit. The net impact of the growth in land uses at buildout of the General Plan compared to existing land uses in 2006 when the plan was adopted, would result in a positive fiscal impact for the General Fund of $21.7 million per year.3 This positive projected fiscal outcome incorporates the negative fiscal impacts of some of the housing included in the plan, as demonstrated by the proposed Newport Crossings project. 3 Applied Development Economics, Fiscal Impact Analysis Land Use Element Amendment, April 4, 2014. p. 3. Applied Development Economics I Page 5 3215 S20 Attachment No. PC 11 Project Correspondence 32 j S22 Still Protecting Our Newport Inspiring "rhe Next Generation PO Box 102 I Balboa Island, CA 92662 1 949.864.6616 January 16, 2019 OFFICERS PRESIDENT Sent via email to the City Council and Planning Commission Marko Popovich VICE PRESIDENT Dorothy Kraus City Council and Planning Commission City of Newport Beach BOARD MEMBERS 100 Civic Center Drive TREASURER Newport Beach, CA 92660 Dennis Baker community work, policy decisions, and advocacy for nearly 45 years. As residents, we SECRETARY RE: Newport Crossings Project Allan Beek A 501(c)(3) non-profit public education organization working to protect and preserve the residential and environmental qualities of Newport Beach. www.SPON-NewportBeach.org I Info@SPON-NewportBeach.org FB SPON-Newport Beach I Twitter @SPONNewport 329 Dear Honorable members of the City Council and Planning Commission: BOARD MEMBERS Stop Polluting Our Newport (SPON) has been actively engaged with land use planning, Nancy Alston community work, policy decisions, and advocacy for nearly 45 years. As residents, we Dennis Baker support the kind of growth that is received by the community as being beneficial and Tom Baker Bruce Bartram maintains our quality of life. Simultaneously, we aim to keep Newport's infrastructure, Allan Beek views, and very character from being overburdened, and most importantly ensure Jo Carol Hunter proposed projects follow the General Plan. Dorothy Kraus Donald Krotee We are strongly opposed to projects which cause negative impacts to Newport Beach's Andrea Lingle character, residents, and businesses. Our participation in government takes many Elaine Linhoff forms (community outreach, public process participation, advocacy, initiatives, Bobby Lovell referenda, and more) and we maintain a robust and diligent membership of local Jennifer McDonald residents, stakeholders, and businesses. Rita Phillips Marko Popovich Jeanne Price As you are likely aware, for the last year SPON has been hosting community workshops Melinda Seely geared toward educating residents on general plans, policies, and using the right tools Nancy Skinner to achieve win-win outcomes. We call them the General Plan Advisory Committee Jean Watt workshops, with the goal being to achieve optimal and effective public participation in Portia Weiss updating the General Plan, which we know you are making progress on. A 501(c)(3) non-profit public education organization working to protect and preserve the residential and environmental qualities of Newport Beach. www.SPON-NewportBeach.org I Info@SPON-NewportBeach.org FB SPON-Newport Beach I Twitter @SPONNewport 329 Still Protecting Our Newport Inspiring "rhe Next Generation PO Box 102 I Balboa Island, CA 92662 1 949.864.6616 Page Two City Council and Planning Commission January 16, 2019 Although we continue to firmly believe that an updated General Plan, especially a more specific and holistic plan for the Airport Area, is in order before processing and allowing the piecemeal projects that have been proposed, the fact of the matter is that several projects in the Airport Area are making their way through the planning process right now. At our August 21, 2018 SPON board meeting, we hosted guest speakers from the development team for the Newport Crossings project. Although the project is substantial in size and scope, the Newport Crossings development team embraced a collaborative tone, soliciting further discussions to resolve our concerns. As we understand it, the Newport Crossings team has sought a similarly collaborative and solutions -oriented approach with adjacent property owners regarding concerns they may have. After review of the Draft Environmental Impact Report for Newport Crossings we've found there to be limited significant impacts. We simultaneously applaud the Newport Crossings developer's willingness to meet, listen, and resolve concerns prior to the project coming before a deciding body. We are especially pleased with the robust affordable housing component and mixed use nature of the project. This experience is in stark contrast to the approach pursued by another large Airport Area project—the 15 - story Koll Center Residences condo towers. At this point SPON has had multiple meetings with the development team for Koll Center Residences, as recently as May 24, 2018. We have offered solutions to resolve our concerns to this developer as well, but still there has been no follow up. Since the Airport Area does not have existing residential amenities, it makes it a challenging region and therefore requires careful and thoughtful examination of projects. The two approaches with these two projects could not be more different. The collaborative approach we experienced with Newport Crossings can mark a good prototype for major project applicants and should be something we all strive for in the future. The "meet, but make no changes" approach from the Koll team did not work for SPON and has the very real potential to lead to a lengthy public process, litigation, and referenda. A 501(c)(3) non-profit public education organization working to protect and preserve the residential and environmental qualities of Newport Beach. www.SPON-NewportBeach.org I Info@SPON-NewportBeach.org FB SPON-Newport Beach I Twitter @SPONNewport 330 �.r Still Protecting Our Newport Inspiring "rhe Next Generation PO Box 102 I Balboa Island, CA 92662 1 949.864.6616 Page Three City Council and Planning Commission January 16, 2019 Mindful of this, we ask that the City Council and Planning Commission to encourage staff—when working with development teams of other projects—to embrace a more collaborative approach before their entitlement process begins, to provide more thoughtful project design solutions that reflect community sentiment, and to follow the adopted plans. Sincerely, President cc: City Council City Clerk Planning Commission Jaime Murillo, City of Newport Beach Rosalinh Ung, City of Newport Beach Sean Matsler, Cox, Castle and Nicholson Dan Vittone, Starboard Realty citycouncil@newportbeachca.gov cityclerk@newportbeachca.gov planningcommissioners@newportbeachca.gov jmurillo@newportbeachca.gov rung@newportbeachca.gov SMatsler@coxcastle.com dan@starboardrp.com A 501(c)(3) non-profit public education organization working to protect and preserve the residential and environmental qualities of Newport Beach. www.SPON-NewportBeach.org I Info@SPON-NewportBeach.org FB SPON-Newport Beach I Twitter @SPONNewport 331 3.32 Attachment No. PC 12 Project Plans S34 Project Team APYIKANILWNN: RESIOENM CHnECr: Starboard Really Partners LLC Architects Orange 1301 Dore 5hea15b. IM i. N. Cm Sl—t Newport Beach A. 926W C—.9. CA 92866 194918512020 (10)639-98"' C -t-1 Don V.— Conl f: Chale: AWhabn ton 1.1o.r PLAN^11IT4➢PLCOR PLANMHa/r "WOMATION: )ANO)ISE CONRILEANr: Michael Baker Internatim.1 PaMck StraEer 5 HNIon Center Mve, SWfe.AU 197Mr held Foad *2QSola Ano. CA 9270) WF, CA 92612 194911723— (49)aC2 1 Contact: Mheftn IANDECAPE ARCXIIECI: CIV MGIMEEY: MIS DESIGN GROUP FUSCOE ENGINEERING 50130th Street. Newppl Deoch CA. 926W 16795 Von K.—W1. IM P49167S"" IMne CA. 12. Concoct'. Mork S..t tt 19191 A7L 110 NEWPORT CROSSINGS - NEWPORT BEACH, CA STARBOARD REALTY PARTNERS, LLC 1301 Dove Street Suite1080 Newport Beach, CA (949) 851-2020 Vicinity Map NORTH STARBOARD REALTY PARTNERS, LLC NEWPORT CROSSINGS NEWPORT BEACH, CA. SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW RESUBMITTAL NEWPORT BEACH, CA FEBRUARY 12, 2019 SHEET INDEX toe No: DAT-;: 201]-165 02-12-19 ARCHITECTS ORANGE 144 NORTH ORANGE ST. ORANGE, CA 92866 (714) 639-9866 SS5 :J A -ISA PLAN^11IT4➢PLCOR AH8 IYPEOF CONST. lSFn All RUILlNGMNlE L2 All J6• All W ININGNAN�ROO rvoecR nv WININGMN-A 6ullnlx.IE.I.. All NIININGFrFVALIOM nal evimiwPaEs°sPEcirEi rzuueaAw Ad.1 Pure uw Mrs nda NMIR ,n Al". All De,IIS AR pl]R CRENBUCPAAK RFAIL PLAZ Ll uxO[[n GrtAo xcvux toe No: DAT-;: 201]-165 02-12-19 ARCHITECTS ORANGE 144 NORTH ORANGE ST. ORANGE, CA 92866 (714) 639-9866 SS5 NEWPORT CROSSINGS - NEWPORT BEACH, CA STARBOARD REALTY PARTNERS, LLC 1301 Dove Street Suite 1080 Newport Beach, CA (949) 851-2020 STARBOARD REALTY PARTNERS, LLC NEWPORT CROSSINGS A 350 UNIT PROJECT CONSISTING OF 4 15 STORY TYPE III -A RESIDENTIAL BUILDING SURROUNDING AS 16 LEV ELI TYPE rA PARKING STRUCTURE WITH AM@18Y DECK ANP 7,5W SF. TYPE FA RETAIL GROSS LAND AREA: 5,,1 ACRES RESIDENTIAL 6 RETAIL SITE 5.19 ACRES PUBLIC PARK: LSD ACRES TOTAL UNIT: M UNIR DENSITY: 61$1 DU/AC ME LAND NV EeRM M HEREIN SJJPI IS SI IN NY c 4 M MANSE, SUM M GWFMIA, AND IS DESCRIED AS FgyDxS FARML A WTI W TRC x MD Ix ME SIY 6 BUNRCRT GENES, XINNn DF DANCE. SUM E£ flLF 1 AS FER NM RECCI . W B. J... ARMS IS MO IS OF MYSILiXEWS NMS RECGROS OF SVD CRANE CW JPN CAI l 1NAT%PITCH G LOT R W WALT.. t R. d. OM1 61LL .BGOI. CWNTYSUM N' `N W491A1FIDIS CMINANINPPS RAS 6 �NIN 5 N, GI.. ."S GI6OINNU RE4 BED AYM IFIXLORS: PI 1 AS SI M A NV HUED IN NOON SL, FAM 13 CF PMCB NABS. IN ME ISTIM 6 E COUNTY ISMAFR OH ....... .T PMnM NF LDI z EF WALT I .. mD. N nS C SY NENPDnT NI 0.VNlV Ci (RN1 SUM Cf CNIFONIA AS S SNI ON A NM NFIYMpED IN S.:PP. PA IS Aro IM1 SE IN..NMS NS.N O' MAN¢ ESI fILFMN0. NE4NSFD AS f011IN4 PARCEL 2 AS SIM ON A NM FUED N BMN 53 PADS I3 EF PMCR NMS IN M ETIE C£ WE WMtt IYMAFF DF MANCE..... CAIRWNIA. ALL WINERALS. E'Dasuru clsxD'. 4D FEET HRM TNi'US AND 0TRIN 11YUNIMS. SNA. W SND N F«wDm oEstlO"S AL.: A.D. T... MAT CNNIIM IUREBy MR.BARES ME RICHT IN DITUR UNS4 TAE SURFAM OF SW REN- PRCPFAIY FCR ME PUWOS: OF ENPLONND FM CR NNSOI ND WE wNER>l5. `MKL IN. WS AND DYER J.NWSPRR,S IMMINFD Sr. IffcOCED NANN I. UT4 IN.N CIWP.S MN. 4 1 -17S -C2 4S> -ns -ax 4V-172-0, .111I JOB No: _DAT-: 2017-165 0212-19 ARCHITECTS ORANGE 144 NORTH ORANGE ST. ORANGE, CA 92866 (714) 639-9860 .........�..,A.s«... 336 UNIT SUMMARY IN IN NUILI 1I 7 IN IN IN ©0oom a0®gym 7- IIIIIIII©o®0© 0®o0m� NEWPORT CROSSINGS - NEWPORT BEACH, CA STARBOARD REALTY PARTNERS, LLC 1301 Dove Street Suite 1080 Newport Beach, CA (949) 851-2020 STARBOARD REALTY PARTNERS, LLC NEWPORT CROSSINGS A 350 UNIT PROJECT CONSISTING OF 4 15 STORY TYPE III -A RESIDENTIAL BUILDING SURROUNDING AS 16 LEV ELI TYPE rA PARKING STRUCTURE WITH AM@18Y DECK ANP 7,5W SF. TYPE FA RETAIL GROSS LAND AREA: 5,,1 ACRES RESIDENTIAL 6 RETAIL SITE 5.19 ACRES PUBLIC PARK: LSD ACRES TOTAL UNIT: M UNIR DENSITY: 61$1 DU/AC ME LAND NV EeRM M HEREIN SJJPI IS SI IN NY c 4 M MANSE, SUM M GWFMIA, AND IS DESCRIED AS FgyDxS FARML A WTI W TRC x MD Ix ME SIY 6 BUNRCRT GENES, XINNn DF DANCE. SUM E£ flLF 1 AS FER NM RECCI . W B. J... ARMS IS MO IS OF MYSILiXEWS NMS RECGROS OF SVD CRANE CW JPN CAI l 1NAT%PITCH G LOT R W WALT.. t R. d. OM1 61LL .BGOI. CWNTYSUM N' `N W491A1FIDIS CMINANINPPS RAS 6 �NIN 5 N, GI.. ."S GI6OINNU RE4 BED AYM IFIXLORS: PI 1 AS SI M A NV HUED IN NOON SL, FAM 13 CF PMCB NABS. IN ME ISTIM 6 E COUNTY ISMAFR OH ....... .T PMnM NF LDI z EF WALT I .. mD. N nS C SY NENPDnT NI 0.VNlV Ci (RN1 SUM Cf CNIFONIA AS S SNI ON A NM NFIYMpED IN S.:PP. PA IS Aro IM1 SE IN..NMS NS.N O' MAN¢ ESI fILFMN0. NE4NSFD AS f011IN4 PARCEL 2 AS SIM ON A NM FUED N BMN 53 PADS I3 EF PMCR NMS IN M ETIE C£ WE WMtt IYMAFF DF MANCE..... CAIRWNIA. ALL WINERALS. E'Dasuru clsxD'. 4D FEET HRM TNi'US AND 0TRIN 11YUNIMS. SNA. W SND N F«wDm oEstlO"S AL.: A.D. T... MAT CNNIIM IUREBy MR.BARES ME RICHT IN DITUR UNS4 TAE SURFAM OF SW REN- PRCPFAIY FCR ME PUWOS: OF ENPLONND FM CR NNSOI ND WE wNER>l5. `MKL IN. WS AND DYER J.NWSPRR,S IMMINFD Sr. IffcOCED NANN I. UT4 IN.N CIWP.S MN. 4 1 -17S -C2 4S> -ns -ax 4V-172-0, .111I JOB No: _DAT-: 2017-165 0212-19 ARCHITECTS ORANGE 144 NORTH ORANGE ST. ORANGE, CA 92866 (714) 639-9860 .........�..,A.s«... 336 UNIT SUMMARY IN IN 0oo0m 7 IN IN IN ©0oom a0®gym 7- IIIIIIII©o®0© 0®o0m� NN - AIR I 11.— 1. 11 111 I��o00 AL IIIIIIIIII��ooIIEM I NNNNI IIIIIIIIra�O�II® a0o�1® o�aam IIIII�oaaDIIIII� NEWPORT CROSSINGS - NEWPORT BEACH, CA STARBOARD REALTY PARTNERS, LLC 1301 Dove Street Suite 1080 Newport Beach, CA (949) 851-2020 STARBOARD REALTY PARTNERS, LLC NEWPORT CROSSINGS A 350 UNIT PROJECT CONSISTING OF 4 15 STORY TYPE III -A RESIDENTIAL BUILDING SURROUNDING AS 16 LEV ELI TYPE rA PARKING STRUCTURE WITH AM@18Y DECK ANP 7,5W SF. TYPE FA RETAIL GROSS LAND AREA: 5,,1 ACRES RESIDENTIAL 6 RETAIL SITE 5.19 ACRES PUBLIC PARK: LSD ACRES TOTAL UNIT: M UNIR DENSITY: 61$1 DU/AC ME LAND NV EeRM M HEREIN SJJPI IS SI IN NY c 4 M MANSE, SUM M GWFMIA, AND IS DESCRIED AS FgyDxS FARML A WTI W TRC x MD Ix ME SIY 6 BUNRCRT GENES, XINNn DF DANCE. SUM E£ flLF 1 AS FER NM RECCI . W B. J... ARMS IS MO IS OF MYSILiXEWS NMS RECGROS OF SVD CRANE CW JPN CAI l 1NAT%PITCH G LOT R W WALT.. t R. d. OM1 61LL .BGOI. CWNTYSUM N' `N W491A1FIDIS CMINANINPPS RAS 6 �NIN 5 N, GI.. ."S GI6OINNU RE4 BED AYM IFIXLORS: PI 1 AS SI M A NV HUED IN NOON SL, FAM 13 CF PMCB NABS. IN ME ISTIM 6 E COUNTY ISMAFR OH ....... .T PMnM NF LDI z EF WALT I .. mD. N nS C SY NENPDnT NI 0.VNlV Ci (RN1 SUM Cf CNIFONIA AS S SNI ON A NM NFIYMpED IN S.:PP. PA IS Aro IM1 SE IN..NMS NS.N O' MAN¢ ESI fILFMN0. NE4NSFD AS f011IN4 PARCEL 2 AS SIM ON A NM FUED N BMN 53 PADS I3 EF PMCR NMS IN M ETIE C£ WE WMtt IYMAFF DF MANCE..... CAIRWNIA. ALL WINERALS. E'Dasuru clsxD'. 4D FEET HRM TNi'US AND 0TRIN 11YUNIMS. SNA. W SND N F«wDm oEstlO"S AL.: A.D. T... MAT CNNIIM IUREBy MR.BARES ME RICHT IN DITUR UNS4 TAE SURFAM OF SW REN- PRCPFAIY FCR ME PUWOS: OF ENPLONND FM CR NNSOI ND WE wNER>l5. `MKL IN. WS AND DYER J.NWSPRR,S IMMINFD Sr. IffcOCED NANN I. UT4 IN.N CIWP.S MN. 4 1 -17S -C2 4S> -ns -ax 4V-172-0, .111I JOB No: _DAT-: 2017-165 0212-19 ARCHITECTS ORANGE 144 NORTH ORANGE ST. ORANGE, CA 92866 (714) 639-9860 .........�..,A.s«... 336 IN IN IN 7 IN IN IN It 7- N- NN - AIR I 11.— 1. 11 111 AL I NNNNI 3 IN NEWPORT CROSSINGS - NEWPORT BEACH, CA STARBOARD REALTY PARTNERS, LLC 1301 Dove Street Suite 1080 Newport Beach, CA (949) 851-2020 STARBOARD REALTY PARTNERS, LLC NEWPORT CROSSINGS A 350 UNIT PROJECT CONSISTING OF 4 15 STORY TYPE III -A RESIDENTIAL BUILDING SURROUNDING AS 16 LEV ELI TYPE rA PARKING STRUCTURE WITH AM@18Y DECK ANP 7,5W SF. TYPE FA RETAIL GROSS LAND AREA: 5,,1 ACRES RESIDENTIAL 6 RETAIL SITE 5.19 ACRES PUBLIC PARK: LSD ACRES TOTAL UNIT: M UNIR DENSITY: 61$1 DU/AC ME LAND NV EeRM M HEREIN SJJPI IS SI IN NY c 4 M MANSE, SUM M GWFMIA, AND IS DESCRIED AS FgyDxS FARML A WTI W TRC x MD Ix ME SIY 6 BUNRCRT GENES, XINNn DF DANCE. SUM E£ flLF 1 AS FER NM RECCI . W B. J... ARMS IS MO IS OF MYSILiXEWS NMS RECGROS OF SVD CRANE CW JPN CAI l 1NAT%PITCH G LOT R W WALT.. t R. d. OM1 61LL .BGOI. CWNTYSUM N' `N W491A1FIDIS CMINANINPPS RAS 6 �NIN 5 N, GI.. ."S GI6OINNU RE4 BED AYM IFIXLORS: PI 1 AS SI M A NV HUED IN NOON SL, FAM 13 CF PMCB NABS. IN ME ISTIM 6 E COUNTY ISMAFR OH ....... .T PMnM NF LDI z EF WALT I .. mD. N nS C SY NENPDnT NI 0.VNlV Ci (RN1 SUM Cf CNIFONIA AS S SNI ON A NM NFIYMpED IN S.:PP. PA IS Aro IM1 SE IN..NMS NS.N O' MAN¢ ESI fILFMN0. NE4NSFD AS f011IN4 PARCEL 2 AS SIM ON A NM FUED N BMN 53 PADS I3 EF PMCR NMS IN M ETIE C£ WE WMtt IYMAFF DF MANCE..... CAIRWNIA. ALL WINERALS. E'Dasuru clsxD'. 4D FEET HRM TNi'US AND 0TRIN 11YUNIMS. SNA. W SND N F«wDm oEstlO"S AL.: A.D. T... MAT CNNIIM IUREBy MR.BARES ME RICHT IN DITUR UNS4 TAE SURFAM OF SW REN- PRCPFAIY FCR ME PUWOS: OF ENPLONND FM CR NNSOI ND WE wNER>l5. `MKL IN. WS AND DYER J.NWSPRR,S IMMINFD Sr. IffcOCED NANN I. UT4 IN.N CIWP.S MN. 4 1 -17S -C2 4S> -ns -ax 4V-172-0, .111I JOB No: _DAT-: 2017-165 0212-19 ARCHITECTS ORANGE 144 NORTH ORANGE ST. ORANGE, CA 92866 (714) 639-9860 .........�..,A.s«... 336 VICINITY MAP V /Z �,'�yqN wqr / oe. . a K Tr �\"F; j ' oQ a m P LID \ \ 000 ` OS� RFOR MORE \'— LEGEND: DEFACE, 80/FT. 1 I F .2 NON -SHADED PORTIONS OF RESIDENTIAL G 11 RIES INDICATES 4 STORIES �% INDICATES AREA OF 5STORIES x x . INDICATES AREA OF Ism�rw I AMENITY DECK / 1 I 1 RETAIL ASSUMPTIONS: f I I 1^ CASUAL DINING BACK OF HOUSE: 1,000 S.F. / 1 DINING 1,000 S.F. RETAIL: 5,500 S.F. TOTAL RETAIL: 7,500S.F. 'I ® I OUTDOOR DINING 1,200 S.F. EE Ip _ l�/ IIS ➢ 216SQ /77 "D. 1 I NEWPORT CROSSINGS STARBOARD REALTY PARTNERS, LLC NEWPORT BEACH, CA 1301 Dove Street Suite1080 Newport Beach, CA (949) 851-2020 SITE PLAN NOTES: mARCHITECTURAL SITE PLAN A-1 -2 -2 W J08aa eP. DAT' N SCALL E I"=30' POv-165 law ARCHITECTS ORANGE ©2017Arc°"PCSO"°ge 144 NORTH ORANGE ST. ORANGE, CA 92866 (714) 639-9860 33� VICINITY MAP NEWPORT CROSSINGS STARBOARD REALTY PARTNERS, LLC NEWPORT BEACH, CA 1301 Dove Street Suitel 080 Newport Beach, CA (949)851-2020 NOTES LEGEND: wc�suNE � � 19 Fl.Iq�FML rj.; CWmPVil siANorvwE Vr ?� ' �rtTf}.` NMI. FAFMPARNYS —y IIWxING xMNR -� i ~i NEWPORT 9EACF IRE DE; XPMMER HEAD TURNAROUND OPP.UPDDDEEGRRIGAI BLDG. TELEMETER Dl- FIRE MASTER �f uDD�m'O PAM PILL —1 PLAN A-1.3 z!�D. o is w eD so Boae5 o - SCALE I"=30' 20V-1665 –6212-19 - ARCHITECTS ORANGE 144 NORTH ORANGE ST. ORANGE, CA 92866 (714) 639-9860 SS8 8 VICINITY MAP TYPE III) BLGD. /lG � 1 TYPE I PARKING STRUCTURE,/ \ OR/NTh/ \ qN El lvum xi AREA 3 I TYPE RETAIL PODIUM (BELOW) 1 I I I II 11 I I I 1 1 11 wr 1� 1 IIIA IIII 1 1� y� 1 / ®IQ, � 1 '� m I A AREElREA4 O AA 9 y couamwo� ELF I T Q AREA 8 //w a i ® ARFA] `PhBLIPARK C 6 > BLIFT • '� A Imo} NEWPORT CROSSINGS STARBOARD REALTY PARTNERS, LLC NEWPORT BEACH, CA 1301 Dove Street Suite 1080 Newport Beach, CA (949)851-2020 FIRE AREA SEPARATION PLAN A-1.4 0 1 AREA EFE.l 11 ALEE�BARRLJFIEF. 2017-165 02-12-19 ARCHITECTS 2 11 w� II w� SEER, wA A bm FEE El Ll F� wmE ]S.wt IAFF 110.1. EFFEA Elmll WE 14 ll w.W1 1a1 BE FIRE AREA SEPARATION PLAN A-1.4 0 1 AREA EFE.l 11 ALEE�BARRLJFIEF. 2017-165 02-12-19 ARCHITECTS 2 11 w� II w� SEER, wA A bm wmE ]S.wt BE. 8 IF. 14 ll w.W1 1a1 BE 1z maw w,EEE 13 1 wW TOiA1 R6O5MALEYBENG SQUARE iCb1.5GE 0.b IP 5O. R. uRE SquARE 6m1AG, afE.,s9. %E_ FIRE AREA SEPARATION PLAN A-1.4 0 1 ioa NO: oar--: N SCALE ',"=30 2017-165 02-12-19 ARCHITECTS ORANGE 144 NORTH ORANGE ST. ORANGE, CA 92866 (714) 639-9860 9 VICINITY MAP EXITING PLAN - 1ST FLOOR o is ao eo s� Boae5 owe: N SCALE I"=30' 20 V -1665 02-@-19 NEWPORT CROSSINGS STARBOARD REALTY PARTNERS, LLC ARCHITECTS ORANGE NEWPORT BEACH, CA 1301 Dove Street Suite 1080 Newport Beach, CA (949) 851-2020 144 NORTH ORANGE ST. ORANGE, CA 92866 (714) 639-9860 S40 WTTTTHGHEGWS A RIA EXITING PLAN - 1ST FLOOR o is ao eo s� Boae5 owe: N SCALE I"=30' 20 V -1665 02-@-19 NEWPORT CROSSINGS STARBOARD REALTY PARTNERS, LLC ARCHITECTS ORANGE NEWPORT BEACH, CA 1301 Dove Street Suite 1080 Newport Beach, CA (949) 851-2020 144 NORTH ORANGE ST. ORANGE, CA 92866 (714) 639-9860 S40 VICINITY MAP EXITING PLAN - UPPER FLOORA- 1 .5A ioa N NO 5 one. V $CFIE1"=30' 20-165 02-12-19 NEWPORT CROSSINGS STARBOARD REALTY PARTNERS, LLC ARCHITECTS ORANGE NEWPORT BEACH, CA 1301 Dove Street Suite 1080 Newport Beach, CA (949) 851-2020 144 NORTH ORANGE ST. ORANGE, CA 92866 (714) 639-9860 ZD 3.41 VICINITY MAP TYPICAL SII NEER TRUCK SERVICE O% TRASH V __ ,qIV II'' RM. #3 / 0 1 RE AIL 'AREA c�C, TRASH 1 ARE -`16^ ROOM ` 1 I / TRASH RM. b1 Y I ni TRASH �® I RM. ttl/ u 1 T 1 MSH 1 1 1 / I I I — I I — XTRASH it p. '. RM k5 — — RM. #4 1 I 1 / 1 1 I NEWPORT CROSSINGS STARBOARD REALTY PARTNERS, LLC NEWPORT BEACH, CA 1301 Dove Street Suite 1080 Newport Beach, CA (949)851-2020 RESIDENTIAL TRASH ROOMS RETAILTRASH ROOMS IT117AMWO I RZT20170yW.- II d5'L'�L'lRU:Q93.CT:{QR� I.J.. o,s .cn w 77 deftnlwe ol�OePutryy m eikkk.ma kk. n1——�--- m—,N`. -� uIkiiii, oQ w likil ,a xw mc��ro�nw n.w �m ma LEGEND STINER TRUCK ROUT aw,�.o RESIDENTIAL TRASH ROOMS RETAILTRASH ROOMS IT117AMWO I RZT20170yW.- II d5'L'�L'lRU:Q93.CT:{QR� I.J.. o,s .cn w deftnlwe ol�OePutryy m eikkk.ma kk. n1——�--- m—,N`. -� uIkiiii, oQ likil s ak �m ma , wwu. �k- •n .. .va n.nw.... e. m.,Rnq1 TI i k wi— wi A-1.6 WASTE MANAGEMENT I, 11 a eo s JOB NO: 0 A0 N SCALE I"=30' 20-1665 02-122 11 -19 ARCHITECTS ORANGE 144 NORTH ORANGE ST. ORANGE, CA 92866 (714) 639-9860 S42 BIT Nj� t g / VICINITY MAP *� � Z T A qFy NAND ¢R4 e \ \ LEGEND iNTh� COMMON �- OPEN SPACE i ON-SITE RECREATIONAL AMENITIES —� v REo I 1 ROOOFOFDECK kI AI PARKING5OFBEECSENC ROOF DECK #R AT LEVEL PESU)ENCLSj LTEMA OPEARM OPEN ARM I.2 3, 6, S S d COURTYARD 42 COURTYARD LEi 0 COURTYARD r, iICAI OPER SPACE IO 6 l 1 NOTE: OPEN SPACEE AREAAREA MO5E HAVE A MIT MIN JSSE/UNX 4 OPEN SMCE REOUIREO: 3W UXXS x MEF./UNX• 1. Si. PECAONS ONT IPACKY EP'O: ISIW LUEEPR 'FPET� ROOF DECK NI IAT PARKLEVEL 5 OF RESIN 14 ROOF DECK 42 (AT LEVEL50F RESoeuCB 94' gOP � ZRETAIL 11. 1 M S 9) ➢ COURTYARD 1.186 COURTYARD xx tsu WURMPENSI iOiAT OPER SPACE PROVIDED I a. �SESUEO R -A '. c Ko / iR I / 981180, R. 1' F�`V��\ 118190�Fi I x 9fE50 OR I J innan u l' IT 11 1 9 90 T� �119�I6Q FTA IT 11 in F \ � U R. /- - - - -I NOTESDI BO GROSS OR AREA V OF N THE MIN. DIMENSION �LENGM6WIDTX�SHAM RE FEET. T.e % _ r OPEN SPACE PLAN A-1.7 III' w 3u IF p / � JOB N5 D SCALE; 1"=30' SRI -1665 02-122 )A -19 NEWPORT CROSSINGS STARBOARD REALTY PARTNERS, LLC ARCHITECTS ORANGE NEWPORT BEACH, CA 1301 Dove Street Suite 1080 Newport Beach, CA (949) 851-2020 144 NORTH ORANGE ST. ORANGE, CA 92866 (714) 639-9860' M �"UND SIDE OF D M \� ° -- - VICINITY MAP ©'� ® m�� Bi IA 1 e R TAIL —THREE-HOUR W LL e I H EE- OU FIREWALL TO ERSI E F PODIUM ti • w m fi _ I TYPE IA S-2 PARKING C..®�hao I a o /i I o 5 1 ° 4 1 I II I I I THREE -HOU IRE ALL�'� R-2 OCC. AP ITM NTS I 1 II e I .1 P ENT ° O�. �.. I \ � 1 1 I t3 1 IQ I �7�� II TYPE OF CONST. - 1ST FLOOR A-1.8 SCALE: 1"=30' 2oV-165 u2 Zo NEWPORT CROSSINGS STARBOARD REALTY PARTNERS, LLC ARCHITECTS ORANGE CW" `°==` NEWPORT BEACH, CA 1301 Dove Street Suitel O80 Newport Beach, CA (949) 851-2020 144 NORTH ORANGE ST. ORANGE, CA 92866 (714) 639-9860 M 3-4-4 VICINITY MAP t o TO FIREWAL TOS. �[2SIDERE D\l M 1 i \ !PE IA B/M YE", IA S-2 PARKNG STRUC KL KKF > w6 9Y P OCC. NEWPORT CROSSINGS STARBOARD REALTY PARTNERS, LLC NEWPORT BEACH, CA 1301 Dove Street Suite] 080 Newport Beach, CA (949) 851-2020 II FIREWALL TO )F PODIUM I LL II 4TS I I I TYPE OF CONST. - 2ND FLOOR A- 1.8A 1 \ 0 IS0 15' 3�,v "'lia N SCALE i-=36 m17-is502-1 ARCHITECTS ORANGE=`°='9e 144 NORTH ORANGE ST. ORANGE, CA 92866 (714) 639-9860 �I 3-4-� TYPE OF CONST. - 2ND FLOOR A- 1.8A 1 \ 0 IS0 15' 3�,v "'lia N SCALE i-=36 m17-is502-1 ARCHITECTS ORANGE=`°='9e 144 NORTH ORANGE ST. ORANGE, CA 92866 (714) 639-9860 3-4-� VICINITY MAP & I ! Icy.• ��,�. .. w® I mr �•g 1 �p® DIY •P� '9© 11 TYPE IA °S-2PARKING - •® ® ® °� II IIJJ a STRUCT RE m 1 A �% ®• ® THREE -HOU I R-2 OCC. AP � ap � o E NEWPORT CROSSINGS STARBOARD REALTY PARTNERS, LLC NEWPORT BEACH, CA 1301 Dove Street Suite] 080 Newport Beach, CA (949) 851-2020 L II TS I 1 I �I FE OF CONST. - UPPER FLOOR A-1 •8B 1 Joe NQ iii N ac a!e.r=30znv-Is_oz lziia ZD ARCHITECTS ORANGE VX17=`°=9e 144 NORTH ORANGE ST. ORANGE, CA 92866 (714) 639-9860 �'�" SUBTERRANEAN LEVEL 1 {M¢PI PARKING NSlk8UT*N 1111. E�I.US P "BT OR REST ENp ®NR¢d6N11uST— LEVEL 1 NEWPORT CROSSINGS - NEWPORT BEACH, CA STARBOARD REALTY PARTNERS, LLC 1301 Dove Street Suite 1080 Newport Beach, CA (949) 85 1 -2020 NEWPORT BEACH PARKING STANDARDS ICA. 1--. BUILDING PLANS -SUB. I & LEVEL 1 //f'`-2-11/\� (`N 0 15 an'- so Z JOB .0 DATE N SCALE I"=30' 2017 16502-12-W ARCHITECTS ORANGE 144 NORTH ORANGE ST. ORANGE, CA 92866 (714) 639-9860 =12017 Ammtecte OmnO, S-47 NEWPORT CROSSINGS - NEWPORT BEACH, CA STARBOARD REALTY PARTNERS, LLC 1301 Dove Street Suite 1080 Newport Beach, CA (949) 85 1 -2020 ��. rul o: �• •_® r` m.. 4: CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PARKING STANDARDS BUILDING PLANS - LEVEL 2 1�1 r J09.0 DATE 2v : N SCALE I"=30' O -i6565 aalaw ARCHITECTS ORANGE 144 NORTH ORANGE ST. ORANGE, CA 92866 (714) 639-9860 A-2.2 Zo c) 2017 Ammtects Omngee µ 3'2 NEWPORT CROSSINGS - NEWPORT BEACH, CA STARBOARD REALTY PARTNERS, LLC 1301 Dove Street Suite 1080 Newport Beach, CA (949) 85 1 -2020 «;,T: wwi CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PARKING STANDARDS SCA£'. I--. BUILDING PLANS - LEVELS 3 & 4 1�1 r 08 .0 DATE 2v : N SCALE I"=30' O -I6565 aalaw ARCHITECTS ORANGE 144 NORTH ORANGE ST. ORANGE, CA 92866 (714) 639-9860 A-2.3 Zo =12017 Ammtecte OmnO, 349 NEWPORT CROSSINGS — NEWPORT BEACH, CA STARBOARD REALTY PARTNERS, LLC 1301 Dove Street Suite 1080 Newport Beach, CA (949) 85 1 -2020 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PARKING STANDARDS SCA£'. I--. BUILDING PLANS - LEVEL 5 1�1 r 08 .0 DATE 2v : N SCALE I"=30' O -i6565 aalaw ARCHITECTS ORANGE 144 NORTH ORANGE ST. ORANGE, CA 92866 (714) 639-9860 A-2.4 Zo =12017 Ammtecte OmnO, 350 NEWPORT CROSSINGS - NEWPORT BEACH, CA STARBOARD REALTY PARTNERS, LLC 1301 Dove Street Suite 1080 Newport Beach, CA (949) 85 1 -2020 —1 aye."III m 2 ® m.. .aav P�I —NE NOEE" wwi CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PARKING STANDARDS SCA£'. I--. BUILDING y PLANS - LEVEL 6/ROOF PLAN 1� J1 15 ITY r 08 .0 DATE 2v : N SCALE I"=30' O -I6565 aalaw ARCHITECTS ORANGE 144 NORTH ORANGE ST. ORANGE, CA 92866 (714) 639-9860 A-2.5 Zo =12017 Ammtecte OmNg,, .351 NEWPORT CROSSINGS - NEWPORT BEACH, CA STARBOARD REALTY PARTNERS, LLC 1301 Dove Street Suite 1080 Newport Beach, CA (949) 851-2020 BUILDING PLANS - AMENITY DECK A-2.6 J08eP. oA x: N SCALE I"=30' POv-i65 aaiaw ARCHITECTS ORANGE "'"-rc""eC ° °a` 144 NORTH ORANGE ST. ORANGE, CA 92866 (714) 639-9860 .,,..-e„•.....ma.9. "" s52 JCL.I IVIV h—h NOTES SIIE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW WAIVER REQUESTED i0 EXCEED 55' CENTRE MAX BUILDING HEIGHT MAXIMUM HEIGHT OF AMENITY DECK 15 ]J O STRUCTURE EXCEEDS HEIGM UMII SOLELY FOE BURRING PARAPER, MECN EpIP,. EIC. JCI,I IVIV D—D NOTES: SITE DEVELOPM ENI REVIEW WAIVER REQUESTED TO EXCEED 55 REPAST. MAX BUILDING HEIGHT MAXIMUM HEIGHT OF AMENITY DECK IS ])�C' STRUCTURE EXCEEDS HEIGHT LIMIT SOLELY POR BUILDING PARAPETS, MECH. ROD, ETC. ALL PORTIONS OF THE RESIDDLUAL LmNG AREAS ARE UNDER THE SXY HEIGHT LIMIT SECTION C -C NOTES: DUE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW WAIVER EXTEND TO EXCEED 55'4Y LIMIT. MAX BUILDING HEIGHT MAXIMUM HEIGHT OF AMENITY DECK IS 77 HF STRUCTURE EXCEEDS HEIGHT LIMIT SOLELY FOR BUILDING PARAPETS, DEAN EQIP_, EIC. AIL PORTIONS OF ME RESIDENTIAL LIVING AR:AS ARE UNDER THE 5XA HEIGHT URXL NEWPORT CROSSINGS - NEWPORT BEACH, CA STARBOARD REALTY PARTNERS, LLC 11n1 h r01OAQI AS 1 An9n KEY MAP (N.T.S.) CONCEPTUAL BLDG. SECTIONS 0 U, 2O 10' FLY 11 SCALE: 1"-20' JOB NO: DATE: sov-les aalaw ARCHITECTS ORANGE NON A-2.7 ///, to 2017AmJNf cDOGH,PA 3153 n4 T 1. CORINTHIAN WAY JNOMDTOERTHEASTJBELEVATION MAXIMUM FREIGHT OF AMEHL" DECK L' 77 A' STRUCTURE IXCEEOS Haw UMTS SOLELY FOR BNLDING PARAPETS, MECH. EQIP.. EIC. ALL PORUONS OF ME RE6mEMIAL LIVING AR FAS ARE UNDER THE SSURESCUE UMTS 2. SCOTT DRIVE (NORTHWEST) ELEVATION NOTE'. SUE DEVELOPMENT REVI EW WAV ER REQUESTED TO EXCEED SSU' FIVE. MAX M ILMING HEIGM MAXIMUM ROCHE OF AMEN'" DECK R77J' STRUCTURE IXCFEI)S HEIGM LIMIT SOLELY FOR RNLDNG PARAPER, MECH. EOIP., EC. ALL PORTIERE OF ME RESIDENT AL LMNG AREAS ARE UNDER IDE 554' HEIGHT LIMIT �fi Its 1r. -I n Y F-1 RJB 3. DOVE STREET (SOUTHWEST) ELEVATION NOTES: SEE DEVELOPMENT REVFN WAIVER REQUIXTE010 IXCERST 5' LIME, MAX BUILDING HEIGM MAXIMUM HEGMOFAMENHY DKK L'RO' SURUC T RE IXCEEOS HHGXT LIMIT SOLELY WR BUILDING PARAPETS. MECH. EQIP-ETC. ALL PORTIONS OF ME RESIDENTIAL LIVING AREAS. ARE UNDER THE ABUT FLIGHT UMU �NowI� 93 m jj B�l W ru Cff � IF TTI [0 [1 m 1111 11 Y I� LII TT 11 IT r1l NEWPORT CROSSINGS - NEWPORT BEACH, CA STARBOARD REALTY PARTNERS, LLC 1301 Dove Street Suite] 080 Newport Beach, CA (949( 851-2020 (] EIGHT SAND FRESH STUCCO © AROT.CIIIRAL METAL PANH 0 S10NE VEREB, Q WOOD P.R TIE SLI GIASE RATING IF] VINYLWINCOWS MEIALAWNING ® MEAL SIINSXADE METAL UNREST ® NORGETP1. S1ATi © ARGHITECTIRAL ACRYLIC PANE ® UMINUMStOREFRIXff KEY MAP N r.S. CONCEPTUAL BLDG. ELEVATIONS AS -33- 11 lU IAU' IIU' 9Imo' ^^ JOB NO: _DAL-: SCALL E: 1"=20' 2017-165 02-I2-19 ARCHITECTS ORANGE 144 NORTH ORANGE ST. ORANGE, CA 92866 (774) 639-9860 354 r 'IFS itLEi wm 1 0 I w VAI flkl 1411 A! II kj I a ii .IIG Bill aFt r1 1. PUBLIC PARK (SOUTH) ELEVATION NOTES: SRE DE EICPMF REVIEW WW R REOHESIED TO EXCEED WS NMB. MM SULDNG H®GM MMIMNM HEIGHT CF AMENITY DECK 5 7T V SWIICNREEXCEH5 H9GHTLWITSOLEIY FOR BNLMNG PARAPE6. MECH.EOIP. ETC, ALL POBBONS OF THE R6tl]EMIAL NJING AREAS ARE UNDER NE i 4 HEIGHT LIMB 10 12 I�!1II_iR.ap MATERIAUCOLOR LEGEND TI LGH SAM)FOESH.SNCCO L� ARCWTECTLL. METAL PANH STONE VWFCR T_1 WOOD PLANR IIIE GLASS RA&N d� VINYLWINCOWS METALAWNING F� MEfALILMS DE Y� MEML MCLUS Tg' HORIZONTAL METAL SIAiS 1J1 ARCHIIECNRALACRYUCPANR Tg ALUNLNUMVORFROM 2. MARTINGALE WAY (EAST) ELEVATION N01ES:SREDEnLOPMFMRVIEWWPNER4EQUEM TOEXCMD55-0'NMB SLILNNGHNGW MAXIMUM HDGHT OFAMENITY DEC: S7T{Y' BIRUCNRE EXCEEDS HNGMF WIT WLELY MR BUIIA'NG PARAPE L MECH. EMP,, ETC. ALL"CM OF ME RFSIDEMIAL LNING AREAS ARE UNDER ME SSU'HE1GM LIMIT NEWPORT CROSSINGS - NEWPORT BEACH, CA STARBOARD REALTY PARTNERS, LLC 1301 Dove Street Suite 1080 Newport Beach, CA (949) 851-2020 KEY MAP L_ N.T.S. CONCEPTUAL BLDG. ELEVATIONS A-33.\2/\� ^ �^ JOB No: OAe: SCALE: 1"=20' 2017 1650212-19 ARCHITECTS ORANGE 144 NORTH ORANGE ST. ORANGE, CA 92866 (714) 639-9860^+ 3515 1. AERIAL VIEW FROM CORINTHIAN WAY LOOKING SOUTH 2. VIEW FROM MARTINGALE WAY LOOKING NORTH 3 3. VIEW AT CORINTHIAN WAY & SCOTT DRIVE LOOKING SOUTHEAST 4. VIEW FROM DOVE ST. & SCOTT DRIVE LOOKING NORTHEAST NEWPORT CROSSINGS - NEWPORT BEACH, CA STARBOARD REALTY PARTNERS, LLC 1301 Dove Street Suite 1080 Newport Beach, CA (949) 851-2020 CONCEPTUAL RENDERINGS NOT TO SCALE KEY MAP N NTs JOB NO: QAL: 2117-165 0212-19 ARCHITECTS ORANGE 144 NORTH ORANGE ST. ORANGE, CA 92866 (714) 639-9860 A-3.3 356 1. VIEW FROM DOVE STREET LOOKING WEST 2. VIEW OF RETAIL PLAZA AT CORINTHIAN WAY 3. VIEW FROM MARTINGALE WAY LOOKING WEST TOWARDS LEASING CENTER 4. VIEW FROM PARK LOOKING NORTHWEST TOWARDS POOL COURTYARD NEWPORT CROSSINGS - NEWPORT BEACH, CA STARBOARD REALTY PARTNERS, LLC 1301 Dove Street Suite 1080 Newport Beach, CA (949) 851-2020 CONCEPTUAL RENDERINGS NOT TO SCALE KEY MAP Nrs Jog No: L`Ae: 2117-165 0212-19 ARCHITECTS ORANGE 144 NORTH ORANGE ST. ORANGE, CA 92866 (714) 639-9860^+« S5 I A Snowbound SW 7004 lO bdenor?loster 20/30 Fere Sand Fnish B Acier SW 9170 (colorrotslovenonae onl © Sea Serpent SW 7615 Aluminum Storefront System Q Architectural Metal Panel -1 nil @ Metal Sun Shade 1© Hor¢ontal Metal Skis NEWPORT CROSSINGS - NEWPORT BEACH, CA 1301 Dove Street Suite1080 Newport Beach, CA (949) 851-2020 1 Q Architectural Metal Panel -2 ® Vinyl Windows- White ® Stone veneer Q9 Architectural Acrylic Panel Q Wood Plank Tile in @ Metal Cladded Awning 144 North Orange St. Orange, CA 92866 (714) 639-9860 358 UNIT Si STDD10-1 BAT. UNIT AREA: 587 SQ. FT. PATIOIBALCONY: fit SQ. FT. STORAGE: 200 CU. FT. UNITAI UNIT AREA: 690 SQ. PATIO/BALCONY: 61 SQ.. FT. STORAGE: 200 CU. FT.. UNIT A3 I BEDROOM-IBATH UNIT AREA: 764 SQ. FT. PATIOl6ALC 61 SQ. FT. STORAGE: 200 CU. FT. UNIT A2 1 BEDROOM -1 BATH UNIT AREA: 730 SQ. FT. PATIO/BALCONY : 64 SQ. FT. STORAGE: 200 CU. FT. UNIT A4 18EOROOM-i BATN UNIT AREA: 828 SQ. FT. PATIOIBALC: 63 SO. FT. STORAGE: 200 CU. FT. FMVATE OPEN SPACE ®A0� IIIIIIIIIIIIEiml ®®0® 0®0® ®EM CONCEPTUAL UNIT PLANS 0 11 NEWPORT CROSSINGS - NEWPORT BEACH, CA JOB .0 DAR: SCALE: 3/I6"=1'-0" 17 20165 STARBOARD REALTY PARTNERS, LLC ARCHITECTS ORANGE 1301 Dove Street Suite 1080 Newport Beach, CA (949) 851-2020 144 NORTH ORANGE ST. ORANGE, CA 92866 (714) 639-9860 A-4.1 Zo c)207 AmhiActs 0mngo UNIT 61 28EOR00M-2BATH UNIT AREA: 1113 SQ. FT. PATIOIBAIGONV: 66 SQ. FT. STORAGE: 200 CU. FT. UNIT B2 2 BEDROOM -2 BATH UNIT AREA: 1100 SQ. FT. PATIONALC: 63 SO. FT. um TRASH RM. UNIT 61 -ALT 28EOROOM-28ATH UNIT AREA: 1075 SQ. FT. PATIO/BALCONY: 66 SQ, FT. STORAGE: 200 CU. FT. UNIT B4 2BEOROOM28ATH UNIT AREA: 1070 SQ. FT. PATIO/BALC: 61 SQ. FT. STORAGE: 200 CU. FT. CONCEPTUAL UNIT PLANS NEWPORT CROSSINGS - NEWPORT BEACH, CA �J08NP. oA x: SCALE: 3/I6"=1'-0" POv-I65 aalaw STARBOARD REALTY PARTNERS, LLC ARCHITECTS ORANGE 1301 Dove Street Suite 1080 Newport Beach, CA (949) 851-2020 144 NORTH ORANGE ST. ORANGE, CA 92866 (714) 639-9860 A-4.2 n 2019 Ammtects O2ngg, 300 PRIVATE OPEN =OEM SPACE 0®0® CONCEPTUAL UNIT PLANS NEWPORT CROSSINGS - NEWPORT BEACH, CA �J08NP. oA x: SCALE: 3/I6"=1'-0" POv-I65 aalaw STARBOARD REALTY PARTNERS, LLC ARCHITECTS ORANGE 1301 Dove Street Suite 1080 Newport Beach, CA (949) 851-2020 144 NORTH ORANGE ST. ORANGE, CA 92866 (714) 639-9860 A-4.2 n 2019 Ammtects O2ngg, 300 UNIT BE UNIT S2 206RM28ATH STUDIOI BATH UNIT AREA: 916 SQ. FT. UNIT AREA: 626 SO. FT. PATIO/BALCONY : 71 SO. FT. PATIOBALCONY: 72 SQ. FT. STORAGE: 200 CU. FT. STORAGE: 200 CU. FT. UNIT B6 2 BEDROOM -2 BATH UNIT AREA: 1037SQ. FT. PCTIOBALCONY: 60 SO. FT. STORAGE: 226 CU. FT. PRIVATE OPEN SPACE �mm� M00E a®o® UNIT 87 2 SEVROO.-2 BATH UNIT AREA: 1209 SQ. FT. PATIO/BALCONY: 73 SQ. FT. STORAGE: 218 CU. FT. CONCEPTUAL UNIT PLANS A-4.3 NEWPORT CROSSINGS — NEWPORT BEACH, CA �J08NP. oA x: SCALE: 3/I6"=1'-0" POv-I65 aalaw STARBOARD REALTY PARTNERS, LLC ARCHITECTS ORANGE "�01w"ects0°a` 1301 Dove Street Suite 1 O80 Newport Beach, CA (949) 851-2020 144 NORTH ORANGE ST. ORANGE, CA 92866 (714) 639-9860 ^TM^.^—TM••~� "" Sol A-5.1 DETAILS NEWPORT CROSSINGS - NEWPORT BEACH, CA �J08eP. oA x: SCALE: 3/I6"=1'-0" POv-I65 Dalaw STARBOARD REALTY PARTNERS, LLC ARCHITECTS ORANGE "�.)2017A hiNctsSO=°ae 1301 Dove Street Suite 1 O80 Newport Beach, CA (949) 851-2020 144 NORTH ORANGE ST. ORANGE, CA 92866 (714) 639-9860 ^TM^.^—TM••~� "" 302 —r �r « LIA: FJ- � LR - r 1 ,�nue�,.mr.o.w.. _ `12F/H/ r�u.w,wu„wnvnww. /r,m.-m.,,vcm,e..9w.oxm•rcaerc,.wvrw n:enw.vm, P. Y. U. xwwovrcnnec,rm,mm,u,rn.wumaa,m.,,�.xon,muuvmm'm"." ... I �rru,us. o-rvwsvmr a w.nr,,,,,rctirc ,mu. nx.xw ansru,cnmr,amvwm•aw 1-HR INTERIOR CORRIDOR FLRICLG 4 1-HR DWELLING UNITIDECK ROOF/CLG 1 FT-T=— i �„ mY. rw. T. wrc ,.�n� xn.•,,,,os<w.,. x,.. u, »�.x. W,�o.,�Nnw r.rn.� mx•.� a. �.w.� r�«s,.~M N ,xNxx,� xmxvvam urec ,xwxrwe «o.mmrc� _ 1H UNIT FLOOR/CEILING ASSEMBLY 18 1-HR EXTERIOR CORRIDOR FLRICLG 5 1-HR EXTERIO ROOFICLG 2 /. ax� r, rc..m,r,•,�.,..,.,wxx� n,E� �. ,.,nor / / ��x o�.x� y�� DLA— n„nimovaw w,rpuxv.°a I ix¢,mx uvo[wx FIRERATEDGYPSUM WALLBOARD, WOOD STUDS SDUNDRATED GYPSUM WALLBOARD, WOOD STUDSw eacwnvw.x u.�w som ar Vr uxeui, "F-mrsxwisw,umrrvurrtammu �xLI5iIX6'Pµ •� LISTING: FIRE MTING:xT GA NO, 1-H0.. Hs,, x LALIFDPNIA SOUND RATING xwr e + WP]360 CBC OFFICEOF aI5E L0VTRDL 515TC x muer[. nesasuss Q TABLEIE 11 6EGHOXNO_ 1.3314.6 1-HR FIRE PARTITION@ INTERIOR CORRIDORI 15 1 HR STAGGERED STUD WALL ASSEMBLY 19 A-5.1 DETAILS NEWPORT CROSSINGS - NEWPORT BEACH, CA �J08eP. oA x: SCALE: 3/I6"=1'-0" POv-I65 Dalaw STARBOARD REALTY PARTNERS, LLC ARCHITECTS ORANGE "�.)2017A hiNctsSO=°ae 1301 Dove Street Suite 1 O80 Newport Beach, CA (949) 851-2020 144 NORTH ORANGE ST. ORANGE, CA 92866 (714) 639-9860 ^TM^.^—TM••~� "" 302 A-5.2 DETAILS 0 11 NEWPORT CROSSINGS — NEWPORT BEACH, CA J09.0 oAR: SCALE: 3/I6"=1 2 '-0" Ov-I6565 aalaw STARBOARD REALTY PARTNERS, LLC ARCHITECTS ORANGE 1) 201w"ects ° °a` 1301 Dove Street Suite 1080 Newport Beach, CA (949) 851-2020 144 NORTH ORANGE ST. ORANGE, CA 92866 (714) 639-9860 ^TM^.^—TM••~� "" SOS x. x 14 F. v LZ +`^'•`w`._ •" EXTERIOR ,. =k ALL— ao PERPENDICULAR —FIRE—ARI ITTREAKD —._� ..� „ w mew —4 I / PERPENDICULAR ,G _ + E PARALLEL UNIT r.sr PARALLEL , C / r. r e vrro. .suurxx+rtnu w. wsEarsomsrea. rsFwuxn rrr yv���� wowe X N.,E�wwro.m -x1 �.,wws•.:r x -HR FLOOR CEILING ASSEMBLY 2 -HR EXTERIOR WAIL ASSEMBLY 1 wa - u r r EE vewrxxnuExrmmmmmm n.e wE .. —� I' V ^ J C ra r,r �F _ w.*�w,. ,�rw I JII�....„,, \—M.E. 2 -HR EXTERIOR WALL ASSEMBLY 2 lR w EXTERRIIOR TYPICAL -- _ UNIT AT SLAB ° < `�`°.'-” I L ° _ < 2 -HR FIRE BARRIER 15 2 -HR EXIT PASSAGEWAY 112 2 -HR EXTERIOR WALL ASSEMBLY 6 A-5.2 DETAILS 0 11 NEWPORT CROSSINGS — NEWPORT BEACH, CA J09.0 oAR: SCALE: 3/I6"=1 2 '-0" Ov-I6565 aalaw STARBOARD REALTY PARTNERS, LLC ARCHITECTS ORANGE 1) 201w"ects ° °a` 1301 Dove Street Suite 1080 Newport Beach, CA (949) 851-2020 144 NORTH ORANGE ST. ORANGE, CA 92866 (714) 639-9860 ^TM^.^—TM••~� "" SOS FIRE RETARDANTTREATED FIRE RETARDANT TREATED ROOFPLYWOOOATHIGH ROOF PLV SCCD AT HIGH c yam afr o m... S unnmw®wuuzs } z rewcw[c'ex®cnmousea 1 <anss nnavreawww-ewn.0 ROOF ROOF -0' ROOF ?ROTECIION ayiOUR 9'-0' R00{' PROTECTION `Y. / ��—[nccsxsnsn Na_ ' PENETRATIDre nuoweo RE wnLF rvo PENEraanprvs nLLowEo I $6 - wow[mn�m I 1HR. ROOF CEILING ASSEI,IBLY ® I� �� f� wr IT MANUF. ROOF TRUSSES B:' OTHERS 1 Z' CONTINUE FIRE / -.11AS5EMBlY n [[ va, rxwasa isl E.x. / Hu r eawsuvnmu ' EIR R_TAR9AN1 iMRJUGM BUILT -VP v w _ PLYWWJ DEPTH FRAMAd TYR. ....-. I1II END TRUSSES BY OTHERS ) 11 � INSULATION PER TITLE 24 CALOR i P H I kX U F x DEITRIDE SIDE AWLATEPEEY ALUMINUM ANGLE CLIPB FASTENED TO UNDERSIDE OF PLATE PER MFR. REORS. n "" %' TYPE '%'GYP, BILL Of AC 20 GUY METAL CEILING JOISTS QIi 3 -HR FIREWALL TERMINATION 4 3- HR FIREWALL TERMINATION 1 21CC ACHIEVE HORIZONTAL FIREELOCKING. IO FT. O G UTILIZING TIGHT FIT WALL NSUTATION. mxmvrtaww HOUR FIRE WALL RU FROM TOP OLFFIRST FINISH rvrcxcvrav F3 LOOR NGSHEAXR ROOF/CEILING INTERSECTION =fi ewru L 3 UNIT UNIr 3/ PROVIDE ZK CONT, BLOCKING (REFER TO STRUCTURAL � - x DE FOR FOR BOUNDARY NAILING 2n CONTINUOUSNAILER PARALIE�\/ PEEP E UI x gwausxv\—. \ \B _ ". H SOLID RIM JOIST cyuiu,csamm2xnu DEITRICH BREAKAWAY ALUMINUM ANGLE SLIPS FASTENED V y� TO UNDERSIDE OF PLATE PER MANCTU UFARERS REGIS, ENLARGED AXONOMETRIC AT RIGHT) I (SEE Y METAL CEILING JOIST WHERE OCCURS 3 -HR FIREWALL TERMINATION 2 a RUN 3.HOOPWALL ASSEMBLY TO BOTTOM OF FLOOR TOTM EINABOVE SXEArxING UP BTOCONTINUE HHG FLOOR/CEILING INTERSECTION HOUR FIRE WALL, RUN FROM TOP OF FLOOR TO H. GTEL 1-1—YE—SE3 UNDERSIDE OF CEITUDGIROOF SHEATHING aawcwuusas �2 now.woceaG—NIP ACHIEVE HORIZONTAL FIREBLOCKING, IO FT. OC. UTILIZING '1 I' TIGHT FR WALL INSULATION. UNITUNIT uwurncrteamaewneue 2, WOOD FRAMING PER STRUCTURAL PLANS II( N ADO TYPE'X'GYREGARD BATTFIBERGLABBINSVLATION _ _1 wuNrncrt+[mursswrno. xY iuwrnc.umasiunx DETTRICX BREAKAWAYALUMINUM ANGLE CLIPS FASTENED X TO PLATE PER MANUFACTURERS REQUIREMENTS x Ix M11 -1—C - / ACOUSTICAL SEALANT a CONC.SLAB-SEESTRUCTURALPLAN o / =VU� x a w _ ex[vslurann we srqunlnL CCHANNEL RUNNER TOP ADD BOTTOM fjv10'WIDEBY1f/0' RRE WALL DEEP, FABRICATED FROM m0. 25 MSG GALVANIZED STEEL SEE DETAIL 16/AD1 A ATTACHED iO FLOOR ANDCEILING WITH FASTENERS uo ren wl wooiuuak SPACED An<-o.c TYPICAL SLAB /FOOTINGS 3 -HR FIREWALL ASSEMBLY 19 3 -HR FIREWALL ASSEMBLY 16 3 -HR FIREWALL ASSEMBLY 13 A-5.3 DETAILS NEWPORT CROSSINGS — NEWPORT BEACH, CA �J08NP. DA x: SCALE: 3/I6"=1'-0" POv-I65 Dalaw STARBOARD REALTY PARTNERS, LLC ARCHITECTS ORANGE "��.01.� teasOrange 1301 Dove Street Suite 1080 Newport Beach, CA (949) 851-2020 144 NORTH ORANGE ST. ORANGE, CA 92866 (714) 639-9860 ^TM^.^—TM••~+�� "" 30 ENLARGED GROUND LEVEL PATIOS -TRP ALL SIDES ENTRY DAM - - enhanced paving ENTERTAINMENT COURTYARD • firepit on turf rug' • overhead festival lighting • barbecue taunter • dieingteoace • materiel private patios TRE LOUNGE • merge cabana with Green • communal tables • barbecueceanter • enlarged private patios 117 ACRE COMMUNITY PARK • see enlargemeht Sheet L3 1 • sae arrangement arrel.6 EXISTING CANARY ISLAND PINE IS TOTAL] • protect -in-place ROOFTOP TERRACE at LEVEL7 • an enlargement shoe 1.5 STARBOARD REALTY PARTNERS, LLC 1301 Dove Street SL ite1080 Newport Beach, CA (949) 851-2020 30B NO DATE 17 t65 021}19 SCALE I"= 10 I RO ANDSCAPE CONCEPTUAL LANDSCAPE PLAN L. ARCHITECTURE 365 LEASING PLAZA and ENTRY DRIVE y • enhanced paving Q ' ��� • maahing height pain' � ",pi Lwjectslgnage 4$ Totem LEASING a` ,� i L.. . )M % VIEW DECKat LEVELS 3 moldoor kitchen Lnunge chairs fireplace •Popery a _ 1 � i I POOL COURTYARD • see enlargement sheet 1.3 STARBOARD REALTY PARTNERS, LLC 1301 Dove Street SL ite1080 Newport Beach, CA (949) 851-2020 30B NO DATE 17 t65 021}19 SCALE I"= 10 I RO ANDSCAPE CONCEPTUAL LANDSCAPE PLAN L. ARCHITECTURE 365 MI. I. NNNNN WATER EFFICIENT LANDSCAPING NOTE: x —xxx xuxE r®—,o x =xu. 1[Er ra POOL -SPA end FOUNTAIN NOTES: mx�w..�nxwxE CITY of NEWPORT BEACH NOTES; 1, wwa''�� �wns�6xmx+.xE.�.r&wsx�r Pow. h«u mw. NIm �s axePx«. JOB NO: DAIS: 17la0212-19 NEWPORT CROSSINGS STARBOARD REALTY PARTNERS, LLCn NEWPORT BEACH, CA 1301 Dove Street Suite1080 Newport Beach, CA (949) 851-2020 LANDSCAPE NOTES and PLANT PALETTE L.2 LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE Soo ; PCCEM.�1 --�_uPs uemwmv rn• u WSlMG11EEsh4eiotr}m+rohml u'ml MI. I. NNNNN WATER EFFICIENT LANDSCAPING NOTE: x —xxx xuxE r®—,o x =xu. 1[Er ra POOL -SPA end FOUNTAIN NOTES: mx�w..�nxwxE CITY of NEWPORT BEACH NOTES; 1, wwa''�� �wns�6xmx+.xE.�.r&wsx�r Pow. h«u mw. NIm �s axePx«. JOB NO: DAIS: 17la0212-19 NEWPORT CROSSINGS STARBOARD REALTY PARTNERS, LLCn NEWPORT BEACH, CA 1301 Dove Street Suite1080 Newport Beach, CA (949) 851-2020 LANDSCAPE NOTES and PLANT PALETTE L.2 LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE Soo MODULAR WETLANDS FITNESS TERRACE • fitnessequipment • shade trellis • decomposedgmnits PLAY LAWN PICKLE BALL COURT • regulation sae pickle ball court • court fencing with fabric 20- HIL SEATWAIL 30' HE BOAADFORM ACCENT WALLS 20' HL SEATWALL- OUTDOORSEATING SPATERAACE spa • overhead trellis • double sided fireplace • lounge lawn lap pact • loengechairs - • cabanas • hammock Beunge • sunning lawn • dpootenclosme fencing e-E'�i v CLUBROOM � ;JI L� EWPORT CROSSIN EWPORT BEACH, ( LEVELS 3 f07 --- b — FIRE LANE • wedge curb with reasonable hot - k lards n, = I • concrete paving mw • painted tandcourtgames � /y � r�'..,. i-�w-��l �.. , I �l � P �I BOCCE BALL COURT • shade Vees ` . .1 Uti i I • seatwous •�'� _ LARGE SMALL , D a • shade cabanas 1 � s DOG PARK 12.912 SF.I • ' J, �- . siMlelicter �� 4��. f I �— _ .4B'HE fencing 11, ".� _ +J , • gas separated ., . -- '1 • separated estlbules save existing rq Utrseee ' DINING TERRACE 42'- HI MESH FENCE IBLACKI • table and chairs • shade trees WITH FLOWERING VINES • metal overhead trellis OFFICE PARKING lighting aoe 0 AM V -IQ$ 1As 02 2-11 SCALE: 1/16" = I'-0" :L. STARBOARD REALTY PARTNERS, LLCL3 u V`/`/ aa1„0, C aE 8. 