2. Superior Av. & Placentia Av.
0.66 B
0.67 B
3. Superior Av. & Coast Hw.
0.84 D
0.90 D
4. Newport BI. & Hospital Rd.
0.54 A
0.70 B
5. Newport BI. & Via Lido
0.41 A
0.37 A
6. Newport BI. & 32nd St.
0.73 C
0.78 C
7. Riverside Av. & Coast Hw.
0.84 D
0.93 E
8. Tustin Av. & Coast Hw.
0.80 C
0.67 B
9. MacArthur BI. & Campus Dr.
0.61 B
0.85 D
10. MacArthur BI. & Birch St.
0.49 A
0.66 B
11. Von Karman Av. & Campus Dr.
0.55 A
0.79 C
12. MacArthur BI. & Von Karman Av.
0.46 A
0.53 A
13. Jamboree Rd. & Campus Dr.
0.74 C
0.85 D
14. Jamboree Rd. & Birch St.
0.55 A
0.60 A
15. Campus Dr. & Bristol St. (N)
0.77 C
0.94 E
16. Birch St. & Bristol St. (N)
0.66 B
0.61 B
17. Campus Dr./Irvine Av. & Bristol St. (S)
0.72 C
0.58 A
18. Birch St. & Bristol St. (S)
0.46 A
0.44 A
19. Irvine Av. & Mesa Dr.
0.70 B
0.94 E
20. Irvine Av. & University Dr.
0.82 D
0.89 D
21. Irvine Av. & Santiago Dr.
0.66 B
0.72 C
22. Irvine Av. & Highland Dr.
0.57 A
0.60 A
23. Irvine Av. & Dover Dr.
0.72 C
0.64 B
24. Irvine Av. & Westcliff Dr.
0.57 A
0.77 C
25. Dover Dr. & Westcliff Dr.
0.38 A
0.48 A
26. Dover Dr. & 16th St.
0.55 A
0.57 A
27. Dover Dr. & Coast Hw.
0.70 B
0.74 C
28. Bayside Dr. & Coast Hw.
0.69 B
0.70 B
29. MacArthur BI. & Jamboree Rd.
0.88 D
0.91 E
30. Jamboree Rd. & Bristol St. (N)
0.55 A
0.59 A
31. Bayview PI. & Bristol St. (S)
0.48 A
0.56 A
32. Jamboree Rd. & Bristol St. (S)
0.75 C
0.72 C
33. Jamboree Rd. & Bayview Wy.
0.41 A
0.57 A
34. Jamboree Rd. & Eastbluff Dr. /University Dr.
0.60 A
0.64 B
35. Jamboree Rd. & Bison Av.
0.45 A
0.51 A
36. Jamboree Rd. & Eastbluff Dr./Ford Rd.
0.69 B
0.65 B
37. Jamboree Rd. & San Joaquin Hills Rd.
0.56 A
0.57 A
38. Jamboree Rd. & Santa Barbara Dr.
0.47 A
0.63 B
39. Jamboree Rd. & Coast Hw.
0.68 B
0.74 C
40. Santa Cruz Dr. & San Joaquin Hills Rd.
0.36 A
0.36 A
41. Santa Rosa Dr. & San Joaquin Hills Rd.
0.32 A
0.52 A
4.13-10 City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR
Intersection (NS & EV1)
A.M. Peak Hour
P.M. Peak Hour
ICU
LOS
ICU
LOS
42. Newport Center Dr. & Coast Hw.
0.40 A
0.52 A
44. Avocado Av. & San Miguel Dr.
0.33 A
0.72 C
45. Avocado Av. & Coast Hw.
0.58 A
0.66 B
46. SR-73 NB Ramps & Bison Av.
0.31 A
0.37 A
47. SR-73 SB Ramps & Bison Av.
0.26 A
0.17 A
48. MacArthur BI. & Bison Av.
0.63 B
0.60 A
49. MacArthur BI. & Ford Rd./Bonita Canyon Dr.
0.71 C
0.90 D
50. MacArthur BI. & San Joaquin Hills Rd.
0.64 B
0.93 E
51. MacArthur BI. & San Miguel Dr.
0.56 A
0.65 B
52. MacArthur BI. & Coast Hw.
0.60 A
0.71 C
53. SR-73 NB Ramps & Bonita Canyon Dr.
0.55 A
0.43 A
54. SR-73 SB Ramps & Bonita Canyon Dr.
0.30 A
0.41 A
55. Spyglass Hill Rd. & San Miguel Dr.
0.28 A
0.31 A
56. San Miguel Dr. & San Joaquin Hills Rd.
0.44 A
0.54 A
57. Goldenrod Av. & Coast Hw.
0.99 E
0.69 B
58. Marguerite Av. & San Joaquin Hills Rd.
0.31 A
0.35 A
59. Marguerite Av. & Coast Hw.
0.83 D
0.82 D
60. Spyglass Hill Rd. & San Joaquin Hills Rd.
0.44 A
0.30 A
61. Poppy Av. & Coast Hw.
0.61 B
0.65 B
62. Newport Coast Dr. & SR-73 NB Ramps
0.45 A
0.31 A
64. Newport Coast Dr. & San Joaquin Hills Rd.
0.37 A
0.29 A
65. Newport Coast Dr. & Coast Hw.
0.47 A
0.50 A
In addition to Table 4.13-3, Figure 4.13-5 shows these same intersections and corresponding intersection IDs to match the table. The existing General Plan Circulation Element identifies LOS D or better as acceptable. LOS E and F are therefore considered unacceptable. Those intersections which have a LOS of E or lower are listed below.
■ Riverside Avenue (NS)/Coast Highway (EW) P.M. peak only ■ Campus Drive (NS)/Bristol Street (N) (EW) P.M. peak only ■ Irvine Avenue (NS)/Mesa Drive (EW) P.M. peak only
■ MacArthur Boulevard (NS)/Jamboree Road (E\V) P.M. peak only ■ MacArthur Boulevard (NS)/San Joaquin Hills Road (EW) P.M. peak only ■ Goldenrod Avenue (NS)/Coast Highway (EW) A.M. peak only City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 4.13-11
s
11 3 J °rt
P
Y R
1 4
TURTLE
SR-73
$
- 75
29 ! �r
5 4
`
5 c
ANTIAGC
3 yTy
R
3 4
'"
21 41
50 .a'
56 s�' 60
x
IGHLAND
38 p
pyz
9 22
23 SAP,
d4
44 S1
58 �$
s
r
1Tn1 sT.
24 oR
2.5 4
v
a
ss
3gl
IGNWAY
; a fit
5TH
1sr.
45 52
57 -
►'
�
15PH t:
WP
ys
94 5�
28 5
+
7 +.
•i�
t
• r
; ',
6 PACIFIC
3 °a OL
OCEAN
CITY of NEWPORT BEACH
GENERAL PLAN UPDATE EIR
Figure 4.13-5
INTERSECTION
COUNT LOCATIONS
Legend
Intersection Count Location
# Intersection ID
City of Newport Beach
z
e
Not to Scale
Source, Urban Crossroads, 2005
Project No, 10579-03 I
E I P
Freeway/Tollway and Ramp Conditions
Table 4.13-4 shows the operational levels of service of the segments within City boundaries. The existing volumes on the SR-73 Freeway through Newport Beach indicate that the A.M. peak hour peak direction is northbound, while the P.M. peak hour peak direction is southbound. This flow pattern is consistent with the southern parts of Newport Beach and Orange County consisting mainly of residential housing.
The following mainline segments of the SR-73 Freeway within the City of Newport Beach operate at a deficient level of service (LOS E or F) in either the A.M. or P.M. peak hour:
■ SR-73 Freeway Northbound:
> SR-55 Freeway to Jamboree Rd. (A.M./ P.M.)
■ SR-73 Freeway Southbound:
> SR-55 Freeway to Jamboree Rd. (P.M.)
..-4 --
A.M. Segment ADT
- Analysis
Northbound Southbound
Lanes
Volume
LOS
Lanes
Volume
LOS
55 Fw. to Jamboree Rd.
150,000
3 11,909
F
3 3,841
C
Jamboree Rd. to Bonita Canyon Dr.
63,000
3 5,002
D
3 1,613
A
Bonita Canyon Dr. to Newport Coast Dr.
67,000
4 5,319
C
4 1,716
A
Newport Coast Dr. to Toll Plaza
66,000
3 5,240
D
3 1,690
A
P.M. Segment
ADT
Northbound
Southbound
Lanes
I Volume
LOS
Lanes
Volume
LOS
55 Fw. to Jamboree Rd.
150,000
3 6,273
F
3 10,152
F
Jamboree Rd. to Bonita Canyon Dr.
63,000
3 2,635
B
3 4,264
C
Bonita Canyon Dr. to Newport Coast Dr.
1 67,000
4 2,802
B
4 4,535
C
Newport Coast Dr. to Toll Plaza
66,000
3 2,760
B
3 4,467
D
Table 4.13-5 summarizes the results of existing freeway ramp operations. Under Existing conditions, the ramps in Newport Beach operating at a deficient level of service (LOS E or F) are:
■ Bristol Street Northbound Off (A.M./P.M.)
■ Bristol Street Southbound Off (A.M./P.M.)
■ Jamboree Road Northbound On (A.M.)
■ Jamboree Road Southbound On (A.M./P.M.)
■ MacArthur Boulevard Northbound On (A.M.)
■ MacArthur Boulevard Southbound Off a.m. (A.M./P.M.)
■ Bison Avenue Northbound Off (A.M.)
■ Newport Coast Drive Northbound Off (A.M.)
■ Newport Coast Drive Northbound On (A.M.)
City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 4.13-13
Table
Ramp
4.13-5
Lanes
on
Move Fwy.
Existing SR-73
Freeway
Volume
Freeway
Ramp
Lanes
Peak Hour Ramp
Length of Peak Hour
Acceleration Volume
Deceleration Lane (N) A.M. FP.M.
Analysis
Density
LOS
A.M.
P.M.
A.M.
P.M.
A.M.
P.M.
Bristol St.
NB Off
3 11,909
6,273
1 0
1,096
544
53.6 48.7
F
F
Bristol St.
SB Off
3 3,841
10,152
2 2,725
1,632
941
NOM
6.3 A
F
Jamboree Rd.
NB On
1 3
5,002
2,635
1 120
559
597
43.5 25.4
F2
C
Jamboree Rd.
SB On
3 3,841
10,152
1 1,700
578
1,203
31.8 87.4
F2
F
MacArthur BI.
NB Off
3 5,002
2,635
2 1,480
1,598
176
9.1 NOM
A
A
MacArthur BI.
NB On
3 5,002
2,635
1 340
1,636
1,883
44.1 33.6
F
D
MacArthur BI.
SB Off
3 1,613
4,264
1 1,340
2,026
1,882
9.9 24.2
F1
F
University Dr.
NB On
3 5,002
2,635
1 200
281
533
33.2 22.8
D
C
University Dr.
SB Off
3 1,613
4,264
1 1,400
466
503
4.3 19.7
A
B
Bison Av.
NB Off
3 5,002
2,635
1 0
481
119
38.2 22.6
E
C
Bison Av.
NB On
3 5,002
2,635
1 250
160
549
31.9 22.7
D
C
Bison Av.
SB Off
3 1,613
4,264
1 0
745
434
17.6 32.2
B
D
Bison Av.
SB On
3 1,613
4,264
1 740
71 247
10.2 26.2
B
C
Bonita Canyon Dr.
NB Off
4 5,319
2,802
1 1,250
305
189
18.0 6.3
B
A
Bonita Canyon Dr.
NB On
3 5,002
2,635
1 2,440
249
106
21.8 6.6
C
A
Bonita Canyon Dr.
SB Off
4 1,613
4,264
1 0
114
163
12.0 23.9
B
C
Bonita Canyon Dr.
SB On
4 1,613
4,264
1 400
514
143
11.3 16.8
B
B
Newport Coast Dr.
NB Off
3 5,240
2,760
1 0
298
220
36.6 23.5
E
C
Newport Coast Dr.
NB On
4 5,240
2,760
1 1,250
598
286
35.6 18.5
F
B
Newport Coast Dr.
SB Off
4 1,716
4,535
1 0
222
119
13.0 24.8
B
C
Newport Coast Dr.
SB On
3 1,716
4,535
1 360
156
219
13.7 29.4
B
D
I Ramp failure due to ramp volumes over capacity.
2 Worse LOS with lower volume due to adjacent ramp influence ■ Regional Facilities
Regional transportation facilities serve the needs of travelers through Newport Beach, and residents and workers that travel between Newport Beach and other locations. Major roadway system features such as freeways, airports, and marine terminals serve regional traffic.
The facilities that provide regional access to Newport Beach include the I-405 Freeway, SR-55 Freeway, SR-73 Freeway/Tollway and Coast Highway (Highway 1). Coast Highway is owned and operated by Caltrans with the exception of the segment between Jamboree Road and Newport Coast Drive. Newport Boulevard from Finley Street to the northerly city limits at Industrial Way is also under Caltrans jurisdiction. Caltrans controls the signal timing and coordination of these roadways which may conflict with the CiWs needs and desires to provide a balance between regional and local traffic needs.
Regional traffic interacting with Newport Beach generally accesses the City roadway system through the freeway ramps. Ramp intersections are maintained and controlled by Caltrans. Ramp capacity constraints
4.13-14 City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR
can sometimes (during peak hours) slow access to the freeway system, potentially resulting in a back-up of freeway traffic onto the local roadway system. Conversely, traffic exiting the freeway system can sometimes cause congestion that affects the freeway mainline. ■ Public Transportation
Public bus service is provided by Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA). An established network of bus routes provides access to employment centers, shopping and recreational areas within the City. OCTA periodically updates a county -wide Bus Service Implementation Program (BSIP) which includes changes to service levels and route configurations.
Figure 4.13-6 shows existing public -transit service in Newport Beach. Local bus routes in the City of Newport Beach include the following:
■ Route 1 (along Coast Highway)
■ Route 47 (provides access from Balboa Boulevard north of Fairview Street) ■ Route 55 (from 17th Street in Costa Mesa providing access to Newport Center/Fashion Island) ■ Route 57 (along Bristol Street and Jamboree Road to Newport Center) ■ Route 71 (from the Balboa Pier north along the SR-55 freeway) ■ Route 75 (from Newport Center up Jamboree Road)
■ Route 76 (along San Miguel Drive and MacArthur Boulevard) ■ Route 79 (from Newport Center along Eastbluff Drive to University Drive) The Newport Transportation Center and Park -and -Ride facility is located at MacArthur Boulevard and San Joaquin Hills Road in Newport Center. Community Bus Route 178 passes through the Airport Area of Newport Beach before entering Santa Ana Heights. Additional bus service passes very near to Newport Beach, particularly in the vicinity of JWA and the University of California, Irvine. Public transportation service typically operates periodically throughout the day, with less frequent or even no service in the middle of the night.
■ Air Travel
Air travel for residents, workers, and visitors in Newport Beach is most conveniently available at JWA (located just northwest of Campus Drive along the City boundary). In addition to JWA, air travel is provided at Los Angeles International, Long Beach, Ontario and various other regional airports. ■ Marine Transport
The presence of Newport Harbor and the proximity of the City of Newport Beach to the Pacific Ocean create opportunities for water transportation modes. Specific examples of alternative travel modes in Coastal Newport Beach include the Santa Catalina Ferry (providing access from the Balboa Pavilion to Santa Catalina Island), and the Balboa Ferry (connecting Balboa Island to the Balboa Peninsula).
City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 4.13-15
CITY of NEWPORT BEACH
GENERAL PLAN UPDATE EIR
Figure 4.13-6
EXISTING
PUBLIC TRANSIT ROUTES
Legend
L; L CJ 1
oewe• 47
-- 55
----• 57
OF-111111-10 71
CC= 75
[7 76
i ► 79
0 0 G 470
•-0 -* 471
-- City Border
City of Newport Beach
z
e
Not to Scale
Source: Urban Crossroads, 2005
Project No. 10579-03 I
E1P
& Parking
Parking availability is limited in the coastal portions of Newport Beach, especially during the peak summer months. Balboa Peninsula, Balboa Island, Mariners' Mile, Corona Del Mar, and West Newport are areas of high use. To address this issue, the Balboa Peninsula Parking Management Plan was completed in 1999. The Plan included recommendations to modify meter time limits (ongoing), create a visitor parking guide, implement a bus layover area (completed), chalk mark tires to enforce time limits, improve red curb and intersection visibility (completed), increase meter fees (completed), implement a business parking permit program, implement a shared use parking program, monitor lot utilization ongoing), develop a pier lot validation program, and develop a shared valet parking program.
Implementing valet services has also been suggested for both the Balboa Peninsula and Mariners' Mile. ■ Trail System
Trail systems, while providing alternates to automobile travel, also provide recreational opportunities for the community. The existing trail system in Newport Beach has been developed to provide access for commuter and recreational bicyclists and equestrians, along with pedestrians.
The Newport Beach bikeways system contains off-street bike paths, sidewalk bikeways, and on -street bike trails. The existing bikeway facilities in the study area are shown on Figure 4.13-7. Newport Beach has off-street bike paths primarily along parts of Coast Highway, Irvine Avenue, University Drive, Jamboree Road, Spyglass Hill Road, and San Joaquin Hills Road. Additional off -road facilities are located in the San Diego Creek Channel along Newport Bay and through Buffalo Hills Park.
Sidewalk bikeways include the access roads to Fashion Island and the following:
■ Coast Highway from the westerly city limit to Riverside Drive, and from the projection of Irvine Avenue to Avocado Avenue
■ Balboa Boulevard
■ Campus Drive/Irvine Avenue
■ Dover Drive
■ MacArthur Boulevard
■ Von Karman Avenue
■ Jamboree Road
■ Bristol Street
■ Eastbluff Drive
■ Bayside Drive
■ Bison Avenue
■ Ford Road
■ Spyglass Hill Road
■ Marguerite Avenue
■ San Joaquin Hills Road
On -street bike trails occur on San Miguel Drive, Newport Coast Drive, Irvine Avenue, Coast Highway and other minor streets throughout the City.