1301 Dove Street Sutte1080 Newport Beach, CA (949) 851-2020 POOL COURTYARD 1/2 ACRE PUBLIC PARK • 3 f07 IOOROP TERRACE — . see enlargemem sheet E5 RETAIL INGS STARBOARD REALTY PARTNERS, LLC , CA 1301 Dove Street Suitel080 Newport Beach, CA (949) 851-2020 OUTDOOR DINING • table and chairs NT1'/41V \\ "�,;. \\ 36- •segTT,nencax ••• V_/_/ • lirepd • matching height paws • haftUghis �- • soft sealing 36" NT. CORNER TENANT SIGNAGE - - WATER FEATURE • 4B- M. allrath scuppers II � • teITTte reelection Pwl with wamrsseps • [Bbble trough COSTUMERLAZA JI • than ad ch... s • matching height paws \ • bsdxat lights SPECIMEN OAK -W" BOK II II CUSTOMER PLAZA • shale and ¢hairs •shade umhrellas I I I z I I � m f \ I I SU NT. BOAROFORM 1\III ACCENT WALLS TYR � � I I I EXISTING CANARY ISLAND PINES • pmtectinithei EXISTING STONE PINES • ported in pace x� II 11 /� � AM JOB CAIS: IJ -QS 0812-11 1 a L.4 CAMDSCAPE RETAIL PLAZA ARCHITECTURE F RESIDE LOM • 3 sided filet • shade Laid • lounge seat • festival ligh SPATERRACE • spa • cabana • sunning r GARDENS AND LANDSCAPED ROOFS SHALL COMPLY HE REQUIREMENT DF THE CALIFORNIA BUILDING CBCI AND THE CFC]. AWN hent too all gong ival lighting TERRACE • dining tables and umbrellas • mRdoor Wtdom ��.-.^. • communal Note � SII JOB No, DATE: 17la0212-19 NEWPORT CROSSINGS STARBOARD REALTY PARTNERS, LLC SCALE: 118"=1,-0" ,�., NEWPORT BEACH, C A 1301 Dove Street Suite1080 Newport Beach, CA (949) 851-2020 ROOFTOP TERRACE at LEVEL 7 L.5 LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE 3 0� 0 AWN hent too all gong ival lighting TERRACE • dining tables and umbrellas • mRdoor Wtdom ��.-.^. • communal Note � SII JOB No, DATE: 17la0212-19 NEWPORT CROSSINGS STARBOARD REALTY PARTNERS, LLC SCALE: 118"=1,-0" ,�., NEWPORT BEACH, C A 1301 Dove Street Suite1080 Newport Beach, CA (949) 851-2020 ROOFTOP TERRACE at LEVEL 7 L.5 LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE 3 0� NEWPORT CROSSINGS STARBOARD REALTY PARTNERS, LLC NEWPORT BEACH, C A 1301 Dove Street Suite1080 Newport Beach, CA (949) 851-2020 JOB NO AM V 02 LANDSCAPE LANDSCAPE IMAGERY L• ARCHITECTURE 370 NEWPORT CROSSINGS — NEWPORT BEACH, CA STARBOARD REALTY PARTNERS, LLC 1301 Dove Street Suite 1080 Newport Beach, CA (949) 851-2020 GENERAL NOTES FLOOD ZONE wu n rt WE I,aosawxw aw ea —° PROPERTY LINE DATA El ADA PATH OF TRAVEL DRIVEWAY STD 166E -A SITE ADDRESS OIFW 11 -!;77 •vsns. 1-a{ LEGAL DESCRIPTION BASIS OF BEARINGS BEnmx�u ort�e1{AWN, x.v uWELED zl z,zro xsmrm sv' wrs III OF, THE BE E. W— CIVIL ENGINEER I. II IT FEW FEEFFEETEF — OF FIFFE)TWETE °zm��en °x._.vo 1. y M.. i'essl s3raw E - /0.W66 o'cuml m PIWI r FIT ADA PATH OF TRAVEL e DRIVEWAY STD 161-1 C= ^^�Wm umuq'nnipuo wrs ABBREVIATIONS EN BOLLARD NOT ° E DEPTO i°la ae vl iv /II AEIE, F,` nx / °: TWO 11 TO 11 CURB .- TO TO OF GROJE TELI TW TOO °r.u, anAlau C-01 ������I� FUSCOE I,', -I= CONCEPTUAL GRADING 'O6NOi °ArE, ` ` 1618-001 D&15-19 1 ARCHITECTS ORANGE ° °""�M1eC5OA°9e 144 NORTH ORANGE ST. ORANGE, CA 92866 (714) 639-9860 ...�..P.....w.,...,a,. 37t2 ABBREVIATIONS SCALE FIRE HYDRANT `KEY MAP NEWPORT CROSSINGS — NEWPORT BEACH, CA STARBOARD REALTY PARTNERS, LLC 1301 Dove Street Suite 1080 Newport Beach, CA (949) 851-2020 6°A'E. CONCEPTUAL UTILITY PLAN JO%5-19 1618-001 0&1 � ARCHITECTS ORANGE ° °""�M1eC5O�°9e 144 NORTH ORANGE ST. ORANGE, CA 92866 (714) 639-9860 ...�..P.....w.,...,a,. 372 SECTION A SCALES 1' -to' C-03 ]5 ]5 �0 SF - 65 /ea v 60 ) -55 50 ra otA rc sruuns��'ww �¢ °iwrio izvf i"rezra�r9 a5 rs J,-Ej 40 3 35 SECTION:LO -tT2 C SCALE: 1"o' C-03 40 35 SECTION: MARTINGALE WAV / 1 SCALE. 1"=10' C-03 SECTION B SCALE: 1'-10' C-03 NEWPORT CROSSINGS — NEWPORT BEACH, CA STARBOARD REALTY PARTNERS, LLC 1301 Dove Street Suite1080 Newport Beach, CA (949( 851-2020 SECTION: CORINTHIAN WAV ( E 1 SCALE: 1"=10 C-03 -1111' C-03 11'1!1.... t ' C- - TYPICAL SECTIONS ;°,gaol oz aiv 1 . . . . . ; . : A) ARCHITECTS ORANGE ° °"""""`"s °9e 144 NORTH ORANGE ST. ORANGE, CA 92866 (714) 639,9860 s7s 1 8" MOUNTABLE CURB DETAIL F xo::t ttue G03 -1111' C-03 11'1!1.... t ' C- - TYPICAL SECTIONS ;°,gaol oz aiv 1 . . . . . ; . : A) ARCHITECTS ORANGE ° °"""""`"s °9e 144 NORTH ORANGE ST. ORANGE, CA 92866 (714) 639,9860 s7s Memorandum Planning Commission - February 21, 2019 Item No. 2a Additional Materials Received Newport Crossings Mixed Use Project (PA2017-107) C: ?CH COMMUNITY DEVELOPMEN'6 zNT 100 Civic Center Drive Newport Beach, California 92660 949 644-3200 newportbeachca.gov/communitydevelopment To: Planning Commission From: Jaime Murillo, Senior Planner Date: February 20, 2019 Re: Agenda Item 2 (Newport Crossings Mixed -Use Project) Subsequent comments, and revisions to mitigation measures and Draft Resolution No. PC2019-004 certifying the Environmental Impact Report Subsequent to the distribution of the staff report, staff received follow-up comments regarding the written responses that were prepared to the comments submitted on the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR). These follow up comments were from the Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) and Andrew Salas of the Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians. DTSC Comments and Revisions to MM HAZ-2 The comments from DTSC (Attachment A) recommended the following changes to Mitigation Measure MM HAZ-2 clarifying the type of samples to be collected and actions to be completed based on results of samples. MM HAZ-2 Prior to issuance of the first building permit, soil and soil vapor samples shall be collected from beneath the former Enjay Cleaners and soil samples shall be collected from beneath the proposed 0.5 -acre public park site and tested for 02G€4 Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCI and Organochlorine Pesticides (OCP), respectively. The results shall be submitted to the Orange County Health Care Agency and City Building Official. In the event that soil concentrations exceed site-specific cleanup goals, affected soils shall be removed and properly treated/disposed of. Should soil vapor concentrations exceed site- specific cleanup goals, short-term soil vapor extraction and treatment shall be performed to reduce soil vapor concentrations. Institutional controls will be required if the soil and soil gas cannot achieve the cleanup goals for residential land use, and/or vapor mitiaation measure (e.a.. passive ventilation system) are implemented to protect the future building receptors. Andrew Salas Comment and Revisions to MM CUL -1 The comments from Andrew Salas of the Gabrieleno (Attachment B) recommended the following changes to CUL -1 to clarify a Tribes involvement and responsibility resources be encountered during project grading. Planning Commission - February 21, 2019 Item No. 2a Additional Materials Received Newport Crossings Mixed Use Project (PA2017-107) Band of Mission Indians Mitigation Measure MM should Native American MM CUL -1 Prior to the issuance of a grading permit by the City of Newport Beach, the project applicant shall retain a qualified archaeologist to periodically monitor ground -disturbing activities onsite and provide documentation of such retention to the City of Newport Beach Community Development Director. The archaeologist shall train project construction workers on the types of archaeological resources that could be found in site soils. The archaeologist shall periodically monitor project ground -disturbing activities. During construction activities, if Native American resources (i.e. Tribal Cultural Resources) are encountered, a Cultural Resource Monitoring and Discovery Plan (CRMDP) shall shall be retained and compensated as a consultant/monitor for the project site from the time of discovery to the completion of ground disturbing activities to monitor grading and excavation activities. If archaeological resources are encountered, all construction work within 50 feet of the find shall cease, and the archaeologist shall assess the find for importance and whether preservation in place without impacts is feasible. Construction activities may continue in other areas. If, in consultation with the City and affected Native American tribe (as deemed necessary). the discovery is determined to not be important, work will be permitted to continue in the area. Any resource that is not Native American in origin and that cannot be preserved in place shall be curated at a public, nonprofit institution with a research interest in the materials, such as the South Central Coastal Information Center at California State University, Fullerton. Revised Documents as a Result of Comments After reviewing the recommendations, both the applicant and staff agreed to the revisions recommended by both commenters. These revisions to the mitigation measures do not change the findings, conclusions, or recommendations of the Draft EIR and do not result in the identification of any new or increased significant impacts. Also, the revisions do not constitute the type of significant new information that requires recirculation of the Draft EIR for further public comment under CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5. The revisions to Mitigation Measures MM HAZ-2 and MM CUL -1 require changes to the Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) document that includes the formal Response to Comments and Revisions to the DEIR. The revised FEIR document is included as Attachment C. Tmplt: 02/05/15 Planning Commission - February 21, 2019 Item No. 2a Additional Materials Received Newport Crossings Mixed Use Project (PA2017-107) The revisions to the mitigation measures also require changes to the Draft Resolution No. PC2019-004 certifying the EIR for the project. Specifically, the changes affect the CEQA Findings of Fact (Exhibit B of Draft Resolution) and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) (Exhibit C of the Draft Resolution). The revised Draft Resolution No. PC2019-004 is included as Attachment No. D. Attachments A. Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTS) Subsequent Comments B. Andrew Salas (Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians) Subsequent Comments C. Final EIR- Response to Comments and Revisions to DEIR D. Revised Draft Resolution No. PC2019-004 Certifying EIR Tmplt: 02/05/15 Planning Commission - February 21, 2019 Item No. 2a Additional Materials Received Newport Crossings Mixed Use Project (PA2017-107) ATTACHMENT A Department of Toxic Substances Control Comment Letter Planning Commission - February 21, 2019 Item No. 2a Additional Materials Received Newport Crossings Mixed Use Project (PA2017-107) j \J Department of Toxic Substances Control — (a Meredith Williams, Ph.D. Jared Blumenfeld Acting Director Gavin Newsom Secretary for Governor Environmental Protection 5796 Corporate Avenue Cypress, California 90630 February 14, 2019 Mr. Jaime Murillo Senior Planner City of Newport Beach Community Development Department 100 Civic Center Drive Newport Beach, California 92660 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS FOR NEWPORT CROSSING MIXED USE PROJECT (PA 2017-107), NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA STATE CLEARINGHOUSE #2017101067 Dear Mr. Murillo: The Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) appreciates your Response to Comments, dated February 11, 2019, for the Newport Crossing Mixed Use Project (Project), located in Newport Beach, California. Based on the review of the Response to Comments, DTSC is uncertain what the proposed remedial goals are for the Project and whether a land use covenant (LUC) would be a selected remedy if the site is not cleaned to meet remedial goals for residential land use (unrestricted land use). DTSC recommends that Mitigation Measures MM HAZ-2 be revised as follows: (Changes made to the MM HAZ-2 are identified in strikethrough to indicate deletions and bold underlined text to signify additions.) "Prior to issuance of the first building permit, soil and soil vapor samples shall be collected from beneath the former Enjay Cleaners and soil samples shall be collected from beneath the proposed 0.5 -acre public park site and tested for RGE Volatile Oraanic Compounds (VOCs) and OCPs, respectively. The results shall be submitted to the Orange County Health Care Agency and City Building Official. In the event that soil concentrations exceed site specific cleanup goals, affected soils shall be removed and properly treated/disposed of. Should soil vapor concentrations exceed site specific @ Printed on Recycled Paper Planning Commission - February 21, 2019 Item No. 2a Additional Materials Received Newport Crossings Mixed Use Project (PA2017-107) 1 Mr. Jaime Murillo February 14, 2019 Page 2 cleanup goals, short-term soil vapor extraction and treatment shall be performed to reduce soil vapor concentrations. Institutional controls will be required if the soil protect the future building receptors." If final determination of the site does not allow unrestricted land use or requires mitigation or long-term monitoring, a land use covenant is required. In this case, DTSC recommends a land use agreement to be executed between DTSC and the Project site owner(s). For further assistance with the Project site, please contact Maryann Tasnif- Abbasi, DTSC's Voluntary Cleanup Coordinator, at (714) 484-5489 or submit a Voluntary Oversight Agreement (https://www.dtsc.ca.gov/SiteCleanup/Brownfields/voluntary-agreements-guide cfm). DTSC requests a copy of the document(s) determining that the project site has been remediated to meet its cleanup goals. DTSC appreciates your Response to Comments and looks forward to providing any assistance to ensure the Project site protects human health and the environment. Should you have any questions regarding this letter, please contact me at (714) 484-5392 or via email at ChiaRin.Yen(a)dtsc.ca.gov. Sincerely, Chia Rin Yen Environmental Scientist Brownfields Restoration and School Evaluation Branch Site Mitigation and Restoration Program ar/cy/yg cc: See Next Page Planning Commission - February 21, 2019 Item No. 2a Additional Materials Received Newport Crossings Mixed Use Project (PA2017-107) Mr. Jaime Murillo February 14, 2019 Page 3 cc: Governor's Office of Planning and Research (via e-mail) State Clearinghouse P.O. Box 3044 Sacramento, California 95812-3044 State.clearinghouse(a.opr.ca.gov Mr. Dave Kereazis (via e-mail) Office of Planning & Environmental Analysis Department of Toxic Substances Control Dave. Kereazis cDdtsc.ca.gov Ms. Yolanda M. Garza (via e-mail) Brownfields Restoration and School Evaluation Branch Site Mitigation and Restoration Program Yo land a. Garza (a)dtsc.ca.gov Planning Commission - February 21, 2019 Item No. 2a Additional Materials Received Newport Crossings Mixed Use Project (PA2017-107) ATTACHMENT B Andrew Salas (Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians) Comments Planning Commission - February 21, 2019 Item No. 2a Additional Materials Received Newport Crossings Mixed Use Project (PA2017-107) From: Matthew Teutimez <Matthew.Teutimez@gabrielenoindians.org> Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2019 6:15 PM To: Murillo, Jaime Cc: Administration Gabrieleno Indians; Administration KNRM; Andrew Salas; Andy Salas Subject: Re: Newport Crossings Mixed Use Project - Revised mitigation Mr. Murillo, We are in concurrence with the revised language. Thank you for your time and effort in this matter. Best, Matt Teutimez On Tue, Feb 19, 2019 at 5:37 PM Murillo, Jaime <JMurillognewportbeachca.gov> wrote: Hi Matthew, As I mentioned on the phone, the applicant has agreed to the Mitigation Measure per your suggestions. Per our discussion, you also agreed with the revised language below (highlighted) to remove any tribe preference in the MM. Thanks, Jaime CUL -1 Prior to the issuance of a grading permit by the City of Newport Beach, the project applicant shall retain a qualified archaeologist to periodically monitor ground -disturbing activities onsite and provide documentation of such retention to the City of Newport Beach Community Development Director. The archaeologist shall train project construction workers on the types of archaeological resources that could be found in site soils. The archaeologist shall periodically monitor project ground - disturbing activities. During construction activities, if Native American resources (i.e. Tribal Cultural Resources) are encountered, a Cultural Resource Monitoring and Discovery Plan (CRMDP) shall be created and implemented to lay out the proposed personnel, methods, and avoidance/recovery framework for tribal cultural resources monitoring and evaluation activities within the project area. A consulting Native American tribe shall be retained and compensated as a consultant/monitor for the project site from the time of discovery to the completion of ground disturbing activities to monitor grading and excavation activities. If archaeological resources are encountered, all construction work within 50 feet of the find shall cease, and the archaeologist shall assess the find for importance and whether preservation in place without impacts is feasible. Construction activities may Planning Commission - February 21, 2019 Item No. 2a Additional Materials Received Newport Crossings Mixed Use Project (PA2017-107) continue in other areas. If, in consultation with the City and affected Native American tribe (as deemed necessary), the discovery is determined to not be important, work will be permitted to continue in the area. Any resource that is not Native American in origin and that cannot be preserved in place shall be curated at a public, nonprofit institution with a research interest in the materials, such as the South Central Coastal Information Center at California State University, Fullerton. From: Matsler, Sean <SMatsler@coxcastle.com> Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2019 5:22 PM To: Murillo, Jaime <JMurillo@newportbeachca.gov> Cc: 'Dan Vittone (Starboard Realty Partners)' <dan@starboardrp.com> Subject: RE: Newport Crossings Mixed Use Project - Revised mitigation Jaime —The applicant agrees to the revision to MM CUL -1 as shown below. Sean Matsler ICOX CASTLE II NICHOLSON direct: 949.260.4652 smatsler@coxcastle.com I vcard I bio I website From: Murillo, Jaime[mailto:JMurilloanewportbeachca.gov] Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2019 4:52 PM To: Matsler, Sean Subject: FW: Newport Crossings Mixed Use Project - Revised mitigation Give me a call From: Administration Gabrieleno <admin@gabrielenoindians.org> Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2019 4:51 PM Planning Commission - February 21, 2019 Item No. 2a Additional Materials Received Newport Crossings Mixed Use Project (PA2017-107) To: Murillo, Jaime <1MurilloC@newportbeachca.gov>; Andy Salas <chairman@gabrielenoindians.org>; gabrielenoindians@yahoo.com; Matthew Teutimez <Matthew.Teutimez@gabrielenoindians.org> Subject: Newport Crossings Mixed Use Project - Revised mitigation Mr. Murillo, Per our phone discussion today, below is the mitigation text for CUL -1. We have revised the language and included our additional language (in bold) that we request to include into the Tribal Cultural Resource Section of the EIR document for protective mitigation purposes. CUL -1 Prior to the issuance of a grading permit by the City of Newport Beach, the project applicant shall retain a qualified archaeologist to periodically monitor ground -disturbing activities onsite and provide documentation of such retention to the City of Newport Beach Community Development Director. The archaeologist shall train project construction workers on the types of archaeological resources that could be found in site soils. The archaeologist shall periodically monitor project ground - disturbing activities. During construction activities, if Native American resources (i.e. Tribal Cultural Resources) are encountered, a Cultural Resource Monitoring and Discovery Plan (CRMDP) shall be created and implemented to lay out the proposed personnel, methods, and avoidance/recovery framework for tribal cultural resources monitoring and evaluation activities within the project area. The consulting Native American tribe (i.e., Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians-Kizh Nation) will be retained and compensated as a consultant/monitor for the project site from the time of discovery to the completion of ground disturbing activities to monitor grading and excavation activities. If archaeological resources are encountered, all construction work within SO feet of the find shall cease, and the archaeologist shall assess the find for importance and whether preservation in place without impacts is feasible. Construction activities may continue in other areas. If, in consultation with the City and affected Native American tribe (as deemed necessary), the discovery is determined to not be important, work will be permitted to continue in the area. Any resource that is not Native American in origin and that cannot be preserved in place shall be curated at a public, nonprofit institution with a research interest in the materials, such as the South Central Coastal Information Center at California State University, Fullerton. Thank you for your time and understanding in this matter. Admin Specialist Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians - Kizh Nation PO Box 393 Covina, CA 91723 Planning Commission - February 21, 2019 Item No. 2a Additional Materials Received Newport Crossings Mixed Use Project (PA2017-107) Office: 844-390-0787 website: wwwgabrielenoindians.org . o�KONM��ios �/BAS COVERN�`u� Attachments area Matthew R. Teutimez Tribal Biologist 910 N. Citrus Ave Covina, CA 91722 Toll Free: (844) 390-0787 Local: (626) 521-5827 Cell: (714) 872-3474 Website: www.aabrielenoindians.ora Planning Commission - February 21, 2019 Item No. 2a Additional Materials Received Newport Crossings Mixed Use Project (PA2017-107) From: Murillo, Jaime Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2019 12:54 PM To: 'Andy Salas' Cc: Matthew Teutimez; gabrielenoindians@yahoo.com Subject: RE: AB52 Consultation - Newport Crossings Mixed Use Project Hi Andrew, Thank you for the emails. I will call you this afternoon to discuss further. However, please note that the City sent out a request for consultation on January 3, 2018, in compliance with AB -52 and Pub Res C §21080.3.1(d). We did not receive a response requesting consultation within the 30 -day period. Therefore, pursuant to Pub Res C §21082.3(d)(3), the City has completed its noticing requirements and may take action on the certification of the EIR. But in reviewing your comments made during the Draft EIR public review period, and comments raised by Patricia Martz, Ph. D, of the California Cultural Resource Preservation Alliance, Inc, Mitigation Measure No. CUL -1 was revised to take into account the cultural perspectives of tribes. Specifically, MM CUL -1 was revised to allow "...representatives of cultural organizations, including traditionally - /culturally -affiliated Native American tribes (e.g., Gabrieleho Band of Mission Indians-Kizh Nation, Juaneno Band of Mission Indians Acjachemen Nation), to access the project site on a volunteer basis to monitor grading and excavation activities..." Furthermore, the mitigation language was revised to require consultation with affected Native American tribe if archaeological resources are found. The complete mitigation measure language with revisions is included below: CUIr 1 Prior to the issuance of a grading permit by the City of Newport Beach, the project applicant shall retain a qualified archaeologist to periodically monitor ground -disturbing activities onsite and provide documentation of such retention to the City of Newport Beach Community Development Director. The archaeologist shall train project construction workers on the types of archaeological resources that could be found in site soils. The archaeologist shall periodically monitor project ground -disturbing activities. Durin¢ construction activities, the project applicant shall allow representatives of cultural organizations, including traditionally -/culturally -affiliated Native American tribes (e.g., Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians-Kizh Nation, Juaneno Band of Mission Indians Aciachemen Nation), to access the project site on a volunteer basis to monitor grading and excavation activities. If archaeological resources are encountered, all construction work within 50 feet of the find shall cease, and the archaeologist shall assess the find for importance and whether preservation in place without impacts is feasible. Construction activities may continue in other areas. If, in consultation with the City and affected Native American tribe (as deemed necessary), the discovery is determined to not be important, work will be permitted to continue in the area. Any resource that is not Native American in origin and that cannot be preserved in place shall be curated at a public, nonprofit institution with a research interest in the materials, such as the South Central Coastal Information Center at California State University, Fullerton. Thanks, Jaime Planning Commission - February 21, 2019 Item No. 2a Additional Materials Received Newport Crossings Mixed Use Project (PA2017-107) JAIME MURILLO, AICP Community Development Department op Senior Planner ImunllocaI newportbeachca. gov 949-6443209 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 100 Civic Center Drive, First Floor Bay C. Newport Beach, California 92660 1 newoortbeachca.eov From: Andy Salas <chairman@gabrielenoindians.org> Sent: Monday, February 18, 2019 3:23 PM To: Murillo, Jaime <JMurilloC@newportbeachca.gov> Cc: Matthew Teutimez <Matthew.Teutimez@gabrielenoindians.org>; gabrielenoindians@yahoo.com; Stein, Robert <RStein@newportbeachca.gov> Subject: AB52 Consultation - Newport Crossings Mixed Use Project Mr. Murillo, I wanted to follow up with you and request a brief meeting over the phone or in person to discuss our concerns regarding your Draft EIR document for the Newport Crossings Mixed Use Project. As you may or may not be aware, this document cannot be certified until AB -52 tribal consultation has concluded. Our Tribal Government has requested consultation, as described in your EIR document, to which as of this communication has not yet occurred. We have concerns for irreparable damage to our Tribal Cultural Resources and neither the City or its consultants can bypass this component of CEQA and AB52. I will make myself available to discuss this matter with you at your earliest convenience. I thank you for your time and understanding in this matter and I look forward to our discussion. Please call my cell phone for the quickest response 626-926-4131. Sincerely, Andrew Salas, Chairman Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians - Kizh Nation PO Box 393 Covina, CA 91723 Office: 844-390-0787 Cell: (626) 926-4131 website: www.gabrielenoindians.org Planning Commission - February 21, 2019 Item No. 2a Additional Materials Received Newport Crossings Mixed Use Project (PA2017-107) From: Andrew Salas <gabrielenoindians@yahoo.com> Sent: Saturday, February 16, 2019 8:50 AM To: Murillo, Jaime; jestrada@placeworks.com Cc: Matt Teutimez.Kizh Gabrieleno; Henrypedregon; Christina Swindall Martinez. Kizh Gabrieleno Subject: Re: Newport Crossings Mixed Use Project Draft EIR - Response to Comments Dear Mr. Murillo We oppose of the language set forth in this mitigation . It does not protect our cultural resources because it is only written pertaining to the scientific perspective and does not take into account our cultural perspective or include protective measures for our cultural resources under the law AB52 SEC. 4. Section 21074 is added to the Public Resources Code, to read: 21074. (a) 'Tribal cultural resources" are either of the following: (1) Sites, features, places, cultural landscapes, sacred places, and objects with cultural value to a California Native American tribe We will provide our mitigation to protect our cultural resources Sacred Landscape Posted on September 9, 2013 by Ojibwa All humans have a cognitive map which provides them with a spatial analysis of their world, both natural and human -made. Traditionally, the cognitive maps of American Indians have been carried in the stories. Indian stories, particularly the spiritual stories and the stories of creation, focus on geography, telling what happened where and describing different places and their associations with each other. Planning Commission - February 21, 2019 Item No. 2a Additional Materials Received Newport Crossings Mixed Use Project (PA2017-107) When one knows the stories, then one has a map of the traditional tribal territory. Traditionally, this meant that a person could go someplace new and know, because of the stories, not only the route, but also the different geographic features which would be encountered on the trip. The European cultures which first encountered American Indians were accustomed to delineating sacred places with some type of structure or monument which would then be consecrated as sacred. These structures -churches, cemeteries, altars, etc. -were considered to be self-contained, that is, their sacred nature was contained within the space designated as sacred. American Indians, on the other hand, tended to be animists who viewed the world around them as a living thing. Sacred places were not created by humans. While the people would sometimes designate a sacred place with a structure of some type -a pile of stones, a circle of stones, a mound or earthwork, or a chamber -often places with great sacred power did not have any human -created indications that they were sacred. People know about these places because of the stories and the songs rather than because of the structures which they had constructed. One example of the interrelationship of sacred space, cognitive maps, and oral tradition can be seen in the Salt Trail Songs of the Nuwuvi (Southern Paiute) which describe both a physical and spiritual landscape. This includes physical features such as oceans and deserts, and spiritual features including life and death. The songs describe ancient village sites, gathering sites for medicinal plants and salt, historic events, trade routes, and sacred areas. The 142 -song cycle assists the deceased in their sacred journey. For American Indians sacred places do not exist in isolation: they are connected to other sacred places and these connections enhance the spiritual power of an area. The connections between sacred places are explained in the stories and in the songs. It is not just "places" that are spiritually connected, but also the "people" who are associated with the places: the plants, the animals, the rocks. Again, the stories, songs, and ceremonies explain the nature and meaning of these connections. Beginning in the nineteenth century, archaeologists began their scientific attempts to recreate and understand American Indian past. With regard to spiritual sites, they brought with them a European bias based in classical archaeology: they looked for sacred sites in structures created by humans and they considered these sites as self-contained, that is, not connected with other human -made or natural features in the area. The archaeologists did not know the native stories and often dismissed them as meaningless with regard to their work as archaeologists. One of the places where archaeologists have become more aware of the larger sacred landscape is in Chaco Canyon, New Mexico. There are eight major sites here -very large apartment -type complexes known as pueblos, each with several hundred rooms -which can be studied independently. However, the discovery of the ancient road system connecting the Chaco Canyon pueblos with other sites outside of the canyon shows that Chaco must be understood as a larger complex. Furthermore, the discovery that the sites in the region often have an astronomical orientation adds an additional dimension to the picture: Chaco represents a very large ritual landscape. Planning Commission - February 21, 2019 Item No. 2a Additional Materials Received Newport Crossings Mixed Use Project (PA2017-107) The astronomical orientation found at Chaco Canyon can also be seen in other sites around North America, including Woodhenge at Cahokia, Illinois, the many medicine wheels found on the northern Plains, and the stone chambers found in New England. As with Chaco Canyon, these sites may be studied alone, but they are best understood as a part of a larger spiritual and ritual landscape. Unfortunately, many of the oral traditions (stories and songs) which could provide a better explanation of these landscapes have been lost. Archaeologists, however, must pay attention to the larger landscape in order to understand the role which these sites played in the ancient world. Archaeologists must get past their Eurocentric bias regarding sacred sites and attempt to look at them through Native American and animistic eyes. "Archaeologists, however, must pay attention to the larger landscape in order to understand the role which these sites played in the ancient world. Archaeologists must get past their Eurocentric bias regarding sacred sites and attempt to look at them through Native American and animistic eyes." This was for similar language on a different project. However our legal weighed in to protect our cultural resources under the law. Good morning Chairman, Planning Commission - February 21, 2019 Item No. 2a Additional Materials Received Newport Crossings Mixed Use Project (PA2017-107) I am the person requesting that mitigation for Tribal Cultural Resources (TCRs) be separated from Archaeological resources. I am not suggesting that lead agencies MUST use the sample measures in the OPR document, but for projects where there is no tribal input, those suggested measures can provide a beginning for TCRs as distinctly different from archaeology. One of our comments on environmental documents is addressing a separate Tribal Cultural Resources section and separate mitigation measures that include tribal input under AB -52 consultation. The TCR section is the ideal place to document consultation and thoroughly analyze and address the impacts to TCRs specifically. Ideally, I can read through the mitigation and know that tribal input was incorporated into the measures. Often, lumping everything together in under Archaeology results in confusion about what impacts are being addressed and what mitigation is required. Also, the use of archaeological language (curation, data recovery) can be problematic for some tribes so we are emphasizing the differences between archaeological resources and tribal cultural resources in how mitigation is applied. I hope this clears up the reason that Mr. Keeler got the comments he did on the environmental document for his project. Sincerely, Gayle Gayle Totton, M.A., Ph.D. Associate Governmental Program Analyst Native American Heritage Commission Sacred Landscape Posted on September 9, 2013 by Ojibwa All humans have a cognitive map which provides them with a spatial analysis of their world, both natural and human -made. Traditionally, the cognitive maps of American Indians have been carried in the stories. Indian stories, particularly the spiritual stories and the stories of creation, focus on geography, telling what happened where and describing different places and their associations with each other. When one knows the stories, then one has a map of the traditional tribal territory. Traditionally, this Planning Commission - February 21, 2019 Item No. 2a Additional Materials Received Newport Crossings Mixed Use Project (PA2017-107) meant that a person could go someplace new and know, because of the stories, not only the route, but also the different geographic features which would be encountered on the trip. The European cultures which first encountered American Indians were accustomed to delineating sacred places with some type of structure or monument which would then be consecrated as sacred. These structures -churches, cemeteries, altars, etc. -were considered to be self-contained, that is, their sacred nature was contained within the space designated as sacred. American Indians, on the other hand, tended to be animists who viewed the world around them as a living thing. Sacred places were not created by humans. While the people would sometimes designate a sacred place with a structure of some type -a pile of stones, a circle of stones, a mound or earthwork, or a chamber -often places with great sacred power did not have any human -created indications that they were sacred. People know about these places because of the stories and the songs rather than because of the structures which they had constructed. One example of the interrelationship of sacred space, cognitive maps, and oral tradition can be seen in the Salt Trail Songs of the Nuwuvi (Southern Paiute) which describe both a physical and spiritual landscape. This includes physical features such as oceans and deserts, and spiritual features including life and death. The songs describe ancient village sites, gathering sites for medicinal plants and salt, historic events, trade routes, and sacred areas. The 142 -song cycle assists the deceased in their sacred journey. For American Indians sacred places do not exist in isolation: they are connected to other sacred places and these connections enhance the spiritual power of an area. The connections between sacred places are explained in the stories and in the songs. It is not just "places" that are spiritually connected, but also the "people" who are associated with the places: the plants, the animals, the rocks. Again, the stories, songs, and ceremonies explain the nature and meaning of these connections. Beginning in the nineteenth century, archaeologists began their scientific attempts to recreate and understand American Indian past. With regard to spiritual sites, they brought with them a European bias based in classical archaeology: they looked for sacred sites in structures created by humans and they considered these sites as self-contained, that is, not connected with other human -made or natural features in the area. The archaeologists did not know the native stories and often dismissed them as meaningless with regard to their work as archaeologists. One of the places where archaeologists have become more aware of the larger sacred landscape is in Chaco Canyon, New Mexico. There are eight major sites here -very large apartment -type complexes known as pueblos, each with several hundred rooms -which can be studied independently. However, the discovery of the ancient road system connecting the Chaco Canyon pueblos with other sites outside of the canyon shows that Chaco must be understood as a larger complex. Furthermore, the discovery that the sites in the region often have an astronomical orientation adds an additional dimension to the picture: Chaco represents a very large ritual landscape. Planning Commission - February 21, 2019 Item No. 2a Additional Materials Received Newport Crossings Mixed Use Project (PA2017-107) The astronomical orientation found at Chaco Canyon can also be seen in other sites around North America, including Woodhenge at Cahokia, Illinois, the many medicine wheels found on the northern Plains, and the stone chambers found in New England. As with Chaco Canyon, these sites may be studied alone, but they are best understood as a part of a larger spiritual and ritual landscape. Unfortunately, many of the oral traditions (stories and songs) which could provide a better explanation of these landscapes have been lost. Archaeologists, however, must pay attention to the larger landscape in order to understand the role which these sites played in the ancient world. Archaeologists must get past their Eurocentric bias regarding sacred sites and attempt to look at them through Native American and animistic eyes. Sent from my Whone On Feb 11, 2019, at 7:40 PM, Jorge Estrada <lestrada@placeworks.com> wrote: Dear Commenter, Pursuant to the provisions of CECW Guidelines Section 15088, attached please find the City's responses to the comments raised in your letter. Specific comments in your letter are given letters and numbers for reference purposes. Also enclosed is a table that lists the agencies and persons that submitted comment letters on the Newport Crossings Mixed Use Project Draft EIR during the public review period. The City's responses to those comment letters have been sent directly to each of the commenting agencies and persons. Finally, please note that the completed Newport Crossings Mixed Use Project Final EIR will be posted on the City's website as soon as possible and prior to the upcoming Newport Beach Planning Commission meeting scheduled for February 21, 2019. If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact Jaime Murillo, Senior Planner, at 949-644-3209 or via email at JMurillo@newportbeachca.gov. Regards, JORGE ESTRADA Senior Associate <i mage002 J pg> 3 MacArthur Place, Suite 1100 1 Santa Ana, California 92707 714.966.9220 1 jestrada@placeworks.com I placeworks.com This communication and any documents, files, or previous a -mail messages attached to it constitute an electronic communication within the scope of the Electronic Communication Privacy Act, 18 USCA 2510. This communication may Planning Commission - February 21, 2019 Item No. 2a Additional Materials Received Newport Crossings Mixed Use Project (PA2017-107) contain non-public, confidential, or legally privileged information intended for the sole use of the designated recipient(s). The unlawful interception, use or disclosure of such information is strictly prohibited under 18 USCA 2511 and any applicable laws. <RTC Transmittal_GabrielenoBandKizh.pdf> Planning Commission - February 21, 2019 Item No. 2a Additional Materials Received Newport Crossings Mixed Use Project (PA2017-107) ATTACHMENT C Revised FEIR- Response to Comments and Revisions to Draft EIR Planning Commission - February 21, 2019 Item No. 2a Additional Materials Received Newport Crossings Mixed Use Project (PA2017-107) February 2019 I Final Environmental Impact Report State Clearinghouse No. 2017101067 NEWPORT CROSSINGS MIXED USE PROJECT (PA2017-107) City of Newport Beach Prepared for: City of Newport Beach Contact: Jaime Murillo, Senior Planner 100 Civic Center Drive Newport Beach, California 92660 949.644.3209 Prepared by: PlaceWorks Contact: JoAnn C. Hadfield, Principal 3 MacArthur Place, Suite 1100 Santa Ana, California 92707 714.966.9220 info@placeworks.com www.placeworks.com 0 PLACEWORKS Planning Commission - February 21, 2019 Item No. 2a Additional Materials Received Newport Crossings Mixed Use Project (PA2017-107) Planning Commission - February 21, 2019 Item No. 2a Additional Materials Received Newport Crossings Mixed Use Project (PA2017-107) NEWPORT CROSSINGS MIXED USE PROJECT (PA2017-107) FINAL EIR CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Table of Contents Section Page 1. INTRODUCTION...........................................................................................................................1-1 1.1 INTRODUCTION.........................................................................................................................................1-1 1.2 FORMAT OF THE FEIR....... ................................... ..... .............. ........... ...... .... ........ ...... . .............. ...... ........ 1-1 1.3 CEQA REQUIREMENTS REGARDING COMMENTS AND RESPONSES................................1-2 2. RESPONSE TO COMMENTS......................................................................................................2-1 3. REVISIONS TO THE DRAFT EIR................................................................................................3-1 3.1 INTRODUCTION......................................................................................................................................... 3-1 3.2 DEIR REVISIONS IN RESPONSE TO WRITTEN COMMENTS...................................................3-1 APPENDICES Appendix A. FAA Deternrination of No Hazard to Air Navigation Appendix B. Evaluation of Key Intersections and Roadways for 2024 With Project Conditions February 2019 Page i Planning Commission - February 21, 2019 Item No. 2a Additional Materials Received Newport Crossings Mixed Use Project (PA2017-107) NEWPORT CROSSINGS MIXED USE PROJECT (PA2017-107)FINAL EIR CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Table of Contents This page fntent onplJy left blank. Page u PlaceForks Planning Commission - February 21, 2019 Item No. 2a Additional Materials Received Newport Crossings Mixed Use Project (PA2017-107) Introduction 1.1 INTRODUCTION This Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) has been prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) as amended (Public Resources Code §§ 21000 et seq.) and CEQA Guidelines (California Code of Regulations gQ 15000 et seq.). According to the CEQA Guidelines, Section 15132, the FEIR shall consist of. (a) The Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) or a revision of the Draft; (b) Comments and recommendations received on the DEIR either verbatim or in summary; (c) A list of persons, organizations, and public agencies comments on the DEIR; (d) The responses of the Lead Agency to significant environmental points raised in the review and consultation process; and (e) Any other information added by the Lead Agency. This document contains responses to comments received on the DEIR for the Newport Crossing Mixed Use Project during the public review period, which began November 30, 2015, and closed, January 14, 2019. This document has been prepared in accordance with CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines and represents the independent judgment of the Lead Agency. This document and the circulated DEIR comprise the FEIR, in accordance with CEQA Guidelines, Section 15132. 1.2 FORMAT OF THE FEIR This document is organized as follows: Section 1, Introduction. This section describes CEQA requirements and content of tl- s FEIR. Section 2, Response to Comments. This section provides a list of agencies and interested persons commenting on the DEIR; copies of comment letters received during the public review period, and individual responses to written comments. To facilitate review of the responses, each comment letter has been reproduced and assigned a number: A-1 through A-14 for letters received from agencies and organizations, and I-1 for letters a received from one individual. Individual comments have been numbered for each letter and the letter is followed by responses with references to the corresponding comment number. February 2019 Page 1-1 Planning Commission - February 21, 2019 Item No. 2a Additional Materials Received Newport Crossings Mixed Use Project (PA2017-107) NEWPORT CROSSINGS MIXED USE PROJECT (PA2017-107) FINAL EIR CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 1. Introduction Section 3. Revisions to the Draft EIR. This section contains revisions to the DEIR text and figures as a result of the comments received by agencies and interested persons as described in Section 2, and/or typographical errors and omissions discovered subsequent to release of the DEIR for public review. The responses to comments contain revisions that will be added to the text of the FEIR. City of Newport Beach staff has reviewed the revisions and determined that none of the revisions constitute significant new information that requires recirculation of the DEIR for further public comment under CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5. None of the revisions indicate that the project will result in a significant new environmental impact not previously disclosed in the DEIR. Additionally, none of this material indicates that there would be a substantial increase in the severity of a previously identified environmental impact that will not be mitigated, or that there would be any of the other circumstances requiring recirculation described in Section 15088.5. 1.3 CEQA REQUIREMENTS REGARDING COMMENTS AND RESPONSES CEQA Guidelines Section 15204 (a) outlines parameters for submitting comments, and reminds persons and public agencies that the focus of review and comment of DEIRs should be "on the sufficiency of the document in identifying and analyzing possible impacts on the environment and ways in which significant effects of the project might be avoided or mitigated. Comments are most helpful when they suggest additional specific alternatives or mitigation measures that would provide better ways to avoid or mitigate the significant environmental effects. At the same time, reviewers should be aware that the adequacy of an EIR is determined in terms of what is reasonably feasible. ...CEQA does not require a lead agency to conduct every test or perform all research, study, and experimentation recommended or demanded by commenters. When responding to comments, lead agencies need only respond to significant environmental issues and do not need to provide all information requested by reviewers, as long as a good faith effort at full disclosure is made in the EIR." CEQA Guidelines Section 15204 (c) further advises, "Reviewers should explain the basis for their comments, and should submit data or references offering facts, reasonable assumptions based on facts, or expert opinion supported by facts in support of the comments. Pursuant to Section 15064, an effect shall not be considered significant in the absence of substantial evidence." Section 15204 (d) also states, "Each responsible agency and trustee agency shall focus its comments on environmental information germane to that agency's statutory responsibility." Section 15204 (e) states, "This section shall not be used to restrict the ability of reviewers to comment on the general adequacy of a document or of the lead agency to reject comments not focused as recommended by this section." In accordance with CEQA, Public Resources Code Section 210925, copies of the written responses to public agencies will be forwarded to those agencies at least 10 days prior to certifying the environmental impact report. Page 1-2 PlaceForks Planning Commission - February 21, 2019 Item No. 2a Additional Materials Received Newport Crossings Mixed Use Project (PA2017-107) 2. Response to Comments Section 15088 of the CEQA Guidelines requires the Lead Agency (City of Newport Beach) to evaluate comments on environmental issues received from public agencies and interested parties who reviewed the DEIR and prepare written responses. This section provides all written responses received on the DEIR and the City of Newport Beach's responses to each comment. Comment letters and specific comments are given letters and numbers for reference purposes. Where sections of the DEIR are excerpted in this document, the sections are shown indented. Changes to the DEIR text are shown in underlined text for additions and s-trAeeau for deletions. The following is a list of agencies and persons that submitted comments on the DEIR during the public review period. Number Reference Commenting Person/Agency Date of Comment Page No. Agencies & Organizations Al California Cultural Resource Preservation Alliance December 3, 2018 2-3 A2 Irvine Ranch Water District December 6, 2018 2-7 A3 Orange County Fire Authority December 19, 2018 2-11 A4 Department of Toxic Substances Control January 3, 2019 2-15 A5 City of Irvine January 7, 2019 2-23 A6 The Kennedy Commission January 10, 2019 2-27 A7 Santa Ana Unified School District January 10, 2019 2-33 A8 South Coast Air Quality Management District January 11, 2019 2-39 A9 California Department of Transportation January 11, 2019 2-47 A10 Airport Land Use Commission January 14, 2019 2-51 All OC Public Works January 14, 2019 2-57 Al2 Wittwer Parkin, LLP (for Southwest Regional Council of Carpenters) January 14, 2019 2-61 A13 Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians - Kizh Nation December 17, 2018 2-89 A14 State Clearinghouse January 15, 2019 2-93 Individuals 11 Jim Masher January 14, 2019 2-105 February 2019 Page 2-1 Planning Commission - February 21, 2019 Item No. 2a Additional Materials Received Newport Crossings Mixed Use Project (PA2017-107) NEWPORT CROSSINGS MIXED USE PROJECT (PA2017-107) FINAL EIR CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 2. Response to Comments This page fntentionaIji l� blank. Page 2-2 PlaceForks Planning Commission - February 21, 2019 Item No. 2a Additional Materials Received Newport Crossings Mixed Use Project (PA2017-107) NEWPORT CROSSINGS MIXED USE PROJECT (PA2017-107) FINAL EIR CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 2. Response to Comments LETTER Al — California Cultural Resource Preservation Alliance (1 page) California Cultural Resource Preservation Alliance, Inc. P.O. Box 54132 An alliance of American Indian and scientific communities working for Irvine, CA 9 2619-413 2 the preservation of archaeological sites and other cultural resources. December 3, 2018 Jaime Murillo, Senior Planner City of Newport Beach Re: Draft Environmental Impact Report for Newport Crossings Mixed Use Project Dear Mr. Murillo: Thank you for the opportunity to review the above-mentioned Draft Environmental Impact Report. We concur with the determination that the project area is considered moderately sensitive for buried resources. Given the urban development, the mitigation measures presented in 5.4.7 that include retaining a qualified archaeologist to periodically monitor ground -disturbing activities and to a lesser extent, training project constriction workers to recognize archaeological resources seem appropriate. We also concur with the measures to be taken should cultural materials including human remains be discovered. Since the project includes a public park, there is an opportunity for preservation. Finally, we suggest that a culturally related Native American monitor also be retained to periodically monitor ground -disturbing activities. Sincerely, Patricia Martz, Ph.D. President Al -t February 2019 Page 2-9 Planning Commission - February 21, 2019 Item No. 2a Additional Materials Received Newport Crossings Mixed Use Project (PA2017-107) NEWPORT CROSSINGS MIXED USE PROJECT (PA2017-107) FINAL EIR CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 2. Response to Comments This page fntentionaIji l� blank. Page 24 PlaceForks Planning Commission - February 21, 2019 Item No. 2a Additional Materials Received Newport Crossings Mixed Use Project (PA2017-107) NEWPORT CROSSINGS MIXED USE PROJECT (PA2017-107) FINAL EIR CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 2. Response to Comments Al. Response to Comments from California Cultural Resource Preservation Alliance, Patricia Martz, President, dated December 3, 2018. Al -1 The commenter concurs with the findings, conclusions and mitigation measures outlined in Draft EIR Section 5.4, Cultural Resources. The commenter also suggests that a culturally - related Native American monitor be retained to periodically monitor ground -disturbing activities at the project site. No impacts to tribal cultural resources were identified. As described in Section 5.15, Tribal Cultural Resources, of the Draft EIR, no Native American tribes responded to the City's AB 52 consultation request or requested mitigation measures. In response to this comment, however, Mitigation Measure CUL -1 on pages 5.4-10 and 5.4-11 of Draft FIR Section 5.4 has been revised, as follows. The revision is also provided in Chapter 3, Revisions to the Draft EIA, of the Final EIR. The revision does not change the findings or conclusions of the Draft FIR. Changes made to the Draft EIR are identified here in F text to indicate deletions and in bold underlined text to signify additions. 5.4 CULTURAL RESOURCES Impact 5.4-2 CUL -1 Prior to the issuance of a grading permit by the City of Newport Beach, the project applicant shall retain a qualified archaeologist to periodically monitor ground -disturbing activities onsite and provide documentation of such retention to the City of Newport Beach Community Development Director. The archaeologist shall train project construction workers on the types of archaeological resources that could be found in site soils. The archaeologist shall periodically monitor project ground -disturbing activities. During construction activities. if Native American resources (i.e. Tribal Cultural Resources) are encountered. a Cultural Resource Monitoring and Discovery Plan (CRMDP) shall be created and implemented to lay out the proposed personnel, methods, and avoidance /recover framework for tribal cultural resources monitoring and evaluation activities within the project area. A consulting Native American tribe shall be retained and compensated as a consultant/monitor for the project site from the time of discovery to the completion of ground disturbing activities to monitor grading and excavation activities. If archaeological resources are encountered, all construction work within 50 feet of the find shall cease, and the archaeologist shall assess the find for importance and whether preservation in place without impacts is feasible. Construction activities may continue in other areas. If, in consultation with the City and affected Native American tribe (as deemed necessary), the discovery is determined to not be important, work will be permitted to February 2019 Page 2-5 NEWPORT CROSSINGS MIXED USE PROJECT (PA2017-107) FINAL EIR CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 2. Response to Comments Planning Commission - February 21, 2019 Item No. 2a Additional Materials Received Newport Crossings Mixed Use Project (PA2017-107) continue in the area. Any resource that is not Native American in origin and that cannot be preserved in place shall be curated at a public, nonprofit institution with a research interest in the materials, such as the South Central Coastal Information Center at California State University, Fullerton. Page 2-6 Place Forks Planning Commission - February 21, 2019 Item No. 2a Additional Materials Received Newport Crossings Mixed Use Project (PA2017-107) NEWPORT CROSSINGS MIXED USE PROJECT (PA2017-107) FINAL EIR CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 2. Response to Comments LETTER A2 — Irvine Ranch Water District (1 page]) KC1 Irvine Ranch "gOEIVED ar COMMUNITY uF:VFLOPMENT December 6, 2018 DEC 10 2018 Jaime Murillo, Senior Planner 61TY OF City of Newport Beach Community Development Department *-,WORT aeF'e 100 Civic Center Drive Newport Beach, CA 92660 Re: Notice of Availability —Newport Crossings Mixed Use Project EIR Dear Jaime Murillo: Irvine Ranch Water District (IRWD) has reviewed the Notice of Availability (NCA) for the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the Newport Crossings Mixed Use Project, located in Newport Beach. IRWD wishes to reiterate the comments indicated in our November 17, 2017, comment letter 12-1 towards the project's Notice of Preparation (NOP). IRWD understands that this project should have no impacts to IRWD since the project is outside IRWD's service area. If this is not correct or if there are any future changes to the project which could impact IRWD's facilities, Newport Beach is required to notify IRWD. IRWD appreciates the opportunity to review the NOP for the Newport Crossings Mixed Use Project EIR. If you have any questions, please contact the undersigned or Jo Ann Corey, Environmental Compliance Specialist at (949) 453-5326. Fiona M. Sanchez Director of Water Resources cc: Jo Ann Corey, IRWD IMA. Ri9EI1 Wats W.Wlt • 15800 Sand Cancan A... IMnA CA 92618 • MMIN Addeo: P.O. B. 57000. Wim, CA 92819-0000 - 949.953-5300. www.VWtl.com February 2019 Page 2-7 Planning Commission - February 21, 2019 Item No. 2a Additional Materials Received Newport Crossings Mixed Use Project (PA2017-107) NEWPORT CROSSINGS MIXED USE PROJECT (PA2017-107) FINAL EIR CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 2. Response to Comments This page fntentionaIji l� blank. Page 2-8 PlaceForks Planning Commission - February 21, 2019 Item No. 2a Additional Materials Received Newport Crossings Mixed Use Project (PA2017-107) NEWPORT CROSSINGS MIXED USE PROJECT (PA2017-107) FINAL EIR CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 2. Response to Comments A2. Response to Comments Irvine Ranch Water District, Fiona. M. Sanchez, Director of Water Resources, dated December 6, 2018. A2-1 The commenter noted that the project site is outside of the Irvine Ranch Water District's ( RWD) service area and, as such, the project would not impact IRWD. As confirmed in Draft EIR Section 5.16, Utilities and Service Systems, the City of Newport Beach Water Services, and not IRWD, provides water to the project site. February 2019 Page 2-9 Planning Commission - February 21, 2019 Item No. 2a Additional Materials Received Newport Crossings Mixed Use Project (PA2017-107) NEWPORT CROSSINGS MIXED USE PROJECT (PA2017-107) FINAL EIR CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 2. Response to Comments This page fntentionaIji l� blank. Page 2-10 PlaceForks Planning Commission - February 21, 2019 Item No. 2a Additional Materials Received Newport Crossings Mixed Use Project (PA2017-107) NEWPORT CROSSINGS MIXED USE PROJECT (PA2017-107) FINAL EIR CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 2. Response to Comments LETTER A3— Orange County Fire Authority (1 page) JoAnn Hadfield From: Murillo, Jaime <JMurillo@newportbeachca.gov> Sent: Wednesday, December 19, 2018 9.30 AM To: Jorge Estrada; JoAnn Hadfield Subject: FW: Notice of Availability Newport Crossings Mixed Use Project From: Rivers, Tamy <TamyRivers@ocfa.org> Sent: Wednesday, December 19, 2018 9:04 AM To: Murillo, Jaime <JMurillo@newportbeachca.gov> Subject: Notice of Availability Newport Crossings Mixed Use Project Thank you for the opportunity to review subject document. Orange County Fire Authority has no comments regarding IA3.1 this project. Have a great day. *r" Tamers Rivers Management Analyst X Orange County Fire Authority Office: 714-573-6199 tamvrivers@ocfa.org We visualize problems and solutions through the eyes of those we serve. February 2019 Page 2-11 Planning Commission - February 21, 2019 Item No. 2a Additional Materials Received Newport Crossings Mixed Use Project (PA2017-107) NEWPORT CROSSINGS MIXED USE PROJECT (PA2017-107) FINAL EIR CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 2. Response to Comments This page fntentionaIji l� blank. Page 2-12 PlaceForks Planning Commission - February 21, 2019 Item No. 2a Additional Materials Received Newport Crossings Mixed Use Project (PA2017-107) NEWPORT CROSSINGS MIXED USE PROJECT (PA2017-107) FINAL EIR CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 2. Response to Comments A3. Response to Comments from Orange County Fire Authority, Tamera Rivers, Management Analyst, dated December 19, 2019. A3-1 The comment does not concern the content or adequacy of the Draft FIR. The comment is acknowledged. February 2019 Page 2-13 Planning Commission - February 21, 2019 Item No. 2a Additional Materials Received Newport Crossings Mixed Use Project (PA2017-107) NEWPORT CROSSINGS MIXED USE PROJECT (PA2017-107) FINAL EIR CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 2. Response to Comments This page fntentionaIji l� blank. Page 2-14 PlaceForks Planning Commission - February 21, 2019 Item No. 2a Additional Materials Received Newport Crossings Mixed Use Project (PA2017-107) NEWPORT CROSSINGS MIXED USE PROJECT (PA2017-107) FINAL EIR CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH LETTER A4 — Department of Toxic Substances Control (4 pages) 0 MMfhm RoOrlgm Seaebry for EnWrommenral Prate . January 3, 2019 2. Response to Comments ir Department of Toxic Substances Control Barbara A. Lee, Director 5796 Corporate Avenue Cypress, California 90630 Mr. James Murillo Senior Planner City of Newport Beach Community Development Department 100 Civic Center Drive Newport Beach, California 92660 JMurillo annewoortbeachca.cov I I Erlmuntl G. Brown Jr. Govemor DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT, NEWPORT CROSSING MIXED USE PROJECT (PA 2017-107), NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA STATE CLEARINGHOUSE #2017101067 Dear Mr. Murillo: The Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) reviewed the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) received from the City of Newport Beach (City) as lead agency, dated November 2018, for the Newport Crossing Mixed Use Project (Project), located in Newport Beach, California. The Project proposal is to demolish an existing 5.69 -acre -shopping center known as MacArthur Square to build a multistory building that would house 350 apartment units, 2,000 square feet of "casual -dining" restaurant space, 5,500 square feet of retail space, and a 0.5 -acre public park. The site was fonnerty used as an agricultural land from 1938 to 1963 and developed to a commercial use in phases from the early 1970s through the 1980s. Two dry cleaners operated formerly onsite: (1) Green Hanger Cleaners reportedly operated at 4250 Scott Drive from 2002 through 2015 and (2) Enjay Cleaners, operated onsite at 1701 Corinthian Way, Suite H from 1984 to 1997. In addition, the east adjoining 4341 McArthur Boulevard building contains a dry cleaner tenant which has been in operation since 1996. Chlorinated solvent was used by the former Enjay Cleaners and petroleum-based solvents were used by Green Hanger. A4-1 A4-2 February 2019 Page 2-15 Planning Commission - February 21, 2019 Item No. 2a Additional Materials Received Newport Crossings Mixed Use Project (PA2017-107) NEWPORT CROSSINGS MIXED USE PROJECT (PA2017-107) FINAL EIR CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 2. Response to Comments Mr. James Murillo January 3, 2019 Page 2 Former investigations along the project site boundary detected perchloroethylene (PCE) in the sub slab at concentrations exceeding acceptable residential regulatory levels using the California Human Health Hazard Screening Level (CHHSL) of 0.48 microgram A4.2 per liter(pgll) for residential land use. PCE was also detected at concentrations above wnfd the residential screening levels. As a result, the Project includes a proposal for a passive ventilation system as a vapor intrusion mitigation measure (MM HAZ-1) in the DEIR for Impact 5.7-2. DTSC recommends that mitigation measures for Impact 5.7-2 should also include further investigation, human health risk assessment, and remediation including a land A4-3 use covenant and monitoring to ensure this mitigation will be protective of public health in perpetuity. DTSC comments are listed below. 1. Soil Vapor Sampling and testing: 2013, Page 5.7-8. A typographical error was noted for CHHSL which stands for California Human Health Screening Level, not A44 California Health Hazard Screening Levels as stated on this page. 2. Soil and Soil Vapor Sampling and Testing: 2017, Page 5.7-9 and Onsite Soil and Soil Vapor Testing Results, Page 5.7-18. Both sections conclude that the detections of PCE were likely associated with regional groundwater impacts because higher concentration of PCE in soil gas was detected at 15 feet below ground surface (bgs) compared with concentrations at 5 feet bgs. This conclusion may be inadequate as PCE may have migrated vertically over time. Based on Appendix F3 (Phase II Investigation Report, dated April 22, 2013), soil vapor samples were not collected beneath the former Enjay Cleaners but along the project site boundary. In addition, the Site was used for agricultural land from 1938 to 1963. Appendix F1 (Phase I Environmental Site Assessment) does not consider historical agricultural use as a recognizable environmental condition due to the site redevelopment. DTSC recommends that agricultural related chemicals, organochlorine pesticides (OCP), be considered as potential chemicals of concern as the OCPs may have been spread across the site. There is no information regarding whether during development of the commercial shopping center, the shallow soils were removed for offsite disposal or reused onsite. If reused onsite, historical contamination may have been distributed in these areas. Soil investigation is needed to determine whether the soil beneath the project site was impacted by the former use of OCPs. In conclusion, the sources of the potential releases and potential chemicals of concern were not properly identified and investigated at the project site. There is no sufficient investigation data to demonstrate that the VOC detected in soil vapor samples are associated with the groundwater impacts. Further soil, soil vapor and groundwater investigations are recommended for the project site. A4-5 Page 2-16 Place Forks Planning Commission - February 21, 2019 Item No. 2a Additional Materials Received Newport Crossings Mixed Use Project (PA2017-107) NEWPORT CROSSINGS MIXED USE PROJECT (PA2017-107) FINAL EIR CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 2. Response to Comments Mr. James Murillo January 3, 2019 Page 3 DTSC recommends the soil gas investigations be conducted in accordance with DTSC Advisory -Active Soil Gas Investigation (hftps://www.dtsc.ca.aov/SiteCleanup/ul)loadNi ActiveSoilGasAdvisory FINAL p A4-5 df) and Final Guidance for Evaluation and Mitigation of Subsurface Vapor coned Intrusion to Indoor Air (https://www.dtsc.ca.gov/AssessingRisk/upload/Final VIG Oct 2011.pd 3. Human Health Risk Assessment 2017, Page 5.7-9. Based on the Appendix F3a, only soil vapor samples at 5 feet bgs were used for human health risk assessment. The human health risk assessment should include soil gas samples taken at 15 feet bgs. Groundwater should also be considered in the human health risk assessment if it is impacted by PCE. Risk to human health should be re -assessed after the extent of soil gas and groundwater contamination is fully defined. This assessment will then be used to design the vapor mitigation system and associated monitoring program. DTSC recommends the multi -media human health risk assessment be conducted in accordance with the Preliminary Endangerment Assessment Guidance Manual, section 2.5 (https://www.dtsc.ca.gov/PublicationsForms/upload/PEA Guidance Manual pdfl and Human Health Risk Assessment (HHRA) Note 4 (https://www. dtsc. ca.aov/AssessingRisk/upload/NOTE-4-H HRA -Number -4 - October -2016 -revision -2016 -10 -26 -FI NAL-2.pdf) A4-6 4. Section 5.7.3.1 Regulatory Requirements, Page 5.7.15. RR HAZ-1 addresses the transportation of any project -related hazardous materials and hazardous A4 7 waste. Please note that transportation of hazardous waste should also be transported in accordance with California Code of Regulations, title 22, division 4.5, chapter 13. 5. Section 5.7.7 Mitigation Measures, Page 5.7-21. MM HAZA requires a passive ventilation system for the proposed project. Please note that a land use covenant and long-term monitoring is required because the site was not remediated to meet the residential land use. In addition, confirmation sampling (e.g., indoor sampling or sub -slab sampling) is recommended after the installation of a vapor mitigation measure to verify the effectiveness of the mitigation measure. DTSC recommends any vapor intrusion mitigation be implemented in accordance with DTSC Vapor Intrusion Mitigation Advisory (https://www.dtsc.ca.gov/SiteCleanuo/uploadNIMA Final Oct 20111 odf). A4-8 6. Any further investigation, human health risk assessment, vapor intrusion mitigation measures and remediation should be overseen by a regulatory agency with jurisdiction to oversee hazardous substance cleanup. Due to the potential of A4-9 vapor intrusion into residential properties, DTSC's oversight is recommended. A request for DTSC's oversight can be found at: February 2019 Page 2-17 Planning Commission - February 21, 2019 Item No. 2a Additional Materials Received Newport Crossings Mixed Use Project (PA2017-107) NEWPORT CROSSINGS MIXED USE PROJECT (PA2017-107) FINAL EIR CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 2. Response to Comments Mr. James Murillo January 3, 2019 Page 4 https•//www dtsc ca gov/SiteCleanuo/Brownfields/voluntary-agreements I AA -9 guide. cfm (click on "Request for lead Agency Oversight Application"). coned DTSC looks forward to a conference call or a meeting to discuss further DTSC's concerns regarding this project. Should you have any questions regarding this letter, please contact me at (714) 484-5392 or e-mail chiarin.ven(a)dtsc.ca.gov. Sincerely, Chia Rin Yen Environmental Scientist Brownfields Restoration and School Evaluation Branch Site Mitigation and Restoration Program ara/cy/yg cc: Govemor's Office of Planning and Research (via e-mail) State Clearinghouse P.O. Box 3044 Sacramento, California 95812-3044 State.clearinghouse(Moor.ca gov Mr. Dave Kereazis (via e-mail) Office of Planning & Environmental Analysis Department of Toxic Substances Control dave. kereazis(&dtsc. ca. gov Ms. Yolanda M. Garza (via e-mail) Brownfields Restoration and School Evaluation Branch Site Mitigation and Restoration Program yoIanda.garza(d)dtsc.Oa. gov Page 2-18 Place Forks Planning Commission - February 21, 2019 Item No. 2a Additional Materials Received Newport Crossings Mixed Use Project (PA2017-107) NEWPORT CROSSINGS MIXED USE PROJECT (PA2017-107) FINAL EIR CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 2. Response to Comments A4. Response to Comments from Department of Toxic Substances Control, Chia Rin Yen, Environmental Scientist, dated January 3, 2019. A4-1 The comment does not concern the content or adequacy of the Draft EIR. The Department of Toxic Substances Control's (DTSC) summary of the project description is acknowledged. A4-2 The comment does not concern the content or adequacy of the Draft EIR DTSC summary of the project site history and site investigations and findings is acknowledged. A4-3 Responses to the individual comments raised by DTSC's are provided herein. A4-4 The typographical error under the Soil Vapor Sampling and Testing: 2013 discussion on page 5.7-8 of Draft EIR Section 5.7, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, has been revised, as follows. The revisions are also provided in Chapter 3, Revisions to the Draft EM of the Final EIR. Changes made to the Draft EIR are identified here in strikeaut text to indicate deletions and in bold underlined text to signify additions. Soil Vapor Sampling and Testing., 2013 The 2013 Phase II investigation included three subslab soil -vapor samples collected from directly beneath the slab below the former dry cleaner at 4250 Scott Drive. In addition, seven subsurface soil vapor samples were collected from the property perimeter at depths of 5 feet bgs. The PCE concentration in one of the three subslab samples was 0.73 jug/L (that is, 0.73 part per billion), above the California Health 1laimrd Health Screening Level (CHHSL) of 0.48 jug/L for residential land use; concentrations in the other two samples were below the CHHSL. The location this sample was taken from is shown in Figure 5.7- 1, Soil and Sail Vapor Sampling Locations. Soil vapor samples from two of the seven locations sampled on the site perimeter yielded PCE concentrations of 1.5 and 1.4 jug/L, respectively, also above the CHHSL for residential use. One location is on the northwest site boundary, and the other is on the northern part of the eastern site boundary (see Figure 5.7-1). The concentrations of PCE detected indicated groundwater contamination may be present A4-5 DTSC is recommending the following additional studies and analysis be conducted for the project site: • Soil vapor samples be collected from beneath the former Enjay Cleaners. • Additional soli samples be collected site -wide for analysis of OCPs. Additional soil vapor samples be collected in accordance with DTSC Advisory for Active Soil Gas Investigation and DTSC Final Guidance for Evaluation and Mitigation of Subsurface Vapor Intrusion to Indoor Air. February 2019 Page 2-19 Planning Commission - February 21, 2019 Item No. 2a Additional Materials Received Newport Crossings Mixed Use Project (PA2017-107) NEWPORT CROSSINGS MIXED USE PROJECT (PA2017-107) FINAL EIR CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 2. Response to Comments • Groundwater samples be collected to show that PCE in deeper soil gas is associated with regional groundwater impacts. Following are response to the additional studies and analysis requested by DTSQ DTSC's statement that "based on Appendix F3 (Phase II Investigation Report, dated April 22, 2013), soil vapor samples were not collected beneath the former Enjay Cleaners but along the project site boundary" is not accurate as the report does present results for three sub -slab samples that were collected from beneath the former Enjay Cleaners. These soil vapor sample results were at low levels and are not indicative of a release to soil having occurred. In order to confirm that a release did not occur, soil samples from the beneath the former Enjay Cleaners should be collected after demolition of the existing structures in that area. • Because much of Orange County was used in the past for agricultural land, residual pesticides can often be detected at low concentrations in near -surface soil. The City agrees with the conclusion of the Phase I report that redevelopment of the site has likely further reduced these concentrations. However, because a public park is planned and the DTSC will be concerned with dermal contact, it may be prudent to collect surface (or near -surface) soil samples from the proposed park area to document the absence of, or presence of, low concentrations of residual pesticides. The area of the Project planned for the public park is currently under asphalt or existing buildings. Sample collection for analysis of OCPs would be completed in the area where the park will be constructed after demolition of the existing structures. Based on our experience sampling similar sites for residual OCPs, iris likely that concentrations will be below levels of concern or at levels that do not pose significant human health risks to future site development. In the unlikely event that OCPs are discovered and are determined to be RCRA hazardous waste or California -only hazardous waste, affected soils will be removed consistent with State protocols. PCE in soil gas appears to be a result of downward migration of vapors. This is supported by two facts: (1) soil vapors are lowest in the sub -slab vapor and the highest in the deeper soil gas samples collected at 15 feet bgs (groundwater may be encountered at approximately 20 feet bgs); and (2) there were no detections of PCE in any soil samples collected from the soil vapor sample locations. The average PCE concentration in soil vapor at 15 feet bgs is less than 3 µg/I. For PCE, soil gas levels may not become a threat to impact groundwater until they exceed 100 µg/I.1 To verify this, AECOM back -calculated the equilibrium concentration (Ceq) expected after 5 years for a GW concentration of 5 µg/L of PCE (MCL). The Ceq would be 1 Sources: https://iavi.r6.org/attachmmts/Resources/Hum=-- _Soil_Gas_Sampling_Methods_and_Approaches_ for VI_ Assessments.pdf and file:///C:/Users/jestrada/AppData/Local/Microsoft/ Windows/INetCache/Contmt.outlook/S84OZORA/The°/u2ODownward a/ 2OMigration%2Oof%20Vapors.htm. Page 2-20 PlacelFarks Planning Commission - February 21, 2019 Item No. 2a Additional Materials Received Newport Crossings Mixed Use Project (PA2017-107) NEWPORT CROSSINGS MIXED USE PROJECT (PA2017-107) FINAL EIR CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 2. Response to Comments approximately 180 µg/L. Multiplying by the dimensionless Henry's Law Constant for PCE (0.754) gives a corresponding soil gas concentration of approximately 135 lug/L. This supports the statement that for PCE, soil gas levels may not become a threat to impact groundwater until they exceed 100 µg/L. For the project site, the greatest soil vapor concentration of PCE was 4.4 lag/L (and was fairly near groundwater). Dividing by Henry's Law Constant for PCE (0.754) gives a Ceq of less than 6 µg/L and an expected PCE concentration in groundwater of less than 0.2 Iug/L after 5 years. If contact time with groundwater is less than 5 years, which is more typical, the expected PCE concentration in groundwater at this Site would be less than 0.01 jug/L. Collection of groundwater samples to show that PCE in deeper soil gas is associated with regional groundwater impacts is not warranted because the planned passive ventilation system will be installed to mitigate vapors already detected. A4-6 In response to this comment, PCE in soil gas is more likely a result of downward migration of vapors and not associated with regional groundwater impacts. Any increase in the estimated cancer risk for the residential land use scenario shown by further soil vapor samples would be reduced through the passive ventilation system. It is anticipated that these results will not significantly affect the current design of the planned vapor mitigation system, as required by Mitigation Measures HAZ-1. A4-7 In response to the commenter, the text for regulatory requirement RR HAZ-1 on pages 5.7-15 and 5-7-16 of Draft FIR Section 5.7, Hazards and Ha.Zardous Materials, has been revised, as follows. The revisions are also provided in Chapter 3, Revisions to the Draft EIR, of the Final EIR. Changes made to the Draft EIR are identified here in strikpeii# ext to indicate deletions and in bold underlined text to signify additions. RR HAZ-2 Any project -related hazardous waste generation, transportation, treatment, storage, and disposal will be conducted in compliance with the Subtitle C of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Part 263), including the management of nonhazardous solid wastes and underground tanks storing petroleum and other hazardous substances. The proposed project will be designed and constructed in accordance with the regulations of the Grange County Environmental Health Department, which serves as the designated Certified Unified Program Agency and which implements state and federal regulations for the following programs: (1) Hazardous Waste Generator Program, (2) Hazardous Materials Release Response Plans and Inventory Program, (3) California Accidental Release Prevention, (4) Aboveground Storage Tank Program, and (5) Underground Storage Tank Program. Transportation of hazardous waste will also be transported in accordance with California Code of Regulations. Title 22, Division 4.5. Chapter 13. February 2019 Page 2-21 Planning Commission - February 21, 2019 Item No. 2a Additional Materials Received Newport Crossings Mixed Use Project (PA2017-107) NEWPORT CROSSINGS MIXED USE PROJECT (PA2017-107) FINAL EIR CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 2. Response to Comments A4-8 After demolition of existing structures, additional soil and soil gas sampling in the area of the former Enjay Cleaners may be warranted to determine if concentrations are decreasing, limited in extent, and in soil or soil gas or both. With limited soil removal and/or soil vapor extraction, levels which are suitable for unrestricted use of the land could be achieved and a land use covenant would not be required. If the vapor mitigation measure is implemented in accordance with DTSC Vapor Intrusion Mitigation Advisory, an operation and maintenance (O&M) plan should be prepared and include general guidelines for monitoring, including establishing baseline conditions and number and frequency of monitoring events necessary to meet the performance goals and measures. A4-9 In response to the commenter, the following mitigation measure has been added to further reduce the significant impact already identified under Impact Statement 5.7-2, of Draft FIR Section 5.7, Hazards and Haardous Materials. Subsection 5.7.7, Mitigation Measures, of Section 5.7 has been revised, as follows. The revisions are also provided in Chapter 3, Revisions to the Draft EIA, of the Final EIR. The additional mitigation measure does not change the findings, conclusions, or recommendations of the Draft EIR and does not result in the identification of any new or increased significant impacts. Also, the revisions do not constitute the type of significant new information that requires recirculation of the Draft EIR for further public comment under CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5. Changes made to the Draft EIR are identified here in -tea text to indicate deletions and in bold underlined text to signift- additions. 