City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 4.13-17
CITY of NEWPORT BEACH
GENERAL PLAN UPDATE EIR
Figure 4.13-7
NEWPORT BEACH EXISTING
BICYCLE FACILITIES
Legend
. .. Off -Street Bike Path
Sidewalk Bikeway
---- On-StreetBiketrail
City of Newport Beach
z
e
Not to Scale
Source, Urban Crossroads, 2005
Project No, 10579-03 I
E I P
Recreational use of alternative travel modes (especially bicycle and pedestrian) is prevalent in the City of Newport Beach. The Back Bay and Ocean Front/Seashore Drive trails are particularly popular for recreation.
4.13.3 Regulatory Setting
Federal
There are no relevant federal regulations applicable to the proposed General Plan Update. ■ State
Statewide Transportation Improvement Program (STIP)
The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) administers transportation programming.
Transportation programming is the public decision making process which sets priorities and funds projects envisioned in long-range transportation plans. It commits expected revenues over a multi -year period to transportation projects. The STIP is a multi -year capital improvement program of transportation projects on and off the State Highway System, funded with revenues from the State Highway Account and other funding sources.
Local
Orange County Congestion Management Plan
The Congestion Management Plan (CMP) requires that a traffic impact analysis be conducted for any project generating 2,400 or more daily trips, or 1,600 or more daily trips for projects that directly access the CMP Highway System (HS). Per the CMP guidelines, this number is based on the desire to analyze any impacts that will be three percent or more of the existing CMP highway system facilities' capacity.
The CMPHS includes specific roadways, which include State Highways and Super Streets, which are now known as Smart Streets, and CMP arterial monitoring locations/intersections. Therefore, the CMP traffic impact analysis (TIA) requirements relate to the potential impacts only on the specified CMPHS. The CMP system consists of the following:
■ MacArthur Boulevard Qamboree Road to Coast Highway)
■ Jamboree Road (between city limit and MacArthur Boulevard) ■ Coast Highway (throughout)
■ Newport Blvd (from north city limit to Coast Highway) Orange County Growth Management Plan
In August 1988, the Orange County adopted a Growth Management Plan, which presents a conceptual framework for coordinating traffic facilities and public facilities and services with new development. The Growth Management Plan also spawned several plans and programs, including the Development City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 4.13-19
Monitoring Program, which evaluates the extent of new development and compliance with phasing requirements, and the Facilities Implementation Plans, which evaluate public facility needs and propose financing mechanisms.
The most comprehensive legislation affecting growth management is Measure M, approved by the County voters in November, 1990. The measure requires each jurisdiction in the County to adopt a Growth Management Element with specific contents and guidelines.
City of Newport Beach Municipal Code
Guidelines and provisions related to transportation and parking are addressed in Title 12 (Vehicles and Traffic); Title 15 (Buildings and Construction) in Chapter 15.38 (Fair Share Traffic Contribution Ordinance) and Chapter 15.40 (Traffic Phasing Ordinance); and in Title 20 in Chapter 20.64 (Transportation Demand Management Ordinance) and Chapter 20.66 (Off -Street Parking and Loading Spaces Required) of the City Municipal Code.
Title 12 Vehicles and Traffic
Title 12 addresses traffic and parking enforcement, as well as safety programs, trails programs, bicycle use, skateboarding use, and other temporary traffic and parking protocols.
Chapter 15.38 Fair Share Traffic Contribution Ordinance Chapter 15.38 has been established by the City Council to establish a fee, based upon the unfunded cost to implement the Master Plan of Streets and Highways, to be paid in conjunction with the issuance of a building permit. The ordinance sets forth procedures for calculating the fair -share amounts for residential projects, hotel/motels, and office/retail/commercial uses, which are adopted by City Council resolution.
The fee is updated to reflect changes in the Consumer Price Index annually.
Chapter 15.40 Traffic Phasing Ordinance
Section 15.40 has been established by the City Council to ensure that the effects of new development projects are mitigated by developers as they occur. Specifically, the ordinance was established to provide a uniform method of analyzing and evaluating the traffic impacts of projects that generate a substantial number of average daily trips and/or trips during the morning or evening peak hour period; to identify the specific and near -term impacts of project traffic as well as circulation system improvements that will accommodate project traffic and ensure that development is phased with identified circulation system improvements; to ensure that project proponents, as conditions of approval, make or fund circulation system improvements that mitigate the specific impacts of project traffic on primary intersections at or near the time the project is ready for occupancy; and to provide a mechanism for ensuring that a project proponent's cost of complying with traffic related conditions of project approval is roughly proportional to project impacts.
4.13-20 City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR
Chapter 20.64 Transportation Demand Management Requirements The Transportation Demand Management requirements apply to all new, nonresidential development projects that are estimated to employ a total of one hundred (100) or more persons, or the current limit set forth by the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) in Rule 2202, whichever is lower at the time of project submittal. No building or grading permit shall be issued, and no construction shall commence, for any project covered by this chapter until the Planning Commission makes written findings that a transportation demand management program has been developed that will do all of the following: reduce the number of peak -period vehicle trips generated in association with the additional development; promote and encourage the use of alternative transportation modes, such as ridesharing, carpools, vanpools, public transit, bicycles and walking; and provide those facilities that support such alternate modes.
Chapter 20.66 Off -Street Parking and Loading Regulations Requirements to provide off-street parking and loading spaces are identified in Section 20.66. Different requirements have been identified for residential, commercial, industrial, eating and drinking establishments, office buildings, and shopping centers.
4.13.4 Thresholds of Significance
The following thresholds of significance are based on Appendix G of the 2006 CEQA Guidelines. For purposes of this EIR, implementation of the proposed project would have a significant adverse impact on transportation or circulation if it would result in any of the following:
■ Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e. result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections) ■ Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways ■ Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in locations that results in substantial safety risks
■ Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)
■ Result in inadequate emergency access
■ Result in inadequate parking capacity
■ Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)
■ Intersections
The threshold used in this EIR for intersections is based on the existing General Plan Circulation Element, which provides for the construction of intersection improvements to ensure service levels as close to LOS D as possible. Although LOS D is not a specific standard in the existing Circulation Element, intersections that operate at LOS E or F have been regarded as deficient. The LOS D objective for major intersections reflects the City's desire to maintain stable traffic flow throughout the City, City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 4.13-21
recognizing that peak -hour congestion may occur at locations near freeways or other locations with unusual traffic characteristics due to regional traffic flow. This EIR also uses LOS D as the threshold for intersection performance.
Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) analysis has been performed at sixty-one (62) study area intersections (refer to Figure 4.13-5 [Intersection Count Locations]). ICU values are used to determine levels of service at study area intersection locations. To calculate the ICU value for an intersection, the volume of traffic using the intersection is compared with the capacity of the intersection. The ICU is expressed as a decimal (e.g., 0.86) of intersection capacity used. ■ Roadway Links
The existing General Plan Circulation Element sets a goal for acceptable LOS for roadway links. The goal is a volume/capacity (V/C) ratio of lower than 0.9 at the time of buildout of the existing General Plan. This EIR continues to use the same goal as a threshold for roadway link performance. The daily capacity values, which are given in ADT, are as follows:
■ Principal Arterial-60,000-73,000 ADT
■ Major Arterial-45,000-67,000ADT
■ Primary Arterial-30,000-45,000 ADT
■ Secondary Arterial-20,000-30,000 ADT
■ Commuter Roadway-7,000-11,000 ADT
The daily capacity of a roadway correlates to a number of widely varying factors, including traffic peaking characteristics, traffic turning volumes, and the volume of traffic on crossing streets. The daily capacities are therefore most appropriately used as a screening tool to determine the need for more detailed peak hour analysis.
■ Congestion Management Program Arterials
The CMP requires that a traffic impact analysis be conducted for any specific development project generating 2,400 or more daily trips, or 1,600 or more daily trips for projects that directly access the CMP Highway System. Per the CMP guidelines, this number is based on the desire to analyze any impacts that will be 3 percent or more of the existing CMP highway system facilities' capacity. The CMP guidelines specify that specified arterials maintain an LOS of E or better for acceptable performance. As this Program EIR does not entitle a specific project, a traffic impact analysis per CMP guidelines is not included in this EIR. Any development project that is proposed will be required to perform its own CMP traffic analysis as part of the environmental review process.
4.13-22 City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR
4.13.5 Analytic Method, Project Impacts, Mitigation
Measures, and Proposed Policies
k Analytic Method for Traffic Analysis
The NBTM 3.1 travel demand forecasting tool has been developed to identify traffic and circulation issues in and around the City. The NBTM 3.1 tool has been developed in accordance with the requirements and recommendations of the Orange County Subarea Modeling Guidelines Manual (August, 1998) and has been found by the Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) to be consistent with these guidelines. The NBTM 3.1 is intended to be used for roadway planning and traffic impact analyses. The latest version of the NBTM has been used to evaluate the proposed General Plan Update buildout. The model has been updated during the General Plan Update process to incorporate the most current demographic data available.
The buildout alternatives are analyzed using a "constrained roadway system." The constrained system in this analysis deletes those improvements from the currently adopted General Plan Circulation Element that have been deemed "uncertain." These improvements are the extension of SR-55 and the widening of Jamboree Road north of Ford Road, grade separation at MacArthur Boulevard/Jamboree Road, extension of 17``' Street, and extension of 15`' Street to Coast Highway. The 19th Street Bridge over the Santa Ana River, and the widening of Coast Highway through Mariners' Mile were excluded from the earlier land use alternatives analysis, but added back in for the GPTS because the land use alternatives analysis indicated that these improvements are critical to the operations of the roadway system. Traffic impacts without these improvements are discussed in the Special Issues section of the GPTS (Appendix D) and in the General Plan Traffic Study Preliminary Alternatives Analysis (May 3, 2005).81 All the scenarios in the GPTS include regional traffic. Therefore, many of the conclusions presented in this section are based on a cumulative traffic analysis. However, because field study conducted as part of the traffic source analysis showed that up to 20 percent of total traffic on key roadways is regional traffic with no origin or destination in Newport Beach, a supplement to the GPTS was prepared to demonstrate the effects of the proposed General Plan Update, without surrounding regional growth. Comparing this supplemental scenario (Existing With Project) and the General Plan Buildout With Project scenario reveals the impacts of regional growth on the transportation system, and results in conclusions regarding the traffic impact of the proposed General Plan Update alone.
Trip Generation
Trip generation is the initial step in determining future traffic conditions. Trip generation calculations for the General Plan Buildout With Project (including regional traffic growth) and Existing With Project (excluding regional traffic growth) scenarios are identical, as both of these scenarios include buildout of the proposed General Plan Update. The difference lies outside the City, where the General Plan Buildout With Project scenario contains forecast trip generation for the surrounding region (including forecasted S1 This report can be found at the City of Newport Beach General Plan Update website: htW:// www.nbvision2025.com/ .
City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 4.13-23
growth in the surrounding cities, Orange County, and beyond), and the Existing With Project scenario includes only existing (2002) trip generation for the surrounding region. The difference between these two scenarios shows the amount of traffic increase that would result from regional growth, regardless of future development in the City, and the amount of traffic increase that would result from the proposed project on its own.
Trip generation rates were derived during the NBTM update to reflect conditions in Newport Beach. In Coastal areas, residential uses were found to generate less traffic than in other areas of the City. Daily Coastal trip generation is approximately 85 to 87 percent of trip generation in the majority of the City.
Therefore, an adjustment of approximately 12 to 15 percent was made in trip generation for land uses in this area as part of the traffic model validation and is reflected in the General Plan Transportation Study.
In conjunction with analysis of land use alternatives, research was conducted to determine whether trip rate adjustments are appropriate for certain kinds of land uses being considered in the proposed General Plan Update. For mixed use developments, it was found that there is a range in trip generation savings of 10 to 40 percent. The adjustment applied for the Newport Beach General Plan Transportation Study is 10 percent, at the conservative end of research findings. High-rise apartments have been shown to generate up to and beyond 40 percent fewer trips than typical apartments. To portray a conservative worst case scenario, a factor of 20 percent is used for high-rise apartments in the GPTS.
Daily Traffic Volumes and Performance
Daily roadway segment analysis (including freeways) requires calculating the daily traffic volume divided by the roadway segment capacity. The City of Newport Beach daily roadway capacities used in this analysis were previously presented in Table 4.13-1. For analysis purposes, the upper end of the approximate daily capacity range has been used.
The methodology to analyze freeway ramp operations is more complicated than for the mainline analysis.
In addition to ramp volumes and lanes, the number of freeway mainline lanes, freeway mainline volumes, and the length of acceleration/deceleration lane(s) is also required.
To determine the amount of traffic associated with summer recreation, peak season daily traffic volumes have been collected for select locations (primarily in coastal areas) of the City of Newport Beach. Daily traffic volume counts were collected over a one week period in August of 2003 for each selected roadway segment. For each roadway segment selected for summertime counts, the highest typical weekday (Tuesday through Thursday) volume has been compared to the shoulder season count volume at the same location. All segments increase for summer conditions by at least five percent and as much as 74 percent. The only location with a volume increase of more than 30 percent is on Balboa Boulevard east of 20th Street on the Peninsula.
Peak Hour Performance
Intersection operations can be the major constraints to traffic flow on arterial streets. Therefore, peak hour intersection operations are the best measure of performance of the roadway system. The current goal for acceptable level of service in the City of Newport Beach is as close to LOS D as possible.
4.13-24 City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR
Calculations of the change from Existing Conditions to General Plan Buildout With Project and Existing With Project have been calculated and are discussed below in the analysis of project impacts. ■ Project Impacts
Threshold Would the proposed project cause an increase in traffic that is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)? Impact 4.13-1 Implementation of the proposed General Plan Update could result in a substantial increase in the number of vehicle trips, volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections compared to existing conditions.
The buildout alternatives are analyzed using a roadway system that incorporates the constrained roadway network explained earlier in this Section 4.13.5. The figures and tables referenced throughout this impact analysis can be found at the end of the discussion, following the significance conclusion.
Figure 4.13-8 summarizes the General Plan Buildout With Project scenario daily traffic volumes and Figure 4.13-9 summarizes the General Plan Buildout With Project V/C ratios throughout the City of Newport Beach. Both figures include regional traffic growth. The highest daily traffic volume increases over existing (2002) counted volumes occur on Campus Drive, Irvine Avenue, Coast Highway, Jamboree Road, MacArthur Boulevard, Newport Boulevard, and Newport Coast Drive. Each of these facilities experiences an increase in excess of 10,000 vehicles per day. Without Project, traffic volumes citywide would increase by 26.9 percent over 2002 counts; and With Project, volumes would increase by 30.9 percent. When traffic from development that has occurred between 2002 and 2005 is added to the analysis, the citywide volume increase Without Project would be 20.1 percent, and the increase With Project would be 23.9 percent.
As shown through comparison of the Existing With Project scenario (which does not include any regional traffic growth) with the General Plan Buildout With Project scenario, regional traffic is directly responsible for over half of the total traffic volume increases on the City's arterial roadway system. The proposed General Plan Update itself would generate approximately 44 percent of the total increase in traffic, or a 13 percent increase from existing (2002) traffic volumes.
The next step in the analysis is to use daily traffic volumes to conduct daily roadway segment capacity analysis at study area roadways. The following 17 segments currently operate at V/C ratios greater than
0.90. ■ Newport Boulevard north of Via Lido
■ Irvine Avenue north of University Drive
■ Jamboree Road north of Bayview Way
■ Jamboree Road north of University Drive
■ MacArthur Boulevard north of Ford Road
■ MacArthur Boulevard north of San Joaquin Hills Road
■ MacArthur Boulevard north of Coast Highway
City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 4.13-25
2 34
7 fe
3 . °02$
7 192.94E
40 20 d
�3
y
f 169 9
5 8 17
�
33 30
9 35
4 B
911 92
29 37
23 22
32 3g t
38 17
3 5 20 u+.n 26
�52 13 __
996 38
7 8
w'
42 9
41 73 10
@g
1 D �y
16 70
3 w
2 17 70 19
=
31 47
Z5y
55 14
8 35
13 5
B1 19
57 14
+ 41t
4 12
4 32
18 2 12 3
27 11
c 40
8 e
125
4 ire
2 45 9 14 6 3 19
17 37 28
73 5 18 24
9 17
Y
11 29
2 20
41 11 3D
17 20i
P,
92 r.r
1DE 6
50 5 3
' I
2D
1 18R�
13 3
4Z 45 4 431
24 15 3
5 0
6 03� g$ 49
8 42
a 12
21 tt
4 12
�1
17 7 $
7 95 77
'+?y
994 67
56 I i $
i8 `7
22 11
1 +
`
r� 50
2 4
8 4
35 PACIFIC
24 39
Wbat
29 OCEAN
CITY of NEWPORT BEACH
GENERAL PLAN UPDATE EIR
Figure 4.13-8
GENERAL PLAN BUILDOUT
WITH PROJECT AVERAGE
DAILY TRAFFIC (ADT)
Legend
# Vehicles Per Day (000'S)
City of Newport Beach
z
Not to Scale
Source: Urban crossroads, 2005
Project No. 10579-03
E1P
0.82 56 1-18
1.00 0-T3 .56 0.6 A98
A7 BS 0.59
C qq
E
.5 50
1.10 �
Sy
s}5 dkd
67 D. is"
1.37 1.lil.mu.a 0- 75
47 727 1.29
�
-
0.07 1.54
-552
Qm
1-00
r
1.21 0.62
0.76 1-07 �
...
Q25 0.23
0.33 1.03
25 1.16
91 3
0.92 b .j i
A44
Q33
90.90 60 0.97
1.12 .20
0.47 !
0.w
OM
0.3-` 20 0-3
a 0.40 020
A36'28
0.37 a.
.410.
38 73
260 0'1?7
0 7 0.47
.55
10 @
0.69 '
80 Q
Q85
.71
33 #
0.98 a
8 e
e.ea
Y
F
C
OM OA7
O.dT
0.32 0.40
1'
t
cm
1.06 OA4
26 t
1.03 0.98
t
OAS 5
124
�4, S K
2B
Q35
0.6 6 0'80
el 0.3 10
�} �r 4E '
00 B
i 0.92 0,60
0. r 1.0
1,10
0.6s 1.1 0,
10.35 as
1r
OL
0.76 'ayy;
s7
PACIFIC
pCEHN
CITY of NEWPORT BEACH
GENERAL PLAN UPDATE EIR
Figure 4.13-9
GENERAL PLAN BUILDOUT
WITH PROJECT VOLUME/
CAPACITY (V/C) RATIOS
Legend
#.## Volume/Capacity
City of Newport Beach
z
e
Not to Scale
Source: Urban Crossroads, 2005
Project No. 10579-03 I
E1P
■ Irvine Avenue south of University Drive
■ Bristol Street South east of Birch Street
■ Coast Highway east of Dover Drive
■ Coast Highway east of MacArthur Boulevard
■ Coast Highway east of Goldenrod Avenue
■ Coast Highway east of Marguerite Avenue
■ Coast Highway west of Riverside Drive
■ Bristol Street North west of Campus Drive
■ Bristol Street South west of Campus Drive
■ Bristol Street South west of Jamboree Road
In the Existing With Project Scenario (excluding regional traffic growth), the following additional fourteen segments would operate at daily V/C ratios greater than 0.90, as a result of the proposed General Plan Update. Because of improvements included in the proposed Circulation Element, the V/C ratio for the MacArthur Boulevard north of Coast Highway segment falls below 0.91. ■ Irvine Avenue north of Santiago Drive
■ Irvine Avenue north of Dover Drive
■ Dover Drive north of Westcliff Drive
■ Jamboree Road north of San Joaquin Hills Road
■ MacArthur Boulevard north of Bison Avenue
■ Newport Coast Drive north of SR-73 Northbound Ramps
■ Newport Boulevard south of Hospital Road
■ Hospital Road east of Newport Boulevard
■ Bristol Street North east of Birch Street
■ Coast Highway east of Bayside Drive
■ Coast Highway east of Jamboree Road
■ Coast Highway east of Poppy Avenue
■ Coast Highway west of Superior Avenue/Balboa Boulevard ■ Dover Drive west of Irvine Avenue
Buildout of the proposed General Plan Update (General Plan Buildout With Project scenario) including regional growth adds the following ten roadway segments expected to operate with daily V/C ratios greater than 0.90. These additional segments are the result of growth in regional traffic. ■ Jamboree Road north of Campus Drive
■ Jamboree Road north of Birch Street
■ Irvine Avenue north of Highland Drive
■ Dover Drive north of Coast Highway
■ Jamboree Road north of Ford Road
■ Newport Coast Drive north of San Joaquin Hills Road
■ Jamboree Road south of Birch Street
■ Campus Drive east of MacArthur Boulevard
■ Ford Road east of MacArthur Boulevard
■ Coast Highway east of Newport Coast Drive
The daily capacity of a roadway correlates to a number of widely varying factors, including traffic peaking characteristics, traffic turning volumes, and the volume of traffic on crossing streets. The daily capacities
4.13-28 City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR
are therefore most appropriately used for long range General Plan analysis, or as a screening tool to determine the need for more detailed peak hour analysis. More detailed peak hour analysis has been conducted at key intersections in the vicinity of all these roadway segments to quantify actual peak hour operations and levels of service.
The final step in analysis, and the most meaningful for evaluating how the roadway system will function, is intersection volume and geometric data for the intersections selected for analysis. A comparison of the General Plan Buildout With Project scenario ICUs to existing (2002) ICUs is shown on Table 4.13-6.
The projected ICUs do not assume any improvements beyond minimal improvements associated with the constrained network.
Intersection (NSIEW)
A.M. Peak Hour
P.M. Peak Hour
Existing
Count
With
Project
Delta
Existing
Count
With
Project
Delta
1 a. Bluff Rd. & Coast Hw.
N/A
0.61 N/A
N/A
0.89 N/A
1 b.15th St. & Coast Hw.
N/A
0.72 N/A
N/A
0.90 N/A
2. Superior Av. & Placentia Av.
0.66 0.67
0.01 0.67
0.57 -0.10
3. Superior Av. & Coast Hw.
0.84 0.88
0.04 0.90
0.76 -0.14
4. Newport BI. & Hospital Rd.
0.54 0.83
0.29 0.70
0.96 0.26
5. Newport BI. & Via Lido
0.41 0.58
0.17 0.37
0.41 0.04
6. Newport BI. & 32nd St.
0.73 0.86
0.13 0.78
0.91 0.13
7. Riverside Av. & Coast Hw.
0.84 0.97
0.13 0.93
0.93 0.00
8. Tustin Av. & Coast Hw.
0.80 0.94
0.14 0.67
0.83 0.16
9. MacArthur BI. & Campus Dr.
0.61 0.81
0.20 0.85
1.24 0.39
10. MacArthur BI. & Birch St.
0.49 0.79
0.30 0.66
0.90 0.24
11. Von Karman Av. & Campus Dr.
0.55 0.73
0.18 0.79
0.97 0.18
12. MacArthur BI. & Von Karman Av.
0.46 0.54
0.08 0.53
0.65 0.12
13. Jamboree Rd. & Campus Dr.
0.70 0.93
0.23 0.85
1.18 0.33
14. Jamboree Rd. & Birch St.
0.61 1.00
0.39 0.60
0.84 0.24
15. Campus Dr. & Bristol St. (N)
0.77 1.02
0.25 0.94
1.06 0.12
16. Birch St. & Bristol St. (N)
0.66 0.90
0.24 0.61
0.72 0.11
17. Campus Dr./Irvine Av. & Bristol St. (S)
0.72 0.89
0.17 0.58
0.78 0.20
18. Birch St. & Bristol St. (S)
0.46 0.51
0.05 0.44
0.54 0.10
19. Irvine Av. & Mesa Dr.
0.70 0.98
0.28 0.94
1.19 0.25
20. Irvine Av. & University Dr.
0.82 1.19
0.37 0.89
1.09 0.20
21. Irvine Av. & Santiago Dr.
0.66 0.69
0.03 0.72
0.77 0.05
22. Irvine Av. & Highland Dr.
0.57 0.60
0.03 0.60
0.65 0.05
23. Irvine Av. & Dover Dr.
0.72 0.78
0.06 0.64
0.69 0.05
24. Irvine Av. & Westcliff Dr.
0.57 0.66
0.09 0.77
0.82 0.05
25. Dover Dr. & Westcliff Dr.
0.38 0.38
0.00 0.48
0.54 0.06
26. Dover Dr. & 16th St.
0.55 0.60
0.05 0.57
0.60 0.03
City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 4.13-29
Intersection (NS/EW)
A.M.
Peak Hour
P.M. Peak Hour
Existing
Count
With
Project
Delta
Existing
Count
With
Project
Delta
27. Dover Dr. & Coast Hw.
0.70 0.81
0.11 0.74
0.94 0.20
28. Bayside Dr. & Coast Hw.
0.69 0.89
0.20 0.70
0.85 0.15
29. MacArthur Bl. & Jamboree Rd.
0.88 0.93
0.05 0.91
1.02 0.11
30. Jamboree Rd. & Bristol St. (N)
0.55 0.68
0.13 0.59
0.67 0.08
31. Bayview Pl. & Bristol St. (S)
0.48 0.60
0.12 0.56
0.63 0.07
32. Jamboree Rd. & Bristol St. (S)
0.75 0.94
0.19 0.72
0.87 0.15
33. Jamboree Rd. & Bayview Wy.
0.41 0.45
0.04 0.57
0.67 0.10
34. Jamboree Rd. & Eastbluff Dr. /University Dr.
0.60 0.68
0.08 0.64
0.67 0.03
35. Jamboree Rd. & Bison Av.
0.45 0.52
0.07 0.51
0.62 0.11
36. Jamboree Rd. & Eastbluff Dr./Ford Rd.
0.69 0.80
0.11 0.65
0.77 0.12
37. Jamboree Rd. & San Joaquin Hills Rd.
0.56 0.61
0.05 0.57
0.72 0.15
38. Jamboree Rd. & Santa Barbara Dr.
0.47 0.58
0.11 0.63
0.79 0.16
39. Jamboree Rd. & Coast Hw.
0.68 0.77
0.09 0.74
0.80 0.06
40. Santa Cruz Dr. & San Joaquin Hills Rd.
0.36 0.38
0.02 0.36
0.34 -0.02
41. Santa Rosa Dr. & San Joaquin Hills Rd.
0.32 0.41
0.09 0.52
0.71 0.19
42. Newport Center Dr. & Coast Hw.
0.40 0.48
0.08 0.52
0.63 0.11
44. Avocado Av. & San Miguel Dr.
0.33 0.36
0.03 0.72
0.79 0.07
45. Avocado Av. & Coast Hw.
0.58 0.73
0.15 0.66
0.78 0.12
46. SR-73 NB Ramps & Bison Av.
0.31 0.52
0.21 0.37
0.61 0.24
47. SR-73 SB Ramps & Bison Av.
0.26 0.42
0.16 0.17
0.32 0.15
48. MacArthur Bl. & Bison Av.
0.63 0.78
0.15 0.60
0.79 0.19
49. MacArthur Bl. & Ford Rd./Bonita Canyon Dr.
0.71 0.80
0.09 0.90
1.00 0.10
50. MacArthur Bl. & San Joaquin Hills Rd.
0.64 0.79
0.15 0.93
1.12 0.19
51. MacArthur Bl. & San Miguel Dr.
0.56 0.64
0.08 0.65
0.75 0.10
52. MacArthur Bl. & Coast Hw.
0.60 0.72
0.12 0.71
0.78 0.07
53. SR-73 NB Ramps & Bonita Canyon Dr.
0.55 1.06
0.51 0.43
0.76 0.33
54. SR-73 SB Ramps & Bonita Canyon Dr.
0.30 0.46
0.16 0.41
0.66 0.25
55. Spyglass Hill Rd. & San Miguel Dr.
0.28 0.30
0.02 0.31
0.38 0.07
56. San Miguel Dr. & San Joaquin Hills Rd.
0.44 0.55
0.11 0.54
0.74 0.20
57. Goldenrod Av. & Coast Hw.
0.99 0.99
0.00 0.69
0.69 0.00
58. Marguerite Av. & San Joaquin Hills Rd.
0.31 0.42
0.11 0.35
0.51 0.16
59.Marguerite Av. & Coast Hw.
0.83 0.98
0.15 0.82
1.00 0.18
60. Spyglass Hill Rd. & San Joaquin Hills Rd.
0.44 0.60
0.16 0.30
0.49 0.19
61. Poppy Av. & Coast Hw.
0.61 0.70
0.09 0.65
0.76 0.11
62. Newport Coast Dr. & SR-73 NB Ramps
0.45 0.65
0.20 0.31
0.40 0.09
64. Newport Coast Dr. & San Joaquin Hills Rd.
0.37 0.62
0.25 0.29
0.49 0.20
65. Newport Coast Dr. & Coast Hw.
0.47 0.70
0.23 0.50
0.73 0.23
4.13-30 City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR
As shown in Table 4.13-6, the following six intersections currently have ICU values greater than 0.90:
■ Riverside Drive (NS)/Coast Highway (EW) (P.M.)
■ Campus Drive (NS)/Bristol Street North (EW) (P.M.)
■ Irvine Avenue (NS)/Mesa Drive (EW) (P.M.)
■ MacArthur Boulevard (NS)/Jamboree Road (EW) (P.M.)
■ MacArthur Boulevard (NS)/San Joaquin Hills Road (EW) (P.M.) ■ Goldenrod Avenue (NS)/Coast Highway (EW) (P.M.)
In the Existing With Project Scenario (proposed General Plan Update buildout not including regional growth), the following additional five intersections would operate at daily V/C ratios greater than 0.90, as a result of the proposed General Plan Update.
■ Newport Boulevard (NS) / Hospital Road (EW) (P.M.)
■ Riverside Drive (NS) / Coast Highway (EW) (P.M.)
■ MacArthur Boulevard (NS) / Campus Drive (EW) (P.M.)
■ Jamboree Road (NS) / Campus Drive (EW) (P.M.)
■ Irvine Avenue (NS) / University Drive (EW) (P.M.)
With buildout of the proposed General Plan Update and regional growth, the following fourteen additional intersections would have ICU values greater than 0.90 (LOS E or worse) in either peak period:
■ Newport Boulevard (NS)/32nd Street (EW) (P.M.)
■ Tustin Avenue (NS)/Coast Highway (EW) (P.M.)
■ Von Karman Avenue (NS)/Campus Drive (EW) (P.M.)
■ Jamboree Road (NS)/Campus Drive (EW) (P.M.)
■ Jamboree Road (NS)/Birch Street (EW) (P.M.)
■ Campus Drive (NS)/Bristol Street North (EW) (P.M.)
■ Irvine Avenue (NS)/Mesa Drive (EW) (P.M.)
■ Irvine Avenue (NS)/University Drive (EW) (P.M.)
■ Dover Drive (NS)/Coast Highway (EW) (P.M.)
■ MacArthur Boulevard (NS)/Jamboree Road (EW) (P.M.)
■ Jamboree Road (NS)/Bristol Street South (EW) (P.M.)
■ MacArthur Boulevard (NS)/Ford Road/Bonita Canyon Drive (EW) (P.M.) ■ SR-73 NB Ramps (NS)/Bonita Canyon Drive (EW) (P.M.)
■ Marguerite Avenue (NS)/Coast Highway (EW) (P.M./P.M.) A comparison of the General Plan Buildout With Project and Existing With Project scenarios shows that approximately 26 percent of the additional growth in traffic and projected deficiencies at intersections not currently operating with a deficiency would be directly related to growth in the City of Newport Beach; the remainder of intersection deficiencies would be caused by growth in regional (surrounding area) traffic. Without regional growth, only five intersections would reach an ICU value of greater than
0.90 (LOS E or worse) without improvements beyond minimal improvements associated with the constrained network. The deficiencies that would result at the fourteen additional intersections listed above are the result of growth in regional traffic, and are not attributable to implementation of the proposed General Plan Update.
Further intersection analysis has been performed to determine improvements necessary to provide acceptable levels of service, LOS D or better. Table 4.13-7 compares the ICU results with and without City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 4.13-31
improvements. Improvements necessary to provide acceptable levels of service are shown in Table 4.13-8. Improvements that require the least additional right-of-way or other environmental impacts are included in the proposed Circulation Element. These improvements result in LOS D or better at all but five intersections within the City as a result of traffic increases from both regional growth and the proposed General Plan Update. Three of these intersections currently operate at LOS E, and their performance does not worsen as a result of the proposed General Plan Update. Although improvements to achieve LOS D at some of these intersections may be technically feasible, they would be contrary to proposed project objectives to preserve community character, and/or would compromise the safety of pedestrians and bicyclists.
Without the effects of regional traffic, improvements are needed at only one of the study area intersections where deficiencies were identified for Post-2030 conditions. Only the intersection of Riverside Drive and Coast Highway would not meet the LOS D standard.
The proposed General Plan Update, without growth in the region, would increase traffic volume 13 percent over 2002 traffic counts, and would increase the number of roadway segments exceeding a V/C ratio of 0.90 from 17 to 30. With improvements included in the proposed Circulation Element, buildout of the proposed General Plan Update alone, without growth in the region, would not cause any intersection to fail to meet the City's standard of LOS D. Because intersection operations are considered to be the most meaningful measure of the performance of the roadway system, this impact related to the proposed General Plan Update would be less than significant.
Impact 4.13-2 Implementation of the proposed General Plan Update would contribute to a substantial increase in deficient freeway segments and ramps.
For the General Plan Buildout With Project scenario, which includes regional growth, the volumes on all freeway segments in Newport Beach would increase compared to existing conditions. With anticipated regional improvements, the following three segments, in addition to the one existing deficient segment, would be deficient under the General Plan Buildout With Project scenario. As shown in the Existing With Project scenario (proposed General Plan Update buildout excluding regional traffic growth), the General Plan Update alone would not cause any freeway segment to become deficient. ■ SR-73 Freeway Northbound
> Bonita Canyon Drive to Newport Coast Drive (P.M.)
> Newport Coast Drive to Toll Plaza (P.M.)
■ SR-73 Freeway Southbound
> SR-55 Freeway to Jamboree Rd. (P.M.)
The proposed General Plan Update would contribute to a significant cumulative impact, since needed improvements exceed the current maximum planned improvements. Mainline freeway operations can also be negatively affected by ramp operational problems. The ramp volumes for the General Plan Buildout With Project scenario result in operational deficiencies. Table 4.13-9 summarizes the analysis.
The deficient ramps are listed below. The three Newport Coast Drive ramps are deficient only as a result of regional traffic growth.
■ Bristol Street Northbound Off (A.M.)
■ Jamboree Road Southbound On (P.M.)
4.13-32 City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR
Table
4.13-7
Intersection Analysis Summary for General
Plan Buildout with Project
Intersection Aproach Lanes
Level of
Northbound
I Southbound
Eastbound
Westbound
ICU
Trooc
Service
L
T
R
L
T
I R
L
T
R
L
T
R
A.M.
P.M.
Intersection
CoMro@
A.M. P.M. Feasib►lly/Comments
Bluff Rd. (NS) at:
■ Coast Hw. (EW)
> LOS D Improvements
TS
0 0
0 2
0 2>
2 3
0 0
3 1
0.61 0.89
B
D
Shares Southbound volume with 15th St.
15th St. (NS) at:
■ Coast Hw. (EW)
> LOS D Improvements
TS
0 0
0 2
0 2>
2 3
0 0
3 1
0.72 0.90
C
D
Shares Southbound volume with Bluff Rd.