5.7.7 Mitigation Measures Impact 5.7-2 MM RAZ -2 Prior to issuance of the first buildingl2ermit. soil and soil vapor samples shall be collected from beneath the former Emla � Cleaners and soil samples shall be collected from beneath the proposed 0.5 -acre public park site and tested for Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC) and Organochlorine Pesticides (OCP), respectivel), The results shall be submitted to the Orange Count; Health Care Agency and Cit; Building Official. In the event that soil concentrations exceed site-specific cleanup goals, affected soils shall be removed and properly treated/disposed of. Should soil vapor concentrations exceed site-specific cleanQ goals, short-term soil vapor extraction and treatment shall be performed to reduce soil vapor concentrations. Institutional controls will be required if the soil and soil gas cannot achieve the cleanup goals for residential land use, and/or vapor mitigation measure eg.. passive ventilation system) are implemented to protect the future building receptors. Page 2-22 PlaceForks LETTER A5 — City of Irvine (2 pages) OF r4 Planning Commission - February 21, 2019 Item No. 2a Additional Materials Received Newport Crossings Mixed Use Project (PA2017-107) NEWPORT CROSSINGS MIXED USE PROJECT (PA2017-107) FINAL EIR CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Community Development 2. Response to Comments cltyoflNlne.org I Civic Center Plaza. Irvine. CA 92606-5208 949-724-6000 January 7, 2019 Mr. Jamie Murillo City of Newport Beach Community Development Department 100 Civic Center Drive Newport Beach, CA 92660 Subject: Draft Environmental Impact Report (PA2017-107) for the Newport Crossings Mixed Use Project located in the City of Newport Beach Dear Mr. Murillo: Staff reviewed the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the Newport Crossings Mixed Use project in the City of Newport Beach. The project site is within the Newport Place Planned Community of the Airport Area, and bounded by Corinthian Way to the northeast, Martingale Way to the east, Scott Drive to the northwest, and Dove Street to the southwest. The proposed project involves demolishing an approximately 58,277 A5-1 square -foot shopping center to develop a mixed use site consisting of 350 residential units, 2,000 square feet of casual dining restaurant space, 5,500 square feet of commercial space, and a 0.5 -acre public park. Staff completed its review and offers the following comments on the project: 1. The City recommends including the following study area intersections: • Jamboree/1-405 ramps A5-2 • Jamboree/Michelson • Jamboree/Dupont Additionally, the arterial segments should include City of Irvine roadways that are bounded by 1-405 to the north, MacArthur to the west, and Jamboree to the east. 2. On Page 5.14-4, under the City of Irvine section, discuss how a significant impact also occurs when the proposed project causes the study area intersection to A5-3 operate from an acceptable level of service to an unacceptable level of service. February 2019 Page 2-29 Planning Commission - February 21, 2019 Item No. 2a Additional Materials Received Newport Crossings Mixed Use Project (PA2017-107) NEWPORT CROSSINGS MIXED USE PROJECT (PA2017-107) FINAL EIR CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 2. Response to Comments Mr. Jamie Murillo January 7, 2019 Page 2 If you have any questions, you may contact me at 949-7246364 or at jequina@cityofirvine.org. Sincerely, Jus i Equina A ociate Planner cc: Kerwin Lau, Manager of Planning Services Bill Jacobs, Principal Planner Lisa Thai, Supervising Transportation Analyst Page 2-24 Place Forks Planning Commission - February 21, 2019 Item No. 2a Additional Materials Received Newport Crossings Mixed Use Project (PA2017-107) NEWPORT CROSSINGS MIXED USE PROJECT (PA2017-107) FINAL EIR CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 2. Response to Comments A5. Response to Comments from City of Irvine, Justin Equina, Associate Planner, dated January 7, 2019. A5-1 The comment does not concern the content or adequacy of the Draft FIR. The comment is acknowledged. A5-2 The commenter requested that three additional intersections, beyond those analyzed in the Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) prepared for the proposed project, be analyzed, and that the arterial segments include certain City of Irvine roadways. The TIA, which is included as Draft EIR Appendix J, includes the relevant study area intersections in Irvine. As noted in the Study Area subsection/discussion of the TIA (see page J-9), the study area locations were selected in consultation with the City of Irvine. The project's trip distribution, as presented in the TIA, shows nominal AM and PM peakhourproject- related traffic on the intersections and segments along Jamboree Road in Irvine that were not analyzed, including those requested by the commenter. Approximately five percent of the project's total traffic would travel on Jamboree Road north of Dupont Drive, which is approximately 6 AM peak -hour trips (5 northbound and 1 southbound), 4 PM peak - hour trips (2 northbound and 2 southbound), and 54 daily trips. Furthermore, the project's traffic volume contribution is less than 0.001 of the peak -hour lane capacity and daily segment capacity of Jamboree Road. As such, the project would not significantly impact the intersections of Jamboree Road/Dupont Drive, Jamboree Road/Michelson Drive, and Jamboree Road/I-405 ramps, or the Jamboree Road segment north of Dupont Drive. In addition, the project is not anticipated to add vehicles to Dupont Drive or Michelson Drive. Based on the preceding, the project study area is not required to be expanded to include additional Irvine intersections or segments. A5-3 In response to the commenter, the text on page 5.14-4 of Dtaft EIR Section 5.14, Transportation and Traffic, has been revised, as follows. The revisions are also provided in Chapter 3, Revisions to the Draft EIR, of the Final EIR. The text revisions do not change the findings, conclusions, or recommendations of the TIA or Draft EIR and do not result in the identification of any new or increased significant impacts. Changes made to the Draft FIR are identified here in ^"0am�aceePtext to indicate deletions and in bold underlined text to signify additions. 5.14 TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC City of /(vine In Irvine, LOS E (peak hour ICU less than or equal to 1.00) is considered acceptable in the Irvine Business Complex (IBC) intersections. At other study area intersections in Irvine, LOS D (peak hour ICU less than or equal to 0.90) is acceptable. At lvvifle February 2019 Page 2-25 Planning Commission - February 21, 2019 Item No. 2a Additional Materials Received Newport Crossings Mixed Use Project (PA2O17-107) NEWPORT CROSSINGS MIXED USE PROJECT (PA2017-107) FINAL EIR CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 2. Response to Comments an aeeeptable level of serviee or to tie projeet At Irvine intersections and, if project traffic causes the study area intersection level of service to drop from acceptable to unacceptable level of service, mitigation is required, where feasible, to bring the intersection back to an acceptable level of service or to no project conditions. Also, if the intersection would operate at unacceptable level of service and the project contribution is 0.02 or greater, mitigation is required, where feasible, to bring intersection back to an acceptable level of service or to no project conditions. Page 2-26 Place Forks Planning Commission - February 21, 2019 Item No. 2a Additional Materials Received Newport Crossings Mixed Use Project (PA2017-107) NEWPORT CROSSINGS MIXED USE PROJECT (PA2017-107) FINAL EIR CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH LETTER A6 — The Kennedy Commission (3 pages) January 10, 2019 Mr. Jaime Murillo, Senior Planner City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, CA 92658-8915 2. Response to Comments ,o.Aenncd>cannni...... a, 17701 Coven Ave- Suite 200 Irvine, CA W614 9!97500909 Fag 9692630647 RE: Newport Crossings Mixed -Use Development Draft Environmental Impact Report Dear Mr. Murillo: The Kennedy Commission (the Commission) is a coalition of residents and community organizations that advocates for the production of homes affordable for families earning less than $20,000 annually in Orange County. Formed in 2001, the Commission has been successful in partnering with Orange County jurisdictions to create effective housing policies that have led to the new construction of homes affordable to lower income working families. As the City considers how to effectively address the housing needs for all income segments of the community, the Commission urges the City to support and approve the proposed Newport Crossings Mixed -Use development that will set aside 78 units to lower income working households. The Commission supports planning efforts in developing new homes that provide a community benefit, such as affordable homes to lower income working families. The proposed Newport Crossing Mixed -Use development will not only provide quality and affordable homes for the City's work force, but it will also build and contribute to a more economically competitive and opportunity rich community. In addition, locating homes such as affordable homes nearjob centers (i.e. John Wayne airport and corporate offices), mass transit and neighborhood amenities will create a more walkable, healthier and sustainable Newport Beach. Affordability for Lower Income Households To address the City's existing and projected housing needs, Newport Place Planned Community was amended in 2012 to facilitate the development of affordable homes in the City. A residential development overlay was established to allow residential developments that set-aside 30 percent of units affordable to lower-income households.' It has been over five years since the amendment and the proposed Newport Crossings Mixed -Use development could be the fust development implemented in the Newport Place Planned Community Residential Overlay. The City should take this golden opportunity and move forward with the proposed Newport Place project to ensure the implementation of the residential overlay will be successful and come to fruition. In addition, the Newport Crossings proposed development was identified in the City's 2014-2021 Housing Element as a housing opportunity site (Site Is, lb, lc and id) in Area 9 - Airport Area.' Cie or No" No Beach Cenral Plan Housing ElecamL p. S.W. Saptem6er2013. `L A of Nc,,u Beach General Plan Hnasing Ekmenl, p. 5-222 Seplamber 2013. A6-1 A6.2 February 2019 Page 2-27 Planning Commission - February 21, 2019 Item No. 2a Additional Materials Received Newport Crossings Mixed Use Project (PA2017-107) NEWPORT CROSSINGS MIXED USE PROJECT (PA2017-107) FINAL EIR CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 2. Response to Comments Mr. Jaime Murillo January 10, 2019 Page 2 of 3 Ranked among the top ten least affordable metropolitan areas in the country', Orange County is suffering from an affordable housing crisis. A resident must earn at least $36.08 per hour to afford a two-bedroom apartment at a fair market rent of $1,876 a month.' Over the past seven years, Orange County renters have paid an average of $355 mom a month and rents are projected to continually rise.' During 2000 to 2015, Orange County's inflation-adjusted median rent increased by 28 percent while the median renter income decreased by 9 percent.6 The impact of this crisis is dire. Many Orange County renters are rent burdened where they spend more than 30% of their income towards housing costs. Struggling to make ends meet, many households take on more jobs or live in overcrowded substandard households. With high rents, low vacancy rates and an increasing number of residents needing affordable homes, the supply of affordable homes being built for lower income households has also not kept up with the demand. An additional 92,738 affordable rental homes are needed to address Orange County's housing needs for lower income renters.' Compared to other cities in Orange County, housing costs are significantly higher and out -of - reach for many working households in Newport Beach. Ranked second for Southern California's most expensive city for renters, Newport Beach's average two-bedroom asking rent was $2,760 a month.' With the serious lack of affordable home and with wages that are not keeping up with rising rent, many working families, especially those who am lower wages, struggle financially to work and live in Newport Beach. In Newport Beach, tourism is one of the City's leading industries and it generates substantial revenue and jobs for the City. Of the top 12 principal employers in the City, four provide leisure and hospitality Services; however, jobs related to leisure and hospitality services, restaurants and retail that greatly contributes to the City's tourism market typically offers lower wages. The average salary for occupations in the tourism market is approximately less than $30,000 a year10, which is not enough to rent an apartment home in the City without overpaying and being rent burdened. Affordable Homes Decreases Environmental Impacts A6-2 confd With high housing costs and significant lack of affordable homes, many workers and families, A6-3 especially those who earn lower wages, struggle financially to live in the city they work in. These impacts not only hurt workers and families but may also impact the city's economic competitiveness and attractiveness to major employers to provide jobs. Locating homes, ow or Reach 2018-1rhe High Cost of Housing, National Low Income Housing Coalition, p.ld, 2018. ' chat of Reach 2018- Thc High Cov ofHausing. National Low Income Housing Coalition, p38.2018. ' Southtm Califomims Scrimp to Got By As Average Rrnb Hit $1,900, Omngc County Register. Febmary 15, 2018. ' Colifomia Rents Have Risco m Some of me Nmion's Highest Here's How that Impacts Residents, Orange County Regislar ebrum 15.2018. ' Omnge County's Housing Emergency and Proposed Solwinna, Califomia Housing Partnership Corfmasion, p. I, May 2018. "Marina del Rq. Newport Beach Have Region's Highest Rents, LoweW Try Highland. (hange County Register, October 13.2017. "City of Ncwpon Beach Comprehensive Financial Annual Report, p. 222, lune 30.2017. ' -OC Community Indicators 2018, p. 31.2018. Page 2-28 Place Forks Planning Commission - February 21, 2019 Item No. 2a Additional Materials Received Newport Crossings Mixed Use Project (PA2017-107) NEWPORT CROSSINGS MIXED USE PROJECT (PA2017-107) FINAL EIR CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 2. Response to Comments Mr. Jaime Murillo January 10, 2019 Page 3 of 3 specifically affordable homes, near transit, job centers and neighborhood services will decrease travel costs and allow individuals to save money and spend it elsewhere in the City. In particular, the environmental impacts of a development are especially less drastic when a person can afford to live and spend their money in the same community in which they work in. In 2016, the average commute time to work for Orange County residents was approximately 29 minutes and approximately 82% of commuters drove alone. " Improving location accessibility and connectivity reduces the dependency for residents, especially for lower income households and workers, to drive their automobiles. This will lead to decreased environmental impacts, such as vehicles miles traveled (VMi) and greenhouse gas emissions, which will contribute to the project's overall purpose and intent to create a sustainable transit oriented neighborhood. The project will also align with the Sustainable Communities and Climate Protection Act of 2008 (SB 375) and help the City implement and comply with SB 375 goals of reducing VMT and greenhouse gas emissions. The Commission looks forward to partnering with the City to increase affordable home opportunities for lower income working households in the City. Please keep us informed of any updates and meetings regarding the Newport Crossings Mixed -Use Development. If you have any questions, please contact me at (949) 250-0909 or cesarc@kennedycommission.org. Sincerely, Cesar Covarrubias Executive Director " Proalc of Omgc CcmtY,.ou mC+if=m Ms iaimofGmmmenU.p. 18,M,,201). A6-3 coned February 2019 Page 2-29 Planning Commission - February 21, 2019 Item No. 2a Additional Materials Received Newport Crossings Mixed Use Project (PA2017-107) NEWPORT CROSSINGS MIXED USE PROJECT (PA2017-107) FINAL EIR CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 2. Response to Comments This page fntent onplJy left blank. Page 2-30 Place Forks Planning Commission - February 21, 2019 Item No. 2a Additional Materials Received Newport Crossings Mixed Use Project (PA2017-107) NEWPORT CROSSINGS MIXED USE PROJECT (PA2017-107) FINAL EIR CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 2. Response to Comments A6. Response to Comments from Kennedy Commission, Cesar Covarrubias, Executive Director, dated January 10, 2019. A6-1 The comment does not concern the content or adequacy of the Draft EIR. The City of Newport Beach acknowledges the commenters support of the proposed project. A6-2 The comment does not concern the content or adequacy of the Draft EIR. The comment is acknowledged. A6-3 The comment does not concern the content or adequacy of the Draft EIR. The comment is acknowledged. February 2019 Page 2-31 Planning Commission - February 21, 2019 Item No. 2a Additional Materials Received Newport Crossings Mixed Use Project (PA2017-107) NEWPORT CROSSINGS MIXED USE PROJECT (PA2017-107) FINAL EIR CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 2. Response to Comments This page fntentionaIji l� blank. Page 2-32 PlaceForks Planning Commission - February 21, 2019 Item No. 2a Additional Materials Received Newport Crossings Mixed Use Project (PA2017-107) NEWPORT CROSSINGS MIXED USE PROJECT (PA2017-107) FINAL EIR CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 2. Response to Comments LETTER A7 -Santa Ana Unified School District (2 pages) 4,rva Grades pSpNTa Santa Ana Unified School District f& Facilities & Goeemmental Relations Stefanie P. Phillips, Ed.D. rCa00�� Jeremy Cogan, Director of Facilities Planning Supe%taW B Schooh Y Monroe Elementary C COMMUNITv January 10, 2019 DEVELOPMENT 6-8 JAN 112019 Jaime Murillo, Senior Planner Total City of Newport Beach Community Development Department Century Hi 100 Civic Center Drive em of Newport Beach, CA 92660 11vaomr 600 Re: Environmental Impact Report for the Newport Crossings Mixed Use Prosect Dear Mr. Murillo: The Santa Ana Unified School District ("District") appreciates the opportunity to provide the following comments with respect to the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Newport Crossings Mixed Use Project (hereafter, "the Project"). The proposed project consists of the development of 350 multi -story residential units in addition to other retail/mixed use, and is located A7-1 on a 5.69 -acre project site. The site is currently within the "Airport Area" planning subarea of the City of Newport Beach. The District has an obligation to serve students generated in the project area. The proposed project lies within the attendance boundaries of the following District schools: Table 1— District Schools The District's 2018 School Facilities Needs Analysis, prepared April 27, 2018, finds student generation factors as follows: Table 2 — Student Generation School Level Grades Approximate School Served Address Traveling Distance 83 from the Project Monroe Elementary K-5 417 E. Central Ave. 5 miles McFadden 6-8 2701 S. Raitt St. 5 miles Intermediate Total 0.5118 Century Hi 9-12 1401 S. Grand Ave. 5.8 miles The District's 2018 School Facilities Needs Analysis, prepared April 27, 2018, finds student generation factors as follows: Table 2 — Student Generation School Level Multi -Family Attached Units Number of Proposed Units Students Potentially Generated by the Project Elementary School 0.236722 83 Intermediate School 0.1218 350 43 High School 0.1533 350 54 Total 0.5118 350 180 1601 East Chestnut Avenue, Santa Ana, CA 92701-6322, (714) 4805349 BOARD OF EDUCATION Valerie Amezcua, President • Rigo Rodriguez Ph.D., Vice President Alfonso Alvarez Ed.D., Clerk • John Palacio, Member A7-2 February 2019 Page 2-33 Planning Commission - February 21, 2019 Item No. 2a Additional Materials Received Newport Crossings Mixed Use Project (PA2017-107) NEWPORT CROSSINGS MIXED USE PROJECT (PA2017-107) FINAL EIR CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 2. Response to Comments As the data in the above table was made available subsequent to outreach to SAUSD, the District recommends the Draft EIR reflect the newer information. An analysis of current enrollment, current permanent capacity, and students potentially generated by the project finds that the District is able to accommodate the anticipated student growth. While such an analysis considers the capacity to serve additional students, it does not take into consideration enrollment variations and educational program changes that will impact school capacity district -wide. In accordance with Government Code Section 65995, the District requires all new development within the District to pay fees to help offset the impacts to school facilities from new residential and commercial/industrial development. The Draft EIR for this project makes note of the State Allocation Board's adjustment to level -on residential school fees in 2016, however this should be updated to reflect the SAB's 2018 action. As of September 17, 2018, the District's developer fees are as follows: Table 3 — Imoact Fee Type of Development Fee (effective 9/17/18 Contmercial/Industrial$0.61 Residential $3.79 While the developer fees are intended to help offset impacts from the students generated by new development, the fees may not be sufficient to provide adequate comprehensive school facilities, including classrooms, athletic equipment and playfrelds, kitchen and dining facilities, library space, pools, or other educational or recreational facilities. A7-3 A74 Having reviewed the Draft EIR prepared for the Project, the District recommends mitigation measures in line with the recommendations of the EBR. In addition, at least one reference was A7-5 found in the Draft EBR referring to "LAUSD" which should be corrected to "SAUSD" Pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21092.2, the District requests that the City of Newport Beach, as lead agency, provide to the District copies of all notices and documents prepared A7.6 pursuant to CEQA relative to the project. All notices should be sent to the attention of the Assistant Superintendent of Facilities & Governmental Relations. Sincerely, Jerem gan Dvector of Facilities Planning Facilities and Governmental Relations cc: Stefanie P. Phillips, Superintendent Thomas A. Stekol, Deputy Superintendent Orin Williams, Assistant Superintendent, Facilities & Government Relations 1601 East Chestnut Avenue, Santa Ana, CA 92701-6322, (714) 4605349 BOARD OF EDUCATION Valerie Amezcua, President • Rigo Rodriguez Ph.D., Vice President Alfonso Alvarez Ed.D., Clerk • John Palacio, Member Page 2-34 Place Forks Planning Commission - February 21, 2019 Item No. 2a Additional Materials Received Newport Crossings Mixed Use Project (PA2017-107) NEWPORT CROSSINGS MIXED USE PROJECT (PA2017-107) FINAL EIR CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 2. Response to Comments A7. Response to Comments from Santa Ana Unified School District, Jeremy Cogan, Director of Facilities Planning, dated January 11, 2019. A7-1 The comment does not concern the content or adequacy of the Draft EIR. The comment is acknowledged. A7-2 The comment states the number of students potentially generated by the project. As requested in Comment A7-3, the Draft EIR has been revised to reflect the updated student generation factors and resultant student generation numbers. See response to Comment A7-3, below. A7-3 The commenter requests that the student generation numbers provided in Draft EIR Section 5.12, Public Services, be revised to reflect the District's updated student generation estimate. As requested, the text on page 5.12-13 of Section 5.12 has been revised, as follows. The revisions are also provided in Chapter 3, Revisions to the Draft ETR, of the Final EIR The text revisions do not change the findings or conclusions of the Draft EIR and do not result in the identification of any new or increased significant impacts. Changes made to the Draft EIR are identified here in s'-'�al�artext to indicate deletions and in bold underlined text to signify additions. 5.12 PUBLIC SERVICES Impact Analysis: The proposed project is estimated to generate about -'9180 students— using SAUSD student generation factors for multifamily units—consisting of 2-2 83 elementary school students, 9 43 intermediate students, and 9 54 high school students (see Table 5.12-3). Table 5.12-3 Estimated Project Student Generation (350 Proposed Multifamily Units) School Level Generation Factor per Household (multifamily attac� Students Generated Elementary(K-5)9.96280.2367 2.283 Intermediate(6-8)g,B2-290.1218 843 High (9-12) 0.025510.1533 954 Total oil 39180 Source: Cogan 29792019. The three schools serving the project site have sufficient capacities for the proposed project's student generation, as shown in Table 5.12-4. Project development would not require SAUSD to add school capacity as the schools serving the project site would have more than adequate capacity. February 2019 Page 2-35 Planning Commission - February 21, 2019 Item No. 2a Additional Materials Received Newport Crossings Mixed Use Project (PA2017-107) NEWPORT CROSSINGS MIXED USE PROJECT (PA2017-107) FINAL EIR CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 2. Response to Comments Table 5.12-4 Pro'ect Impacts on School Capacities Source: Cogan 2018. Additionally, the need for additional school services and facilities is addressed by compliance with school impact assessment fees per Senate Bill 50, also known as Proposition 1A. SB 50 codified in California Government Code Section 65995—was enacted in 1988 to address how schools are financed and how development projects may be assessed for associated school impacts. To address the increase in enrollment at T�WSB SAUSD schools that would serve the Proposed Project, the project applicant/developer would be required to pay school impact fees to reduce any impacts to the school system, in accordance with SB 50. These fees are collected by school districts at the time of issuance of building permits. As stated in Government Code Section 65995(h), A7-4 The comment states that the Draft EIR should be updated to reflect the State Allocation Board's most recent adjustment to level -on residential school fees. As requested, the text on page 5.12-11 of Draft EIR Section 5.12 has been revised, as follows. The revisions are also provided in Chapter 3, Revisions to the Draft EIR, of the Final EIR. The text revisions do not change the findings or conclusions of the Draft EIR and do not result in the identification of any new or increased significant impacts. Changes made to the Draft EIR are identified here in --'—text to indicate deletions and in bold underlined text to signify additions. Additionally, the commenter noted that while developer fees are intended to help offset the students generated by the project, the fees may not be sufficient to provide adequate comprehensive school facilities. As noted under impact statement 5.12-3 (pages 5.12-13 and 5.12-14) of Draft EIR Section 5.12, pursuant to Government Code Section 65995(h), "The payment or satisfaction of a fee, charge, or other requirement levied or imposed ... are hereby deemed to be full and complete mitigation of the impacts of any legislative or adjudicative act, or both, involving, but not limited to, the planning, use, or development of real property, or any change in governmental organization or reorganization ... on the provision of adequate school facilities." Page 2-36 PlacelForks Project Student Existing Available Capacity Generation Available Capacity After School (from Table 5.12-2)1 (from Table 5.12-3) Project Student Generation Monroe Elementary 191 2283 469108 School McFadden Intermediate School 609 843603566 Century High School 127 954 33876 Source: Cogan 2018. Additionally, the need for additional school services and facilities is addressed by compliance with school impact assessment fees per Senate Bill 50, also known as Proposition 1A. SB 50 codified in California Government Code Section 65995—was enacted in 1988 to address how schools are financed and how development projects may be assessed for associated school impacts. To address the increase in enrollment at T�WSB SAUSD schools that would serve the Proposed Project, the project applicant/developer would be required to pay school impact fees to reduce any impacts to the school system, in accordance with SB 50. These fees are collected by school districts at the time of issuance of building permits. As stated in Government Code Section 65995(h), A7-4 The comment states that the Draft EIR should be updated to reflect the State Allocation Board's most recent adjustment to level -on residential school fees. As requested, the text on page 5.12-11 of Draft EIR Section 5.12 has been revised, as follows. The revisions are also provided in Chapter 3, Revisions to the Draft EIR, of the Final EIR. The text revisions do not change the findings or conclusions of the Draft EIR and do not result in the identification of any new or increased significant impacts. Changes made to the Draft EIR are identified here in --'—text to indicate deletions and in bold underlined text to signify additions. Additionally, the commenter noted that while developer fees are intended to help offset the students generated by the project, the fees may not be sufficient to provide adequate comprehensive school facilities. As noted under impact statement 5.12-3 (pages 5.12-13 and 5.12-14) of Draft EIR Section 5.12, pursuant to Government Code Section 65995(h), "The payment or satisfaction of a fee, charge, or other requirement levied or imposed ... are hereby deemed to be full and complete mitigation of the impacts of any legislative or adjudicative act, or both, involving, but not limited to, the planning, use, or development of real property, or any change in governmental organization or reorganization ... on the provision of adequate school facilities." Page 2-36 PlacelForks Planning Commission - February 21, 2019 Item No. 2a Additional Materials Received Newport Crossings Mixed Use Project (PA2017-107) NEWPORT CROSSINGS MIXED USE PROJECT (PA2017-107) FINAL EIR CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 2. Response to Comments 5.12 PUBLIC SERVICES Regulatory Background Senate Bill 50 (Chapter 407 of Statutes of 1998) (SB 50) SB 50 sets forth a state school facilities construction program that includes restrictions on a local jurisdiction's ability to impose mitigation for a project's impacts on school facilities in excess of fees set forth in Education Code 17620. It establishes three potential limits for school districts, depending on the availability of new school construction funding from the state and the particular needs of the individual school districts. Level one is the general school facilities fees imposed in accordance with Government Code Section 65995 as amended. Level two and three fees are alternate fees that are intended to represent 50 percent or 100 percent of a school district's school facility construction costs per new residential construction as authorized by Government Code Sections 65995.5, 65995.6, and 65995.7. On �� September 17, 2018, the State Allocation Board adjusted the maximum level -one residential school fee to be $4-48 $3.79 per square foot for residential development; SO.S6 and $0.61 per square foot for commercial, industrial, and senior housing projects; . Development fees authorized by SB 50 are deemed by Section 65996 of the California Government Code to be "full and complete school facilities mitigation." A7-5 The commenter concurs with the mitigation measures outlined in the Draft EIR. The comment is acknowledged. Also, in response to the commenter's minor edit requested, the text on page 5.12-13 of Section 5.12 has been revised, as shown in response to Comment A7-3, above. The revision is also provided in Chapter 3, Recisions to the Draft EIA, of the FEIR. A7-6 As requested, the City will continue to provide the District with all CEQA-related project notices and documents in accordance pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21092.2, and to the attention of the Assistant Superintendent of Facilities & Government Relations. February 2019 Page 2-37 Planning Commission - February 21, 2019 Item No. 2a Additional Materials Received Newport Crossings Mixed Use Project (PA2017-107) NEWPORT CROSSINGS MIXED USE PROJECT (PA2017-107) FINAL EIR CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 2. Response to Comments This page fntentionaIji l� blank. Page 2-38 PlaceForks Planning Commission - February 21, 2019 Item No. 2a Additional Materials Received Newport Crossings Mixed Use Project (PA2017-107) NEWPORT CROSSINGS MIXED USE PROJECT (PA2017-107) FINAL EIR CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 2. Response to Comments LETTER AS — South Coast Aix Quality Management District (4 pages) South Coast Air Quality Management District 21865 Copley Drive, Diamond Bar, CA 91765-4178 • • a (909) 396-2000 • www.agmd.gov SENT VIA E-MAIL AND USPS: January 11, 2019 imwillo n.newportbeachca.gov Jaime Murillo, Senior Planner City of Newport Beach, Community Development Department 100 Civic Center Drive Newport Beach, CA 92660 Draft Environmental Impact Report (Draft EIR) for the Proposed Newport Crossings Mixed -Use Protect (SCH No.: 2017101067) South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) staff appreciates the opportunity to comment on the above-mentioned document. The following comments are meant as guidance for the Lead Agency and should be incorporated into the Final EIR. SCAQMD Staffs Summary of Project Description The Lead Agency is proposing to demolish 58,277 square feet of the existing structures for the construction of a mixed-use development consisting of 350 residential units, a 2,000 -square -foot restaurant, and 5,500 A8-1 square feet of retail uses on 5.69 acres (Proposed Project). The Proposed Project is located on the southeast comer of Corinthian Way and Scott Drive. Construction of the Proposed Project is expected to occur over approximately 38 months, beginning in December 2019'. SCAOMD Stuffs Summary of Air Quality Analysis In the Air Quality Analysis section, the Lead Agency quantified the Proposed Project's construction and operational emissions and compared those emissions to SCAQMD's regional and localized air quality CEQA significance thresholds. The Proposed Project would result in a daily maximum of 217 pounds per day (lbs/day) of NOx emissions during construction, which would exceed SCAQMD's regional air quality CEQA significance threshold of 100 lbs/day for NOx, After the implementation of mitigation measures (MM) AQ -1 through MM AQ -3, construction -related NOx emissions would be mitigated to be less than significant". MM AQ -1 would limit the hauling of soil to a maximum 269 tacks per day and restrict overlapping between rough grading and associated soil hauling activities and other construction activities'. NIM AQ -2 would limit the hauling of building demolition debris to a maximum 47 trucks per day and restrict overlapping between demolition and associated debris hauling activities and other construction activities such as rough grading and site preparation'. MM AQ -3 would require that construction equipment meet or exceed the U.S. EPA Tier 3 emissions standards for off-road diesel -powered construction equipment with more than 50 horsepower`. A8-2 SCAOMD's 2016 Air Quality Management Plan On March 3, 2017, the SCAQMD's Governing Board adopted the 2016 AG Quality Management Plan (2016 AQMP)', which was later approved by the California Air Resources Board on March 23, 2017. Built upon A&3 the progress in implementing the 2007 and 2012 AQMPs, the 2016 AQMP provides a regional perspective on air quality and the challenges facing the South Coast Air Basin. The most significant air quality challenge ' DEIR. Page 52-21. 2 DEIR. Table 5.2-12. Pages 52-34 and 35. s DEIR. Page 52-32. 4 ibid. s Ibid. Pages 52-32 arM 33. South Coast Air Quality Management District. March 3, 2017. 7016 Air Qua/irr Monagemem Plan. Accessed 9: hn ://xaw.a rad. ov/hume/libm /clean -air lanslair relit m Ian. February 2019 Page 2-39 Planning Commission - February 21, 2019 Item No. 2a Additional Materials Received Newport Crossings Mixed Use Project (PA2017-107) NEWPORT CROSSINGS MIXED USE PROJECT (PA2017-107) FINAL EIR CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 2. Response to Comments Jaime Murillo -2- January 11, 2019 in the Basin is to achieve an additional 45 percent reduction in nitrogen oxide (NOx) emissions in 2023 andI AB -3 an additional 55 percent NOx reduction beyond 2031 levels for ozone attainment. writ SCAOMD Staffs General Comments As described in the 2016 AQMP, achieving NOx emissions reductions in a timely manner is critical to attaining the National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) for ozone before the 2023 and 2031 deadlines. SCAQMD is committed to attaining the ozone NAAQS as expeditiously as practicable. While A84 construction -related NOx emissions were mitigated to be less than significant with the implementation of MM AQ -1 through MM AQ -3, to further reduce NOx emissions during construction, SCAQMD staff recommends that the Lead Agency incorporate changes to MM AQ -3 and include additional mitigation measures in the Final EIR. Details are provided in the attachment. Conclusion Pursuant to California Public Resources Code Section 21092.5(a) and CEQA Guidelines Section 15088(b), SCAQMD staff requests that the Lead Agency provide SCAQMD staff with written responses to all comments contained herein prior to the certification of the Final EIR. In addition, issues raised in the comments should be addressed in detail giving reasons why specific comments and suggestions are not accepted. There should be good faith, reasoned analysis in response. Conclusory statements unsupported by factual information will not suffice (CEQA Guidelines Section 15088(c)). Conclusory statements do not facilitate the purpose and goal of CEQA on public disclosure and are not meaningful or useful to decision makers and to the public who are interested in the Proposed Project. SCAQMD staff is available to work with the Lead Agency to address any air quality questions that may arise from this comment letter. Please contact Robert Dalbeck, Assistant Air Quality Specialist, at rdalbeck(&aamd.eov or (909) 396-2139, should you have any questions. Sincerely, zi#* .5" Lijin Sun, J. D. Program Supervisor, CEQA IGR Planning, Rule Development & Area Sources Anachment LS RD ORCIS1205-10 Control Number A&5 Page 240 Place Forks Planning Commission - February 21, 2019 Item No. 2a Additional Materials Received Newport Crossings Mixed Use Project (PA2017-107) NEWPORT CROSSINGS MIXED USE PROJECT (PA2017-107) FINAL EIR CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 2. Response to Comments Jaime Murillo -3- January 11, 2019 ATTACHMENT Air Ouality Analysis Overlapping Construction and Operation Scenario According to the Draft EIR 7, construction of the Proposed Project would occur over 38 months beginning in December 2019 and be completed by the end of January 2023. However, based on a review of the CaIEEMod output file, SCAQMD staff found that the Proposed Project would be operational in 2022°. Therefore, it is recommended that the Lead Agency clarify in the Final EIR if any of the construction activities would overlap with operation. In the event that there is an overlapping construction and operation scenario, SCAQMD staff recommends that the Lead Agency identify the overlapping phases, combine construction emissions with operational emissions, and compare the combined emissions to SCAQMD's regional and localized air quality CEQA significance thresholds for operation to determine the level of significance in the Final EIR. Should the Lead Agency, after revising the Air Quality Analysis, find that the Proposed Project's air quality impacts would be significant, the Lead Agency is required to consider feasible mitigation measures and determine if new mitigation measures would be warranted in addition to the existing Mitigation Measure (MM) AQ -1 through MM AQ -3. Mitigation Measures Recommended Changes to Existing MMAQ-3 2. While the Proposed Project's NOx emissions during construction (i.e., approximately 217 lbs/day) were mitigated to be less than significant with the implementation of MM AQ -1 through MM AQ -3, to further reduce NOx emissions during construction, SCAQMD recommends that the Lead Agency incorporate the following changes to MM AQ -3 and include additional mitigation measures in the Final EIR. AQ -3 Construction contractors shall, at minimum, use equipment that meets the EPA's Tier 3 4 emissions standards for off-road diesel -powered construction equipment with naim thea of 50 horsepower oreer, ater, for all , building and aet vales -phases of construction activity, unless it can be demonstrated to the City of Newport Beach Building Division with substantial evidence that such equipment is not available. Any emissions control device used by the contractor shall achieve emissions reductions that are no less than what could be achieved by Tier 3 4 emissions standards for a similarly sized engine, as defined by the California Air Resources Board's regulations. Successful contractors) must demonstrate the abilitv to supply the compliant construction equipment I'or use prior to my ground disturbing and construction activities. A copy of each unit's certified tier specification or model Yew specification and CARB or SCAQMD operating permit (if applicable) shall be available union request at the time of mobilization of each applicable unit of equipment. To ensure that Tier 4 construction equipment or better will be used during the Proposed Project's construction, SCAQMD staff recommends that the Lead Agency include this requirement in applicable bid documents, purchase orders, and contracts. The Lead Agency should also require periodic reporting and provision of written construction documents by construction contractor(s), and conduct regular inspections to the maximum extent feasible to ensure and enforce compliance. 