Superior Av. (NS) at:
■ Placentia Av. (EW)
TS
1 2
1 1
2 d
1 1
1 0.5
1.5 0
0.67 0.57
B
A
■ Coast Hw. EW
TS
1.5 1.5
0 1.5
1.5 2>
2 3
d
1 4
d
0.88 0.76
D
C
Newport BI. (NS) at:
■ Hospital Rd. (EW)
TS
1 3
1 1
3 d
2 1
1 1
2 0
0.83 0.96
D
E
> LOS D Improvements
TS
2 3
1 1
3 d
2 1
1 1
2 0
0.83 0.89
D
D
Consistent with historic plan
■ Via Lido (EW)
TS
0 3
1 2
3 0
0 0
0 1
0 2>
0.58 0.41
A
A
■ 32nd St. (EW)
TS
1 2
d
1 2
0 1.5
0.5 1
0.5 1.5
1>>
0.86 0.91
D
E
> LOS D Improvements
TS
1 2
d
1 2
0 2
1 0
1 1
1>>
0.58 0.66
A
B
Restri in /Si nal modification only
Riverside Av. (NS) at:
■ Coast Hw. (EW)
TS
0 1
d
0.5 0.5
1>
1 2
0 1
3 1
0.97 0.93
E
E
> LOSE Improvements
TS
0 1
d
0.5 0.5
1>
1 3
0 1
3 0
0.68 0.9
B
E
Consistent with historic plan. Would remove
5 parking and WB RT lane on north side of street.
> LOS D Improvements
TS
0 1
d
0.5 0.5
1>
2 3
0 1
3 0
0.74 0.90
C
D
Severe ROW constraints.
Tustin Av. (NS) at:
■ Coast Hwy. (EW)
TS
0 1
0 0
1 0
1 2
0 0
3 1
0.94 0.83
E
D
> LOS D Improvements
TS
0 1
0 0
1 0
1 3
0 0
3 1
0.64 0.83
B
D
MacArthur Bl. (NS) at:
■ Campus Dr. (EW)
TS
1 4
1 1
4 1
2 3
1 2
3 1>>
0.81 1.24
D
F
> LOS E Improvements
TS
1 4
1 1
3.5 1.5
2 3
d
2 3
1>>
0.78 0.98
C
E
> LOS D Improvements
TS
2 4
1 1
3.5 1.5
2 3
1 2
3 1>>
0.78 0.88
C
D
Would require narrow lanes or minor landscape
area reductions.
■ Birch St. EW
TS
1 3
1 1
4 0
1.5 1.5
0 1
2 1>>
0.79 0.90
C
D
City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 4.13-33
Table
4.13-7
Intersection Analysis Summary for General
Plan Buildout with Project
Intersection Aproach Lanes
Level of
Northbound
Southbound
Eastbound
Westbound
ICU
Trooc
Service
L
T
R
L
T
R
L
T
R
L
T
R
A.M.
P.M.
Intersection
CoMro@
A.M. P.M. Feasib►lrly/Comments
Von Karman Av. (NS) at:
■ Campus Dr. (EW)
TS
1 2
1>>
1 2
0 1
2 1
1 2
0 0.73
0.97 C
E
> LOS D Alternative 1
TS
1 2
0 1
2 0
2 2
0 1
2 0
0.63 0.90
B
D
Can be accomplished within existing curb to curb
section by eliminating NB and EB RT lanes.
> LOS D Alternative 2
TS
1 2
0 1
2 0
1 2
0 1
3 0
0.68 0.85
B
D
> LOS D Alternative 3
TS
1 2
1>>
1 2
1 1
2 1
1 2
0 0.73
0.89 C
D
Logical (high demand movement) improvement.
Would encroach on landscape area on north leg of
1 intersection.
> LOS D Alternative 4
TS
2 1>>
1 3
0 1
2 1
1 2
0 0.73
0.83 C
D
Logical (high demand movement) improvement.
Would encroach on landscape area on north leg
and south leg of intersection.
MacArthur BI. (NS) at:
■ Von Karman Av. EW
TS
1 3
1 1
3 1
1 2
1>>
2 1
1>>
0.54 0.65
A
B
Jamboree Rd. (NS) at:
■ Campus Dr. (EW)
TS
2 4
0 2
3 0
2 2
1>>
2 2
1 0.93
1.18 E
F
> LOS E Improvements
TS
2 4
1 2
4 0
2 2
0 2
2 1>:
0.88 0.99
D
E
> LOS D Improvements
TS
2 4
1>
2 4
0 2
2 0
2 2
1>:
0.88 0.90
D
D
■ Birch St. (EW)
TS
1 3
0 1
3 1>>
1.5 0.5
1>>
0 1
0 1.00
0.84 E
D
> LOS D Alternative 1
TS
1 3
0 1
4 1>>
1.5 0.5
1>>
0 1
0 0.89
0.78 D
C
> LOS D Alternative 2
TS
2 3
0 1
3 1>>
1.5 0.5
1>>
0 1
0 0.87
0.79 D
C
Campus Dr. (NS) at:
■ Bristol St. N (EW)
TS
2 3
0 0
4 2
0 0
0 2
4 0
1.02 1.06
F
F
> LOSE Improvements
TS
2 3
0 0
4 2
0 0
0 2
5 0
0.95 0.9
E
E
Based on field reconnaissance, it appears this
could be accomplished on inside (south side),
6 involving improvements to SR-73 NB On -ramp.
> LOS D Alternative 1
TS
2 4
0 0
4 1>>
0 0
0 2
5 0
0.79 0.86
C
D
SIB Free Right implies braided ramp to allow
access to Freeway -Runway height limit issues
> LOS D Alternative 2
TS
2 4
0 0
4 3
0 0
0 2
5 0
0.79 0.86
C
D
Impacts building on NW corner
Birch St. (NS) at:
■ Bristol St. N EW
TS
2 2
0 0
1.5 2.5
0 0
0 1.5
3.5 0
0.90 0.72
D
C
Campus Dr. (NS) at:
■ Bristol St. S (EW)
TS
0 5
0 1
3 0
1.5 2.5
2 0
0 0
0.89 0.78
D
C
4.13-34 City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR
Table
4.13-7
Intersection Analysis Summary for General
Plan Buildout with Project
Intersection Aproach Lanes
Level of
Northbound
Southbound
Eastbound
Westbound
ICU
Trooc
Service
L
T
R
L
T
R
L
T
R
L
T
R
A.M.
P.M.
Intersection
CoMro@
A.M. P.M. Feasib►lly/Comments
Birch St. (NS) at:
■ Bristol St. S EW
TS
0 2.5
1.5 2
2 0
1.5 3.5
0 0
0 0
0.51 0.54
A
A
Irvine Av. (NS) at:
■ Mesa Dr. (EW)
TS
1 2
d
1 2
d
1 1
0 1
1 1
0.98 1.19
E
F
> Funded Improvements
TS
1 3
1 1
3 1
1 1
1 2
1 0
0.68 0.94
B
E
> LOS D Alternative 1
TS
1 3
1 1
3 1
1 1
1>
1 2
0 0.74
0.87 C
D
Highly problematic ROW / topographic issues on
the west leg of the intersection.
> LOS D Alternative 2
TS
1 3
1 1
3 1
1 1
0 2
1 0
0.71 0.86
C
D
Assumes reallocated P.M. WB LT / Thru Volume
■ University Dr. (EW)
TS
1 2
1 1
2 1
1 2
D
1 1
D
1.19 1.09
F
F
> LOS D Improvements
TS
1 3
0 1
3 1
1.5 0.5
1 1
1 d
0.81 0.84
D
D
ROW and potential environmental issues.
■ Santiago Dr. (EW)
TS
1 2
0 1
2 d
0 1
d
0 1
d
0.69 0.77
B
C
■ Highland Dr. (EW)
TS
1 2
d
1 2
d
0 1
d
0 1
d
0.60 0.65
A
B
• Dover Dr. (EW)
TS
1 2
d
1 2
d
1 1
0 1
1 d
0.78 0.69
C
B
■ Westcliff Dr. EW
TS
2 2
d
2 2
d
2 2
0 1
2 0
0.66 0.82
B
D
Dover Dr. (NS) at:
■ Westcliff Dr. (EW)
TS
2 2
0 0
1 1
2 0
1>>
0 0
0 0.38
0.54 A
A
■ 16th St. (EW)
TS
1 2
d
1 2
d
0.5 0.5
d
1 1
1 0.60
0.60 A
A
■ Coast Hw. (EW)
TS
1 1
1 3
1 1
2 3
0 1
3 1>>
0.81 0.94
D
E
> LOS D Improvements
TS
1 1
1 3
1 1
2 3
0 1
4 1>>
0.81 0.78
D
C
Highly problematic ROW issues.
Bayside Dr. (NS) at:
■ Coast Hw. EW
TS
2.5 0.5
0 1
1 d
1 3
1 1
4 0
0.89 0.85
D
D
MacArthur BI. (NS) at:
■ Jamboree Rd. (EW)
TS
2 3
1>
2 3
1>>
2 3
1>>
2 3
1>>
0.93 1.02
E
F
> LOS E Improvements
TS
2 3
1>
2 3
1>>
2 3
1>>
3 3
1>>
0.89 0.92
D
E
Jamboree improvement only.
> LOS DAItemative 1
TS
2 3
1>
2 3
1>>
2 4
1>>
3 3
1>>
0.88 0.85
D
D
Feasible at -grade improvements.
> LOS D Alternative 2A
TS
2 0
0 2
3 1
0 0
1 2
3 1
0.42 0.77
A
C
Grade separated alternative.
> LOS D Alternative 28
TS
0 3
1 0
0 0
2 3
0 0
0 0
0.76 0.70
C
B
Grade separated alternative.
Jamboree Rd. (NS) at:
■ Bristol St. N EW
TS
2 3
0 0
2.5 1.5
0 0
0 0
0 0
0.68 0.67
B
B
Bayview Pl. (NS) at:
■ Bristol St. S EW
TS
0 0
2 0
0 0
0 4
1 0
0 0
0.60 0.63
A
B
City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 4.13-35
Table
4.13-7
Intersection Analysis Summary for General
Plan Buildout with Project
Intersection Aproach Lanes
Level of
Northbound
Southbound
Eastbound
Westbound
ICU
Trooc
Service
L
T
R
L
T
R
L
I T
R
L
T
R
A.M.
P.M.
Intersection
CoMro@
A.M. P.M. Feasib►lrly/Comments
Jamboree Rd. (NS) at:
■ Bristol St. S (EW)
TS
0 5
0 0
3 0
1.5 1.5
2 0
0 0
0.94 0.87
E
D
> LOS DAltemative 1
TS
0 6
0 0
4 0
1.5 1.5
2 0
0 0
0.90 0.82
D
D
Improvements currently under study.
> LOS D Alternative 2
TS
0 5
0 0
3 0
2.5 1.5
2 0
0 0
0.72 0.78
C
C
Appears feasible, but might cause operational
issues.
■ Bayview Wy. (EW)
TS
1 4
0 1
4 1
2 1
1 1
1 1
0.45 0.67
A
B
■ Eastbluff Dr./University Dr.
TS
1 3
1 2
3 1
1.5 0.5
1 1.5
1.5 1>>
0.68 0.67
B
B
(EW)
■ Bison Av. (EW)
TS
0 3
d
2 3
1 1
0 1
2 0
2 0.52
0.62 A
B
■ Eastbluff Dr./Ford Rd. (EW)
TS
2 3
0 2
3 1
1 1
1>>
1.5 1.5
1 0.80
0.77 C
C
■ San Joaquin Hills Rd. (EW)
TS
1 3
1>>
2 3
1 1.5
1.5 1
2 1
1>>
0.61 0.72
B
C
■ Santa Barbara Dr. (EW)
TS
1 3
1 2
3 1
1 1
0 1.5
0.5 1
0.58 0.79
A
C
■ Coast Hw. EW
TS
1 2
0 1
2 1>>
3 4
0 2
4 1>>
0.77 0.80
C
C
Santa Cruz Dr. (NS) at:
■ San Joaquin Hills Rd.(EW)-TS
2 1
0 1
1 1
1 3
0 1
3 0
0.38 0.34
A
A
Santa Rosa Dr. (NS) at:
■ San Joaquin Hills Rd. EW
TS
1 1
1>
1 1
1 1
3 0
2 3
0 0.41
0.71 A
C
Newport Center Dr. (NS) at:
■ Coast Hw. EW
0 2
0 1>>
2 3
0 0
3 1>>
0.48 0.63
A
B
Avocado Av. (NS) at:
■ San Miguel Dr. (EW)
TS
1 1
1>
1 1
1>
1 2
0 2
2 0
0.36 0.79
A
C
■ Coast Hw. EW
TS
1 1
1 1.5
0.5 1
1 3
d
1 3
1 0.73
0.78 C
C
SR-73 NB Ramps (NS) at:
■ Bison Av. EW
TS
1.5 0
1.5 0
0 0
1 2
0 0
2 1
0.52 0.61
A
B
SR-73 SB Ramps (NS) at:
■ Bison Av. EW
TS
0 0
0 2
0 1>>
0 2
1 2
2 0
0.42 0.32
A
A
4.13-36 City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR
Table
4.13-7
Intersection Analysis Summary for General
Plan Buildout with Project
Intersection Aproach Lanes
Level of
Northbound
Southbound
Eastbound
Westbound
ICU
Trooc
Service
L
T
R
L
T
R
L
T
R
L
T
R
A.M.
P.M.
Intersection
CoMro@
A.M. P.M. Feasib►lly/Comments
MacArthur BI. (NS) at:
■ Bison Av. (EW)
TS
2 4
1>>
2 4
1>
2 2
1>>
2 2
1 0.78
0.79 C
C
■ Ford Rd./Bonita Canyon
TS
2 4
1>>
2 4
1>>
2 2
1 2
2 1>>
0.80 1.00
C
E
Dr. (EW)
> LOS D Improvements
TS
2 4
1 3
4 1>>
2 2
1 2
2 1>>
0.79 0.89
C
D
■ San Joaquin Hills Rd. (EW)
TS
2 3
1 2
3 1>>
2 3
0 1
2 1>>
0.79 1.12
C
F
> LOSE Alternative 1
TS
2 4
0 3
3 1>>
2 3
0 1
2 1>>
0.68 0.94
B
E
> LOS E Alternative 2
TS
2 4
0 2
3 1>>
3 3
0 1
2 1>>
0.69 0.92
B
E
> LOSE Alternative 3
TS
2 3
1 3
3 1>>
3 3
0 1
2 1>>
0.71 0.91
C
E
> LOS D Improvements
TS
2 4
0 3
3 1>>
3 3
0 1
2 1>>
0.65 0.82
B
D
All 3 improvements req'd to achieve LOS "D." May
require narrow lanes and lead / lag LT operations.
■ San Miguel Dr. (EW)
TS
2 3
1 2
3 1>
2 2
0 2
2 d
0.64 0.75
B
C
■ Coast Hw. (EW)
TS
0 0
0 2
0 1>>
2 3
0 0
3 1>>
0.72 0.78
C
C
SR-73 NB Ramps (NIS) at:
■ Bonita Canyon Dr. (EW)
TS
2 0
1 0
0 0
0 2
1 1
2 0
1.06 0.76
F
C
> LOS D Improvements
TS
2 0
1 0
0 0
0 2
1 2
2 0
0.84 0.63
D
B
SR-73 SB Ramps (NIS) at:
■ Bonita Canyon Dr. (EW)
TS
2 0
1 0
0 0
0 2
1 2
3 0
0.46 0.66
A
B
Spyglass Hill Rd. (NS) at:
■ San Miguel Dr. (EW)
TS
0 1
d
0 1
1 1
2 d
1 2
d
0.30 0.38
A
A
San Miguel Dr. (NIS) at:
■ San Joaquin Hills Rd.(EW)-TS
1 2
0 1
2 1>
2 3
0 1
3 0
0.55 0.74
A
C
Goldenrod Av. (NS) at:
■ Coast Hw. EW
TS
1 1
0 0
1 0
1 2
d
1 2
d
0.99 0.69
E
B
Marguerite Av. (NS) at:
■ San Joaquin Hills Rd. (EW)
TS
1.5 0.5
1 1
1 0
1 2
1>
1 3
d
0.42 0.51
A
A
■ Coast Hw. (EW)
TS
1 1
0 1
1 0
1 2
1 1
2 0
0.9 1.00
E
E
> LOS D Improvements
TS
1 1
0 1
1 0
1 3
0 1
3 0
0.77 0.83
C
D
Highly problematic ROW issues. Inconsistent with
Corona Del Mar character.
Spyglass Hill Rd. (NS) at:
■ San Joaquin Hills Rd. EW
TS
1 1
0 1
1 d
1 2
1 1
2 d
0.60 0.49
A
A
City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 4.13-37
Table
4.13-7
Intersection Analysis Summary for General
Plan Buildout with Project
Intersection Aproach Lanes
Level of
Northbound
I Southbound
Eastbound
I Westbound
ICU
Trolfic
Service
L
T
R
L
T
R
L
T
R
L
T
R
A.M.
P.M.
Intersection
Cordrolb
A.M. P.M. Feasib►lrly/Comments
Poppy Av. (NIS) at:
■ Coast Hw. EW
TS
1 1
0 0
1 0
1 2
0 1
2 0
0.70 0.76
B
C
Newport Coast Dr. (NIS) at:
■ SR-73 NB Ramps (EW)
TS
0 2
1>>
0 2
0 0
0 0
1.5 0
0.5 0.65
0.40 B
A
■ San Joaquin Hills Rd. (EW)
TS
2 3
0 0
3 1
1 0
2>
0 0
0 0.62
0.49 B
A
■ Coast Hw. (EW)
TS
1 1
1 2
1 1>>
1 3
1 1
3 1>>
0.70 0.73
B
C
> LOS D Improvements
TS
1 1
0 0
1 0
1 2
d
1 3
0 0.71
0.69 C
B
Highly problematic ROW issues. Inconsistent with
Corona Del Mar character.
When a right turn is designated, the lane can either be striped or unstriped. To function as a right turn lane there must be sufficient width for right turning vehicles to travel outside the through lanes.
b TS = Traffic Signal
L = Left; T = Through; R = Right; > = Overlap; >> = Free Right; Bold -underline = Improvement
4.13-38 City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR
Bluff Rd. (NS) at:
■ Coast Hw. (EW) Provide two SB left turn lanes and two SB right turn lanes (2nd with overlap phase). Provide two EB left turn lanes. Provide one WB right turn lane. 15th St. (NS) at:
■ Coast Hw. (EW) Provide 2nd SB right turn lane with overlap phase. Provide 2nd EB left turn lane.
Newport BI. (NS) at:
■ Hospital Rd. (EW) Provide 2nd NB left turn lane.
■ 32nd St. (EW) Restripe EB to provide 2 left turn lanes, and 1 shared through -right lane. Restripe WB to nrnvirla 1 Iafttiirn lane 1 thrniinh lana and 1 fraa rinhtturn Jana Riverside Av. (NS) at:
■ Coast Hw. (EW) Provide 3rd EB through lane.
Tustin Av. (NS) at:
■ Coast Hw. (EW) Provide 3rd EB through lane.
MacArthur BI. (NS) at:
■ Campus Dr. (EW) Provide 2nd NB left turn lane. Restripe SB to provide 3.5 through lanes and 1.5 right turn lanes.
Von Karman Av. (NS) at:
■ Campus Dr. (EW) Provide 2nd EB left turn lane.
Jamboree Rd. (NS) at:
■ Campus Dr. (EW) Provide 1st NB right turn lane with overlap phase. Provide 4th SB through lane. Provide WB right turn overlap phase for current right turn lane.
■ Birch St. (EW) Provide 4th SB through lane.
Campus Dr. (NS) at:
■ Bristol St. N (EW) Provide 5th WB through lane.
Irvine Av. (NS) at:
■ Mesa Dr. (EW)
> Funded Improvements Provide 3rd NB through lane. Provide 3rd SB through lane. Provide 1 st EB right turn lane.
Provide 2nd WB left turn lane.
> Additional Improvements Construct funded improvements, but EB right turn lane not necessary. ■ University Dr. (EW) Provide 3rd NB through lane. Provide 3rd SB through lane. Restripe EB to include 1.5 left turn lanes, 0.5 through lane, and 1 right turn lane.
MacArthur BI. (NS) at:
■ Jamboree Rd. (EW) Provide 4th EB through lane. Provide 3rd WB left turn lane.
Jamboree Rd. (NS) at:
■ Bristol St. S (EW) Provide 6th NB through lane. Provide 4th SB through lane.
MacArthur BI. (NS) at:
■ Ford Rd./Bonita Canyon Dr. Provide 3rd SB left turn lane. (EW)
■ San Joaquin Hills Rd. (EW) Provide 4th NB through lane. Provide 3rd SB left turn lane. Provide 3rd EB left turn lane.
SR-73 NB Ramps (NS) at:
■ Bonita Canyon Dr. (EW) Provide 2nd WB left turn lane.
City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 4.13-39
Table 4.13-9 General Plan Buildout
FreewayVolume
Ramp Move Lanes on Fwy. A.M. P.M.
with Project SR-73 Freeway Peak Hour Ramp
Length of Acceleration Peak Hour Volume
Ramp Lanes Deceleration Lane (Ft) A.M. P.M.
Analysis
Dequity
LOS
A.M.
I P.M.
A.M.
P.M.
Bristol St.
■ with improvements
NB Off
NB Off
5 6
10,718
10,718
5,646
5,646
1 2
0 280
2,280
2,280
920
920
54.7 34.8
30.5 17.1
F
D
D
B
Bristol St.
SB Off
5 3,457
9,137
2 2,725
1,370
690
NOM
NOM
A
A
Jamboree Rd.
NB On
5 7,780
4,098
1 120
480
850
21.0 17.3
C
B
Jamboree Rd.
■ with improvements
SB On
SB On
5 6
3,483
3,483
9,205
9,205
1 1
1,700
1,570
630
630
1,610
1,610
15.1 12.7
38.0 30.6
B
B
F
D
MacArthur BI.
NB Off
5 7,780
4,098
2 1,480
930
490
0.8 NOM
A
A
MacArthur BI.
■ with improvements
NB On
NB On
5 6
7,780
7,780
4,098
4,098
1 2
340
340
2,570
2,570
2,210
2,210
-a
32.1 -a
25.2 F
D
F
C
MacArthur BI.
■ with improvements
SB Off
SB Off
5 6
2,510
2,510
6,633
6,633
1 2
1,340
1,340
2,220
2,220
2,310
2,310
15.8 3.2
28.5 11.2
F1
A
F1
B
University Dr.
NB On
5 7,780
4,098
1 200
1,310
1,470
22.5 20.2
C
C
University Dr.
SB Off
5 2,510
6,633
1 1,400
800
840
7.2 19.7
A
B
Bison Av.
NB Off
5 7,780
4,098
1 0
520
330
34.5 22.3
D
C
Bison Av.
NB On
5 7,780
4,098
1 250
280
860
19.0 16.0
B
B
Bison Av.
SB Off
5 2,510
6,633
1 0
1,000
380
20.9 29.7
C
D
Bison Av.
SB On
5 2,510
6,633
1 740
120
440
9.6 21.4
A
C
Bonita Canyon Dr.
NB Off
6 10,797
5,687
1 1,250
980
220
30.1 12.8
D
B
Bonita Canyon Dr.
■ with improvements
NB On
NB On
5 5
7,780
7,780
4,098
4,098
1 1
2,440
1,020
720
720
420
420
47.8 34.4
22.9 20.5
F
D
C
C
Bonita Canyon Dr.
SB Off
5 2,510
6,633
1 0
410
500
17.6 30.3
B
D
Bonita Canyon Dr.
SB On
5 2,510
6,633
1 400
300
820
10.9 19.7
B
B
Newport Coast Dr.
■ with improvements
NB Off
NB Off
5 6
10,162
10,162
5,353
5,353
1 1
0 240
560
560
290
290
43.0 34.9
25.8 21.3
F
D
C
C
Newport Coast Dr.
■ with improvements
NB On
NB On
5 6
10,162
10,162
5,353
5,353
1 1
1,250
860
480
480
330
330
53.3 34.8
27.4 20.5
F
D
C
C
Newport Coast Dr.
■ with improvements
SB Off
SB Off
6 6
3,483
3,483
9,205
9,205
1 1
0 240
680
680
1,050
1,050
20.8 18.7
37.1 34.9
C
B
E
D
4.13-40 City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR
Freeway Volume Length of Acceleration Peak Hour Volume Dens' LOS Ramp Move Lanes on Fwy. A.M. P.M. Ramp Lanes Deceleration Lane (Ft) A.M. P.M. A.M. P.M. A.M. P.M.
Newport Coast Dr. SIB On 6 3,483 9,205 1 360 460 600 13.0 21.7 B C SOURCE: Urban Crossroads 2006
Bold -underline = Improvement
a Ramp failure due to ramp volumes over capacity.
City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 4.13-41
■ MacArthur Boulevard Northbound On (A.M./P.M.)
■ MacArthur Boulevard Suthbound Off (A.M./P.M.)
■ Bonita Canyon Drive Northbound On (A.M.)
■ Newport Coast Drive Northbound Off (A.M.)
■ Newport Coast Drive Northbound On (A.M.)
■ Newport Coast Drive Suthbound Off (P.M.)
Impacts related to freeway mainlines and ramps are considered significant.
Threshold Would the proposed project exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways?
Impact 4.13-3 Implementation of the proposed General Plan Update could result in exceeding, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways.
The project would result in an acceptable LOS per CMP (LOS E or better) for all CMP arterials in Newport Beach. CMP arterials include:
■ Coast Highway (SR-1) throughout the City
■ MacArthur Blvd from Coast Highway to Jamboree
■ Newport Boulevard (SR-55) from north City limit to Coast Highway ■ Jamboree from northern City boundary to MacArthur Boulevard Impacts to designated roads or highways would be less than significant.
Threshold Would the proposed project result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in locations that results in substantial safety risks?
Impact 4.13-4 Implementation of the proposed General Plan Update could result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in locations that results in substantial safety risks.
In 1985, the City, County, Stop Polluting Our Newport (SPON) and the Airport Working Group (AWG) entered into a stipulation (1985 JWA Settlement Agreement) to resolve Federal Court litigation regarding the Master Plan that was initiated by the County. The 1985 JWA Settlement Agreement, among other things: (a) limited the number of "average daily departures" (ADD) certain commercial aircraft based on noise generating characteristics; (b) limited the number of passengers served each year at JWA (expressed in terms of "million annual passengers" or "MAP") to 8.4 MAP after construction of the new terminal; and (c) required the County to maintain the curfew then effect at JWA as well as an ordinance restricting operations by general aviation aircraft that generated more noise than the permitted by commercial aircraft.
4.13-42 City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR
In 2002, the City, County, SPON, and AWG approved amendments of the 1985 Settlement Agreement amendments (2002 Amendments) that, among other things: (a) increased the maximum number of noise regulated air carrier ADD from 73 to 85; (b) increased the service level limit from 8.4 to 10.3 MAP until January 1, 2011 and to 10.8 MAP on and after January 1, 2011 (with 500,000 seats allocated to regional jets); and (c) increased the maximum number of passenger loading bridges from fourteen to twenty.
Prior to approval of the 2002 Amendments, the County, as lead agency, prepared an Environmental Impact Report (EIR 582) that fully evaluated significant impacts of the proposed increases in commercial air carrier operations and passenger service levels. The County concluded, based on the analysis in EIR 582 that the 2002 Amendments would cause or make worse an unsatisfactory level of service at the Campus Drive/Bristol North intersection but that impact would be mitigated to a level of insignificance with implementation of improvements that have been installed. The County also concluded that the 2002 Amendments would have a significant and unavoidable adverse impact at four freeway ramps and that any improvements were outside the jurisdiction of the County (and City). The City made similar findings.
The County as lead agency and the City as a responsible agency both adopted appropriate statements of overriding considerations.
In 2004 the County prepared an Addendum to EIR 582 (Addendum) to address impacts specific to the design and construction of the improvements authorized by the 2002 Amendments. The Addendum concluded that peak hour trips generated by JWA were actually less than projected in EIR 582—in some cases by eight percent less —"because of changes in passenger arrival patterns that have occurred due to recently implemented passenger security checks, with arrivals being spread out into off-peak times." (Addendum p. 3.2-4)
The traffic analysis of the proposed General Plan Update has assumed the additional trips contemplated by the 2002 Amendments. The proposed General Plan Update and related circulation system improvements at Campus and Bristol North will not result in any significant impacts to those intersections in the Airport Area that are used by JWA patrons and that were evaluated in EIR 582. In fact, the proposed conversion of office and commercial uses to residential uses has the potential to improve operating conditions (compared to the existing General Plan) for the Birch/Bristol North intersection in the P.M. peak hour and the Campus Drive/Irvine/Bristol South intersection in the P.M. peak hour. Project impacts related to JWA operations are less than significant.
Threshold Would the proposed project substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
Impact 4.13-5 Implementation of the proposed General Plan Update could substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment).
There are no site -specific project plans at this time, so project layouts, driveway locations, land use types, or intensities are unknown. Without such detail, it is not possible, using available traffic analysis procedures, to estimate some types of impacts. Therefore, on -going development proposals must be reviewed on a case -by -case basis as they arise, and as such details such as driveway location or City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 4.13-43
intersection modification become known. The City cannot address these project impacts in this Draft EIR as it would be too speculative to try to determine how any particular development would be constructed. In addition, Section 15145 of the CEQA Guidelines specifically states that if a particular impact or project is too speculative for evaluation, then analysis in the EIR is not required.
However, the circulation improvements identified in Table 4.13-10 would be implemented with this program. None of these improvements would introduce new safety hazards at intersections or along roadway segments, as most would increase capacity and flow. In addition, Policies within the Circulation and Land Use Elements (CE 1.3.2, 2.2.1, 2.2.5) provide for maintaining and enhancing existing roadways, increasing safety of roadways, and balancing safety, quality of life and efficiency in the design of circulation and access. These policies of the proposed General Plan Update would help reduce hazards due to design features. This impact would be less than significant.
Threshold Would the proposed project result in inadequate emergency access? Impact 4.13-6 Implementation of the proposed General Plan Update could result in inadequate emergency access.
The proposed General Plan Update would be required to meet all applicable local and State regulatory standards for adequate emergency access. As discussed in Chapter 3 Project Description, proposed General Plan Update policies related to disaster planning include measures for effective emergency response to natural or human -induced disasters that minimizes the loss of life and damage to property, while also reducing disruptions in the delivery of vital public and private services during and following a disaster. Policies related to coastal hazards are included to ensure that adverse effects of coastal hazards related to tsunamis and rogue waves to people and property are minimized. Additionally, the project would be required to comply with applicable Municipal Code and Fire Code requirements regarding emergency access. As discussed in Section 4.6 Hazards (Impact 4.6-8), the proposed General Plan Update Safety Element also contains Policies S 9.1, S 9.2, and S 9.4 to ensure that the City's Emergency Management Plan is regularly updated, provides for efficient and orderly citywide evacuation, and also ensures that emergency services personnel are familiar with the relevant response plans applicable to the City. Further, Policy S9.5 of the Safety Plan calls for the distribution of information about emergency planning to community groups, schools, religious institutions, business associations, and residents.
Consequently, the project would provide adequate emergency access to the project area. Therefore, any potential impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required.
Emergency access during construction activities, as it pertains to access to and from roadways surrounding the project area, is addressed in Section 4.6 (Hazards and Hazardous Materials) of this EIR.
4.13-44 City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR
Threshold Would the proposed project result in inadequate parking capacity? Impact 4.13-7 Implementation of the proposed General Plan Update could result in inadequate parking capacity.
As identified in Environmental Setting, parking availability is limited in the coastal portions of Newport Beach, especially during the peak summer months. Balboa Peninsula, Balboa Island, Mariners' Mile, Corona Del Mar, and West Newport are areas of high use. Specific remedies are being considered for these areas, for example, the Balboa Peninsula Parking Management Plan included parking surveys/studies and recommendations. Recommendations include providing a permit program, installing parking meters, consolidating public parking, developing a shared parking program, developing a shuttle system for special events, and developing a parking enforcement and collection program, among other things. The City has begun to implement some of these recommendations. Valet services have also been suggested for both the Balboa Peninsula and Mariners' Mile. The proposed General Plan Update includes policies in the Circulation Element (CE 7.1.1 through CE 7.1.13, and CE 7.2.1 through CE 7.2.3) that specifically address providing adequate and convenient parking throughout the city.
Policies include encouraging shared parking, developing parking management programs, and collecting/using in -lieu fees to develop additional parking.
In addition, implementation of the proposed General Plan Update would not avoid implementation of parking standards or requirements in the Municipal Code. With regard to parking, each development would be required to comply with the parking standards (on -street and off-street) identified in the Municipal Code. Impacts related to parking would not occur with implementation of the proposed General Plan Update and would be less than significant.
Threshold Would the proposed project conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? Impact 4.13-8 Implementation of the proposed General Plan Update could conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks).
The Circulation Element contains new General Plan policies related to transportation systems management, transportation demand management, water transportation services and waterfront walkways, and maintains all existing policies. These policies (e.g., Policies CE 6.1.1., CE 6.1.2, CE 6.1.3, CE 6.2.1, CE 6.2.2, CE 6.2.3, CE 5.1.14, CE 5.1.15, CE 5.1.16, CE 5.2.1, and CE 5.2.2) encourage alternative modes of transportation, use of intelligent transportation systems, encourage enhancement and maintenance of public water transportation services and expanded public water transportation uses and land support facilities. Policies related to waterfront walkways include encouraging the development of walkways along the Lido Marina Village boardwalk, along Rhine Channel, between Lido Village and Mariners' Mile, and along the Mariners' Mile waterfront. Intersection improvements proposed as part of the Circulation Element update do not affect the implementation of these policies. In addition, improvements at some intersections have been limited to protect bicycle and pedestrian safety.
City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 4.13-45
Therefore, the proposed General Plan Update would not conflict with existing policies regarding alternative transportation. Impacts would be less than significant and no mitigation is necessary. ■ Cumulative Impacts
Cumulative traffic impacts are based on the future traffic volumes presented in the discussion of Impacts
4.13-1 through 4.13-8, above. Future traffic volumes for the General Plan Buildout With Project and General Plan Buildout Without Project scenarios were projected using the NBTM and by incorporating all of the regional model data and projects on the regional system within and outside of the City. This includes traffic from neighboring jurisdictions. These projections include all reasonably foreseeable and probable future projects in the region. Therefore, the traffic analysis provided for the Project Study Area has already accounted for cumulative traffic impacts. To summarize the impacts of the proposed General Plan Update, including growth in regional traffic, traffic volumes would increase 30.9 percent over 2002 counts, and 23.9 percent over 2005 levels. The number of roadway segments with a V/C ratio greater than 0.90 would increase from 17 to 40. With improvements included in the proposed Circulation Element, the number of intersections operating at LOS E or worse would decrease from six under existing conditions to five. As indicated previously, intersection operations are the most meaningful measure of performance of the roadway system. Therefore, cumulative impacts associated with increased traffic volumes in the Project Study Area from buildout of the proposed General Plan Update would be less than significant. However, cumulative impacts associated with freeway segments and ramps would be significant and unavoidable. Additionally, the project's contribution to this impact would be cumulatively considerable and significant and unavoidable. ■ Proposed General Plan Update Policies
Implementation of policies within the Circulation, Land Use, and Safety Elements of the proposed General Plan Update would reduce impacts associated with transportation and circulation. The policies that are applicable to the project are included below. Policies identified below that are also contained in the Harbor and Bay Element are denoted with an "HB."
Transportation and Circulation Element
The Circulation Element of the proposed General Plan Update has proposed conceptual intersection improvements within the City in an effort to support future development designated in the Land Use Plan of the proposed General Plan Update. The conceptual intersection improvements proposed under the Circulation Element are shown in Table 4.13-10. It is important to note that the conceptual intersection improvements are based on long-term forecasts of buildout conditions using the NBTM.