7 DEIR Page 52-31. DEM Appendix 6, Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Modeling. A8-6 A&7 February 2019 Page 241 Planning Commission - February 21, 2019 Item No. 2a Additional Materials Received Newport Crossings Mixed Use Project (PA2017-107) NEWPORT CROSSINGS MIXED USE PROJECT (PA2017-107) FINAL EIR CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 2. Response to Comments Jaime Murillo -4- January 11, 2019 Additional Recommended Mitigation Measures 3. CEQA requires that all feasible mitigation measures that go beyond what is required by law be utilized to minimize or eliminate any significant adverse air quality impacts. SCAQMD staff recommends that the Lead Agency incorporate the following mitigation measures in the Final EIR. Require zero -emissions or near -zero emission on -road haul trucks such as heavy-duty trucks with natural gas engines that meet the CARB's adopted optional NOx emissions standard at 0.02 grams per brake horsepower -hour (g/bhp-hr), if and when feasible. At a minimum, require that construction vendors, contractors, and/or haul truck opemton commit to using 2010 model year trucks (e.g., material delivery trucks and soil import/export) that meet CARB's 2010 engine emissions standards at 0.01 g/bhp-hr of particulate matter (PM) and 0.20 g/bhp-hr of NOx emissions or newer, cleaner trucks. Operators shall maintain records of all trucks associated with project construction to document that each truck used meets these emission standards. The Lead Agency should include this requirement in applicable bid documents, purchase orders, and contracts. Operators sball maintain records of all trucks associated with project construction to document that each track used meets these emission standards, and make the records available for inspection. The Lead Agency should conduct regular inspections to the maximum extent feasible to ensure and enforce compliance. • Suspend all on-site construction activities when wind speeds (as instantaneous gusts) exceed 25 miles per hour. • All trucks hauling dirt, sand, soil or other loose materials are to be covered, or should maintain at least two feet of freeboard in accordance with California Vehicle Code Section 23114 (freeboard means vertical space between the top of the load and top of the trailer). Enter into applicable bid documents, purchase orders, and contracts to notify all construction vendors, contractors, and/or haul truck operators that vehicle and construction equipment idling time will be limited to no longer than five minutes, consistent with the California Air Resources Board's policy. For any idling that is expected to take longer than five minutes, the engine should be shut off. Notify construction vendors, contractors, and/or haul truck operators of these idling requirements at the time that the purchase order is issued and again when vehicles enter the Proposed Project site. To further ensure that drivers understand the vehicle idling requirement, post signs at the Proposed Project entry gate and throughout the Proposed Project site, where appropriate, stating that idling longer than five minutes is not permitted. Califomia Air Resources Board. lune 2009. Written Idling Policy Guidelines. Accessed at: ham.//www. a. v/ r Ni el/ w .in nili i A8-8 Page 242 PlaceForks Planning Commission - February 21, 2019 Item No. 2a Additional Materials Received Newport Crossings Mixed Use Project (PA2017-107) NEWPORT CROSSINGS MIXED USE PROJECT (PA2017-107) FINAL EIR CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 2. Response to Comments A8. Response to Comments from South Coast Air Quality Management District, Ujin Sun, Program Supervisor CEQA IGR, dated January 11, 2019. A8-1 The comment does not concern the content or adequacy of the Draft EIR. The South Coast Air Quality Management District's (SCAQMD) summary of the project description is acknowledged. A8-2 The comment does not concern the content or adequacy of the Draft EIR. SCAQMD's summary of the potential air quality impacts of the project and mitigation measures is acknowledged. A8-3 The comment does not concern the content or adequacy of the Draft EIR. SCAQMD's summary of the goals of the 2016 Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP), including the substantial nitrogen oxides (NOx) reductions necessary to achieve the 2023 and 2031 targets, is acknowledged. A8-4 SCAQMD requests changes to Mitigation Measure AQ -3 to further reduce NOx emissions during construction activities. As identified in response to Comment A8-7 below, the commenter's recommendation to utilize certain construction equipment that meets the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Tier 4 emissions standards has been incorporated into Mitigation Measure AQ -3. A8-5 The comment requests that the City provide written responses to all of the SCAQMD's comments. As requested, responses to SCAQMD's comments are provided herein in accordance with the Public Resources Code and CEQA Guidelines. A8-6 The comment questions whether any construction activities would overlap with project operation. As noted in Subsection 3.3.4, Project Phasing and Construction, of Draft EIR Chapter 3, Project Description, the proposed project would be constructed in one phase. There would be no overlap of project operation with project -related construction activities. No revisions are necessary to the air quality modeling; and additional mitigation measures are not warranted to reduce impacts below the SCAQMD significance thresholds. A8-7 The comment requests that Mitigation Measure AQ -3 be revised to require the use of certain construction equipment that meets the EPA's Tier 4 emission standards. As substantiated in Draft EIR Section 5.2, Air.Quality, use of Tier 3 construction equipment would be sufficient to reduce emissions below the SCAQMD significance thresholds. However, in an effort to further reduce NOx emissions during construction activities, Mitigation Measure AQ -3 has been revised to require the construction contractor to utilize construction equipment with engines that achieve the US EPA Tier 4 rating. The mitigation text on pages 5.2-32 and 5.2-33 of Section 5.2, has been revised, as follows. The revisions are also provided in Chapter 3, Revisions to the Draft EIR, of the Final EIR. The text revisions do not change the findings or conclusions of the Draft EIR and do not February 2019 Page 243 Planning Commission - February 21, 2019 Item No. 2a Additional Materials Received Newport Crossings Mixed Use Project (PA2O17-107) NEWPORT CROSSINGS MIXED USE PROJECT (PA2017-107) FINAL EIR CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 2. Response to Comments result in the identification of any new or increased significant impacts. Changes made to the Draft EIR are identified here in str4ka aaut text to indicate deletions and in bold underlined text to signify additions. 5.2 AIR QUALITY Impact 5.2-2 AQ -3 Construction contractors shall, at minimum, use equipment that meets the EPAs Tier 34 emissions standards for off-road diesel -powered construction equipment with an of 50 horsepower or greater for all bttildilig and phases of construction acdvi , unless it can be demonstrated to the City of Newport Beach Building Division with substantial evidence that such equipment is not available. Any emissions control device used by the contractor shall achieve emissions reductions that are no less than what could be achieved by Tier 34 emissions standards for a similarly sized engine, as defined by the California Air Resources Board's regulations. Prior to construction, the project engineer shall ensure that all construction (e.g., demolition and grading) plans clearly show the requirement for EPA Tier 34 emissions standards for construction equipment ever of 50 horsepower or greater for the specific activities stated above. During construction, the construction contractor shall maintain a list of all operating equipment in use on the construction site for verification by the City of Newport Beach. The construction equipment list shall state the makes, models, and numbers of construction equipment onsite. Equipment shall be properly serviced and maintained in accordance with the manufacturer's recommendations. Construction contractors shall also ensure that all nonessential idling of construction equipment is restricted to 5 minutes or less in compliance with Section 2449 of the California Code of Regulations, Tide 13, Article 4.8, Chapter 9. A8-8 The comment requests that various additional mitigation measures should be required. As substantiated in Draft EIR Section 5.2, AirQuadid,, additional mitigation measures are not necessary to reduce impacts below the SCAQMD significance thresholds. The SCAQMD AQMP emissions forecast include emissions from construction activities in the air basin. The additional measures identified by the commenter would not eliminate the fact that construction activities would generate criteria air pollutant emissions. As substantiated in Draft EIR Section 5.2, AirQuadio, with implementation of Mitigation Measures AQ -1 through AQ -3, the proposed project would not exceed the SCAQMD significance thresholds. Additionally, the request to require zero -emissions or near zero -emission on Page 244 Place Forks Planning Commission - February 21, 2019 Item No. 2a Additional Materials Received Newport Crossings Mixed Use Project (PA2017-107) NEWPORT CROSSINGS MIXED USE PROJECT (PA2017-107) FINAL EIR CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 2. Response to Comments road haul trucks is potentially not feasible for a project with a buildout in year 2023 as these types of trucks are in the "demonstration" phase and not readily available by most construction sub -contractors at this time. SCAQNM Rule 403 already requires that onsite activities be suspended when wind speeds exceed 25 miles per hour (mph). This is an existing regulation that requires project applicant compliance and therefore is, not required as a mitigation measure. Similarly, the California Vehicle Code requires that trucks hauling dirt are tarped/covered and/or maintain six inches of freeboard and the California Air Resources Board's in -use off-road diesel vehicle regulations prohibit non -essentially idling for more than five consecutive limits. These are also existing regulations that the project applicant would have to comply with and not required as mitigation measures. February 2019 Page 245 Planning Commission - February 21, 2019 Item No. 2a Additional Materials Received Newport Crossings Mixed Use Project (PA2017-107) NEWPORT CROSSINGS MIXED USE PROJECT (PA2017-107) FINAL EIR CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 2. Response to Comments This page fntentionaIji l� blank. Page 246 PlaceForks Planning Commission - February 21, 2019 Item No. 2a Additional Materials Received Newport Crossings Mixed Use Project (PA2017-107) NEWPORT CROSSINGS MIXED USE PROJECT (PA2017-107) FINAL EIR CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH LETTER A9 — California Department of Transportation (2 pages) DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION DISTRICT 12 1750 EAST FOURTH STREET, SUITE 100 SANTAANA,CA92705 PHONE (657)328-6267 FAX (657)329-6510 TTY 711 ..dm.mgm January 11, 2019 Jaime Murillo City of Newport Beach 100 Civic Center Drive Newport Beach, CA 92660 Dear Mr. Murillo, 2. Response to Comments a Calf -a Way oJLf-. File: IGR/CEQA SCH#: 2017101067 12 -ORA -2018-01031 SR 73, PM 25.198 Thank you for including the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) in the review of the Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Newport Crossings Mixed Use project in the City of Newport Beach. The mission of Caltrans is to provide a safe, sustainable, integrated and efficient transportation system to enhance California's economy and livability. The proposed project consists of the development of a multistory building that would house 350 apartment units, 2,000 square feet of "casual -dining" restaurant space, 5,500 square feet of retail space, and a 0.5 -acre public park. The project site is approximately 0.6 miles north of State Rome (SR) 73 and 1.3 miles south of Interstate 405 (1405). Caltrans is a commenting agency on this project and upon review, we have the following comments: A9-1 Transportation Planning The City's Bicycle Master Plan (2014) recommends that Class B facilities be constructed on several streets surrounding the project site, including Birch Street, MacArthur Boulevard, A9.2 Westerly Place, and Dove Street. Please consider these recommended facilities when developing the project's circulation element. Encroachment Permit Please be advised that any project work proposed in the vicinity of the State Highway System (SHS) will require an Encroachment Permit and all environmental concems must be adequately addressed. If the environmental documentation for the project does not meet Caltrans' requirements, additional documentation would be required before the approval of the Encroachment Permit. For specific details for Encroachment Permits procedure, please refer to the Caltrans' Encroachment Permits Manual. The latest edition of the Manual is available on the web site: http://www.dot.ca.zov/ha/traffot)s/develonwe /cervi& Please continue to keep m informed of this project and any frture developments which could potentially impact the SHS. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact Joseph Jamoralin, at (657) 3286276 or Joseoh.Jamoralin oEca.gov. "P,dldea mX susMna6k, In Me d e*ii I,vruPort .sync to eM.o Colilomed ..,aMlwwhty- A9-3 February 2019 Page 247 Planning Commission - February 21, 2019 Item No. 2a Additional Materials Received Newport Crossings Mixed Use Project (PA2017-107) NEWPORT CROSSINGS MIXED USE PROJECT (PA2017-107) FINAL EIR CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 2. Response to Comments Newport Crossings Mixed Use Project January 11, 2019 Page 2 Sincerely i SCOTT LLEY Branch Chief, Regional-IGR-Transit Planning District 12 -Reside a safe, sunosaable, integrated and of wet mmsa don system to m t,axe Ca yemm's economy end Iivat0it y" Page 248 Place Forks Planning Commission - February 21, 2019 Item No. 2a Additional Materials Received Newport Crossings Mixed Use Project (PA2017-107) NEWPORT CROSSINGS MIXED USE PROJECT (PA2017-107) FINAL EIR CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 2. Response to Comments A9. Response to Comments from California Department of Transportation, Scott Shelley, Branch Chief, Regional-IGR-Transit Planning, dated January 11, 2019. A9-1 The comment does not concern the content or adequacy of the Draft FIR. The comment is acknowledged. A9-2 The commenter requested that the City consider the recommended Class II (on -street) bicycle facility along Dove Street, which forms the southwestern boundary of the project site. Specifically, the recommended Class II bicycle facility is called out in Figure 5-1 (Recommended Bicycle Facilities Network) of the City's Bicycle Master Plan (2014). The project does include improvements to the sidewalk along Dove Street, which would be demolished and reconstructed to City standards, and the project will provide new ADA compliant curb access ramps at Dove Street/Scott Drive in accordance with City standards. Further, although designated bike lanes are not located on the local streets surrounding the project site (i.e., Corinthian Way, Martingale Way, Scott Drive, and Dove Street), Class II bicycles lanes are provided on both sides of Campus Drive—Irvine Avenue from MacArthur Boulevard to Cliff Drive in the vicinity of the project. However, the recommendation for a Class 11 bicycle facility along Dove Street remains conceptual at this time and has yet to be determined feasible through a study and public outreach process, which would be initiated by the City. The recommended Class II bicycle facility along Dove Street is not planned for implementation at this time in connection with the proposed project. A9-3 The comment is acknowledged. The proposed project does not require an encroachment permit as no work is being proposed on, adjacent to, or in proximity of a State I- ghway System. February 2019 Page 249 Planning Commission - February 21, 2019 Item No. 2a Additional Materials Received Newport Crossings Mixed Use Project (PA2017-107) NEWPORT CROSSINGS MIXED USE PROJECT (PA2017-107) FINAL EIR CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 2. Response to Comments This page fntentionaIji l� blank. Page 2-50 PlaceForks Planning Commission - February 21, 2019 Item No. 2a Additional Materials Received Newport Crossings Mixed Use Project (PA2017-107) NEWPORT CROSSINGS MIXED USE PROJECT (PA2017-107) FINAL EIR CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH LETTER A10 — Airport Land Use Commission for Orange County (2 pages) ORANGE COUNTY 2. Response to Comments AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION FOR ORANGE COUNTY 3160 Airway Avenue • Costa Mesa, California 92626 - 949.252.5170 fax: 949.252.6012 January 14, 2019 Jaime Murillo, Senior Planner City of Newport Beach Community Development Department 100 Civic Center Drive Newport Beach, CA 92660 Subject: DEIR for Newport Crossings Mixed Use Project Dear Mr. Murillo: Thank you for the opportunity to review the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the proposed Newport Crossings Mixed Use Project in the context of the Airport Land Use Commission's (ALUC) Airport Environs Land Use Plan (AELUP) jar John Wayne Airport (JWA). The proposed project consists of 350 residential dwelling units, 2,000 square feet of casual -dining restaurant space, 5,500 square feet of commercial space, and a 0.5 -acre public park. The proposed project is bounded by Corinthian Way to the northeast, Martingale Way to the east, Scott Drive to the northwest, and Dove Street to the southwest. The proposed project is located within the Federal Aviation Regulation (FAR) Part 77 Notification Area for J WA. The DEIR states that the proposed maximum building height for the project area is 153 feet above ground level (AGL). However, the DEIR does not address if the proposed project penetrates the FAA Notification surface. We recommend that the project proponent utilize the Notice Criteria Tool on the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) website httos://oeaaa.faa.gov/ocaaa/extcmaVoortal.iso to determine if the proposed project penetrates the notification surface and requires filing Form 7460.1 Notice of Proposed Construction or Alteration with the FAA. The results from the Notice Criteria Tool should be included in the DEIR. Additionally, if the project requires Form 7460-1 filing, the resulting FAA airspace determination should be included in the project submittal package to ALUC. A10-1 A10-2 Additionally, the DEIR states that the maximum ground elevation at the project site is 53 feet above mean sea level (AMSC). With a proposed building height of 153 feet added to the ground elevation, the total proposed elevation of the building would be 206 feet AID -3 AMSL. The 1 WA horizontal imaginary surface at the location of this project is 206 feet AMSL and should not be penetrated. Although the proposed structure is not proposed to February 2019 Page 2-51 NEWPORT CROSSINGS MIXED USE PROJECT (PA2017-107) FINAL EIR CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 2. Response to Comments Planning Commission - February 21, 2019 Item No. 2a Additional Materials Received Newport Crossings Mixed Use Project (PA2017-107) ALUC Comments- Ncw dC,msmg DEIR 1/14/2019 Pge2 penetrate the 206 feet AMSL elevation, the ALUC does not recommend that structures beI A103 built to this elevation. wnrd With respect to noise, the proposed project is located within the 60 dBA CNEL noise contour and is located within Safety Zone 6 for J WA which will subject the proposed Al0-0 project to overflight from general aviation operations. The DEIR discusses how the proposed project will address noise and safety concerns. With respect to noise requirements, the City will require that the project applicant demonstrate that interior noise levels from aircraft be reduced to 45 dBA CNEL or less in all habitable rooms per the California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Building Standards Administrative Code, Pan 2. The DEIR states that an acoustic study shall be performed by a qualified professional that demonstrates compliance with these standards. The City is also requiring that signage be posted in public parks and outdoor common or recreational areas informing the public of the presence of operating aircraft and noise. We concur with these requirements. A10-5 A referral by the City to the ALUC may be required for this project due to the close proximity of the proposal to JWA. In this regard, please note that the Commission wants such referrals to be submitted and agendized by the ALUC staff between the Local Agency's expected Planning Commission and City Council hearings. Since the ALUC A10-6 meets on the third Thursday afternoon of each month, submittals must be received in the ALUC office by the first of the month to ensure sufficient time for review, analysis, and agendizing. Thank you again for the opportunity to comment on the DEIR. Please contact Lea Choum at (949) 252-5123 or via email at Ichom@ocair.com should you have any questions related to the Airport Land Use Commission for Orange County. Sincerely, Kari A. Rigom Executive Officer Page 2-52 Place Forks Planning Commission - February 21, 2019 Item No. 2a Additional Materials Received Newport Crossings Mixed Use Project (PA2017-107) NEWPORT CROSSINGS MIXED USE PROJECT (PA2017-107) FINAL EIR CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 2. Response to Comments A10. Response to Comments from Airport Land Use Commission of Orange County, Kari A. Rigoni, Executive Director, dated January 14, 2019. A10-1 The comment does not concern the content or adequacy of the Draft FIR. The comment is acknowledged. A10-2 Impact Statement 5.7-3 of Draft FIR Section 5.17, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, provides a discussion of the FAR Part 77 Notification Area and the potential impacts to JWA navigable air space resulting from the proposed project's building heights. See Response to Comment A10-3, below, regarding the discrepancy in the proposed building height. As noted in that response, the building heights noted in the Daft EIR were incorrect. The correct building height proposed is 130 feet AMSL, which is well below the 206 foot AMSL height limit for the project site. Therefore, it is not necessary to use the Notice Criteria Tool to determine if the proposed building would penetrate the Part 77 Notification Area, as the building would not penetrate notification area. However, in response to the commenter, a formal submittal was made to the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to determine if the proposed building would penetrate the notification surface and require filing Form 7460-1, Notice of Proposed Construction or Alteration, with the FAA. Upon submittal, the FAA conducted an aeronautical study, which revealed that the proposed building does not exceed obstruction standards and would not be a hazard to air navigation provided that FAA Form 7460-2, Notice of Actual Construction or Alteration, be e -filed within 5 days after the construction reaches its greatest height (see Appendix A). The FAA -issued "Determination of No Hazard to Air Navigation" is provided as Appendix A to this FEIR. Applicant submittal of FAA Form 7460-2 form will be ensured through the City's site development review process, as it will be included as a condition of approval. A10-3 The commenter stated the project's maximum building height would be 153 AMSL, which is text directly taken from page 5.7-20 under Impact Statement 5.7-3 of Draft EIR Section 5.7, Haards and Hazardous Materials. Adding the proposed building height of 153 feet AMSL with the highest ground level of the site of 53 feet ATMSL would result in the building reaching the maximum FAA allowed height for the site of 206 AMSL, which is of concern to the commenter and JWA operations. The building height of 153 feet AMSL referenced on Draft EIR page 5.7-14 is incorrect. The maximum height would be approximately 130 AMSL, which is the sum of the maximum proposed building height of 77 feet 9 inches (tallest structure proposed) plus the highest ground level of the site of 53 feet AMSL. This would put the proposed building height well below the 206 foot AMSL height limit The text on pages 5.7-14 and 5.7-20 under Impact Statement 5.7-3 of Draft EIR Section 5.7 has been revised, as follows. The revisions are also provided in Chapter 3, Revisions to the Draft EIA, of the Final EIR The text revisions do not change the findings or conclusions of the Draft FIR February 2019 Page 2-55 Planning Commission - February 21, 2019 Item No. 2a Additional Materials Received Newport Crossings Mixed Use Project (PA2017-107) NEWPORT CROSSINGS MIXED USE PROJECT (PA2017-107) FINAL EIR CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 2. Response to Comments and do not result in the identification of any new or increased significant impacts. Changes made to the Draft EIR are identified here in s,�text to indicate deletions and in bold underlined text to signify additions. 5.7 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS Airport -Related Hazards The proposed project is in Safety Zone 6 designated in the Airport Environs Land Use Plan (AELUP) for John Wayne Airport QWA) issued by the Orange County Airport Land Use Commission in 2008. Outdoor stadiums and similar uses with very high intensities are prohibited in Zone 6. Children's schools, large day care centers, hospitals, and nursing homes should be avoided. Residential uses and most nonresidential uses are permitted (OCALUC 2008). There are no heliports within one mile of the project site other than JWA (Airnavcom 2018). The proposed project is also in an area surrounding JWA where structure heights are regulated under Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Regulations Part 77 for preservation of navigable airspace. The maximum structure height permitted at the project site is 206 feet above mean sea level (amsl) (OCALUC 2008). The elevation onsite ranges from 48 feet amsl at the southwest corner of the site to 53 feet amsl at the northeast corner. Thus, the maximum structure height proposed onsite would be based on the higher of those two elevations, 4 53 feet _4Ewe grat, -' '---Pl plus the proposed building height. Impact Analysis: The project site is in Safety Zone 6 designated in the Airport Environs Land Use Plan for John Wayne Airport. Outdoor stadiums and similar uses with very high intensities are prohibited in Zone 6. Children's schools, large day care centers, hospitals, and nursing homes should be avoided. Residential uses and most nonresidential uses are permitted (OCALUC 2008). The proposed project does not propose any land uses prohibited or discouraged by the AELUP and would not subject people on the ground to substantial hazards from crashes of aircraft approaching or departing JWA. The project site also in an area surrounding JWA where structure heights are regulated under FAA Regulations Part 77 for preservation of navigable airspace. The maximum structure height permitted at the project site is 206 feet amsl (OCALUC 2008). The elevation onsite ranges from 48 feet amsl at the southwest corner of the site to 53 feet amsl at the northeast corner. Thus, based on the higher of those two elevations, the maximum structure height is approximately 130 amsi, which is the sum of the maximum proposed building height of 77 feet 9 inches (tallest structure proposed) plus the highest elevation of the site of 53 feet amsl. This would put the proposed building height well below Page 2-54 Place Forks Planning Commission - February 21, 2019 Item No. 2a Additional Materials Received Newport Crossings Mixed Use Project (PA2017-107) NEWPORT CROSSINGS MIXED USE PROJECT (PA2017-107) FINAL EIR CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 2. Response to Comments the 206 foot amsl height limit for the site. The proposed buildings would be approximately 55 feet high for residential living spaces, with limited ancillary structures to 77 feet 9 inches for stair towers architectural features (including parapets), parking, roof decks, elevator shafts, and mechanical equipment. The proposed project would conform with structure heights permitted on-site under FAA regulations and would not adversely affect navigable airspace surrounding JWA. A10-4 As provided in the Draft EIR, the comment states that the project site is within the 60 dBA CNEL noise contour and within Safety Zone 6 of the JWA, and acknowledges that the Draft EIR includes a discussion of measures intended to address safety and noise concerns for the project. The comment is acknowledged. A10-5 The commenter concurs with the noise requirements outlined in Draft EIR Section 5.10, Noise, including those related to the project applicant's requirement to prepare an acoustic study to ensure that airport -related noise impacts are adequately addressed for future residents. It should be noted that the reference to the need for an acoustic study was provided for reference purposes only (see regulatory requirement SC N0I-1 on page 5.14- 14), and not in response to any of the impact statements/questions of Section 5.10. Under CEQA, a project's impact on the environment are required to be analyzed; however, an analysis of the environments impact on a project is not required. A10-6 The commenter stated that a referral to the Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) may be required for the proposed project due to its close proximity to JWA. The City of Newport Beach General Plan was found consistent with the Airport Environs Land Use Plan (AELUP) for John Wayne Airport by ALUC on July 20, 2006. As such, the City of Newport Beach is considered a consistent city. Per Policy LU 3.8 of the Newport Beach General Plan Land Use Element, and per ALUC Referral Requirements for Consistent Cities, projects within the JWA planning area that include the adoption or amendment of a general plan, zoning code, specific plan, or planned community development plan require review by ALUC. The policy also states that development projects that include buildings with a height greater than 200 feet above ground level require ALUC review. The proposed project does not meet either of these criteria, and therefore, does not require ALUC review. Also, see responses to Comments A10-2 and A10-3, above. Based on these responses, no ALUC review is necessary. February 2019 Page 2-55 Planning Commission - February 21, 2019 Item No. 2a Additional Materials Received Newport Crossings Mixed Use Project (PA2017-107) NEWPORT CROSSINGS MIXED USE PROJECT (PA2017-107) FINAL EIR CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 2. Response to Comments This page fntentionaIji l� blank. Page 2-56 PlaceForks Planning Commission - February 21, 2019 Item No. 2a Additional Materials Received Newport Crossings Mixed Use Project (PA2017-107) NEWPORT CROSSINGS MIXED USE PROJECT (PA2017-107) FINAL EIR CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 2. Response to Comments LETTER All — OC Public Works (1 page) �C PublicWorks Integrity, Accountability, Service, Trust Shane L. Silsby, Director a January 14, 2019 NCL -18-061 Jaime Murillo, Senior Planner City of Newport Beach Community Development Department 100 Civic Center Drive Newport Beach, CA 92660 Subject. Newport Crossings Mixed Use Project: Notice of Availability of a Draft Environmental Impact Report Dear Mr. Murillo The County of Orange has reviewed the Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Newport Crossings Mixed Use Project and has no comments at this time. We would like A11-1 to be advised of further developments on the project. Please continue to keep us on the distribution list for future notifications related to the project. If you have any questions regarding these comments, please contact Cindy Salazar at (714) 667-8870 in OC Development Smviow. Sin , 'chard Vmaa& Manager, Planning Division OC Public Works Service ATes/OC Development Services 300 North Flower Street Santa Ana, California 92702.4048 Richard. VuoneCailocow.oc9ov. cam MO N. Flown Street Sells Ana, QA 92703 PO. Box COCA, Sable Aro, CA 92702 008 www.ocpudwivsIXa. 714.61 1 Inro®OCP W n�gw.mm February 2019 Page 2-57 Planning Commission - February 21, 2019 Item No. 2a Additional Materials Received Newport Crossings Mixed Use Project (PA2017-107) NEWPORT CROSSINGS MIXED USE PROJECT (PA2017-107) FINAL EIR CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 2. Response to Comments This page fntentionaIji l� blank. Page 2-58 PlaceForks Planning Commission - February 21, 2019 Item No. 2a Additional Materials Received Newport Crossings Mixed Use Project (PA2017-107) NEWPORT CROSSINGS MIXED USE PROJECT (PA2017-107) FINAL EIR CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 2. Response to Comments A11.. Response to Comments from OC Public Works, Richard Vuong, Manager, Planning Division, dated January 14, 2019. All -1 The comment does not concern the content or adequacy of the Draft EIR. The comment is acknowledged. February 2019 Page 2-59 Planning Commission - February 21, 2019 Item No. 2a Additional Materials Received Newport Crossings Mixed Use Project (PA2017-107) NEWPORT CROSSINGS MIXED USE PROJECT (PA2017-107) FINAL EIR CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 2. Response to Comments This page fntentionaIji l� blank. Page 2-60 PlaceForks Planning Commission - February 21, 2019 Item No. 2a Additional Materials Received Newport Crossings Mixed Use Project (PA2017-107) NEWPORT CROSSINGS MIXED USE PROJECT (PA2017-107) FINAL EIR CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 2. Response to Comments LETTER Al2 — Wittwer Parkin, LLP representing the Southwest Regional Council of Carpenters (14 pages) January 14, 2019 VIA E-MAIL Jamie Murillo, Senior Planner City of Newport Beach Community Development Department 100 Civic Center Drive Newport Beach, California jawrillo@newportbeachca.gov Re: Newport Crossings Mixed Use Project Draft Environmental Impact Report (PA2017-017) Dear Ms. Murillo: Wittwer Parkin, LLP represents the Southwest Regional Council of Carpenters ("Southwest Carpenters") Rod submits this letter on the above -referenced project on its behalf. Southwest Carpenters represents 50,000 union carpenters in six states, including in Southern California. Southwest Carpenters has a strong interest in addressing the environmental impacts of development projects, including the proposed Newport Crossings Mixed -Use Project ("Project") at 1701 Corinthian Way, 1660 Dove Street, 4251, 4253, 4255 Martingale Way, and 4200, 4220, and 4250 Scott Drive in Newport Beach, California The Project is located in the "Airport Area" region of the City of Newport Beach ("Cit)"). (DEIR, p. 1-4.) It is located near the John Wayne Airport, and is surrounded by offices, retail uses, and hotels. (Id at Figure 3-3a [depicting project site and surrounding area], p. 4-4.) The Project site is approximately 5.69 acres, and is currently used as a shopping center, with eight retail and commercial buildings, surface parking, and trees. (Id at p. 1.4.) The Project, if approved, would result in the demolition of these facilities and the Construction of 350 apartment units, 2,000 square feet of restaurant space, 5,500 square feet of retail space, a six - level, five story parking structure, and a half -acre park. (]bid.) Of the 350 apartment units, 91 would be constructed under a 35% density bonus, and 30% of the total units would be reserved for affordable housing. (Id at pp. 1-4, 3-12.) In order to construct the Project, the Project Applicant would need to receive two "development concessions": approval to build to 77 feet and 9 inches, rather than 55 feet, as required by the Zoning code, and Permission to build more one -bedroom and studio apartments than is typically permitted. (Id. at pp. 1-4 —1-5, 3-33.) It would also need a lot line adjustment to consolidate three parcels into one large parcel for the mixed-use project, a half -acre parcel for the park, and a small parcel for emergency access improvements needed for the Project. (Id. at p. 3-33.) Al2-1 WITTWER PARKIN LLP 1 147 a. RIVER ST., STE• 321 1 SANTA CRUZ, CA 1 95o6o 1 831.429.4055 WWW. WITTWERPARKIN.COM / LAWOPFICROWITTWERPARKIN.COM February 2019 Page 2-61 Planning Commission - February 21, 2019 Item No. 2a Additional Materials Received Newport Crossings Mixed Use Project (PA2017-107) NEWPORT CROSSINGS MIXED USE PROJECT (PA2017-107) FINAL EIR CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 2. Response to Comments Jamie Murillo Re: Newport Crossings Mixed Use Project DEIR January 14, 2018 Page 2 In the DEIR, the City concludes that the Project would not result in any significant and unavoidable adverse impacts. (DEIR, p. 6-1.) It determines that the Project would result in potentially significant impacts to air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, ha78rds and hazardous materials, and fire protection and emergency services. (/dd at pp. 1-9, 1-11, 1-13 — 1- 14, 1-15.) It asserts that mitigation would reduce these impacts to below a level of significance. Al2-2 (Ibid) This is incorrect. As discussed more fully below, the DEIR is confusing, missing key analysis, and does not provide sufficient support for conclusions that the Project will have less than significant impacts in a number of areas. I. The DEIR's Cumulative Projects List Does Not Provide Sufficient Information. The data provided in the Cumulative Projects List is insufficient to fully examine the listed projects. (DEIR, pp. 4-13 — 4-14.) The list does not include a description of related development or indicate when the developments will be constructed, nor does the list identify Al2-3 how close the developments are to the Project site. (Ibid) It is, therefore, difficult for Southwest Carpenters to determine how these developments will have cumulative effects in conjunction with the proposed Project. Please update the Cumulative Projects List to, at minimum, include a description of each development, an address for each development and their distance from the Project site, as well w projected construction dates. IL The DEIR's Air Quality Analysis is Incomplete. A. The air quality analysis is uninformative. "[A]n EIR is 'an informational document"' aimed at providing "`detailed information about the effect which a proposed project is likely to have on the environment...: " (Laurel Heights Improvement Assn. v. Regents of University ojCalifornia (1988) 47 Cal.3d 376,391 ["Laurel Heights"], citing Pub. Resources Code § 21061 and Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, § 15003(b) -(e).) An EIR that is unclear fails to adequately inform the public about a potential project's impact on the environment. The Project is located in the South Coast Air Basin ("SCAB"). (DEIR, p. 5.2-1.) The SCAB is in non -attainment for California Ambient Air Quality Standards for ozone ("03"), inhalable particulate matter ("PM1o'% and fine particulate matter ("PM2.5"), and is in non - attainment for PM2.5 and the 8 -hour standards for 03 under the National Ambient Air Quality Standards. (Id. at pp. 5.2.5 — 5.2-7, 5.2-12.) A124 Page 2-62 PlaceForks Planning Commission - February 21, 2019 Item No. 2a Additional Materials Received Newport Crossings Mixed Use Project (PA2017-107) NEWPORT CROSSINGS MIXED USE PROJECT (PA2017-107) FINAL EIR CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 2. Response to Comments Jamie Murillo Re: Newport Crossings Mixed Use Project DEIR January 14, 2018 Page 3 The City does not clearly explain whether it considered all of the information about the Project to reach its conclusions about Project impacts. It explains that the Project is consistent with Impact 5.2-1 ("the proposed project is consistent with the applicable air quality management plan"). (DEIR, pp. 5.2-22 — 5.2-23.) It explains: "projects that are consistent with the local general plan are considered consistent with the air quality -related regional plan," because such projects are consistent with general -plan related demographic projections, and thus, they reason, will not have unexpected impacts on air quality. (Mid.) The DEIR notes that "changes in population, housing, or employment growth projections have the potential to affect SCAG's demographic projections." (Id. at p. 5.2-23.) The evidence demonstrates that the Project will redevelop a commercial retail space into a hybrid-residential/retail/restaurant development, which will increase the population. (]bid) The DEIR states that this should not impact the Project's ability to comply with the Air Quality Management Plan, and summarily states that the Project would be within the projected housing growth, but it does not explain why. (Ibid.) In addition, it fails to address how the Project's 35% density bonus for above what is typically permitted for housing on site will increase the population density or how this, in turn, could impact the Project's consistency with the applicable Air Quality Management Plan. (See id at pp. 3-12, 5.2-23) [density bonus].) Please update the Air Quality analysis to better explain A124 how this would be within projected housing growth and address the density bonus's potential cont'd impacts on compliance with air quality standards. Further, the City does not explain how compliance with various regulatory requirements (RR AIR -1, RR AIR -2, and RR AIR -3) have any bearing on the potential of the Project to conflict with the Air Quality Management Plan, such that compliance with these unrelated regulations would reduce Project impacts to less than significant prior to mitigation. (See id. at p. 5.2-23.) In fact, much of the air quality analysis frequently references regulations that the Project must comply with or measures to reduce impacts that are contained in other portions of the DEIR, without a description of the measures, reference to where they are described, or, most importantly, how these measures serve to reduce Project impacts. (See, e.g., DEIR, pp. 5.2-22 - 5.2-31.) As another example, the DEIR explains, "with implementation of RR AIR -1, RR AIR - 2, and RR AIR -4, Impact 5.2-3 would be less than significant," etc. (Id at p. 5.2-26.) But the DEIR fails to explain or clearly indicate what these impacts or measures entail. This is uninformative and does not allow Southwest Carpenters to understand the City's conclusions about air quality impacts. Please update the air quality analysis to adequately explain what the measures or procedures and impacts it references entail and explain how these measures will reduce Project impacts. February 2019 Page 2-69 Planning Commission - February 21, 2019 Item No. 2a Additional Materials Received Newport Crossings Mixed Use Project (PA2017-107) NEWPORT CROSSINGS MIXED USE PROJECT (PA2017-107) FINAL EIR CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 2. Response to Comments Jamie Murillo Re: Newport Crossings Mixed Use Project DEIR January 14, 2018 Page 4 B. The DEIR does not adequately examine cumulative air quality impacts. When conducting an environmental impact analysis, an agency's determinations must be supported by evidence in the record. (Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 1094.5 [providing that agency findings must be supported by record evidence]; Cal. Pub. Resources Code § 21168 [applying the Section 1094.5 standard to CEQA actions].) An agency cannot simply draw conclusions without analysis. (See Topanga Assoclation for a Scenic Community v. County of Los Angeles (1974) 11 Cal.3d 506, 511-512, 515 ["Topanga'].) It "must set forth findings to bridge the analytic gap between the raw evidence and ultimate decision or order." (Ibid.) The City's conclusion that "air pollutant emissions associated with the proposed project would not be cumulatively considerable" is not supported by the evidence. (DEIR, p. 5.2-31.) Nearby development, in conjunction with the Project, will have significant and unavoidable cumulative air quality impacts. The data provided in the Cumulative Projects List shows that the developments listed will result in significant construction and will increase residential, hotel, commercial, office, and other uses. (See id. at pp. 4-13 — 4-14.) This will result in increased vehicle trips, and will ultimately delay the air basin's timely attainment with air quality standards A125 designed to protect human health and the environment. (]bid.) Tellingly, the City does not disclose whether any of the cumulative projects it lists have been found to have significant and unavoidable impacts, to which the Project will cumulatively contribute. The evidence in the record does not support a conclusion that the Project will result in a less than cumulatively considerable impact. In reaching this conclusion, the DEIR fails to comply with its obligations under CEQA. CEQA requires an agency drafting an EIR to conduct "[a] reasonable analysis of the cumulative impacts of the relevant projects." (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, § 15130(b)(5).) An agency must "examine reasonable, feasible options for mitigating or avoiding the project's contribution to any significant cumulative effects" in an EIR, (ibid.), and "must use its best efforts to find out and disclose all that it reasonably can" (San Franciscans for Reasonable Growth v. City & County of San Francisco (1984) 151 Cal.App.3d 61, 74 ["San Franciscans']). The DEIR does not "use its best efforts to find out and disclose all it reasonably can." (Ibid.) In the cumulative air quality impacts analysis, the DEIR does not analyze, let alone mention, any of the projects on the Cumulative Projects List included in the DE[R, or other projects in the greater South Coast Air Basin region, nor does it disclose the air quality impacts of each project. (DEIR, pp. DEIR, p. 5.2-31.) As described supra, the Cumulative Projects List also lacks sufficient information to determine whether each project might contribute to cumulative air quality impacts, either on a local or regional level. (See id. at pp. 4-13 — 4-14.) Please confirm whether the City analyzed the actual impacts of surrounding projects or provide estimates of project emissions from Page 2-64 PlaceForks Planning Commission - February 21, 2019 Item No. 2a Additional Materials Received Newport Crossings Mixed Use Project (PA2017-107) NEWPORT CROSSINGS MIXED USE PROJECT (PA2017-107) FINAL EIR CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 2. Response to Comments Jamie Murillo Re: Newport Crossings Mixed Use Project DEIR January 14, 2018 Page 5 construction or operation of such projects. The City must, at a minimum, provide information on all potential related projects included in the Cumulative Projects List. The DEIR also segregates the cumulative air quality impacts of construction from impacts from the operation of other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects. (DEIR, p. 5.2-3 L) This makes it difficult to understand the overarching emissions of pollutants from this and other projects. Please provide information that discusses these projects' total air quality impacts — rather than providing separate analyses of construction and operations related impacts. In an FEIR or a recirculated DEIR, please provide specific pollutant projections for, at minimum, each of the approved projects listed in the DEIR and explain the projected cumulative impact of the Project in conjunction with additional development Further, please provide a list of all past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects in the SCAB that have been found to result in significant and unavoidable air quality impacts. III. The DEIR's Greenhouse Gas ("GAG") Emissions Analysis Is Insufficient. A. The GHG analysis incorrectly relies on federal and statewide regulations that do not apply to individual projects. The Legislature and California Supreme Court have indicated that "an EIR is 'an informational document'... and that '[t]he purpose of an environmental impact report is to provide public agencies and the public in general with detailed information about the effect which a proposed project is likely to have on the environment..."' (Laurel Heights, supra, 47 Cal.3d at 391, citing Cal. Pub. Resources Code § 21061 and Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, § 15003(b) - (e).) Yet the DEIR's discussion of potential impacts on greenhouse gas emissions ("GHGs") fails to clearly identify or analyze applicable regulations and plans in the context of the Project. The City incorrectly relies on federal and statewide plans and regulations which were not designed to be applied at the project -level. (See Center for Biological Diversity V. Dept offish & Wildlife (2015) 62 Cal.4th 204 ["Newhall Ranch"]; DEIR, pp. 5.6-5 - 5.6-15.) The City provides little analytical connection between these plans and requirements for the Project itself. (See ibid.) These plans, for example, discuss GHG emissions requirements for manufacturers of vehicles and suggestions for local governments, but do not provide project -specific standards for development projects. (Id. at pp. 5.6-6 — 5.6-9.) This information is unnecessary and undermines the DEIR's function as a transparent, educational document. Al2.5 ward Al2-6 February 2019 Page 2-65 Planning Commission - February 21, 2019 Item No. 2a Additional Materials Received Newport Crossings Mixed Use Project (PA2017-107) NEWPORT CROSSINGS MIXED USE PROJECT (PA2017-107) FINAL EIR CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 2. Response to Comments Jamie Murillo Re: Newport Crossings Mixed Use Project DEIR January 14, 2018 Page 6 The DEIR's discussion of Impact 5.6-2 does not clearly explain how it selected "applicable" plans. The City states that Impact 5.6-2, which provides "[i]mplementation of the proposed project would not conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of GHGs," would be `less than significant." (DEIR, pp. 5.6- 22, 5.6-25.) In reaching this conclusion, the City discusses two policies: the California Air Resources Board ("CARB') Scoping Plan and the Southern California Association of Governments' ("SCAG') Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy. (Id at pp. 5.6-23 — 5.6-25.) But the City does not explain why, of the many plans and regulations listed, these are "applicable" plans. (Aid.) In fact, it admits that the CARB Scoping Plan "is not directly applicable to cities/counties and individual projects," and, is, thus, not a proper document against which to measure the impacts of Project. (Id at p. 5.6-23.) B. The GHG analysis does not clearly explain how certain measures would ensure that the Project would have less than a significant impact on GHG emissions. As discussed supra, an EIR is an "an informational document." (Laurel Heights, supra, 47 Cal.3d 376, 391, citing Pub. Resources Code § 21061 and Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, § 15003(6)-(e).) An agency cannot simply state conclusions without analysis — it "must set forth findings to bridge the analytic gap between the raw evidence and ultimate decision or order." (Topanga, supra, 11 Cal.3d 506, 511-512, 515.) The DEIR concludes that certain regulations and/or practices would ensure that the Project does not result in significant environmental impacts, but does not explain how. (See DEIR, p. 5.6-22.) The impact analysis states: "with implementation of RR GHG-1, RR GHG-2, RR GHG-3, and RR-GHG-4, Impact 5.6-1 would be less than significant" (Ibid) In reaching this conclusion, the City does not explain what RR GHG-1 — RR GHG4 are, nor how the implementation of these measures would ensure that Impact 5.6-1 would be `less than significant." (See ibid.; id at p. 5.6-19 [describing briefly RR GHG-1 — RR GHG4].) This makes it difficult for Southwest Carpenters to understand the City's conclusions about GHG emission impacts. Please update the discussion of GHG emissions to explain what the mitigation measures or impacts it references entail. C. The DEIR's cumulative Greenhouse Gas Emissions analysis is not sufficiently specific. According to the California Supreme Court: With respect to climate change, an individual project's emissions will most likely not have any appreciable impact on the global problem by themselves, but they will Al2-6 ward Al2-7 Al2-6 Page 2-66 Place Forks Planning Commission - February 21, 2019 Item No. 2a Additional Materials Received Newport Crossings Mixed Use Project (PA2017-107) NEWPORT CROSSINGS MIXED USE PROJECT (PA2017-107) FINAL EIR CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 2. Response to Comments Jamie Murillo Re: Newport Crossings Mixed Use Project DEIR January 14, 2018 Page 7 contribute to the significant cumulative impact caused by greenhouse gas emissions from other sources around the globe. The question therefore becomes whether the project's incremental addition of greenhouse gases is 'cumulatively considerable' in light of the global problem, and thus significant. (Newhall Ranch, supra, 62 CalAth 20'4, 219, citing Crockett, Addressing the Significance of Greenhouse Gas Emissions Under CEQA: Califomia's Search for Regulatory Certainty in an Uncertain World (July 2011) 4 Golden Gate U. Envtl. L.J. 203, 207-208.) The City does not provide sufficient information in the DEIR to determine whether the Project's incremental addition of greenhouse gasses would be cumulatively considerable and thus significant. The City concludes that, because the Project does not exceed South Coast Air Quality Management District's ("SCAQMD") screening threshold for individual projects, "impacts would be less than significant." (DEIR, pp. 5.6-22, 5.6-25.) But the DEIR does not examine projected growth in the City of Newport Beach, estimate or examine what cumulative emissions from other concurrent projects might be, nor does it examine how this might relate to the Project's and the City's contributions to global GHG emissions. (ibid.; see id. at pp. 4-13 — 4-14 [Cumulative Projects List, including other concurrent projected developments].) Furthermore, the DEIR does not provide sufficient threshold information about existing GHG emissions in the City. (See Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, § 15125(a); DEIR, § 5.6.) The DEIR does not analyze what the City's current per -capita GHG emissions are, or whether the City as a whole is on track to meet the 2030 GHG emission goals set forth in SB 32, as broadly outlined in the 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan or provide any other quantitative benchmark to determine whether the Project, in conjunction with other development, would significantly impact GHG emissions. (See id at § 5.6, p. 5.6-8.) What are the projected GHG emissions from construction and operation of the other projects listed in the Cumulative Projects List? Is there additional projected growth in Newport Beach that would contribute to GHG emissions? If so, what are the estimated emissions from such growth? What are the cumulative estimated emissions? How would such emissions comply with quantitative GHG emissions thresholds? Are there any projects within the City or nearby jurisdictions that have been found to result in significant and unavoidable greenhouse gas impacts? Is the City of Newport Beach on track to meet GHG emissions SB 32 greenhouse gas reductions goals, as outlined in the 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan? Are there other qualitative thresholds for GHG emissions that the City could use to determine the City's current contributions to GHGs and how the Project might impact this contribution in conjunction with other development? Please provide specific, estimates, data, and analysis. Al2-8 confd February 2019 Page 2-67 Planning Commission - February 21, 2019 Item No. 2a Additional Materials Received Newport Crossings Mixed Use Project (PA2017-107) NEWPORT CROSSINGS MIXED USE PROJECT (PA2017-107) FINAL EIR CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 2. Response to Comments Jamie Murillo Re: Newport Crossings Mixed Use Project DEIR January 14, 2018 Page 8 D. The DEIR does not provide adequate mitigation for GHG emissions. The City fails to provide adequate mitigation to reduce GHG-related impacts. The City's findings that the Project would result in less than significant impacts and, thus, not require mitigation measures are not supported by evidence in the record. (See DEIR, p. 5.6-25; Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 1094.5; Cal. Pub. Resources Code § 21168.) The City, therefore, has failed to provide appropriate and enforceable mitigation for the greenhouse gas impacts of the Project. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, § 15126.4(a)(1) ["An EIR shall describe feasible measures which could minimize significant adverse impacts, including where relevant, inefficient and unnecessary consumption of energy"]; Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, § 15126.4(a)(2) ["Mitigation measures must be fully enforceable through permit conditions, agreements, or other legally -binding instruments"].) Please revisit the GHG analysis, as described, supra, and update GHG mitigation measures accordingly. tV. The DEIR Does Not Provide Sufficient Enforcement Mechanisms for Mitigation of Impacts to Biological or Cultural Resources. An agency "shall provide that measures to mitigate or avoid significant effects on the environment are fully enforceable through permit conditions, agreements, or other measures," and must have a monitoring program to ensure the implementation of mitigation. (Cal. Pub. Resources Code, § 21081.6 (a) and (d).) "The purpose ofthese requirements is to ensure that feasible mitigation measures will actually be implemented as a condition ofdevelopment, and not merely adopted and then neglected or disregarded." (California Clean Energy Committee v. City of Woodland (2014) 225 Cal.AppAth 173, citing Federation of Hillside & Canyon Associations v. City of Los Angeles (2000) 83 Cal.AppAth 1252, 1260-1261, Cal. Pub. Resources Code, § 21002.1(b) [emphasis in original].) The DEIR's biological resources analysis states that the Project may have "potentially significant" impacts to nesting migratory birds, if nests exist in on-site trees. (DEIR, p. 5.3-4.) It proposes, as mitigation, that a biologist determine whether there are migratory bird nests in on- site trees, and, if there are, create a buffer zone around the nest until the nest is no longer active. (Id at pp. 5.3-7 — 5.3-8.) It requires the biologist to submit documentation regarding whether there are migratory bird nests on site to the City, but does not require that the City monitor the protection of migratory bird nests, should they exist. (]bid.) This does not ensure that mitigation will actually be implemented. Please update the EIR to include requirements that ensure that, should migratory bird nests exist on site, the City will ensure that a buffer zone around such nests Al2-9 Ail -10 Page 2-68 Place Forks Planning Commission - February 21, 2019 Item No. 2a Additional Materials Received Newport Crossings Mixed Use Project (PA2017-107) NEWPORT CROSSINGS MIXED USE PROJECT (PA2017-107) FINAL EIR CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 2. Response to Comments Jamie Murillo Re: Newport Crossings Mixed Use Project DEIR January 14, 2018 Page 9 is erected and construction does not occur within that buffer until these nests are no longer active. In the DEIR's cultural resources analysis, the City fords that the Project has "potentially significant" impacts and has the potential to damage buried archeological resources and paleontological resources. (DEIR, p. 5.4-10.) It states that, if archeological resources are discovered during grading, "all construction work within 50 feet of the find shall cease and the archeologist will assess the find for importance." (]bid.) If the find is not important, then the DEIR states that "work will be permitted to continue in the area." (Id. at pp. 5.4-10 — 5.4-11.) But the DEIR does not explain what should occur if the find is important or if the find is Native American in origin, and does not provide enforceable mitigation measures to protect such a fine (]bid) If paleontological resources are discovered during grading, the DEIR likewise provides that the if the discovery is determined "not to be important" then work may continue, but does not explain what should occur if the find is important and does not provide enforceable mitigation measures to protect such a find. (Id at p. 5.4-11.) This does not ensure enforceable protection of important resources. Please update the DEIR to provide enforceable mitigation mechanisms to provide for the protection of important archeological and paleontological resources. V. The DEIR's Land Use Analysis is Inadequate. A. The DEIR does not adequately explain how the Project complies with existing land use regulations. An EIR that is unclear or omits key information fails to adequately inform the public about a potential project's impact on the environment. (See Laurel Heights, supra, 47 Cal.3d 376, 391 ["an EIR is an informational document" that should provide "detailed information about the effect which a proposed project is likely to have on the environment.......], citing Cal. Pub. Resources Code § 21061, Cal. Code Regs., fit. 14, § 15003(b) -(e) [citations omitted].) The DEIR appears to conflict with itself with respect to land use. In the Housing and Population component of the DEIR, the DEIR states "most of the proposed development is consistent with the general plan," yet Table 5.9-1, which analyzes land use consistency, states that the Project is consistent with all "Applicable Goals and Policies" of the Newport Beach General Plan ("General Plan"). (Compare DEIR, p. 5.11-10 with pp. 5.9-12 - 5.9-25.) Is the Project, in its entirety, consistent with the City's General Plan? If it is not, what component the Project are not compliant with the General Plan? Please provide specific references to exa General Plan policies and provisions. Al2-10 coned Al2-11 February 2019 Page 2-69 Planning Commission - February 21, 2019 Item No. 2a Additional Materials Received Newport Crossings Mixed Use Project (PA2017-107) NEWPORT CROSSINGS MIXED USE PROJECT (PA2017-107) FINAL EIR CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 2. Response to Comments Jamie Murillo Re: Newport Crossings Mixed Use Project DEIR January 14, 2018 Page 10 The DEIR does not clearly explain how the Project complies with existing land use regulations. According to the DEIR Executive Summary, in order to be constructed, the Project most receive a "density bonus," a development concession to allow the construction of more studios and one -bedroom units than are currently permitted under the building code, and a waiver of existing building requirements to permit the developer to construct a project that is 77 feet 9 inches in height, rather than 55 feet, as permitted by code. (DEIR, p. 1-4.) The DEIR discusses the density bonus in several places, but does not explain how the Project, in fact, meets the requirements for such a density bonus. (See id. at § 5.9.) In addition, when analyzing the Project's compliance with the General Plan, the DEIR states that "(e]xact rent prices have not been determined at this time" for "affordable" units, and does not provide any assurance that the City will require that the Project provide an appropriate number of units that are actually affordable. (Id. at p. 5.9-12.) It is also unclear in the land use section what the requirements are for a mix of unit sizes, where these requirements are derived, nor why the project does not have to comply with these requirements. (Id. at § 5.9.) Nor does it explain how the Project qualifies for a waiver of existing height requirements, such that it may be constructed more than 20 feet higher than what is permitted by existing land use regulations. (Ibid.) All of these factors impact the Project's consistency with land use requirements, and should be adequately explained in the land use analysis. Please update and recirculate the DEIR with this information, so that Southwest Carpenters can better understand how the Project does or does not comply with existing land use regulations and whether the Project qualifies for exemptions or exceptions from such regulations, and thus better understand how the Project will impact land use in Newport Beach. The DEIR states that the Project is consistent with the zoning code. (DEIR, p. 5.9-25.) It states that the code only permits a maximum of 50 dwelling units per acre under the MU -H2 land use designation. (ibid.) But according to the DEIR, the Project site, after the dedication of a public park, is 5.19 acres, and the project includes 350 dwelling units. (Ibid.) This would result in 67.437 dwelling units per acre. (See ibid.) If the Project will have 67.437 dwelling units per acre, how does the it comply with the zoning code's limitation of 50 dwelling units per acre? B. The DEIR does not explain how various regulations or practices would ensure that the Project will not result in significant land use impacts. As in other portions of the DEIR, the City concludes that certain regulations and/or practices would ensure that the Project would not result in significant environmental impacts, but does not explain how. (See DEIR, p. 5.9-26.) This makes it difficult for Southwest Carpenters to understand the City's analysis of land use impacts. Please explain what the regulations, practices, and impacts referenced in this section of the DEIR entail and how these will minimize land use impacts. Al2-11 omfdl Al2-12 Page 2-70 Place Forks Planning Commission - February 21, 2019 Item No. 2a Additional Materials Received Newport Crossings Mixed Use Project (PA2017-107) NEWPORT CROSSINGS MIXED USE PROJECT (PA2017-107) FINAL EIR CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 2. Response to Comments Jamie Murillo Re: Newport Crossings Mixed Use Project DEIR January 14, 2018 Page I1 C. The City's cumulative impacts conclusions are not supported by an analysis of the facts. The City's discussion of cumulative impacts to land uses does not bridge the analytic gap between raw evidence and its conclusions. (DEIR p. 5.9-27; see Topanga, supra, 1 I Ca1.3d at 511-512, 515; Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 1094.5; Cal. Pub. Resources Code § 21168.) The City's cumulative impacts analysis also fails to provide a sufficient "summary of the expected environmental effects to be produced by those projects" on the Cumulative Projects List. (See Cal Code Regs., tit. 14, § 15130(6)(4).) The DEIR makes conclusory statements, without analysis of individual projects, that the project would not contribute to cumulatively considerable impacts, because other developments "would be subject to compliance with regional and local plans." (DEIR p. 5.9-27.) But it does not examine any of the developments listed on the Cumulative Projects List, describe whether they are compatible with existing land uses, or discuss if, together, they would result in a considerably cumulative impact. (Id.) Likewise, it states that the area around the Project is "in transition from strictly nonresidential uses... to a wider range of mixed uses," but does not explain how this transition complies with an existing land use plan, the Newport Beach General Plan, or zoning regulations. (/d.) The DEIR also states that this "transition is creating rather than dividing a community," but this is illogical. (/d) If developers are constructing projects with residences amid an area that is currently non-residential, how would this not divide an existing community? Please explain. Please update the cumulative impacts analysis to specifically examine and discuss the developments included on the Cumulative Projects List. Please explain how close these developments are to the Project; whether these developments, specifically, comply with applicable zoning, General Plan, and other land use designations; whether they are receiving density bonus or other variances, waivers, or incentives; and how these developments could foreseeably result in significant cumulative land use impacts. VI. The City's Conclusion that the Project Would Not Contribute to A Cumulative Effect on Traffic and Transportation is not Supported by Sufficient Analysis. An EIR's cumulative impacts analysis "shall reflect the severity of the impacts and their likelihood of occurrence ...." (Cal. Code Regs., tit 14, § 15130(b).) Providing incomplete information `concerning the severity and significance of cumulative impacts impedes meaningful public discussion and skews the decisionmaker's perspective concerting the environmental consequences of the project, the necessity for mitigation measures, and the Al2-13 Al2-14 February 2019 Page 2-71 Planning Commission - February 21, 2019 Item No. 2a Additional Materials Received Newport Crossings Mixed Use Project (PA2017-107) NEWPORT CROSSINGS MIXED USE PROJECT (PA2017-107) FINAL EIR CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 2. Response to Comments Jamie Murillo Re: Newport Crossings Mixed Use Project DEIR January 14, 2018 Page 12 appropriateness of project approval." (Citizens to Preserve the Ojai v. County of Ventura (1985. 176 Cal.App.3d 421, 431.) The DEIR does not provide complete information to support its analysis that the Project would not result in cumulatively considerable impacts to traffic and transportation. The DEER states that the "proposed project would not result in either project -specific significant or cumulatively considerable impacts" to traffic and transportation. (DEIR, p. 5.14-31.) But the City does not clearly explain how it reaches these conclusions. (ibid.) It states that "the traffic study included traffic from 25 projects in Newport Beach," but does not provide a direct citation or reference for the traffic study, nor does it discuss which projects were examined, where they were located, or what the objective traffic impacts are from each project. (See ibid) The DEIR also does not mention or examine the Cumulative Projects List, or how developments on this lis that are located in the immediate vicinity of the Project might impact traffic and transportation it conjunction with the existing project. (See ibid.) Further, the City's conclusions in the DEIR do not align with the information in the Traffic Impact Analysis. For instance, under a Future Year 2022 Plus Project scenario, the Traffic Impact Analysis found that MacArthur Boulevard/Michelson Drive and MacArthur Boulevard/Campus Drive intersections would operate at levels of service (LOS) of "F" and "E," respectively. (DEIR, Appx. J, p. J-31.) Without further explanation, the Traffic Impact Analysi states "LOS E is acceptable" at these intersections. (Ibid.) No reasoning supports this conclusion, nor does this statement address that one of these intersections was found to operate i LOS F. Moreover, by only considering cumulative conditions from a "Future Year 2022 Plus Project" scenario, the Traffic Impact Analysis, and, thus, the DEIR entirely fails to provide an adequate evaluation of cumulative impacts. The Project will remain operational well beyond 2022. Crucially, the Project will not even be constructed or occupied by 1011, as "the project would be built in a single phase spanning approximately 38 months, from December 2019 to February 2023." (DEIR, p. 3-33 (emphasis added).) Thus, the cumulative traffic impacts analysis fails to evaluate the traffic impacts from the vast majority of Project trips, including all of the traffic impacts generated during the decades of Project operation. This failure clearly results in an inadequate cumulative impacts analysis and most be revised. In a recirculated DEIR, please evaluate the following: Which developments were examined/excluded in the cumulative traffic study? What are the quantitative traffic impacts? How will development listed on the Cumulative Projects List and located near the Project impac traffic and transportation with respect to project construction, operation, and as a whole? Please explain these topics in detail. Al2-14 mnfd Page 2-72 PlaceWark r Planning Commission - February 21, 2019 Item No. 2a Additional Materials Received Newport Crossings Mixed Use Project (PA2017-107) NEWPORT CROSSINGS MIXED USE PROJECT (PA2017-107) FINAL EIR CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 2. Response to Comments Jamie Murillo Re: Newport Crossings Mixed Use Project DEIR January 14, 2018 Page 13 VII. The DEIR's Alternatives Analysis is Incomplete. The CEQA alternatives analysis has been described by the California Supreme Court as the "core of an EIR." (Citizens of Goleta Valley v. Board of Supervisors (1990) 52 Cal.3d 553, 564.) CEQA provides a "substantive mandate that public agencies refrain from approving projects for which there are feasible alternatives or mitigation measures" that can lessen the environmental impact of proposed projects. (Mountain Lion Foundation v. Fish & Game Com. (1997) 16 CalAth 105, 134, citing Pub. Resources Code § 21081 [emphasis added].) It "compels government... to mitigate... adverse effects through... the selection of feasible alternatives." (Sierra Club v. State Board of Forestry (1994) 7 Cal.4th 1215, 1233; see also Pub. Resources Code § 21002.) A lead agency's ability to comply with this mandate is predicated on a clear analysis of correct findings of a project's impacts. "Without meaningful analysis of alternatives in the EIR, neither the courts nor the public can fulfill their proper roles in the CEQA process." (Laurel Heights, supra, 47 Cal.3d at 404; Preservation Action Council v. City of San Jose (2006) 141 Cal.AppAth 1336, 1350.) An EIR's review of Project alternatives must analyze alternatives "which are capable of avoiding or substantially lessening any significant effects of the project." (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, § 15126.6(b).) An EIR's very purpose is to identify ways to reduce or avoid significant environmental impacts. (Laurel Heights, supra, 47 Cal.3d at 403.) In order to achieve this purpose, the EIR must correctly identify project impacts. Yet, the Project alternatives analysis, as drafted, does not adequately assess whether alternatives would avoid or substantially lessen significant Project effects, because the DEIR either does not provide a sufficient analysis or incorrectly finds impacts to be less than significant, including in the areas of air quality, greenhouse gases, land use, and traffic and transportation. The DEIR's alternatives analysis, therefore, does not identify feasible alternatives that lessen adverse impacts, nor does it sufficiently examine whether the alternatives listed would mitigate or avoid Project impacts. (See DEIR, § 7.) This is improper. Please revise the DEIR as requested throughout this correspondence. Should a reexamination of the DEIR result in altered findings or information, please concurrently update the alternatives analysis to include options that would lessen or avoid all significant and inadequately mitigated impacts. VIII. Conclusion Al2-15 Southwest Carpenters thanks the City for providing an opportunity to comment on the DEIR. Please update the DEIR to adequately address the issues raised in these comments, then Al2-15 recirculate the revised DEM. February 2019 Page 2-73 Planning Commission - February 21, 2019 Item No. 2a Additional Materials Received Newport Crossings Mixed Use Project (PA2017-107) NEWPORT CROSSINGS MIXED USE PROJECT (PA2017-107) FINAL EIR CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 2. Response to Comments Jamie Murillo Re: Newport Crossings Mixed Use Project DEIR January 14, 2018 Page 14 Pursuant to Section 21092.2 of the Public Resources Code and Section 65092 of the Government Code, please notify Southwest Carpenters of all CEQA actions and notices of any public hearings concerning this Project, including any action taken pursuant to California Planning and Zoning Laws. In addition, pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21167(f), please provide a copy of each Notice of Determination issued by the City or any other public entity in connection with this Project and add Southwest Carpenters to the list of interested parties in connection with this Project. All notices should be directed to my attention. Please send all notices by email, or if email is unavailable, by U.S. Mail to: Nicholas Whipps Ashley McCarroll Wittwer Parkin LLP 147 S. River St., Ste. 221 Santa Cruz, CA 95060 nwhipps@wittwerparkin.com amccarroll@wittwerparkin.com Very truly yours, WMWER PARKIN LLP &L— Ucholas Jh P Al2-17 Page 2-74 Place Forks Planning Commission - February 21, 2019 Item No. 2a Additional Materials Received Newport Crossings Mixed Use Project (PA2017-107) NEWPORT CROSSINGS MIXED USE PROJECT (PA2017-107) FINAL EIR CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 2. Response to Comments Al2. Response to Comments from Wittwer Parkin LLP representing the Southwest Regional Council of Carpenters (Southwest Carpenters), Nicholas Whipps, dated January 14, 2019. Al2-1 The comment does not concern the content or adequacy of the Draft FIR. The comment is acknowledged. Al2-2The commenter made a general statement that the significance conclusions provided in the Draft EIR are incorrect and that the Draft EIR is confusing, missing key analysis, and does not provide sufficient support for the less -than significant findings, as discussed in more detail in Comments Al2-3 through Al2-17. No evidence was provided in this comment to support this general statement. Please refer to responses to Comments Al2- 3 and Al2-17 below Al2-3The Draft EIR adequately identifies all cumulative projects causing related impacts in the area that will be affected by the proposed project. See Citizens to Preserve the Ojai v County of Ventura (1985) 176 CAM 421, 429. The information provided in the cumulative projects list is sufficient to identify reasonably foreseeable and approved projects and analyze the proposed project's potential cumulative impacts. Table 4-1, Cumulative Projects Last, of Chapter 4, Environmental Setting, identifies all of the cumulative projects within the relevant geographic area, describes the land use for each project, and specifies the number of dwelling units and/or total non-residential square footage for each project. Figure 4-3, Cumulative Developments Location Map, illustrates the location of each cumulative project relative to the proposed project. Consistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15130(b)(2), the cumulative analysis considers the nature of the resource affected and the location of the project, as well as the type of project under review. For example, the cumulative projects considered in connection with the public services analysis reflect the fact that potential public service impacts are specific to the boundaries of the project's service providers (e.g., Newport Beach Fire Department and Newport Beach Police Department). Although not stated with the degree of specificity that the commenter may prefer, all of the information regarding each project is provided and may be used, as desired by the commenter, to seek additional information. Additional information regarding the cumulative projects is publicly available, much of it provided on the City's website. However, the information provided in the Draft EIR regarding the cumulative projects is sufficient to allow for analysis of the cumulative impacts and of the project's contribution to that cumulative impact. The commenter also has not identified how the omission of more detailed information regarding these projects has misled the public or otherwise resulted in prejudice. Al2-4 Draft FIR Section 5.2, Air Quality, provides a quantified analysis of the project's potential air quality impacts based on the methodology recommended by the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) for projects within the South Coast Air Basin February 2019 Page 2-75 Planning Commission - February 21, 2019 Item No. 2a Additional Materials Received Newport Crossings Mixed Use Project (PA2017-107) NEWPORT CROSSINGS MIXED USE PROJECT (PA2017-107) FINAL EIR CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 2. Response to Comments (SoCAB) in order to inform decision -makers and the public about the project's potential environmental impacts. The commenter states that the air quality analysis is not informative because the Draft EIR does not assess potential impacts associated with the increase in population from redevelopment of a commercial site under Impact 5.2-1. As stated under Impact 5.2-1, projects that are consistent with the local general plan are considered consistent with the air quality -related regional plan. Impact 5.2-1 refers readers to Draft EIR Section 5.9, Land Use and Planning, which concludes that the project would be permitted under the existing land use and zoning designations of the City's general plan (including bonus density units). Impact 5.2-1 also refers readers to Draft EIR Section 5.11, Population and Housing, which demonstrates that the project with the bonus density would not induce substantial population growth. Furthermore, the long-term emissions generated by the proposed project would not generate criteria air pollutants that exceed the SCAQMD significance thresholds, which also substantiates the conclusion that the project would not conflict with the AQMP. The Draft EIR identified various regulatory requirements that the proposed project is required to adhere to. These regulations were adopted by SCAQMD, the California Air Resources Board, the California Energy Commission, and other agencies to reduce air pollutant, greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, and energy use. Subsection 5.2-3, Regulatory Requirements and Standard Conditions, details the measures that are listed in the section under the Impact Statement, "Level of Significance before Mitigation". Subsection 5.2.1.1, Regulatory Background, also provides additional detail on the SCAQMD regulations that are in place that have the potential to reduce emissions associated with the proposed project. Table 5.2-10 shows the project's maximum daily regional operational emissions of the project with implementation of the regulatory requirements identified in Subsections 5.2.1.1 and 5.2-3 and demonstrates that impacts would be less than significant. As substantiated under Impact 5.2-1, the proposed project is consistent with the SCAQMD air quality management plan. Al2-5The commenter states that the Draft EIR does not adequately examine cumulative air quality impacts. In particular, the commenter claims that the evidence does not support a conclusion that the proposed project will result in less than cumulatively considerable impacts because the Draft FIR does not disclose whether any of the listed cumulative projects have been found to have significant and unavoidable impacts. Page 5.2-1 of Section 5.2, Air Quality, states, "Cumulative impacts related to air quality are based on the regional boundaries of the SoCAB." Subsection 4.4, Assumptions Regarding Cumulative Impacts, of Draft EIR Section 4, Environmental Setting, also describe the methodology regarding cumulative impacts. Page 2-76 PlacelForks Planning Commission - February 21, 2019 Item No. 2a Additional Materials Received Newport Crossings Mixed Use Project (PA2017-107) NEWPORT CROSSINGS MIXED USE PROJECT (PA2017-107) FINAL EIR CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 2. Response to Comments Similar to GHG emissions impacts, the air quality impact analysis is also a cumulative impact analysis because regional emissions (lbs/day) generated by the proposed project describe the potential for the project to cumulatively contribute to the SOCAB's nonattainment designations (see page 5.2-31). Impact 5.2-2 (construction) and Impact 5.2- 3 (operation) of Section 5.2 evaluate emissions of the project compared to the SCAQMD regional significance thresholds in order to determine if the project would result in project -level and cumulative impacts. The findings of these impact statements are reiterated