The types of conceptual intersection improvements that have been investigated include the creation of new through lanes and turn lanes. These are conceptual improvements, and alternative improvements that would achieve acceptable operations could be substituted.
The traffic analysis prepared for this EIR for the General Plan covers the entire City and the SOI area.
The actual development patterns may occur differently than anticipated in this document due to market forces. For example, the pace of development may be faster or slower than anticipated by the analysis, or
4.13-46 City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR
it could not occur at all. There are no site -specific project area plans at this time, so the project layout, driveway locations, land use types, or intensities are unknown. Without such detail, it is not possible, using available traffic analysis procedures, to accurately estimate future intersection -specific impacts or mitigation requirements. Therefore, ongoing development activity and development proposals must be reviewed on a case -by -case basis as they arise, and as such details such as building type, density, and driveway location become known. The City cannot address these impacts in this Draft EIR as it would be too speculative to try to determine where, and if any, particular development would be constructed. In addition, Section 15145 of the CEQA Guidelines specifically states that if a particular impact or project is too speculative for evaluation, then analysis in the EIR is not required. The analysis contained in the General Plan EIR document should be considered as a guide to traffic impacts and recommended improvements and are subject to subsequent analysis.
Table 4.13-10 Transportation
Improvements under Proposed General Plan
Update
IntenecHon
Additional Intersection Improvements with Project
1 Bluff Rd. (NS) at Coast Hw. (EW)
Provide two SB left -turn lanes and two SB right -turn lanes (2nd with overlap phase). Provide two EB left -turn lanes. Provide one WB right -turn lane. 2 15th St. (NS) at Coast Hw. (EW)
Provide 2nd SB right turn lane with overlap phase. Provide 2nd EB left turn lane. 3 Newport BI. (NS) at Hospital Rd. (EW)
Provide 2nd NB left turn lane.
4 Riverside Av. (NS) at Coast Hw. (EW)
Provide 3rd EB through lane.
5 MacArthur BI. (NS) at Campus Dr. (EW)
Provide 2nd NB left turn lane. Restripe SB to provide 3.5 through lanes and 1.5 right turn lanes.
6 (EW) arman Av. (NS) at Campus Dr.
Provide 2nd EB left turn lane.
7 Jamboree Rd. (NS) at Campus Dr. (EW)
Provide NB 1st right turn lane with overlap phase. Provide 4th SB through lane.
Provide WB right turn overlap phase for current right turn lane. 8 Campus Dr. (NS) at Bristol St. N (EW)
Provide 5th WB through lane.
Provide 3rd NB through lane. Provide 3rd SB through lane. Provide 1st EB right Irvine Av. (NS) at Mesa Dr. (EW)-Funded
turn lane. Provide 2nd WB left turn lane. Construct funded improvements, but EB 9 Improvements University Dr. (EW)
right turn lane not necessary.
Provide 3rd NB through lane. Provide 3rd SB through lane. Restripe EB to include 1.5 left turn lanes, 1.5 through lanes, and 1 right turn lane. 10 MEW) rthur BI. (NS) at Jamboree Rd.
Provide 4th EB through lane. Provide 3rd WB left turn lane. 11 Jamboree Rd. (NS) at Bristol St. S (EW)
Provide 6th NB through lane. Provide 4th SB through lane.
MacArthur BI. (NS) at Ford Rd./Bonita
Provide 3rd SB left turn lane.
12 Canyon Dr. (EW) and San Joaquin Hills
Provide 3rd SB left turn lane. Provide 3rd EB left turn lane. Provide 4th NB Rd. (EW)
through lane.
City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 4.13-47
Transportation and Circulation Element
Mobility
Goal CE 1.1 An overall transportation system that facilitates the movement of people and goods within and through the City of Newport Beach and accommodates conservative growth within the City of Newport Beach, but is not expanded primarily to accommodate growth in the surrounding region.
Policy CE 1.1.1 Comprehensive Transportation System
Provide a diverse transportation system that provides mobility options for the community.
Policy CE 1.1.2 Integrated System of Multiple Modes
Provide an integrated transportation system that supports the land use plan set forth in the Land Use Element.
Policy CE 1.1.3 Levels of Service Related to Community Character Establish level of service standards that reflect the character of the various unique districts and neighborhoods of Newport Beach.
Goal CE 1.2 Reduced summertime visitor traffic impacts.
Policy CE 1.2.1 Wayfinding
Implement way -finding signs, especially for tourist destinations.
Policy CE 1.2.2 Shuttle Service
Encourage remote visitor parking and shuttle services.
Policy CE 1.2.3 Traffic System Management
Identify and implement measures, such as special traffic signal timing, to reduce the impact of high volume summer traffic on persons living along and around the beach and bay, as well as visitors.
Policy CE 1.2.4 Public Transit
Support and encourage OCTA efforts to provide / fund summertime expanded bus service and/or local shuttle services to reduce visitor traffic.
4.13-48 City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR
Goal CE 1.3 Truck routes that support goods movement to and from land use in the City while minimizing adverse impacts to residents or businesses.
Policy CE 1.3.1 Truck Routes
Allow truck use of City streets except selected residential and arterial streets adjacent to residential areas necessary to minimize impacts of truck traffic on residential areas.
Policy CE 1.3.2 Impacts of Trucks
Provide appropriately designed and maintained roadways to safely accommodate truck travel and minimize noise and vibration.
Policy CE 1.3.3 Management of Truck Activities
Actively manage trucking activities related to oversize loads such as large boats and comparable characteristics.
Roadway System
Goal CE 2.1 A roadway system that provides for the efficient movement of goods and people in the City of Newport Beach, while maintaining the community's character and its residents' quality of life.
Policy CE 2.1.1 Level of Service Standards
Plan the arterial roadway system to accommodate projected traffic at the following level of service standards:
A. Level of Service (LOS) "D" throughout the City, unless otherwise noted.
B. LOS "E" at the following Airport Area intersection: Campus Drive (NS) at Bristol Street North (EW) and any intersection shared with Irvine.
C. LOS "E" at the following intersections in the pedestrian oriented area of Coast Highway in Mariners' Mile: Riverside Avenue (NS) at Coast Highway (EW) and Dover Drive (NS) at Coast Highway (EW�.
D. LOS "E" at Marguerite Avenue (NS) at Coast Highway (EW) in the pedestrian oriented area of Coast Highway in Corona del Mar.
E. Accept LOS "E" at Goldenrod Avenue (NS) at Coast Highway (EV/) in the pedestrian oriented area of Coast Highway in Corona del Mar.
Policy CE 2.1.2 Traffic Phasing Ordinance
Update the Traffic Phasing Ordinance to maintain consistency with the General Plan Circulation Element level of service standards.
City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 4.13-49
Policy CE 2.1.3 Street and Highway Network
Construct the circulation system described on the map entitled Newport Beach Circulation Element -Master Plan of Streets and Highways shown in Figure CE1 and Figure CE2 (cross-section).
Policy CE 2.1.4 Current Traffic Data
Monitor traffic conditions on an ongoing basis and update Master Plan as necessary.
Policy CE 2.1.5 Roadway Improvements
Pursue construction of intersection improvements shown on Figure CE3 or alternate improvements that achieve an acceptable level of service.
Policy CE 2.1.6 Protection of Right -of -Way
Protect right-of-way for designated future streets and highways through all practicable means.
Goal CE 2.2 A safe and efficient roadway system.
Policy CE 2.2.1 Safe Roadways
Provide for safe roadway conditions by adhering to nationally recognized improvement standards and uniform construction and maintenance practices.
Policy CE 2.2.2 Up -to -Date Standards
Periodically review and update street standards to current capacity and safety practices.
Policy CE 2.2.3 Traffic Control
Design traffic control measures to ensure City streets and roads function with safety and efficiency.
Policy CE 2.2.4 Driveway and Access Limitations
Limit driveway and local street access on arterial streets to maintain a desired quality of traffic flow. Wherever possible, consolidate driveways and implement access controls during redevelopment of adjacent parcels.
Policy CE 2.2.5 Neighborhood Traffic Calming
Balance safety, quality of life, and efficiency when considering traffic calming improvements to local neighborhood streets.
4.13-50 City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR
Policy CE 2.2.6 Emergency Access
Provide all residential, commercial, and industrial areas with efficient and safe access for emergency vehicles.
Policy CE 2.2.7 Alleys
Alleys in new developments shall be 20' wide to facilitate circulation.
Goal CE 2.3 Optimal roadway system operation.
Policy CE 2.3.1 Coast Highway Ownership
Pursue ownership of Coast Highway throughout Newport Beach, as opportunities arise, so that Coast Highway can be improved to its ultimate width in Mariners' Mile consistent with the City's vision and to provide the City with more opportunities to increase operational efficiencies.
Policy CE 2.3.2 Roadway Maintenance
Support roadway maintenance programs that inspect, repair, and rehabilitate pavement surfaces in order to preserve the high quality of City streets and thoroughfares.
Policy CE 2.3.3 Traffic Conditions Data Base
Monitor traffic conditions and optimize traffic signal operations and coordination on an ongoing basis.
Policy CE 2.3.4 Improvements to Reflect Changing Traffic Conditions Based on the monitoring of traffic conditions, consider additional improvements in areas with operations issues, such as intersections with heavy turn volumes (e.g. additional turn lanes, traffic signal progression, etc.).
Goal CE 3.1 A network of regional facilities which ensures the safe and efficient movement of people and goods from within the City to areas outside its boundaries, and minimizes the use of City streets by regional through traffic.
Policy CE 3.1.1 Freeway System
Encourage ongoing regional investment in the freeway system.
Policy CE 3.1.2 Integration of Transportation Systems with Adjoining Communities and the Region
Interface with regional and surrounding local agencies, such as Caltrans, OCTA, the County of Orange, John Wayne Airport, the Cities of Irvine, Costa Mesa, and Huntington Beach, and the University of California, Irvine to implement systems that serve the needs of regional travelers in a way that minimizes impacts on Newport Beach residents.
City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 4.13-51
Policy CE 3.1.3 Regional Consistency
The City of Newport Beach Master Plan of Streets and Highways (shown on Figure CE1) shall be consistent with the Orange County Master Plan of Arterial Highways.
Policy CE 3.1.4 Regional Traffic Mitigation
Participate in programs (Congestion Management Program, Growth Management Program, etc.) to mitigate regional traffic congestion.
Policy CE 3.1.5 191h Street Bridge
Advocate for the implementation of needed regional Master Plan improvements, and be a strong advocate for construction of the 19th Street bridge across the Santa Ana River.
Public Transportation
Goal CE 4.1 A public transportation system that provides mobility for residents and encourages use of public transportation as an alternative to automobile travel.
Policy CE 4.1.1 Public Transit Efficiency
Support efforts by OCTA and other agencies to increase the effectiveness and productivity of transit services, possibly including local shuttle services.
Policy CE 4.1.2 Transit Services for Special Need Populations Support efforts to increase accessible transit services and facilities for the elderly, disabled, and other transportation disadvantaged persons.
Policy CE 4.1.3 Seasonal Public Transit
Coordinate with OCTA to provide seasonal, recreational, and special events shuttles.
Policy CE 4.1.4 Land Use Densities Supporting Public Transit Accommodate residential densities sufficient to support transit patronage, especially in mixed use areas such as the Airport Area.
Policy CE 4.1.5 Airport Shuttles
Encourage the use of airport shuttle services to minimize the impacts of air travelers on the local roadway system.
Policy CE 4.1.6 Transit Support Facilities
Participate in efforts to develop transit support facilities, including park -and - ride lots, bus stops, and shelters.
4.13-52 City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR
Policy CE 4.1.7 School Transit
Monitor the demand for additional private, public, and school transportation available to serve the needs of K-12 students and advocate for improvements in traffic from students.
Alternative Transportation Modes
Goal CE 5.1 Convenient trail systems that satisfy recreational desires and transportation needs.
Policy CE 5.1.1 Trail System
Promote construction of a comprehensive trail system as shown on Figure CE4 and Figure CE5.
Policy CE 5.1.2 Pedestrian Connectivity
Link residential areas, schools, parks, and commercial centers so that residents can travel within the community without driving.
Policy CE 5.1.3 Pedestrian Improvements in New Development Projects Require new development projects to include safe and attractive sidewalks, walkways, and bike lanes in accordance with the Master Plan, and, if feasible, trails.
Policy CE 5.1.4 Linkages to Citywide Trail System and Neighborhoods Require developers to construct links to the planned trail system, adjacent areas, and communities where appropriate.
Policy CE 5.1.5 Bikeway System
Cooperate with state, federal, county, and local agencies to coordinate bikeways and trails throughout the region.
Policy CE 5.1.6 Bicycle Supporting Facilities
Incorporate bicycle and pedestrian facilities in the design plans for new streets and highways and, where feasible, in the plans for improving existing roads.
Policy CE 5.1.7 Bicycle Safety
Provide for safety of bicyclists, equestrians, and pedestrians by adhering to current national standards and uniform practices.
Policy CE 5.1.8 Bicycle Conflicts with Vehicles and Pedestrians Minimize conflict points among motorized traffic, pedestrians, and bicycle traffic.
City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 4.13-53
Policy CE 5.1.9 Integrated Bicycle Improvements
Coordinate community bicycle and pedestrian facilities in a citywide network for continuity of travel.
Policy CE 5.1.10 Bicycle Trail Signage
Develop and implement a uniform signing program to assist the public in locating, recognizing, and utilizing public bikeways and trails.
Policy CE 5.1.11 School Access
Work with schools to promote walking, biking, safe drop-off, and other improvements.
Policy CE 5.1.12 Pedestrian Street Crossings
Implement improved pedestrian crossings in key high volume areas such as Corona Del Mar, Mariners' Mile, West Newport, Airport Area, Newport Center/Fashion Island, and the Balboa Peninsula.
Policy CE 5.1.13 Overhead Pedestrian Street Crossings
Consider overhead pedestrian crossings in areas where pedestrian use limits the efficiency of the roadway or signalized intersection.
Policy CE 5.1.14 Newport Harbor Trails and Walkways
Develop and implement a long-range plan for public trails and walkways to access all appropriate commercial areas of the harbor, as determined to be physically and economically feasible including: (Policy HB 6.2) a. Extension of the Lido Marina Village boardwalk across all of the waterfront commercial properties in Lido Village.
b. Provide a continuous waterfront walkway along the Rhine Channel, connecting Cannery Village and McFadden Square waterfront commercial areas with Las Arenas Beach at 19th Street.
c. Provide a walkway connecting the Lido Village area with Mariners' Mile. d. Provide a continuous walkway along the Mariners' Mile waterfront from the Coast Highway/Newport Boulevard Bridge to the Balboa Bay Club.
Policy CE 5.1.15 Equestrian Trails
Maintain the existing equestrian trail system in Santa Ana Heights.
Policy CE 5.1.16 Bicycle and Pedestrian Safety
Provide for the safety of bicyclists and pedestrians through provision of adequate facilities, including maintenance of extra sidewalk width where feasible.
4.13-54 City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR
Goal CE 5.2 Enhanced and maintained public water transportation services and expanded public water transportation uses and land support facilities.
Policy CE 5.2.1 Marine Terminals
Coordinate the location of marine terminals with other components of the transportation system to ensure convenient multi -modal access and adequate parking.
Policy CE 5.2.2 Expanded Water Transportation Modes
Promote opportunities to expand water transportation modes, such as water based shuttle services and water taxis.
Transportation Systems Management (TSM)/Travel Demand Management (TDM) Goal CE 6.1 An efficient circulation system through the use of transportation systems management.
Policy CE 6.1.1 Traffic Signals
Improve traffic signal operations by optimizing signal timing, interconnecting signalized intersections along arterial streets, and installing computerized master traffic signal control systems in intensively utilized areas.
Policy CE 6.1.2 Intelligent Transportation Systems
Explore and implement intelligent transportation system and infrastructure improvements which will reduce peak hour traffic from that forecast in this Element.
Policy CE 6.1.3 Coordination with Adjacent Jurisdictions Coordinate operations with adjacent jurisdictions to enhance the efficiency of inter -jurisdictional roadway system operations.
Goal CE 6.2 Reduced automobile travel through the use of travel demand management strategies.
Policy CE 6.2.1 Alternative Transportation Modes
Promote and encourage the use of alternative transportation modes, such as ridesharing, carpools, vanpools, public transit, bicycles, and walking; and provide facilities that support such alternate modes.
Policy CE 6.2.2 Support Facilities for Alternative Modes Require new development projects to provide facilities commensurate with development type and intensity to support alternative modes, such as preferential parking for carpools, bicycle lockers, showers, commuter City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 4.13-55
information areas, rideshare vehicle loading areas, water transportation docks, and bus stop improvements.
Policy CE 6.2.3 Project Site Design Supporting Alternative Modes Encourage increased use of public transportation by requiring project site designs that facilitate the use of public transportation and walking.
Parking
Goal CE 7.1 An adequate supply of convenient parking throughout the City.
Policy CE 7.1.1 Required Parking
Require that new development provide adequate, convenient parking for residents, guests, business patrons, and visitors.
Policy CE 7.1.2 Parking In -Lieu Fees
Establish an in -lieu parking fee that the City may require to be paid when a development is not able to provide required parking.
Policy CE 7.1.3 Funding of Shared Parking Facilities
Use in -lieu fees and other funds to develop public shared parking facilities in areas with inadequate parking supply. Priority shall be given to spending fees in areas that will benefit those who contributed the fees.
Policy CE 7.1.4 Expanded Parking in Corona del Mar
Permit conversion of Corona Del Mar residential lots adjacent to commercial areas and commercial lots for parking to support commercial uses. Encourage continued use of existing parking on residential zoned lots, as well as existing shared parking lots.
Policy CE 7.1.5 Avon Street Municipal Parking Lot Relocation Consider relocation of the Avon Street municipal lot to better serve commercial uses in Mariners' Mile.
Policy CE 7.1.6 Public Use of Private Parking Facilities Encourage the use of commercial, office, and institutional parking areas for use as public parking to serve coastal recreational areas during weekends and holidays, in conjunction with public transit or shuttles where appropriate.