in the subheadings under Subsection 5.2.5, Cumulative Impacts. As identified in this section, criteria air pollutants generated during construction (with mitigation) and operation of project would not exceed the SCAQMD regional significance thresholds; and therefore, would not make a cumulatively considerable contribution to the nonattainment designations of SoCAB. Additionally, as stated on pages 4-14 and 5.2-31 of the Draft EIR, cumulative air quality impacts were analyzed based on the regional boundaries of the SoCAB, not by reference to the specific projects identified in Table 4-1. This type of approach is permissible under CEQA, which sets forth two methods for satisfying the cumulative impacts analysis requirement: the "list of projects" approach and the "summary of projections" approach. (CEQA Guidelines g 15130(6).) Consistent with the latter of these approaches, the Draft EIR analyzes cumulative air quality impacts in accordance with SCAQMD's methodology, which considers a project cumulatively significant when project -related emissions exceed the regional emissions thresholds shown in Table 5.2-5. Here, with incorporation of mitigation, the Draft FIR finds that the project's contribution to air quality impacts would not be cumulatively considerable. The comment also states that the segregation of air quality impacts associated with construction from those associated with operations makes it difficult to understand the total emissions that will be produced. Again, the Draft EIR's analysis of cumulative air quality impacts was done in accordance with established SCAQMD methodology, which method is regularly used to assess air quality impacts in the SoCAB. The comment does not indicate that a potentially significant cumulatively considerable impact would result from using a different methodology, but instead insists that the EIR should have disclosed whether each project in the cumulative projects list, alone, would result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to a cumulatively significant impact. Such project -level analysis of the impacts of each project in the cumulative project list is not useful to the evaluation of the proposed project's cumulative impacts and is not required by CEQA. Further, such analysis of each of the cumulative projects is available to the public as part of each project's separate CEQA analysis. To the extent that the comment reiterates concerns regarding the amount of information provided in the cumulative projects list in Table 4-1, please refer to Response to Comment Al2-3. February 2019 Page 2-77 Planning Commission - February 21, 2019 Item No. 2a Additional Materials Received Newport Crossings Mixed Use Project (PA2017-107) NEWPORT CROSSINGS MIXED USE PROJECT (PA2017-107) FINAL EIR CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 2. Response to Comments Al2-6 The commenter states that the Draft EIR does not clearly identify or analyze applicable regulations and plans in the context of the project. Specifically, the commenter cited the Newhall Ranch decision where the court found there was no analytical connection between the state-wide reductions of the California Air Resources Board's (CARB) 2008 Scoping Plan (which applies to new development and existing development) and the percent reduction that would be needed for new projects. This decision is not directly applicable to the proposed project since the project does not utilize significance thresholds that are tied to CARB's GHG emissions forecasts and the Scoping Plan. As identified under Subsection 5.6.2, Thresholds of Significance, of Section 5, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, SCAQMD's Working Group identified a significance threshold of 3,000 metric tons of carbon dioxide -equivalent (MTCO2e) based on a 90 percent capture rate of CEQA projects in the SoCAB. This methodology was identified in the California Air Pollution Control Officer's Association 2008 Whitepaper, CEQA & Climate Change, Evaluating and Addressing Greenhouse Gas Emissions From Project Subject to the California Environmental Quality Act. Consequently, the threshold is both based on new projects and projects within the SoCAB region. Impact 5.6-2 analyzes GHG plans that have been adopted for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions. The Draft EIR includes an analysis of the project's consistency with the 2017 Scoping Plan because it is a plan adopted for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions. The City of Newport Beach has not adopted a GHG reduction plan. As identified in the Draft EIR, the individual measures in the Scoping Plan are not directly applicable to local governments because they are mandates for state agencies. None -the - less, the regulations adopted by the state agencies (e.g., CARB, California Energy Commission, etc.) have the potential to reduce existing and new emissions generated in California. These regulations are described in detail in Subsection 5.6.3, Regulatory Requirements and Standard Conditions, and under Subsection 5.6.1.2, Regulatory Setting. Regarding the applicability of the targets of the Scoping Plan to new development, new development is substantially more energy efficient than existing development. The Scoping Plan forecast includes emissions from both new development and existing development. The state's goal is to reduce emissions below existing levels despite growth anticipated in the state. In order to achieve the GHG reductions goals, the state must substantially reduce emissions from existing development and implement increasingly more stringent building energy efficiency regulations to reduce emissions from new development. Efficiencies in building energy efficiency from new development alone do not achieve the steep reductions needed to achieve the State's GHG reduction goals of 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030 and 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050. To emphasize this point, the Scoping Plan relies on top-down measures, such as improvements in vehicle fuel efficiency standards, penetration of zero emission vehicles into the marketplace, low carbon fuel standards, renewables portfolio standard (RPS), and carbon neutrality in the energy sector which has a much greater effect on reducing the Page 2-78 PlaceForks Planning Commission - February 21, 2019 Item No. 2a Additional Materials Received Newport Crossings Mixed Use Project (PA2017-107) NEWPORT CROSSINGS MIXED USE PROJECT (PA2017-107) FINAL EIR CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 2. Response to Comments magnitude of emissions from existing land uses within the state than the magnitude of reductions in building energy efficiency that only apply to new development. If greater magnitude of reductions is needed from existing land uses to achieve the State GHG reduction goals, CEQA cannot disproportionately require that incremental increase from new development provide more than their fair share of reductions necessary to achieve this "gap" because the extractions must bear a "tough proportionality" to the project's adverse impacts. Despite new development being more efficient, the measures in the Scoping Plan affect existing development to a much greater extent because they ate top down. Consequently, thresholds that are derived from the 2017 Scoping Plan and CARB's emissions forecast may be applicable despite the fact that the measures in CARB's scoping plan do not clearly identify the percent reduction achieved from existing and new development. While the Scoping Plan may assume that new development on a per capita basis may be more efficient than existing development because of the greater building energy efficiency, this diminishes over time as our energy system becomes carbon neutral under SB 100 (50 percent RPS by 2030) and Executive Order B-55-18 (carbon neutrality by 2045). Likewise, the reductions applied to the transportation sector apply evenly across new development and existing development. The per capita efficiency goals cited in the 2017 Scoping Plan reduce per capita emissions below existing levels. Since the measures in the Scoping Plan reduce existing emissions and a zero threshold is not an appropriate significance threshold (i.e., one molecule" of contribution to a cumulative condition is not significant); the efficiency thresholds identified in the Scoping Plan that result in a reduction from existing may be overly stringent if CEQA only requires emissions not result in a substantial increase. Al2-7See also Response to Comment Al2-4 above regarding the description of regulations applicable to the project. Regulations adopted by the state agencies (e.g., CARB, California Energy Commission, etc.) have the potential to reduce existing and new emissions generated in California. Subsection 5.6-3, Regulatory Requirements and Standard Conditions, details the measures that are listed in the section under the Impact Statement, "Level of Significance before M tigation". Subsection 5.6.1.2, Regulatory Background, also provides additional detail on the SCAQTNID regulations that are in place that have the potential to reduce emissions associated with the proposed project. Table 5.6-7 shows the project's operational GHG emissions with implementation of the identified regulatory requirements, and demonstrates that impacts would be less than significant. Al2-8 See also response to Comment Al2-6 above regarding the threshold used to evaluate the proposed project's cumulative contribution to GHG emissions impacts. Page 5.6-1 states, "Because no single project is large enough to result in a measurable increase in global concentrations of GHG, climate change impacts of a project are considered on a cumulative basis." Subsection 4.4, Assumptions Regarding Cumulative Impacts, of the Draft EIR also describe the methodology regarding cumulative impacts. Emissions February 2019 Page 2-79 Planning Commission - February 21, 2019 Item No. 2a Additional Materials Received Newport Crossings Mixed Use Project (PA2017-107) NEWPORT CROSSINGS MIXED USE PROJECT (PA2017-107) FINAL EIR CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 2. Response to Comments (MTCO2e/yr) generated by the project describe the potential for the project to cumulative contribute to the GHG emissions in California. Subsection 5.6.1, California's GHG Sources and Relative Contribution, describes existing GHG emissions based on the Scoping Plan sectors. Existing levels of GHG emissions in the City or in the vicinity of the project are not directly relevant for describing the project's cumulative contribution to GHG emissions impact in the State. The City has not adopted a GHG reduction plan. Al2-9 See responses to comments Al2-6 through Al2-8, above. The proposed project would have a less than significant contribution to GHG emissions impacts since emissions would not exceed the 3,000 MTCO2e significance threshold. As a result, mitigation measure are not warranted for GHG emissions impacts. Al2-10 The commenter stated that the Draft EIR does not provide sufficient enforcement mechanisms for mitigation of impacts to biological and cultural resources. The mitigation measure outlined in Section 5.3, Biological Resources, regarding impacts to migratory birds, and the mitigation measures outlined in Section 5.4, Cultural Resources, regarding archeological and paleontological resources, will be enforced by the City through the project's Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP), which will be presented to the City's approval body for adoption. The measures will also be enforced by the City as conditions of approval, as all mitigation measures of the adopted MMRP will be included as conditions of approval. Therefore, sufficient enforcement will be provided and the applicant compliance with all mitigation measures of the MMRP will be ensured. The commenter stated that Mitigation Measures BI0-1 does not provide a requirement for the City to monitor the protection of migratory birds. As noted in this mitigation measure, the completed survey report/memorandum, if one is required to be prepared, will be submitted to the City by the monitoring biologist. Pursuant to the adopted MMRP, the City will ensure that the monitoring and all related activities and findings have been conducted in accordance with this mitigation measure and under the purview of a qualified biologist. The commenter stated that the Draft EIR, specifically Mitigation Measures CUL -1 and CCL -2, do not explain what would should occur if the find is identified as important or Native American in origin. Both of these mitigation measures provide clarification to this point. For example, as noted in Mitigation Measure CUL -1, if archaeological resources are encountered, the archaeologist is required to assess the find for importance and whether preservation in place without impacts is feasible. The measure further states that any resource that is not Native American in origin and that cannot be preserved in place shall be curated at a public, nonprofit institution with a research interest in the materials. Similarly, Mitigation Measure CUL -2 states that if fossils are encountered, the paleontologist shall assess the find for importance. The measure further states that any resource encountered is required to be curated at a public, nonprofit institution with a research interest in the materials. Page 2-80 PlaceForks Planning Commission - February 21, 2019 Item No. 2a Additional Materials Received Newport Crossings Mixed Use Project (PA2017-107) NEWPORT CROSSINGS MIXED USE PROJECT (PA2017-107) FINAL EIR CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 2. Response to Comments Additionally, Mitigation Measure CUL -1 on pages 5.4-10 and 5.4-11 of Draft FIR Section 5.4, Cultural Resources, has been revised to provide clarification that, consistent with CEQAs requirements, a culturally -related Native American monitor shall be allowed to monitor ground -disturbing activities at the project site, as follows. The revision is also provided in Chapter 3, Revisions to the Draft EIR, of the Final EIR. The revision does not change the findings or conclusions of the Draft EIR. Changes made to the Draft EIR are identified here in �a text to indicate deletions and in bold underlined text to signify additions. 5.4 CULTURAL RESOURCES Impact 5.4-2 CUL -1 Prior to the issuance of a grading permit by the City of Newport Beach, the project applicant shall retain a qualified archaeologist to periodically monitor ground -disturbing activities onsite and provide documentation of such retention to the City of Newport Beach Community Development Director. The archaeologist shall train project construction workers on the types of archaeological resources that could be found in site soils. The archaeologist shall periodically monitor project ground -disturbing activities. During construction activities, if Native American resources (i.e. Tribal Cultural Resources) are encountered, a Cultural Resource Monitoring and Discovery Plan (CRMDP) shall be created and implemented to lay out the proposed personnel, methods, and avoidance /recover framework for tribal cultural resources monitoring and evaluation activities within the project area. A consulting Native American tribe shall be retained and compensated as a consultant/monitor for the project site from the time of discovery to the completion of ground disturbing activities to monitor grading and excavation activities. If archaeological resources are encountered, all construction work within 50 feet of the find shall cease, and the archaeologist shall assess the find for importance and whether preservation in place without impacts is feasible. Construction activities may continue in other areas. If, in consultation with the City and affected Native American tribe (as deemed necessary), the discovery is determined to not be important, work will be permitted to continue in the area. Any resource that is not Native American in origin and that cannot be preserved in place shall be curated at a public, nonprofit institution with a research interest in the materials, such as the South Central Coastal Information Center at California State University, Fullerton. Al2-11 The commenter states that conclusionary statements provided in Draft EIR Section's 5.9, Land Use and Planning, and 5.11, Population and Housing, are inconsistent. Specifically, the analysis in Table 5.9-1 of Section 5.9 concludes that the project is consistent with all February 2019 Page 2-81 Planning Commission - February 21, 2019 Item No. 2a Additional Materials Received Newport Crossings Mixed Use Project (PA2017-107) NEWPORT CROSSINGS MIXED USE PROJECT (PA2017-107) FINAL EIR CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 2. Response to Comments applicable goals and policies of the Newport Beach General Plan; however, under Subsection 5.11.5, Cumulative Impacts, of Section 5.11, it is noted that "most of the proposed development is consistent with the general plan". The statement provided in Subsection 5.11.5 is incorrect. As substantiated in Section 5.9, the project is consistent with all applicable goals and policies of the Newport Beach General Plan. The statement provided in Subsection 5.11.5 has been revised to correct this discrepancy, as follows. The revision is also provided in Chapter 3, Revisions to the Draft EIR, of the Final EIR. The revision does not change the findings or conclusions of the Draft EIR. Changes made to the Draft EIR are identified here in9�a'lwHat-text to indicate deletions and in bold underlined text to signify additions. The commenter also points out that Draft EIR Chapter 1, Executive Summary, states that in order to be constructed, the proposed project "must" receive a density bonus and accompanying development concessions and waivers. The commenter also states that the land use section of the Draft EIR does not explain how the project meets the requirements for density bonus units. The commenter is incorrect as a statement to this affect is not provided in Chapter 1, or anywhere else in the Draft EIR. As clearly stated in Subsection 1.4, Project Summary, the proposed project would be providing density bonus units and based on the provision of affordable housing, development incentives are available to developers pursuant to Chapter 20.32 of the City's zoning code and Government Code Section 65915(d)(1). As further clarified in Subsection 3.3.1.3, Affordable Housing and Development IncentiveslConcessions and Waivers, of Section 3, Prgect Description, `As encouraged by the Residential Overlay and pursuant to Chapter 20.32 (Density Bonus) of the City's zoning code and Government Code Section 65915 (Density Bonus Law), with a 30 percent allocation for lower-income households, the proposed project is entitled to the maximum 35 percent density bonus...". Through the provision of affordable units onsite, which is encouraged and permitted, the project is entitled to development incentives/concessions and waivers. Subsection 3.3.1.3 also clearly explains how the project qualifies for a density bonus. Further, in various places of Section 5.9, it clarifies how the project meets and qualifies for the density bonus. For example, refer to the consistency analysis text provided under Policy 6.2.3 of Table 5.9-1 (page 5.9-18). The commenter pointed out a statement made in Table 5.9-1 of Section 5.9, regarding rent prices, and stated that the Draft EIR does not provide any assurance that the City will require that the project provide an appropriate number of affordable units. As noted in Table 5.9-1 (page 5.9-12) under Goal H2.1, "Exact rent prices have not been determined at this time." This is a general statement provided in the response to Goal H2.1 of the General Plan Housing Element and is not needed to show consistency with this goal. Goal H2 states, "Encourage preservation of existing and provision of new housing affordable to extremely low-, very low-, low-, and moderate -income households". As stated under the consistency analysis of this goal, the proposed project is consistent with this goal as the proposed project includes 78 new housing units that would be affordable to lower - Page 2-82 PlacelForks Planning Commission - February 21, 2019 Item No. 2a Additional Materials Received Newport Crossings Mixed Use Project (PA2017-107) NEWPORT CROSSINGS MIXED USE PROJECT (PA2017-107) FINAL EIR CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 2. Response to Comments income residents. Through its site development review process, the City is working with the developer to ensure that the appropriate number of affordable units are provided. Also, in order for the City to issue the development incentives/concessions and waivers requested for the project, the appropriate number of affordable units must be provided. Further, to the extent the commenter is suggesting that the project cannot be consistent with the zoning code density limitations due to the application of the density bonus, that is incorrect. See Wollmer v. City of Berkeley, where the court determined that modifications required by the density bonus law do not render a density bonus project inconsistent with applicable development standards. Finally, the commenter stated that Draft EIR Section 5.9 does not explain how the project qualifies for a waiver for building heights, or the requirements for unit size mixes, where these requirements are derived from, and why the project does not have to comply with them. The commenter is correct, this information was inadvertently left out of Section 5.9. In response to the commenter, the analysis under the zoning consistency analysis discussion on page 5.9-25 of Section 5.9 has been revised, as follows. The revision is also provided in Chapter 3, Revisions to the Draft EIA, of the Final EIR. The revision does not change the findings or conclusions of the Draft EIR. Changes made to the Draft EIR are identified here in ^"�ag-eaartext to indicate deletions and in bold underlined text to signify additions. 5.9 LAND USE AND PLANNING Zoning Code Consistency As stated above, the project site is zoned Newport Place Planned Community (PC -11). PC -11 allows for residential development, with a minimum of 30 du/ac and a maximum of 50 du/ac, consistent with the MU -H2 land use designation. More specifically, the project site within PC -11 is designated General Commercial Site 6. The General Commercial designation allows retail commercial, office, and professional and business uses. The site also has a residential overlay option given its general plan designation of MU -H2. The projects consistency with the Residential Overlay development standards of the NPPC. which anoly to the nroiect site and function as zoning for the site. is discussed below The proposed retail, restaurant, and residential uses under the proposed project are allowed under the existing zoning, and no zone change is required or proposed. Thus, the proposed project would be consistent with the existing zoning on-site, and impacts would be less than significant. See also RR LU -1 and RR LU -2. February 2019 Page 2-83 Planning Commission - February 21, 2019 Item No. 2a Additional Materials Received Newport Crossings Mixed Use Project (PA2017-107) NEWPORT CROSSINGS MIXED USE PROJECT (PA2017-107) FINAL EIR CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 2. Response to Comments Newport Place Planned Community Development Standards Consistency Development standards for utilization of the NPPC's r -Residential eOverlay, which applies to the project site, are found aft Pfige 46 af 4te PGP in the NPPC development standards. Table 5.9-2 demonstrates the proposed project's consistency with those development standards. Table 5.9-2 NPPC Consistency Analysis Development Standard Required Project Consistent Minimum Site Area None N/A Density (base units)l 30-50 units/acre 50 units/acre Minimum Percent Affordable 30 percent 30 percent Maximum Building Height 55 feet (exceptions allowed) 77 feet, 9 inches (livable space would be 55 feet max) Minimum Street Setback 30 feet 30 feet Minimum Interior Setback 10 feet 10 feet (to park) Parking See Chapter 3 See Chapter 3 I Density bonus units are allowed to Increase a project's gross density to be higher than that required for the project's "base" units. Additionallv. as noted in Table 5.9-1. the Residential Overlav of the NPPC. which apblies to the project site. implements General Plan Housing Element Program 3.2.2, which creates an exception to the 10 -acre site requirement for residential development projects in the Airport Area that include a minimum of 30 percent of the units affordable to lower income households. Residential developments, such as the proposed project, that qualify for the residential overlay are subsequently exempt from General Plan Land Use Policy LU 6.15.6 and have no minimum site area requirement. In addition to the site size exception and affordable housing requirements. the NPPC details additional residential development regulations addressing setbacks, building height barking requirements, landscaping, signs, utilities requirements, and amenities and neighborhood integration. With the exception of the unit mix and building height requirements, the proposed project would be developed in accordance with the NPPC development regulations. As described in Chapter 3. Proiecl Deccrz,bkon, of this Draft EIR. the project's Affordable Housing Implementation Plan includes a request for one develonment concession for the unit mix and one waiver for the height. as described below Develonment Concession (Unit Mix). Pursuant to Section V.EI of the Residential Overlay. "Affordable units shall reflect the range of numbers of bedrooms provided in the residential development project as a whole." In the case of the proposed project, the project applicant is requesting a unit mix that includes a greater percentage of studio and one -bedroom units, as illustrated in Table 3-2 of Chapter 3. Granting Page 2-84 PlaceForks Planning Commission - February 21, 2019 Item No. 2a Additional Materials Received Newport Crossings Mixed Use Project (PA2017-107) NEWPORT CROSSINGS MIXED USE PROJECT (PA2017-107) FINAL EIR CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 2. Response to Comments this incentive will result in identifiable, financially sufficient, and actual project cost reduction by reducing the long-term rental subsidy costs associated with the two- bedroom units and affording additional rental income for the project toensure financial feasib iV.. • Waiver/Concession of Development Standard (Height Increase). Pursuant to Section VA of the Residential Overlay. the maximum building heights are limited to 55 feet, but may be increased with the approval of a site development review after making certain findings for approval. Government Code Section 65915011111 Tprovides that a city may not apply a development standard that will have the effect of physically precluding the construction of a density bonus project at the densitypermitted under the density bonus law. In the case of the proposed project, the project applicant is requesting a waiver of the 55 -foot building height limit to 77 feet 9 inches in order to accommodate the parapet, roof -top mechanical equipment, elevator shafts, emergency staircase, rooftop terrace, and a portion of the parkinggarage. Without the height allowance for the stairs, elevators, mechanical equipment, and parapet. 63 of the 91 density bonus units would need to be eliminated. Furthermore, limiting heights to 55 feet would result in elimination of the rooftop amenity deck and upper level of parking structure, which are necessary for marketing purposes to meet expectations of prospective tenants and market -rate rents, provide the level of onsite amenities encouraged by the Residential Overlayand reduce the impact of parking availability on neighboring streets. Approval of the aforementioned concession and waiver would not result in a land use conflict with the regard to the NPPC development standards. 5.11 POPULATION AND HOUSING 5.11.5 Cumulative Impacts The area considered for cumulative impacts is the City of Newport Beach. Impacts are analyzed using General Plan projections in SCAG's 2016 Growth Forecast. Development activity in the City includes residential projects (see Table 4-1 in Chapter 4, Environmental Setting). Alast of the pfoposed develapffie The proposed project is consistent with the City of Newport Beach General Plan and would therefore be expected to be consistent with SCAG's growth projections. Al2-12 The analysis of the proposed project's compliance with regulatory requirements RR LU - 1 and RR LU -2, which outline the City's development standards applicable to the project, is provided under Impact Statement 5.9-2 (see pages 5.9-25 and 5.9-26) of Draft FIR Section 5.9, Land Use and Planning. See also response to Comments Al2-11 and Al2-13. February 2019 Page 2-85 Planning Commission - February 21, 2019 Item No. 2a Additional Materials Received Newport Crossings Mixed Use Project (PA2017-107) NEWPORT CROSSINGS MIXED USE PROJECT (PA2017-107) FINAL EIR CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 2. Response to Comments Al2-13 See response to comment Al2-6 regarding the required scope of cumulative analysis and analysis of projects in cumulative projects list. As stated on pages 4-17 and 5.9-27 of the Draft EIR, cumulative land use and planning impacts were analyzed based on applicable jurisdictional boundaries and related plans, including the City of Newport Beach General Plan and applicable regional land use plans, not by reference to the specific projects identified in Table 4-1. This type of approach is permissible under CEQA, which sets forth two methods for satisfying the cumulative impacts analysis requirement: the "list of projects" approach and the "summary of projections" approach. (CEQA Guidelines § 15130(b).) Consistent with the latter of these two approaches, the Draft EIR fords that cumulative projects would be subject to the same regional and local plans, and that it is reasonable to assume these projects would implement local and regional planning goals and policies. Based on this regional analysis, the Draft EIR finds that, upon implementation of any cumulative development, cumulative adverse land use impacts would be less than significant. With respect to the Draft EIR's statement that the surrounding Airport Area is transitioning from strictly nonresidential uses to a wider range of mixed uses, including residential uses, the Draft EIR explains that such transition is anticipated by the Newport Beach General Plan and would not represent a cumulative adverse land use impact. The Draft EIR's conclusion that this transition is "creating rather than dividing a community" is not illogical. This finding is described in more detail on page 5.9-10, which explains that, given the distance and physical separation of existing residential communities from the project site, development of the project would not divide an established residential community. Instead, over time, with development of mixed uses in the area, a more cohesive community actually would be created. To the extent that the comment reiterates concerns regarding the amount of information provided in the cumulative projects list in Table 4-1, please refer to Response to Comment Al2-3. Al2-14 The commenter stated that the Draft EIR, specifically Section 5.14, Transportation and Traffic, does not clearly identify the cumulative projects included in the traffic analysis, nor does it explain how the City reached the less than significant conclusions. Draft EIR Section 4.4, Assumptions Regarding Cumulative Impacts summarizes the CEQA requirements for cumulative project analysis. As detailed in this section, the CEQA Guidelines (Section 15130[b] [11) state that the information utilized in an analysis of cumulative impacts should come from one of two sources: A. A list of past, present and probable future projects producing related cumulative impacts, including, if necessary, those projects outside the control of the agency. B. A summary of projections contained in an adopted General Plan or related planning document designed to evaluate regional or area -wide conditions. Page 2-86 PlaceForks Planning Commission - February 21, 2019 Item No. 2a Additional Materials Received Newport Crossings Mixed Use Project (PA2017-107) NEWPORT CROSSINGS MIXED USE PROJECT (PA2017-107) FINAL EIR CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 2. Response to Comments The traffic analysis is based on Method A. As stated under Impact Statement 5.14-1 (page 5.14-15), the traffic study included traffic from 25 projects in Newport Beach and 30 projects in Irvine. The detailed lists and location maps for these projects are included in Draft EIR Appendix J, Traffic Impact Anajl si, pages J20 to J27. In addition to evaluating the potential traffic impact of 55 related development projects, and traffic analysis conservatively added an ambient growth rate of traffic of 1 percent per year (5 percent total) for MacArthur Boulevard, Jamboree Road and Irvine Avenue. The analysis fully complies with CEQA requirements. The commenter also stated that the conclusions in the Draft EIR do not align with the information in the traffic study. For example, the commenter stated that under the Future Year 2022 Plus Project scenario, the traffic study found that Macarthur Boulevard/Michelson Drive and Macarthur Boulevard/Campus Drive would operate at LOS F and E, respectively, and that no further explanation was provided in the traffic study regarding LOS E being acceptable. With respect to the MacArthur Blvd/Campus Drive intersection, LOS E is considered acceptable by the City of Irvine, as noted on page 6 of the traffic study. Under the year 2022 baseline (no project) and with project analysis, the MacArthur Boulevard/Michelson Drive intersection is forecasted to operate at LOS F with a V/C increase of 0.002, which is not considered a significant impact. Therefore, the analysis and significance findings and conclusions in the Draft EIR and traffic study are in alignment. As explained under footnote 2 on Draft FIR page 5.14-15, the traffic analysis was based on a projected opening year of 2022 for the project. The estimated opening date was revised to 2023 after the draft traffic study was completed. To confirm whether the study results would still be valid for the updated opening year, an analysis was performed at key intersections for 2024 (since the City of Newport Beach evaluates potential conditions for one year after project opening,). The analysis to verify conditions for the year 2024 is summarized on Draft EIR page 5.14-23 and the level of service calculations performed for this analysis are included as Appendix B of this FEIR. Al2-15 The commenter states that the Draft EIR's alternatives analysis is insufficient because the underlying evaluation of environmental impacts is inadequate. Therefore, the commenter claims, the alternatives analysis does not identify feasible alternatives that lessen adverse impacts or examine whether the alternatives would mitigate or avoid impacts. To the extent that the comment reiterates concerns regarding the Draft EIR's evaluation of environmental impacts, please refer to Responses to Comments Al2-4 through Al2- 14, above. Given the adequacy of the underlying environmental analysis, the Draft FIR's evaluation of alternatives likewise is sufficient. An FIR only must evaluate a range of reasonable alternatives to the extent they would avoid or substantially lessen any of the project's significant effects and feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the project. (CEQA Guidelines 4 15126.6(a); see also In re Bay -Delta Programmatic Environmental February 2019 Page 2-87 Planning Commission - February 21, 2019 Item No. 2a Additional Materials Received Newport Crossings Mixed Use Project (PA2017-107) NEWPORT CROSSINGS MIXED USE PROJECT (PA2017-107) FINAL EIR CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 2. Response to Comments Impact Report Coordinated Proceedings (2008) 43 Ca1.4th 1143, 1163.) Here, the Draft EIR evaluated two alternatives: (1) a "no project" alternative; and (2) a "reduced height and density" alternative. Each alternative would lessen certain environmental impacts as compared to the proposed project. The "no project" alternative, however, would not achieve project objectives, and while the "reduced height and density alternative" would achieve project objectives, it would do so to a lesser extent. Together, these two alternatives comprise a reasonable range of alternatives, and the commenter does not otherwise allege any particular deficiency in the alternatives analysis Al2-16 The commenter requested that the Draft EIR be updated to address the comments raised in this comment letter and that the Draft EIR be recirculated. See individual responses to Comments Al2-1 through Al2-15, above. Based on responses provided to the individual comments, the revisions to the Draft FIR outlined above, and the findings and conclusions of the Draft FIR and this Final EIR, recirculation of the Draft EIR is not warranted. Additionally, none of this material indicates that there would be a substantial increase in the severity of a previously identified environmental impact that will not be mitigated, or that there would be any of the other circumstances requiring recirculation described in Section 15088.5. Al2-17 The commenter requested that they be notified of any additional notices related to the proposed project pursuant to Section 21092.2 of the Public Resources Code, Section 21167(1] of the Public Resources Code, and Section 65092 of the Government Code. The commenter also requested that they be added to the list of interested parties for the proposed project. The City will continue to provide the commenter with all planning and CEQA-related project notices and documents in accordance with these requirements. The City will also add the commenter to the list of interested parties. Page 2-88 Place Forks Planning Commission - February 21, 2019 Item No. 2a Additional Materials Received Newport Crossings Mixed Use Project (PA2017-107) NEWPORT CROSSINGS MIXED USE PROJECT (PA2017-107) FINAL EIR CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 2. Response to Comments LETTER A13 — Gabrieleflo Band of Mission Indians — Kizh Nation (1 page) ��ppo+nd °f GABRIE.LE.NO SAND OE M155ION INDIAN5-KIZII NATION �11L I-liatonaally lrnown.e The San 6a6nel Nmdaf Miaaion Indians/Ga6nelino T66a1 Cmirril 11 recogoiad 69 t6e 5tate of California as the a6orignal M6e of the Los Angeles basin Nation City of Newport Beach 100 Civic Center Dr. Newport Beach, CA 92660 December, 17, 2018 Re: AB52 Consultation request for the Newport Crossings Mixod Use Projoct Dear Mariners Branch, Pleax find this letter as a written request for consultation regarding the above-mentioned project pursuant to Public Resources Code § 21080.3.1, subd. (d). Your project lies within our ancestral W bad territory, meaning belonging to or emented from, which is a bihor degree of kinship than traditional or cultural aRliation. Your prejem is located within a sensitive arca and may cause a substantial adverse change in the sigmf' rants of aur tribal cultural resources. Most often, a rerorde search for our tribal cultural resource. will result in a" m racoma found' for the project ares. The Native Amenran Heritage Commission INAHCI, ethnographers, himmuma, and prokssim al archaeologists ran mil, provide limited information that has been previously donunented about California Nahm Tribes. For this reason, the NAHC will always refer the lead agent, to the respective Native American Tribe of the arra. The NAHC is only aware of general information and are not the exports on each California Tribe. Our Elder Committee 6 tribal historians are the experts for yr Tobe and ran provide amore complete main, (bods written and cash regarding the Immo. mhistoric vilkges, trade routes, cemeteries end sacred/religious site. in the project area. Additionally, CEQA now defines Tribal Cultural Resources ITCR.) as their oars independent element separate from erchacolagiral remurrea. Envirovmentel tlocumenfa shall now eddrcea a aepemte Tribal Cultural Remuroe section which includes a thorough analysis of the impseta to only Tribal Cultural Resources frCRal and includes independent mitigatlon A13-1 measures mimed with Tribal input during A13-52 consultations. An a msutt, all simulation measures, conditions of approval and agreements regarding TCRat (i.e. prehistoric maources) shall be handled solely with the Tribal Government and not through en EnvWrrmentW /Archaeological firm. In effort to avoid idverse effects to our tribal cultural resourms, we woWit tike to ronsW[ with you and your staff to provide you with a more complete understanding of the prehistoric Peale) of the p jest area and the potenhel risks for causing a substantial adverse rimm, m the in nihcsnce of our tribal cultural resources. CaruWmtion appointments are avedable on WeMeatleya and Tauraday. et our ores at 910 N. Citrus Ave. Cav ^a, CA 91]22 or aver the phove. Please call too free 1-844-390-0787 or email edmir�jgabrieknoindisna.org to schedule m appointment. ••Pruo the fust w b Cert vrtth aur'ffibe, rue ask v0 those i^a u d � thing of in the coruvUation fa view a video praduoad mW Provided by CaIEPA and the NAHCfor serisittvRy mid undersrmitltnB olAB52. You con rdew Ner videos a[: biro://coteoa.m.vov/fYibaV Ttvinina/ er him://nahc.maou/201x/ 12/otr52-td6ai-fminina/ With Respect' Andrew Sales, Chairman AJ -5.1. C6....,,, N.—S..b..v -C6-- Cl-.—'-:. Al M.ro—...a«,�d Ah.. r.—t—„bl M.dh•Ga...,b. L.