Policy CE 7.1.7 Shared Parking Facilities
Consider allowing shared parking in mixed use and pedestrian oriented areas throughout the City.
4.13-56 City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR
Policy CE 7.1.8 Parking Configuration
Site and design new development to avoid use of parking configurations or management programs that are difficult to maintain and enforce.
Policy CE 7.1.9 Parking Requirements for Pedestrian -Oriented and Local -Serving Uses Consider revised parking requirements for small scale neighborhood serving commercial uses in areas that derive most of their trade from walk-in business, especially where on -street or other public parking is available.
Policy CE 7.1.10 Parking for Marine Recreational Users
Provide adequate parking as necessary in the vicinity of visitor serving marine uses, including marinas, water transportation terminals, boat ramps, as well as parking suitable for service vehicles in commercial marinas and berthing areas.
Policy CE 7.1.11 Curb Cuts
Require new development to minimize curb cuts to protect on -street parking spaces. Close curb cuts to create on street parking spaces wherever feasible.
Policy CE 7.1.12 Alley Access
Require alley access to parking areas for all new development in areas where alley access exists.
Policy CE 7.1.13 Up -to -Date Parking Requirements
Periodically review and update off-street parking requirements to ensure that new development provides off-street parking sufficient to serve approved uses.
Goal CE 7.2 An efficiently operated parking system.
Policy CE 7.2.1 Parking Management
Develop parking management programs for areas with inadequate parking.
Policy CE 7.2.2 Parking Signage
Provide improved parking information and signage.
Policy CE 7.2.3 Shared Valet Service
Explore the feasibility of shared valet parking programs in areas with high parking demand and less conveniently located parking facilities, such as Mariners' Mile and McFadden Square.
City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 4.13-57
Transportation Funding
Goal CE 8.1 Adequate funding for needed transportation infrastructure and operations.
Policy CE 8.1.1 Transportation User and Benefit Fees
Support legislation to increase transportation user and benefit fees, and to index such fees to keep pace with inflation, in order to provide the additional revenues for needed transportation facilities and services.
Policy CE 8.1.2 State Highway Revenues
Support legislation to increase state highway revenues as needed to maintain and rehabilitate the existing state highway system and to match all available federal highway funding.
Policy CE 8.1.3 Innovative Transportation Funding
Support the evaluation and implementation of innovative transportation financing mechanisms such as local tax increment districts, benefit assessment districts, and joint development and use of transportation centers.
Policy CE 8.1.4 Local Street and Highway Revenues
Support measures to increase local street and highway revenues as needed to fund all road reconstruction, operation, and maintenance cost.
Policy CE 8.1.5 Comprehensive Funding Program
Support measures to develop and implement a continuing funding program, including private sector participation and an equitable fare structure, to fund the construction, operation and maintenance of transit facilities and services. (Imp 7.2, 29.1, 44.7, 44.8)
Policy CE 8.1.6 Annual Budgeting for Improvements
Annually review and consider budgeting for projects contributing to completion of the Master Plan of Streets and Highways.
Policy CE 8.1.7 Fair Share Fee Ordinance
Periodically review the Fair Share Fee Ordinance, reassess the unfunded cost of required improvements and adjust the required Fair Share Fees as appropriate.
Policy CE 8.1.8 Roadway Improvements Funding
Fund costs of major roadway facility and intersection improvements through gas tax revenues, federal, state, and county grants, and City ordinances to avoid burdening the General Fund to the extent that this is possible.
4.13-58 City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR
Policy CE 8.1.9 Right -of -Way Dedication
Require the dedication of needed right-of-way in conjunction with approval of subdivision maps or other discretionary approvals.
Policy CE 8.1.10 Development Requirements
Require development to provide the needed roadway improvements adjacent to a site, commensurate with project impact and in accordance with the Master Plan of Streets and Highways.
Policy CE 8.1.11 Joint Funding with Adjoining Jurisdictions Pursue joint funding of improvements in areas (such as the Airport Area) where traffic growth and/or needed improvements are demonstrably based upon traffic contributions or improvements that are a joint responsibility of Newport Beach and one or more adjacent jurisdictions/agencies.
Policy CE 8.1.12 Measure M Restrictions
Measure M sales tax revenues shall not be used to replace private developer funding that has been committed for any project or normal subdivision obligations.
Policy CE 8.1.13 Transportation Improvement or Special Assessment District Establish a transportation improvement or special assessment district to fund improvements needed in the Airport area.
Land Use Element
Goal LU 2 A living, active, and diverse environment that complements all lifestyles and enhances neighborhoods, without compromising the valued resources that make Newport Beach unique. It contains a diversity of uses that support the needs of residents, sustain and enhance the economy, provide job opportunities, serve visitors that enjoy the City's diverse recreational amenities, and protect its important environmental setting, resources, and quality of life.
Policy LU 2.8 Adequate Infrastructure
Accommodate the types, densities, and mix of land uses that can be adequately supported by transportation and utility infrastructure (water, sewer, storm drainage, energy, and so on) and public services (schools, parks, libraries, seniors, youth, police, fire, and so on).
City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 4.13-59
Goal LU 3 A development pattern that retains and complements the City's residential neighborhoods, commercial and industrial districts, open spaces, and natural environment.
Policy LU 3.2 Growth and Change
Enhance existing neighborhoods, districts, and corridors, allowing for re -use and infill with uses that are complementary in type, form, scale, and character.
Changes in use and/or density/intensity should be considered only in those areas that are economically underperforming, are necessary to accommodate Newport Beach's share of projected regional population growth, improve the relationship, and reduce commuting distance between home and jobs, or enhance the values that distinguish Newport Beach as a special place to live for its residents. The scale of growth and new development shall be coordinated with the provision of adequate infrastructure and public services, including standards for acceptable traffic level of service.
Goal LU 6.4 If acquisition for open space is not successful, a high -quality residential community with supporting uses that provides revenue to restore and protect wetlands and important habitats.
Policy LU 6.4.6 Approaches for a Livable Neighborhood
Site and design development to enhance neighborhood quality of life by:
■ Establishing a pattern of blocks that promotes access and neighborhood identity
■ Design streets to slow traffic, while maintaining acceptable fire protection and traffic flows
■ Integrating a diversity of residential types within a neighborhood, while ensuring compatibility among different residential types ■ Orienting and designing the residential units to relate to the street frontage ■ Locating and designing garages to minimize their visual dominance from the street
■ Incorporating sidewalks and parkways to foster pedestrian activity ■ Promoting architectural diversity
Goal LU 6.15 A mixed -use community that provides jobs, residential, and supporting services in close proximity, with pedestrian -oriented amenities that facilitates walking and enhance livability.
Policy LU 6.15.19 Walkable Streets
Retain the curb -to -curb dimension of existing streets, but widen sidewalks to provide park strips and generous sidewalks by means of dedications or easements. Except where traffic loads preclude fewer lanes, add parallel
4.13-60 City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR
parking to calm traffic, buffer pedestrians and provide short-term parking for visitors and shop customers.
Policy LU 6.15.20 Connected Streets
Require dedication and improvement of new streets as shown on Figure LU23.
The illustrated alignments are tentative and may change as long as the routes provide the intended connectivity. If traffic conditions allow, connect new and existing streets across MacArthur Boulevard with signalized intersections, crosswalks, and pedestrian refuges in the median.
Policy LU 6.15.24 Airport Compatibility
Require that all development be constructed within the height limits and residential be located outside of areas exposed to the 65 dBA CNEL noise contour specified by the Airport Environs Land Use Plan (AELUP), unless the City Council makes appropriate findings for an override in accordance with applicable law.
Safety Element
Aviation Hazards
Goal S 8 Residents, property, and the environment are protected from aviation -related hazards.
Policy S 8.1 Firefighter Training Program
Provide a formalized Aircraft Rescue Fire Fighting training program (including airport and aircraft familiarization, fuel fire extinguishment, hazards associated with airplanes and aircraft cargo, safety procedure, aviation communications, evacuation, and rescue operations) for all firefighters and Chief Fire Officers in Newport Beach.
Policy S 8.4 Mutual Aid Agreements
Develop clear mutual aid agreements and Memoranda of Understanding with the airport fire service, county emergency and law enforcement agencies, United States Coast Guard, private ferry providers, and other potential resources.
Goal S 9 Effective emergency response to natural or human -induced disasters that minimizes the loss of life and damage to property, while also reducing disruptions in the delivery of vital public and private services during and following a disaster.
Policy S 9.1 Review and Update Emergency Plans
Review and update, as necessary, the City's Emergency Management Plan on an annual basis. (Imp 38.2, 39.2)
City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 4.13-61
Policy S 9.2 Emergency Management System Training
Conduct annual training sessions using adopted emergency management systems. Coordinate with other urban area jurisdictions to execute a variety of exercises to test operational and emergency plans.
Policy S 9.4 Familiarity with National and State Response Plans Ensure that all Newport Beach personnel are familiar with the National Incident Management System, the National Response Plan, the State of California Master Mutual Aid Agreement, the Orange County Operational Area Mutual Aid Plan, and any other relevant response plans consistent with their position in the City's Emergency Management Plan. (Imp 38.2, 39.2) Policy S 9.5 Emergency and Disaster Education Programs
Sponsor and support education programs pertaining to emergency/disaster preparedness and response protocols and procedures. Distribute information about emergency preparedness to community groups, schools, religious institutions, transient occupancy establishments, and business associations ■ Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Measures to reduce impacts to freeway segments and ramps would need to be implemented through Caltrans. Implementation of such mitigation is outside the jurisdiction of the City. Therefore, although feasible mitigation may be available to reduce impacts identified in Impact 4.13-2, it cannot be guaranteed that such measures would be implemented. As such, no feasible mitigation is available to the City to reduce impacts to freeway segments and ramps.
Level of Significance After Proposed Improvements in the Circulation Element and Implementation of the Proposed General Plan Update Policies Intersection analysis has been performed to determine the additional improvements necessary to provide acceptable levels of service. Table 4.13-6 summarizes intersection analysis for buildout conditions, including potential improvements and discussion regarding improvement feasibility. Table 4.13-7 also compares the ICU results with and without additional improvements. Improvements necessary to provide acceptable levels of service are listed in Table 4.13-10. Improvements that require the least additional right-of-way or other environmental impacts have generally been recommended. Individual intersections improvements are provided in the GPTS (Appendix D) for each location requiring improvements. Impacts associated with intersections, CMP arterials, air traffic patterns, design hazards, emergency access, and parking within the Planning Area would be less than significant upon implementation of the identified proposed General Plan Update policies. Cumulative impacts would also be less than significant. As no feasible mitigation has been identified to reduce impacts related to freeway mainlines and ramps, this project and cumulative impacts would remain significant and unavoidable.
4.13-62 City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR
4.13.6 References
Urban Crossroads. 2006. City of Neaaport Beach General Plan Transortation Study, Neaaport Beach, California, 22 March.
2006. Existing with Pr ject Evaluation, 27 March.
City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 4.13-63
4.14 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
This section evaluates the impacts of the proposed General Plan Update associated with utilities and service systems within the City of Newport Beach. During the Initial Study process, it was determined that the proposed General Plan Update would result in potential impacts related to water supply, water and wastewater treatment facilities, and solid waste. Full bibliographic entries for all reference materials are provided in Section 4.14.5 (References) of this section.
No comment letters were received during the IS/NOP comment period.
4.14.1 Water System
■ Existing Conditions
Water service within the Planning Area is provided by the City, Irvine Ranch Water District (IRWD), and Mesa Consolidated Water District (Mesa). Figure 4.14-1 illustrates the service boundaries of each provider in the Planning Area.
Water Infrastructure
City of Newport Beach
The City provides water service to most of the Planning Area encompassing approximately 36 square miles, as shown in Figure 4.14-1. Presently, Banning Ranch is outside of any water provider service area; however, if the Banning Ranch area is annexed to the City, the City intends to provide service to this area.
The City provides water service to nearly 75,600 people and various land uses. The City water supplies are imported water purchased from the Municipal Water District of Orange County (MWDOC), groundwater pumped from the Orange County Groundwater Basin, and reclaimed water. Through the existing infrastructure totaling over 210 miles within the City's service area, water is delivered via transmission mains and distribution lines. Existing water lines range from 1 to 36 inches, with the majority of the pipelines ranging from 8 to 12 inches in diameter. Transmission mains convey water to various sections of the distribution system and the distribution lines deliver water to local areas. In addition, the City's water infrastructure includes five pump stations and 43 pressure reducing stations.
The water distribution system is divided into five major pressure zones that serve elevations from sea level to 725 feet above sea level.
Within the region, there are four main groundwater basins: the La Habra Basin, the San Juan Basin, the Laguna Canyon Basin, and the Lower Santa Ana Basin. These basins supply several cities and agencies, and are administered by Basin Pumping Percentages, as allocated by the Orange Coast Water District (OCWD). The City receives its groundwater from the Lower Santa Ana Basin (Basin), which is also called the Coastal Plain of Orange County Groundwater Basin. Since 1997, the City has operated four City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 4.14-1
groundwater wells in Fountain Valley at the Dolphin Avenue and Tamura School sites. Each site contains one shallow well and one deep well. Upon extraction, the water travels over six miles in 30-inch transmission mains, through the cities of Fountain Valley, Huntington Beach, Costa Mesa, and eventually into Newport Beach. From the wells, the groundwater is conveyed to the 16"' Street Reservoir at the City's utilities yard, and then to different areas within the City's service boundaries.
Water Storage
The City uses three water system storage reservoirs: Big Canyon Reservoir, Zone 4 Reservoir, and 16`h Street Reservoir. The Big Canyon Reservoir, which is located in Corona del Mar and shown in Figure 4.14-1, is a distribution and storage concrete earthen dam reservoir that has a capacity of approximately 196 million gallons (NIG) and a maximum water surface elevation of 302 feet. However, the City maintains this reservoir at an average level of about 286 feet, providing approximately 300 acre- feet (AF) (98 MG) of storage. A cover was installed on the reservoir in 2005. The Zone 4 Reservoir is a circular 1.5 MG below -grade concrete tank that has a maximum elevation of 663 feet, located on Muir Beach Circle. The 16`' Street Reservoir is a buried cast -in -place concrete tank that has a capacity of 1 MG, located at 951 West 16`' Street. As discussed above, this reservoir serves as a holding tank for well water.
Fire Flows
As discussed in further detail in Section 4.11 (Public Services) of this EIR, the Newport Beach Fire Department is responsible for fire suppression within the City. The Fire Department relies on the area's infrastructure, including the adequacy of nearby water supplies to suppress fire. Thus, the City has adopted the section of the 2001 California Fire Code that lists the minimum required fire flow and flow duration for buildings of different floor areas and construction types (Appendix III -A of the Fire Code.) Fire flow is the flow rate of water supply (measured in gallons per minute) available for fire fighting measured at 20 pounds per square inch (psi) pressure. Available fire flow is the total water flow available at the fire hydrants, also measured in gpm. Consistent with the California Fire Code, Section 9.04.450 of the City's Municipal Code indicates that, in buildings fitted with approved internal automatic sprinkler systems, the minimum required fire flow for that structure may be reduced by up to 50 percent, as approved by the Fire Chief, but the resulting fire flow cannot be less than 1,500 gpm.82 Irvine Ranch Water District
The service area covered by IRWD is approximately 85,019 acres, or 133 square miles, located in southern -central Orange County, which includes a portion of Newport Beach as well as other surrounding cities. IRWD is responsible for serving the southeastern portion of the Planning Area, which includes the Newport Coast and Newport Ridge areas, as shown in Figure 4.14-1. In addition, IRWD serves small portions along the northern boundary of the Planning Area, including the areas of Santa Ana Heights, Bonita Canyon, a portion of the Airport Area, and Bay Knolls. In total, IRWD serves 82 Irvine Ranch Water District. 2003. Water Resources Management Plan. Adopted 2000, most recently updated in 2003.
4.14-2 City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR
E
\
±§�
ƒ
3 a
}
!!!
2z 9
f )$2
!
LU)���
// CD ¥
oLU
)--)§
LU
4« \I))
@
2 \2
.
approximately nine square miles within the Planning Area, which accounts for approximately seven percent of IRWD's total service area boundaries.
IRWD is a multiservice agency that provides potable and nonpotable water and wastewater services to a population of approximately 316,000. IRWD's current population of 316,000 is approximately 73 percent of the ultimate projected population estimated at 434,511 for 2030.83 IRWD prefers to diversify and rely less on imported water and more on local supplies, and has therefore developed extensive groundwater pumping capacities to meet potable demands in addition to imported supplies. The source of IRWD's potable groundwater supply is the Lower Santa Ana River Basin within the Orange County Groundwater Basin (Basin). Potable water is pumped from approximately 16 wells in the Dyer Road Well Field (DRWF), located in the City of Santa Ana. These wells, ranging from 400 to 1,200 feet in depth, extract water from the Orange County Groundwater Basin. The DRWF supply is conveyed to the IRWD distribution system via a 54-inch-diameter transmission main located in Dyer Road (Barranca Parkway in the City of Irvine). The additional IRWD water supply is provided by imported treated water, primarily from MWD, through two major transmission pipelines.
The existing nonpotable water system consists of two subsystems: (1) a reclaimed water system that delivers reclaimed water, supplemental and untreated water, and limited nonpotable groundwater from the Irvine Subbasin (within the Basin) and (2) an untreated water system that delivers imported untreated water and local runoff via the Irvine Lake Pipeline to supplement the reclaimed water system. Existing water mains throughout the Planning Area range in size from 8 to 24 inches in diameter.84 Water Storage
IRWD divides potable water system storage into four categories: operational storage, fire flow storage, seasonal storage, and emergency storage. Operational and fire storage, and in some cases emergency storage, are typically provided in local storage facilities (tanks). Seasonal and emergency storage are closely aligned with source of supply issues and are provided through seasonal use of the groundwater basin. Nonpotable storage includes the operational and seasonal storage categories, with operational storage typically being provided in tanks and seasonal storage in large open reservoirs.