-1— 11 CI„:,,.,,, i6.C--IofEJW.. rO Baa i9f,Cm6+a.CA 9pzD www.gabrieknoindians.org gabnelenoindians@yahoo.com February 2019 Page 2-89 Planning Commission - February 21, 2019 Item No. 2a Additional Materials Received Newport Crossings Mixed Use Project (PA2017-107) NEWPORT CROSSINGS MIXED USE PROJECT (PA2017-107) FINAL EIR CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 2. Response to Comments This page fntentionaIji l� blank. Page 2-90 PlaceForks Planning Commission - February 21, 2019 Item No. 2a Additional Materials Received Newport Crossings Mixed Use Project (PA2017-107) NEWPORT CROSSINGS MIXED USE PROJECT (PA2017-107) FINAL EIR CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 2. Response to Comments A13. Response to Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians — Kizh Nation, LLP, Nicholas Whipper dated December 17, 2018. A13-1 This letter requests tribal consultation with the City in accordance with AB52. However, dated December 17, 2018, it appears to be written in response to the Notice of Availability for the Draft EIR. The AB 52 tribal consultation process conducted for this project is described in Draft FIR Section 5.15., Tribal Cultural Resources. Emails notifying tribes of the project and inviting early consultation were sent to each of the tribes on January 3, 2018. No comments or requests for consultation were received. The 30 -day noticing requirement under AB 52 was completed on February 3, 2018. Therefore, the City completed its noticing requirements in accordance with the requirements of AB 52. (See Pub. Resources Code g 21082.3(d).) In response to the current letter (12/17/18), on December 20, 2018, the City's Project Manager, Jaime Murillo, forwarded the commenter copies of Draft EIR Sections 5.4 and 5.15, Cultural Resources, and Tribal Cultural Resources, respectively. The Cultural Resources Technical Memo supporting the Draft EIR was also forwarded (Draft EIR, Appendix D). In the letter, Mr. Murillo also offered to meet with the commenter to discuss the EIR analysis and recommended mitigation in more detail. And finally, Mr. Murillo followed up with a phone call to Mr. Salas. To date, there has been no response back from the commenter. Further, Mitigation Measure CUL -1 on pages 5.4-10 and 5.4-11 of Draft EIR Section 5.4, Cultural Resources, has been revised to provide clarification that a culturally -related Native American monitor shall be allowed to monitor ground -disturbing activities at the project site, as follows. The revision is also provided in Chapter 3, Revisions to the Draft EIR, of the Final EIR. The revision has shown below, does not change the findings or conclusions of the Draft EIR. Changes made to the Draft EIR are identified here in s^a�'-PH, text to indicate deletions and in bold underlined text to signify additions. 5.4 CULTURAL RESOURCES Impact 5.4-2 CUL -1 Prior to the issuance of a grading permit by the City of Newport Beach, the project applicant shall retain a qualified archaeologist to periodically monitor ground -disturbing activities onsite and provide documentation of such retention to the City of Newport Beach Community Development Director. The archaeologist shall train project construction workers on the types of archaeological resources that could be found in site soils. The archaeologist shall periodically monitor project ground -disturbing activities. During February 2019 Page 2-91 NEWPORT CROSSINGS MIXED USE PROJECT (PA2017-107) FINAL EIR CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 2. Response to Comments Planning Commission - February 21, 2019 Item No. 2a Additional Materials Received Newport Crossings Mixed Use Project (PA2O17-107) construction activities. if Native American resources (i.e. Tribal Cultural Resources) are encountered. a Cultural Resource Monitoring and Discovery Plan (CRMDP) shall be created and implemented to lay out the proposed personnel, methods, and avoidance /recover framework for tribal cultural resources monitoring and evaluation activities within the project area. A consulting Native American tribe shall be retained and compensated as a consultant/monitor for the project site from the time of discovery to the completion of ground disturbing activities to monitor grading and excavation activities. If archaeological resources are encountered, all construction work within 50 feet of the find shall cease, and the archaeologist shall assess the find for importance and whether preservation in place without impacts is feasible. Construction activities may continue in other areas. If, in consultation with the City and affected Native American tribe (as deemed necessary), the discovery is determined to not be important, work will be permitted to continue in the area. Any resource that is not Native American in origin and that cannot be preserved in place shall be curated at a public, nonprofit institution with a research interest in the materials, such as the South Central Coastal Information Center at California State University, Fullerton. Page 2-92 Place Forks Planning Commission - February 21, 2019 Item No. 2a Additional Materials Received Newport Crossings Mixed Use Project (PA2017-107) NEWPORT CROSSINGS MIXED USE PROJECT (PA2017-107) FINAL EIR CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 2. Response to Comments LETTER A14 —State Clearinghouse (9 pages) sra STATE OF CALIFORNIA Nyco, 1u%, Governor's Office of Planning and Research m%ayy' ` State Clearinghouse and Planning Unit Gavin Newsom Governor vEGENEo &,- YCOMMUNITY COMMUNITY January 15, 2019 DEVELOPMENT .JAN 2 2 2019 Jaime Murillo CITY OF City of Newport Beach _ 100 Civic Center Drive Newport Beach, CA 92660 "rr'oRT Subject Newport Crossings Mixed Use Residential Project SCHR: 2017101067 Dear Jaime Murillo: The State Clearinghouse submitted the above named Draft PER to selected state agencies for review. On the enclosed Document Details Report please note that the Clearinghouse has listed the state agencies that reviewed your document The reviewperlod closed on January 14, 2019, and the comments h'om the responding agency lies) is (are) enclosed. If this comment package is not in order, please notify the State Clearinghouse immediately. Please refer to the project's ten -digit State Clearinghouse number in future correspondence so that we may respond promptly. Please note that Section 21104(c) of the California Public Resources Code states that A14-1 "A responsible or other public agency shall only make substantive comments regarding those activities involved in a project which are within an area of expertise of the agency or which are required to be carried out or approved by the agency. Those comments shall be supported by specific documentation." These comments are forwarded for use in preparing your final environmental document. Should you need more information or clarification of the enclosed comments, we recommend that you contact the commenting agency directly. This letter acknowledges that you have complied with the State Clearinghouse review requirements for dreeftenvironmenfal"documents, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act. Please contectthe State Clearinghouse at (916) 445-0613 if you have any questions regarding the environmental review process. Sincerely, •//J S�organ I Director, State Clearinghouse Enclosures cc: Resources Agency 1400 TENTH STREET P.O. BOX 3044 SACRAMENTO. CALIFORNIA 95812d0Nt TELI-91644"13 a ss.clsaringhouse@oPeage, wwwoprxi,gov February 2019 Page 2.99 Planning Commission - February 21, 2019 Item No. 2a Additional Materials Received Newport Crossings Mixed Use Project (PA2017-107) NEWPORT CROSSINGS MIXED USE PROJECT (PA2017-107) FINAL EIR CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 2. Response to Comments Document Details Report State Clearinghouse Data Base SCHd 2017101067 Project Tithe Newport Crossings Mixed Use Residential Project Lead Agency. Newport Beach, City of Type EIR Oraft EIR Description The proposed project would consist of 350 residential dwelling units, 2,W0 square feet of 'casual dining' restaurant space, 5,500 square feet of commercial space, and a 0.5 - acre public park. A six -story parking structure (one level subterranean and five levels above ground) is proposed In the center of the site to be surrounded and screened from public views by the residential and commercial buildings on all sides. Outdoor residential amenities Include pool, entertainment, and lounge courtyards and a roofstop terrace. A commercial /retail plaza would provide a social hub surrounding the retail and restaurant uses with fire pits, soft fumitture, landscaping, and festival IighUng. The community park would include a dog park, dining terrace, shade structures, games terrace, lawn area, pickleball courts, and a parking lot Leat) Agency Contact Name Jaime Murillo Agency City of Newport Beach Phone (949)644-3209 Pax small Address 100 Civic Center Drive City Newport Beach State CA Zhp 92660 Project Location County Orange City Newport Beach Region Lat/Long 33°39'57"N/117°51'57"W Cross Streets Dove Street/Scott Drive, Scott Drive/Carinthian Way. Codthian Way/Mamngale Way Parcel No. various Township Range Section Base Proximity to: Highways 73,55,1-405 Airports John Wayne Airport Railways Waterways Newport Bay, San Diego Creek, Pauladno Channel Schools Various Land Use GP Destination - MU H2 (Mixed Use Horizontal); Zoning- PC -11 (Planned Community 11, Newport Place) Project Issues Agricultural Land; Air Quality; Archaeologic-Histodc Biological Resources; Geologic/Seisir l Minerals; Noise; Population/Housing Balance; Public Services; Recreaflon/Parks; Toxic/Hazardous; TrafficlCiiculation; Landuse; Other Issues; AestheticlVisual; Cumulative Effects; Drainage/Absorption; Economics/Jobs; Flood Plaln/Flooding; Forest Land/Fire Hazard; Growth Inducing; Schools/Universtfies; Septic System; Sewer Capacity; Soil Emsion/Compaction/Grading; Solid Waste; Vegetation; Water Quality; Water Supply; Wetland/Ripadan Reviewing Resources Agency; Department of Fish and Wildlife, Region 5; Department of Parks and Recreation; Agencies Department of Water Resources; Caltrans, Division ofAeronautics; California Highway Patrol; Celina ns, District 12; Regional Water Quality Control Board, Region 8; Native American Heritage Commission; State Water Resources Control Board, DMsion of Water Quality; Department of Toxic Substances Control Note: Blanks In data fields result from Insufficient information provided by lead agency. Page 2-94 Place Forks Planning Commission - February 21, 2019 Item No. 2a Additional Materials Received Newport Crossings Mixed Use Project (PA2017-107) NEWPORT CROSSINGS MIXED USE PROJECT (PA2017-107) FINAL EIR CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 2. Response to Comments Document Details Report State Clearinghouse Data Base Date Recolve0 1V292018 StarfofReview 11/292018 Endof Review 01114/2019 Note: Blanks In data fields result from insufficient information provided by lead agency. February 2019 Page 2.95 Planning Commission - February 21, 2019 Item No. 2a Additional Materials Received Newport Crossings Mixed Use Project (PA2017-107) NEWPORT CROSSINGS MIXED USE PROJECT (PA2017-107) FINAL EIR CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 2. Response to Comments DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION DISTRICT 12 ae(1�a\�� •_ 1730 EAST FOlJM STREET, SUITE 100 CA92705 SANTAANA, Mddn$Carvervalian PHONE (657) 378-6267 aCdiit 1. way o/%1%. FAX (657)328-6510 TTY 711 www.dotce.am January 11, 2019 Jaime Murillo City of Newport Beach 100 Civic Center Drive Newport Beach, CA 92660 Dear Mr. Murillo, ' tOfffceofPkMin2RRemm JAN 14 2019 STATE CLEARINGHGUSE File: IGR/CEQA SCH#: 2017101067 12 -ORA -2018-01031 SR 73, PM 25.198 Thank you for including the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) in the review of the Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Newport Crossings Mixed Use project in the City of Newport Beach. The mission of Caltrans is to provide a safe, sustainable, integrated and efficient transportation system to enhance California's economy and livability. The proposed project consists of the development of a multistory building that would house 350 apartment units, 2,000 square feet of "casual -dining" restaurant space, 5,500 square feet of retail space, and a 0.5 -acre public park. The project site is approximately 0.6 miles north of State Route (SR) 73 and 1.3 miles south of Interstate 405 (I-405). Caltrans is a commenting agency on this project and upon review, we have the following comments: Transportation Plannine The City's Bicycle Master Plan (2014) recommends that Class E facilities be constructed on several streets surrounding the project site, including Birch Street, MacArthur Boulevard, Westerly Place, and Dove Street. Please consider these recommended facilities when developing the project's circulation element. Encroachment Permit Please be advised that any project work proposed in the vicinity of the State Highway System (SHS) will require an Encroachment Permit and all environmental concerns must be adequately addressed. If the environmental documentation for the project does not meet Caltrans' requirements, additional documentation would be required before the approval of the Encroachment Permit For specific details for Encroachment Permits procedure, please refer to the Caltrans' Encroachment Permits Manual. The latest edition of the Manual is available on the web site: h_"://www.dot.ca.goy/ho/tra&ps/develonse!y/permits/ Please continue to keep us informed of this project and any future developments which could potentially impact the SHS. If you have my questions, please do not hesitate to contact Joseph Jamoralin, at (657) 328.6276 or Joseph.JamoralinOldot.ca.Rov. 7rwH asa)e, sastalna&e, rote ratedaM eJflclenth sp lan system W enhance Cafi)ornia's e[onamy and Iiy &ft— A14-2 Page 2-96 PlacefForks Planning Commission - February 21, 2019 Item No. 2a Additional Materials Received Newport Crossings Mixed Use Project (PA2017-107) NEWPORT CROSSINGS MIXED USE PROJECT (PA2017-107) FINAL EIR CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Newport Crossings Mixed Use Project January 11, 2019 Page 2 Sincerely SCOTTLEY Branch Chief Regional-IGR-Transit Planning District 12 "Provide o safe, suFolnade, inteamted and efficient VunsWmation system to enhonre roliifomia s ernnomy and livability" 2. Response to Comments A14-2 wnfd February 2019 Page 2.97 NEWPORT CROSSINGS MIXED USE PROJECT (PA2017-107) FINAL EIR CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 2. Response to Comments Matthew Raddque Secretary for Emtmramntel Pmtectbn January 3, 2019 Department of Toxic Substances Control Barbara A. Lee, Director 5796 Corporate Avenue Cypress, California 90630 Planning Commission - February 21, 2019 Item No. 2a Additional Materials Received Newport Crossings Mixed Use Project (PA2017-107) Edmund B. Brown Jr. Oovettror Mr. James Murillo 30""101fteop tP9awarcr, Senior Planner JAN 03 2019 City of Newport Beach Community Development Department STAIECLEARING 100 Civic Center DriveHOUSE Newport Beach, California 92660 J MudiloOnewoo rtbeachca.cov DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT, NEWPORT CROSSING MIXED USE PROJECT (PA 2017-107), NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA STATE CLEARINGHOUSE #2017101067 Dear Mr, Murillo: The Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) reviewed the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) received from the City of Newport Beach (City) as lead agency, dated November 2018, for the Newport Crossing Mixed Use Project (Project), located in Newport Beach, California. The Project proposal is to demolish an existing 5.69 -acre -shopping center known as MacArthur Square to build a multistory building that would house 350 apartment units, 2,000 square feet of "casual -dining" restaurant space, 5,500 square feet of retail space, and a 0.5 -acre public park. The site was formerly used as an agricultural land from 1938 to 1963 and developed to a commercial use in phases from the early 1970s through the 1980s. Two dry cleaners operated formerly onsite: (1) Green Hanger Cleaners reportedly operated at 4250 Scott Drive from 2002 through 2015 and (2) Enjay Cleaners, operated onsite at 1701 Corinthian Way, Suite H from 1984 to 1997. In addition, the east adjoining 4341 McArthur Boulevard building contains a dry cleaner tenant which has been in operation since 1996. Chlorinated solvent was used by the former Enjay Cleaners and petroleum-based solvents were used by Green Hanger. A14-3 Page 2-98 Place Forks Planning Commission - February 21, 2019 Item No. 2a Additional Materials Received Newport Crossings Mixed Use Project (PA2017-107) NEWPORT CROSSINGS MIXED USE PROJECT (PA2017-107) FINAL EIR CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 2. Response to Comments Jamie Murillo Re: Newport Crossings Mixed Use Project DEIR January 14, 2018 Page 7 contribute to the significant cumulative impact caused by greenhouse gas emissions from other sources around the globe. The question therefore becomes whether the project's incremental addition of greenhouse gases is 'cumulatively considerable' in light of the global problem, and thus significant. (Newhall Ranch, supra, 62 Cal.4th 20'4, 219, citing Crockett, Addressing the Significance of Greenhouse Gas Emissions Under CEQA: California's Search for Regulatory Certainty in an Uncertain World (July 2011) 4 Golden Gate U. Envd. L.J. 203, 207-208.) The City does not provide sufficient information in the DEIR to determine whether the Project's incremental addition of greenhouse gasses would be cumulatively considerable and thus significant. The City concludes that, because the Project does not exceed South Coast Air Quality Management District's ("SCAQMD'7 screening threshold for individual projects, "impacts would be less than significant" (DEIR, pp. 5.6-22, 5.6-25.) But the DEIR does not examine projected growth in the City of Newport Beach, estimate or examine what cumulative emissions from other concurrent projects might be, nor does it examine how this might relate to the Project's and the City's contributions to global GHG emissions. (Ibid.; see id at pp. 4-13 — 4-14 [Cumulative Projects List, including other concurrent projected developments].) Furthermore, the DEIR does not provide sufficient threshold information about existing GHG emissions in the City. (See Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, § 15125(a); DEIR, § 5.6.) The DEIR does not analyze what the City's current per -capita GHG emissions are, or whether the City as a whole is on track to meet the 2030 GHG emission goals set forth in SB 32, as broadly outlined in the 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan or provide any other quantitative benchmark to determine whether the Project, in conjunction with other development, would significantly impact GHG emissions. (See id at § 5.6, p. 5.6-8.) What are the projected GHG emissions from construction and operation of the other projects listed in the Cumulative Projects List? Is there additional projected growth in Newport Beach that would contribute to GHG emissions? If so, what are the estimated emissions from such growth? What are the cumulative estimated emissions? How would such emissions comply with quantitative GHG emissions thresholds? Are there any projects within the City or nearby jurisdictions that have been found to result in significant and unavoidable greenhouse gas impacts? Is the City of Newport Beach on track to meet GHG emissions SB 32 greenhouse gas reductions goals, as outlined in the 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan? Are there other qualitative thresholds for GHG emissions that the City could use to determine the City's current contributions to GHGs and how the Project might impact this contribution in conjunction with other development? Please provide specific, estimates, data, and analysis. Al2-8 coned February 2019 Page 2.99 Planning Commission - February 21, 2019 Item No. 2a Additional Materials Received Newport Crossings Mixed Use Project (PA2017-107) NEWPORT CROSSINGS MIXED USE PROJECT (PA2017-107) FINAL EIR CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 2. Response to Comments Mr. James Murillo January 3, 2019 Page 3 DTSC recommends the soil gas Investigations be conducted in accordance with DTSC Advisory -Active Soil Gas Investigation (httos:#www.dtsc.ca.00v/SlteCleanuc/uploadNl ActiveSollGasAdvisory FINAL.c df) and Final Guidance for Evaluation and Mitigation of Subsurface Vapor Intrusion to Indoor Air (hftps://www.dtsc.ce.gov/AssessingRisk/upload/Final VIG Oct 2011.odfl 3. Human Health Risk Assessment 2017, Page 5.7-9. Based on the Appendix F3a, only soil vapor samples at 5 feet bgs were used for human health risk assessment. The human healthriskassessment should Include soil gas samples taken at 15 feet bgs. Groundwater should also be considered in the human health risk assessment if it is impacted by PCE. Risk to human health should be re -assessed after the extent of soil gas and groundwater contamination is fully defined. This assessment will then be used to design the vapor mitigation system and associated monitoring program. DTSC recommends the multi -media human health risk assessment be conducted In accordance with the Preliminary Endangerment Assessment Guidance Manual, section 2.5 4. Section 5.7.3.1 Regulatory Requirements, Page 5.7.15. RR HAZ-1 addresses the transportation of any project -related hazardous materials and hazardous waste. Please note that transportation of hazardous waste should also be transported In accordance with Califomia Code of Regulations, title 22, division 4.5, chapter 13. Section 5.7.7 Mitigation Measures, Page 5.7-21. MM HAZA requires a passive ventilation system for the proposed project. Please note that a land use covenant and long -tens monitoring Is required because the site was not remediated to meet the residential land use. In addition, confirmation sampling (e.g., indoor sampling or sub -slab sampling) is recommended after the Installation of a vapor mitigation measure to verify the effectiveness of the mitigation measure. DTSC recommends any vapor intrusion mitigation be implemented in accordance with DTSC Vapor Intrusion Mitigation Advisory (httos•//wwwdtso.ca.ciov_/SiteCleanup/uploadNIMA Final Oct 20111.0f). 5. Any further investigation, human health risk assessment, vapor intrusion mitigation measures and remediation should be overseen by a regulatory agency with jurisdiction to oversee hazardous substance cleanup. Due to the potential of vapor Intrusion into residential properties, DTSC's oversight is recommended. A request for DTSC's oversight can be found at: A14-3 "I'd Page 2-100 Place Forks Planning Commission - February 21, 2019 Item No. 2a Additional Materials Received Newport Crossings Mixed Use Project (PA2017-107) NEWPORT CROSSINGS MIXED USE PROJECT (PA2017-107) FINAL EIR CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 2. Response to Comments Mr. James Murillo January 3, 2019 Page 4 https://www.dtsc.ca.oov/SiteCleanup/Brownfields/voluntarv-aareements- guide.cfm (click on "Request for lead Agency Oversight Application"), DTSC looks forward to a conference call or a meeting to discuss further DTSC's concems regarding this project. Should you have any questions regarding this letter, please contact me at (714) 484-5392 or e-mail chiarin.ven@dtsc.ca.00v. Sincerely, Chia Rin Yen Environmental Scientist Brownfields Restoration and School Evaluation Branch Site Mitigation and Restoration Program ara/cy/yg cc: Govemors Office of Planning and Research (via e-mail) State Clearinghouse P.O. Box 3044 Sacramento, California 95812-3044 State.clearinghouseCrpoor.ca.go v Mr. Dave Kereazis (via e-mail) Office of Planning & Environmental Analysis Department of Toxic Substances Control dave. kereazisOdtsc.ca. oov Ms. Yolanda M. Garza (via e-mail) Brownfields Restoration and School Evaluation Branch Site Mitigation and Restoration Program vola nd a. carzaOdtsc.ca.aov A143 mntd February 2019 Page 2-101 Planning Commission - February 21, 2019 Item No. 2a Additional Materials Received Newport Crossings Mixed Use Project (PA2017-107) NEWPORT CROSSINGS MIXED USE PROJECT (PA2017-107) FINAL EIR CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 2. Response to Comments This page fntentionaIji l� blank. Page 2-102 PlaceForks Planning Commission - February 21, 2019 Item No. 2a Additional Materials Received Newport Crossings Mixed Use Project (PA2017-107) NEWPORT CROSSINGS MIXED USE PROJECT (PA2017-107) FINAL EIR CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 2. Response to Comments A14. Response to State Clearinghouse, Scott Morgan, Director, dated January 15, 2019. Al4-1The comment acknowledges that the City of Newport Beach has complied with State Clearinghouse review requirements for the Draft EIR, pursuant to CEQA. The comment also acknowledges that the State Clearinghouse received the Draft EIR and accompanying Notice Availability and submitted them to select state agencies for review. The comment is acknowledged and no response is necessary. A14-2 Please refer to comment letter A9 for responses to comments raised by Caltrans. Al4-3Please refer to comment letter A4 for responses to comment raised by DTSC. February 2019 Page 2-103 Planning Commission - February 21, 2019 Item No. 2a Additional Materials Received Newport Crossings Mixed Use Project (PA2017-107) NEWPORT CROSSINGS MIXED USE PROJECT (PA2017-107) FINAL EIR CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 2. Response to Comments This page fntentionaIji l� blank. Page 2-104 PlaceForks Planning Commission - February 21, 2019 Item No. 2a Additional Materials Received Newport Crossings Mixed Use Project (PA2017-107) NEWPORT CROSSINGS MIXED USE PROJECT (PA2017-107) FINAL EIR CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 2. Response to Comments LETTER I1 —Jim Mosher (6 pages) Comments on Newport Crossings DER The following comments on items on the Draft EIR (SCH #2017101067) are submitted by: Jim Mosher (I immosheralvahoo.com ), 2210 Private Road, Newport Beach 92660 (949-546-6229) 1. For at least this member of the public, reviewing the Newport Crossings DEIR in its electronic form has been a more daunting task than H needed to be. The main document consists of a 493 -page PDF file, reproducing the 10 -page printed Table of Contents, but providing no bookmarks and no links to the items highlighted in it. Readers are apparently It 1 expected to somehow locate chapters of interest within the 493 pages, and then the pages within the chapters. It seems to me the lack of an effort to make the information more accessible diminishes the information -imparting function of an EIR. 2. Whatever the format, the text seems focused more on repetitive, methodical thoroughness than on clarity of presentation. For example, on page 5-2, under "Organization of Environmental Analysis" we see a pattern repeated 14 times in the Table of Contents for Chapter 5, and another 8 times in the two sections (5.12 PUBLIC SERVICES and 5.16 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS) where, for reasons that are not explained, the standard pattern doesn't seem to be followed, but is applied to sub -topics. a. That may seem very methodical. The problem is that while the logic behind this methodology may be understood by CEQA practitioners, it is not, as best I can tell, and despite the DEIR's great length, explained to the public. b. As an example of the confusion this creates for the public, after each "Impact" presented under the third bullet of the announced method ("Environmental Impacts") we see a statement of "Level of Significance before Mitigation" (for example, on page 5.1-7). But this seems redundant with the fifth bullet of the method, which comes after the fourth bullet ("Cumulative Impacts"), and is itself titled "Level of Significance before Mitigation" (for example, on page 5.1-16). One can only guess one of these is the City and consultant's estimate of the significance before the cumulative impacts have been considered and the other is after that has been factored in — but it is not explained. c. Moreover, and more importantly, while citing thresholds of significance from Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, the "Impact Analysis" seems to be confined to what look like a series of project -specific "Impact" statements whose source (like much else) is unexplained. i. We are repeatedly told (at least 21 times) "The following impact analysis addresses thresholds of significance for which the Notice of Preparation (see Appendix A) disclosed potentially significant impacts." That would imply the Impact Statements were developed in the NOP. But there is no trace of them in the NOP or Appendix A. As best I can tell, it contains only the generalized list of standard CEQA topics (on page A-5). d. In addition, many of the Impact statements are reduced to insignificance, even without mitigation, by citing "Regulatory Requirements and Standard Conditions." As 11-2 February 2019 Page 2-105 Planning Commission - February 21, 2019 Item No. 2a Additional Materials Received Newport Crossings Mixed Use Project (PA2017-107) NEWPORT CROSSINGS MIXED USE PROJECT (PA2017-107) FINAL EIR CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 2. Response to Comments Comments on Newport Crossing DEIR - Jim Mosher Page 2 of 6 best I can tell, the DEIR does not explain where the "Standard Conditions" and, to a lesser extent, the specific "Regulatory Requirements," come from, and what assurance there is any will be adhered to. I. Without further explanation, this is particularly confusing because page 4-2 of the Harbor Pointe Senior Living DEIR (also currently circulating in Newport Beach, but seemingly not relying on standard conditions) says "The City of Newport Beach does not have an adopted set of standard conditions; however, they may impose additional conditions during the approval process, as appropriate. These requirements may be speck to the proposed Project or standard to all projects." ii. Apparently there is an unwritten assumption that the project will include all the Regulatory Requirements and Standard Conditions mentioned in the EIR, but taking that logic to an extreme, it would seem the City could dispense with EIR's entirely if it simply passed an overarching regulation saying "approved projects shall not have significant impacts," or more simply, by adding a standard condition to the project saying "all significant impacts must be avoided." 3. Regarding the Notice of Preparation/Scoping process, I see from Table 2-2 that I asked about consistency with the City's General Plan and about the consistency of the 0.5 acre park with the City's requirement for 5 acres per 1,000 residents. a. Regarding GP consistency, it is good to see the extensive listing in Table 5.9-1. I. Many of the policies, however, seem quite subjective, and the conclusions rather arbitrary. ii. As an example, despite the DEIR's conclusion to the contrary, I am unable to find the proposed park consistent with GP Policy LU 6.15.14, stating "Each park shall be surrounded by public streets on at least two sides (preferably with on -street parking to serve the park)." 1. The policy appears intended to ensure the required park will be highly visible to the public. 2. The proposed park is, instead, situated on the least visible frontage of the project site, surrounded by private development to the south and Flowing into the project's private pool and recreation area on the north. 3. The relatively tiny frontages on Dove and Martingale (which may even be masked by landscaping), hardly seem to fit the policy. How will the park be made inviting and readily identifiable as a public amenity from those sides? And is there even on -street packing on Dove? I don't think the EIR explains, yet it concludes the park is consistent with LU 6.15.14 (on page 5.9-21). 1 would think placing the park on any of the site's four other sides would be a better ft with LU 6.15.14. 11-2 wnt'd 11-3 Page 2-106 Place Forks Planning Commission - February 21, 2019 Item No. 2a Additional Materials Received Newport Crossings Mixed Use Project (PA2017-107) NEWPORT CROSSINGS MIXED USE PROJECT (PA2017-107) FINAL EIR CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 2. Response to Comments Comments on Newport Crossing DEIR - Jim Mosher Page 3 of 6 iii. The proposal similarly seems clearly inconsistent with GP Policy LU 6.15.6, calling for Airport Area "mixed-use residential villages, each containing a minimum of 10 acres and centered on a neighborhood park." 1. I believe the analysis on page 5.9-20 may be misstating the later - adopted Housing Element Program HP 3.2.2 as "waiving the minimum 10 -acre site requirement for affordable housing projects." 2. As adopted in November 22, 2011, Program HP 3.2.2 called for the City to "amend the General Plan and/or establish a waiver or exception to the minimum 10 -acre site requirement." 3. As revised on September 24, 2013, the Housing Element claimed that "This program has been implemented with the adoption of Ordinance No. 2012-14 that amended the Newport Place Planned Community (PC -11) to allow residential development that includes a minimum of 30 percent of the units affordable to lower-income households, and also created a waiver to the 10 -acre site requirement for such projects." However, the 10 -acre requirement of Policy LU 6.15.6 has never been amended, so the City appears to have created an internal inconsistency in its General Plan — with zoning regulations claiming to waive the GP. 4. In addition, Program HP 3.2.2 requires "design considerations for the future integration into a larger residential village, and a requirement to ensure collaboration with future developers in the area." The concept appears to be that although the initial project may be less than 10 acres, overtime the 10-acm threshold will be achieved through effective combination with neighboring projects. I cannot find either of the requirements needed to achieve this — the design features and the collaboration — addressed in the DEIR. It assumes they are somehow ensured by the amended PC -11, but I don't see them adequately addressed in PC -11, either. b. Regarding the City's requirement of 5 acres per 1,000 residents, we are referred to Section S. 13, which tells us first, on page 5.13-2, that Newport Beach has more than 5 acres of parkland per 1,000 residents, and on page 5.13-6 that the requirement applies only to residential subdivisions. I. While that is helpful, I believe the DER is misstating the intent of the regulation, which is to ensure new parkland is added as new residents are added, irrespective of the current balance. it. As to the project not requiring subdivision, it might be noted: 1. The City's case log indicates the application originally included a request for a tentative tract map. 11-3 mnfd 113 February 2019 Page 2-107 Planning Commission - February 21, 2019 Item No. 2a Additional Materials Received Newport Crossings Mixed Use Project (PA2017-107) NEWPORT CROSSINGS MIXED USE PROJECT (PA2017-107) FINAL EIR CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 2. Response to Comments Comments on Newport Crossing DEIR - Jim Mosher Page 4 of 6 2. It seems now to involve only a lot line adjustment, apparently necessary to avoid the proposed structures not spanning across lot lines. 3. Setting aside that the authors of the 5 acres per 1000 requirement may not have envisioned that substantial numbers of new residents could be added without subdivision, is a lot line adjustment not a variety of subdivision? 114 canrd 4. In connection with the lot line adjustment, the Project Description on page 3-33 is confusing in referring to "the three existing parcels" when the Notice of Availability indicates the County Assessor regards the site as consisting of four parcels (APN 427-172-02, 03, 05, 115 and 06), not three, with, according to the City's GIS mapping, the building at 4220 Scott Dr. being on a 0.2 acre parcel of its own (APN 427-172-05), a kind of island within the surrounding APN 427-172-06. 5. In connection with SCAG's 2016-2040 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy, page 4-2 promises "The proposed project's consistency with the applicable 2016-2040 RTP/SCS policies is analyzed in detail in Section 5.9, Land Use and 11-8 Planning." In apparent contradiction to this, the paragraph at the top of page 5.9-2 says "this section does not address the proposed project's consistency with SCAG's regional planning guidelines and policies" [emphasis added]. 6. The Cumulative Projects List provided in Table 4-1 is similarly confusing. a. As acknowledged in the DEIR, it lists Newport Beach projects only, even though projects outside Newport Beach (or conducted by other agencies within Newport Beach) may be equally, or more, important in assessing many kinds of impacts. b. Even for projects within the exclusive jurisdiction of Newport Beach, the list appears to be outdated and inaccurate — and the rules for whether a project is on the list, or not, do not seem to be explained. I. For example, the 4 -unit Ullman Sail Lofts is listed as "foreseeable" project F3, but it was approved by the Planning Commission on July 20, 2017. And it seems to be left to the reader to guess why it is more important to list than many other projects that have passed through the Planning Commission. it. Several of the other "foreseeable" projects similarly, appear to have been approved some time ago, while new foreseeable projects (such as the 21 -unit Ford Road Residential) don't seem to be listed. iii. As for additional inaccuracies: 1. The ENC Preschool certainly has a "non-residential area." 2. Villas Fashion Island consists of 524 apartments, not 94. It -7 7. Also in Chapter 4, in describing the overall Environmental Setting, Subsection 4.3.3.3 (PREVIOUS DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION FOR THE PROJECT SITE) mentions the 115 similar earlier proposal for the 380-unft Residences at Newport Place at the same site, but it Page 2-108 Place Forks Planning Commission - February 21, 2019 Item No. 2a Additional Materials Received Newport Crossings Mixed Use Project (PA2017-107) NEWPORT CROSSINGS MIXED USE PROJECT (PA2017-107) FINAL EIR CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 2. Response to Comments Comments on Newport Crossing DEIR - Jim Mosher Page 5 of 6 does not mention that a Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared for that, which might 111-8 be relevant for comparison with the current analysis. =1 B. As for Chapter 5: a. In Section 5.1, the treatment of Aesthetics Threshold AE -3 seems weak. Much is said about the change in the appearance of the site in comparison to what is presently there, but little, If anything, is provided as to how the new construction, once the old is gone, will blend into its surroundings. Why aren't there any simulations accurately showing how the project will look from various vantage points in both the immediate area and the larger Airport Area in juxtaposition to the existing buildings? b. In Section 5.7: 11-9 I. In describing the contamination of the soil with perchloroethylene (PCE) from dry cleaning businesses, on page 5.7-8, under "Soil Vapor Sampling and Testing: 2013," the DEIR preparer says 0.73 pg/L is the same as "0.73 part per billion." That suggests the preparer is not familiar with his or her field. 1 pg/L Is roughly equivalent to 1 ppb for something like pollutants in water, where 1 L = 1000 g. But it is not at all true for vapors, where 1 L of air weighs much less than 1000 g, and where ppb is conventionally expressed in terms of relative "partial volumes" (closely proportional to number of molecules) rather than relative weights. The EPA's unit conversion calculator indicates that for tetrachloroethylene (another name for PCE), 0.73 pg/L would, by volume, be about 0.11 parts per million, or 111 parts per billion (not 0.73 part per billion). ii. Given the preparer's lack of understanding of the basic units of vapor 11-10 measurement, one has to wonder how accurate his or her estimates of the effectiveness of the mitigation measures are. One also has to wonder how long-lasting the proposed membrane barrier will be, and, should it fail, whether the subslab ventilation system will, by itself, be adequate. ill. Page 5.7-16 says "Thresholds HAZ-7 and HAZ-8 have no impacts and will be included under Chapter 8." Judging from Page 5.7-15, this was intended to read "Thresholds H-7 and H-8 have no impacts and will be included under Chapter 6'— but even then, it's difficult to understand how "thresholds" could have "impacts." The City is possibly trying to say "As will be explained in Chapter 8, no impacts exceeding thresholds H-7 and H-8 were identified." The reference, incidentally, appears to be to Section 8.5 (pages 8-4 & 5) where two statements vaguely similar to the H-7 and H-8 of page 5.7-15 appear as "A" and "B." c. Page 5.10-15 indicates that a noise study will be conducted prior to construction. What mitigation will be possible if the exterior noise levels at the site are found to 11-11 exceed City thresholds? February 2019 Page 2-109 Planning Commission - February 21, 2019 Item No. 2a Additional Materials Received Newport Crossings Mixed Use Project (PA2017-107) NEWPORT CROSSINGS MIXED USE PROJECT (PA2017-107) FINAL EIR CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 2. Response to Comments Comments on Newport Crossing DEIR - Jim Mosher Page 6 of 6 d. In Chapter 5.12: I. Why do the Fire, School and Library subsections all cite a Regulatory Requirement that "New development shall pay a property excise tax per the City's Municipal Code Chapter 3. 1Z Property Development Tax," but the Regulatory Requirements part of the Police subsection says "No existing regulations are applicable to police protection impacts of the proposed project"? Doesn't part of the same property tax that goes to fund fire, school and library services go to fund police services? ii. With regard to subsection 5.12.3, the fact that residents in Newport Beach's Airport Area are not in the Newport -Mesa Unified School District has been regarded as an issue. Is it not still and issue or matter of controversy? 11-12 e. Table 5.13-1 refers to "acers" (as does the second bullet under Section 5.13.6 on page 5.13-8). Shouldn't that be "acres"? I1-13 f. Subsection 5.16.1.4 projects a massive increase in wastewater generation. Despite 5.16.1 being titled "Waster Treatment and Collection," the required CEQA analysis appears to be confined to wastewater treatment. Would this increased Flow 11-14 overwhelm the City's collection infrastructure, requiring construction of new sewer mains? 9. Regarding Chapter 7: a. The description of Alternatives and the CEQA requirements surrounding them is so muddled that I, at least, w