Within the IRWD service boundaries, three existing tanks provide potable water storage to the Planning Area in three water pressure service zones with the following existing capacities: (1) Coastal Zone 2 (2 MG); (2) Coastal Zone 4 (6.5 MG); and (3) Coastal Zone 6 (2.6 MG). In addition, IRWD has three existing tanks that provide nonpotable water storage within the Planning Area including the San Joaquin Reservoir as shown in Figure 4.14-1, Coastal Zone D, and Coastal Zone G. Operated by IRWD, the total existing capacity of the San Joaquin Reservoir is approximately 3,000 AF. Coastal Zone D has an existing capacity of 5 MG and Coastal Zone G has an existing capacity of 2.5 MG. 83 Irvine Ranch Water District, 2005. Urban Water ManagementPlan, November. 84 Irvine Ranch Water District. 2003. Dater Resources Management Plan. Adopted 2000, most recently updated in 2003.
City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 4.14-5
Fire Protection Water
Currently, in the IRWD, public fire protection water is provided through unmetered connections to the potable water system (i.e., fire hydrants and fire line connections). Although previously requested by the Orange County Fire Authority (OCFA), public fire protection connections to the nonpotable water system as secondary sources have not been approved by the California Department of Health Services (CDHS). IRWD provides water for private fire protection via on -site or on -property water lines, which typically serve private fire hydrants and automatic building fire sprinkler systems.
Mesa Consolidated Water District
Mesa Consolidated Water District serves a small portion of the western boundary of the Planning Area, which includes the area directly north of Banning Ranch as well as the area east of Newport Shores to Superior Avenue for a service area of approximately less than one-half square mile. As discussed previously, no water service provider (including Mesa Consolidated Water District) presently provides water to Banning Ranch itself. The total service area covered by Mesa includes approximately 19 square miles, which includes Costa Mesa, part of Newport Beach. The area served by Mesa within the Planning Area accounts for approximately one percent of Mesa's total service boundaries.
Water Treatment and Drinking Water Quality
City of Newport Beach
The drinking water supply for the City is a blend of mostly groundwater from the Orange County groundwater basin and also surface water imported by MWD. MWD's imported water source is mostly the Colorado River, with augmentation by the State Water Project from Northern California. The groundwater comes from a natural underground reservoir managed by the Orange County Water District that generally stretches from the Prado Dam and fans across the northwestern portion of Orange County.
The City's imported surface water supply is treated at either one of two treatment plants: (1) the MWD Diemer Filtration Plant, located in Yorba Linda; or (2) MWD's Weymouth Filtration Plant, which is located in the San Gabriel Valley. Typically, the Diemer Filtration Plant receives a blend of Colorado River water from Lake Matthews through the MWD lower feeder and State Water Project water through the Yorba Linda Feeder. The blend ratio between the two sources varies from year to year.85 Treatment capacity at the Diemer Filtration Plant is approximately 520 MGD, with existing average winter flows at approximately 140 MGD, increasing to approximately 375 MGD in the summer. Thus, during the winter the plant operates at approximately 27 percent capacity, during the summer at approximately 72 percent capacity.86
Similar to the Diemer Plant, the treatment capacity at the Weymouth Filtration Plant is approximately 520 MGD. Existing average winter flows are approximately 220 MGD, and existing summer flows are 85 Irvine Ranch Water District. 2003. Water Resources Management Plan, 4-8. Adopted 2000, most recently updated in 2003.
4.14-6 City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR
approximately 340 MGD. Therefore, the Weymouth Filtration Plant operates at approximately 42 percent during the winter, and at approximately 65 percent during the summer.87 Currently, the City's groundwater supply is treated at the City's Utility Yard, located at 949 W. 16`h Street, and consists of five pumps and two chamber reservoirs that can accommodate up to 1.5 MG each. The groundwater is blended with surface water and treated with sodium hypochlorite (the equivalent of household bleach), which is a typical application to achieve a potable water supply, before eventually being pumped through the water distribution system. In addition, the new Big Canyon Reservoir Disinfection Facility was put into service December 2004.88 Irvine Ranch Water District
Similar to the City's surface water treatment process, the majority of IRWD's imported potable water is supplied from a single source, the MWD Diemer Filtration Plant, located north of Yorba Linda. In addition to Diemer-treated imported water, IRWD also receives potable water from MWD's Weymouth Filtration Plant via the Orange County Feeder.89 As discussed previously, the Diemer Filtration Plant currently operates at approximately 27 percent capacity during the winter and at approximately 72 percent capacity during the summer, while the Weymouth Filtration Plant operates at approximately 42 percent during the winter and at approximately 65 percent during the summer.90 Local groundwater is purified at disinfection facilities near the Dyer Road Wellfield before it is provided to customers. An Annual Water Quality Report is distributed by IRWD to customers each April, providing water testing results and information about water quality. Currently, the drinking water provided by IRWD meets and exceeds all quality standards set by both the State and Federal government.91
Mesa Consolidated Water District
For purposes of this analysis, since Mesa provides potable water service to a nominal portion of the Planning Area, water treatment and drinking water quality information was not obtained from the service provider.
Water Supply and Demand
City of Newport Beach
Domestic water for the Planning Area is supplied by both groundwater and imported surface water sources, as previously discussed. Currently, 75 percent of the water supplied by the City's service area is 86 Trask, Willy. 2004. Personal communication with Metropolitan Water District, Water Quality Division, 9 January. 87 Trask, Willy. 2004. Personal communication with Metropolitan Water District, Water Quality Division, 9 January. 88 Antista, Pete. 2006. Written communication with Utilities Director, City of Newport Beach. 20 March. 89 Irvine Ranch Water District. 2003. Water resources Management Plan, 4-8. Adopted 2000, most recently updated in 2003. 90 Trask, Willy. 2004. Personal communication with Metropolitan Water District, Water Quality Division, 9 January. 91 Irvine Ranch Water District, 2005. Annual Water Quality Report. Website:
http://www.irwd.com/WaterQuahty/WQReport2005.pdf
City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 4.14-7
supplied by groundwater from the Orange County Groundwater Basin, and the remaining 25 percent of water supply is provided by MWD, which delivers water imported from the Colorado River and State Water Project. The groundwater supply for the City's water system is extracted from two well sites, as discussed above, established in Fountain Valley.92
Current and Projected Water Supplies
Table 4.14-1 shows the projected water supply and demand for the City through 2030.
KIcII�
Water Supply Sources
MWDOC
6,404
5,758
6,157
6,362
6,226
6,256
OCWD (Lower Santa Ana Basin)
11,927
13,590
14,921
14,778
14,990
14,960
Recycled Water (projected use)
317
444
478
500
500
500
Total Water Supply Sources
18,648
19,792
21,556
21,640
21,716
21,716
Projected Demand
18,648
1 19,792
21,556
21,640
1 21,716
21,716
SOURCE: City of Newport Beach. 2005 Urban Water Management Plan (Table 3-5 and Table 4-8), December The future supply projection assumes that the City will continue to produce groundwater and purchase local water. Currently, the City purchases imported water from the Municipal Water District of Orange County (MWDOC) through MWD.
According to the City of Newport Beach's 2005 Urban Water Management Plan, water supplies can continue to meet the City's imported water needs until the year 2030. Beyond that date, improvements associated with the State Water Project supply, additional local projects, conservation, and additional water transfers would be needed to adequately serve the City. The Groundwater Replenishment System (GRS), a joint venture by OCWD and the Orange County Sanitation District (OCSD), will help to reduce Orange County and Newport Beach's reliance on imported surface water by taking treated wastewater and injecting it into the groundwater basin. GRS will be online by 2007, and will produce approximately 70,000 acre feet of water per year. OCWD, which provides the groundwater supply to the City, projects that there would be sufficient groundwater supplies to meet any future demand requirements in Newport Beach. As such, the future water supply projections in Table 4.14-1 are based on implementation of City conservation programs, additional recycled water, additional production of groundwater, and MWDOC efforts to reduce the City's dependence on imported water supplies from MWD.
According to the 2005 UWMP, desalinated water is not currently perceived to be a viable option for the City water supply, and neither brackish nor impaired groundwater is pumped. Though the City is not pursuing desalination as a potential water supply, some of its neighboring agencies and its wholesale water supplier (MWDOC) are actively investigating the possibility. MWDOC has performed preliminary 92 Newport Beach, City of. 1999. Water Master Plan.
4.14-8 City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR
siting and cost analyses, and the City of Huntington Beach, in conjunction with a private entity, has approved the facility. Currently, no potential for the desalination of brackish groundwater has been identified in Newport Beach. In addition, the City does not transfer and/or exchange any water supply to or from other entities, and it is not anticipated that transfer or exchange will occur in the future.
Water Supply Reliability
During short-term periods of water supply reductions, the City would implement its water shortage contingency plan. Table 4.14-2 includes the anticipated local and imported water supplies for the City during a normal water year, a single dry water year, and multiple dry water years. Factors that could result in an inconsistent water supply are climactic in nature, according to the 2005 Urban Water Management Plan.
2010
Table 4.14-2
Normal Water Year (Average)
Supply Reliability
Single Dry Year
Mufff le Dry Water Years
2008
2009
2010
14,034
12,439
13,293
12,094
12,439
Local Supply
% of Normal
88.6%
94.7%
86.2%
88.6%
5,758
8,450
7,260
1 8,099
8,450
Imported Supply
% of Normal
146.8%
126.1 %
1 140.7%
146.8%
2015
Normal Water Year (Average)
Single Dry Year (1961)
Mufff
le Dry Water Years
2008 1959
2009 1960
2010 1961
15,399
12,840
13,670
12,041
12,840
Local Supply
% of Normal
83.4%
88.8%
78.2%
83.4%
6,157
9,911
8,706
10,114
9,911
Imported Supply
% of Normal
161.0%
141.4%
164.3%
161.0%
2020
Normal Water Year (Average)
Single Dry Year (1961)
Multiple
Dry Water Years
2008 1959
2009 1960
2010 1961
15,278
11,526
14,075
11,652
11,526
Local Supply
% of Normal
75.4%
92.1 %
76.3%
75.4%
6,362
11,314
8,978
10,771
11,314
Imported Supply
% of Normal
177.8%
141.1 %
1 169.3%
177.8%
2025
Normal Water Year (Average)
Single Dry Year (1961)
MuNple
Dry Water Years
2008 1959
2009 1960
2010 1961
15,490
12,195
14,138
12,343
12,195
Local Supply
% of Normal
78.7%
91.3%
79.7%
78.7%
6,226
10,726
9,006
10,168
10,726
Imported Supply
% of Normal
172.3%
144.6%
163.3%
172.3%
2030
Normal Water Year (Average)
Single Dry Year (1961)
Multiple
Dry Water Years
2008 1959
2009 1960
2010 1961
15,460
11,817
14,531
12,211
11,817
Local Supply
% of Normal
76.4%
94.0%
79.0%
76.4%
6,256
1 11,104
8,639
1 10,308
11,104
Imported Supply
% of Normal
1 177.5%
138.1 %
1 164.8%
177.5%
SOURCE: City of Newport Beach. 2005 Urban Water Management Plan (Table 4-9), December City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 4.14-9
Since the City's entire potable water demand is met with imported and local water supplies, the City is highly dependent on OCWD and MWD to meet its needs during dry years. However, MWD does not anticipate any shortages in the dry -year scenarios analyzed, and in addition, Tables 4.14-3 and 4.14-4 indicate that in both normal water and single dry precipitation years, the City would have sufficient water to meet its customers' needs through 2030. Table 4.14-5 through Table 4.14-9 show supply and demand during multiple dry -precipitation years through 2030, and indicate that during this time period, the City would have sufficient water to meet its customer's needs.
Comparison
2010 2015 2020
2025 2030
Supply totals
19,792
21,556
21,640
21,716 21,716
Demand totals
19,792
21,556
21,640
21,716 21,716
Difference
0 0
0 0 0
Difference as % of Supply
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0% 0.0%
Difference as % of Demand
0.0%
1 0.0%
1 0.0%
0.0% 0.0%
SOURCE: City of Newport Beach, 2005 Urban Water Management Plan, December.
Table 4.14-4 Projected
Single Dry -Year Supply and Demand
Comparison 2020 2025 2030
2010 2015 2020 2025 2030
Supply totals
20,889
22,751
22,841
22,921
22,921
Demand totals
20,889
22,751
22,841
22,921
22,921
Difference
0 0
0 0
0 Difference as % of Supply
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
Difference as % of Demand
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
SOURCE: City of Newport Beach, 2005 Urban Water Management Plan, December.
Table 4.14-5 Projected Supply and Demand Comparison During Multiple Dry -Year Period Ending in 2010 2008
2006 2007 2008
Supply totals
20,553
20,193
20,889
Demand totals
20,553
20,193
20,889
Difference
0 0
0 Difference as % of Supply
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
Difference as % of Demand
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
SOURCE: City of Newport Beach, 2005 Urban Water Management Plan, December.
4.14-10 City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR
2013
2014
2015
Supply totals
22,376
22,155
22,751
Demand totals
22,376
22,155
22,751
Difference
0 0
0 Difference as % of Supply
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
Difference as % of Demand
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
SOURCE: City of Newport Beach, 2005 Urban Water Management Plan, December.
Table 4.14-7 Projected Supply and Demand Comparison During Multiple Dry -Year Period Ending in 2020 (AFY) 2019 20201 2018 2019 2020
Supply totals
23,053
22,423
22,841
Demand totals
23,053
22,423
22,841
Difference
0 0
0 Difference as % of Supply
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
Difference as % of Demand
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
SOURCE: City of Newport Beach, 2005 Urban Water Management Plan, December.
Supply
2023
2024
2025
Supply Totals
23,144
22,511
22,921
Demand Totals
23,144
22,511
22,921
Difference
0 0
0 Difference as % of Supply
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
Difference as % of Demand
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
SOURCE: City of Newport Beach, 2005 Urban Water Management Plan, December.
Supply
2028
2029
2030
Supply Totals
23,170
22,519
22,921
Demand Totals
23,170
22,519
22,921
Difference
0 0
0 Difference as % of Supply
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
Difference as % of Demand
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
SOURCE: City of Newport Beach, 2005 Urban Water Management Plan, December.
City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 4.14-11
Irvine Ranch Water District
Approximately 35 percent of IRWD's current water supply is purchased from MWD, with the remaining 65 percent coming from local groundwater wells.93 The majority of imported potable water is supplied from the MWD Diemer Filtration Plant.94 For many years, IRWD received all of its water from imported sources. However, in 1979, IRWD began developing a series of local wells called the Dyer Road Wellfield Project in order to alleviate dependency on imported water sources.95 In general, areas in southern -central Orange County served by the IRWD receive groundwater from mid -April through mid - October and imported water from mid -October through mid -April." Historical water demands for IRWD's total service area are presented in Table 4.14-10, as presented in the IRWD's Water Resources Master Plan. As discussed previously, the area served within the Planning Area represents approximately seven percent of IRWD's total service area. With the exception of the drought years in the early 1990's, water use showed a slow upward trend, due to growth in water use by residential, commercial, and industrial users.
Demand (AF) 1 61,070 1 65,550 1 77,850 1 61,870 1 88,860 1 86,550 SOURCE: Irvine Ranch Water District Water Resources Master Plan, adopted 2000, most recently updated in 2003, Figure ES-1
Table 4.14-11 illustrates the estimated future water supply and demand during normal conditions. As shown, IRWD has sufficient water to meet customer needs through 2030 in average demand years, based on a continued commitment to conservation, additional recycled water use, and additional groundwater treatment.97
Table 4.14-11 IRWD Projected
Normal
2010
Year Supply and Demand
2015 2020
Comparison
2025
2030
Supply Totals
164,121
161,421
165,014
166,434
166,434
Demand Totals
116,710
123,119
130,063
135,208
136,560
Difference (Supply — Demand)
47,411
38,302
34,951
31,226
29,874
SOURCE: Irvine Ranch Water District, 2005. Urban Water Management Plan, November. Table 42.
The projected supply in IRWD's Urban Water Management Plan assumes new potable groundwater supplies will be developed as planned to greatly reduce reliance on imported water under normal and dry 93 Irvine Ranch Water District, 2005. IRWD Fact Sheet, July. Website: http://www.irwd.com/Medialnfo/factsheet.pdf 94 Irvine Ranch Water District, 2005. Urban Water Management Plan, November. 95 Irvine Ranch Water District. 2005. IRWD Fact Sheet, July. Website: http://www.irwd.com/Medialnfo/factsheet.pdf 96 Irvine Ranch Water District. 2004. January Website: www.irwd.com/WaterQuahty/WaterSources.html 97 Irvine Ranch Water District, 2005. Urban Water Management Plan, November.
4.14-12 City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR
year operating conditions. Imported water deliveries are expected to be reduced in the projected supply mix, only because IRWD is developing local supplies; however, IRWD owns more capacity in the imported supplies than what is projected in this analysis. It is anticipated that MWD imported water will be required for supplemental supply as well as peak and emergency conditions.98 Secure, potable water supplies are required to meet (1) maximum day demands under normal operating conditions, and (2) to meet maximum month demands under worst -case, short-term supply outage scenarios. In the event of a single dry year, IRWD has sufficient supply to meet demand without requiring any reduction in use. In regards to IRWD's imported supplies, MWD fully expects to be 100 percent reliable throughout the next 20 years through effective management of its water supply." IRWD's effective water efficiency improvements and additional water supply will help to enhance IRWD's water supply position and ensure IRWD meets projected water demand. The District will continue to assess improving water supplies, including expanding water recycling through conversions, groundwater storage, other groundwater treatment methods, or other such water supply alternatives. If necessary, for subsequent dry years, the District would enter into a Stage I alert of the Water Shortage Contingency Plan, and emphasize voluntary reduction in water use to all customers, but may not impose any additional restrictions. IRWD anticipates having sufficient water supplies to meet estimated demands under projected multiple dry year scenarios."O
Mesa Consolidated Water District
On an annual basis, Mesa delivers approximately 8 billion gallons (24,500 AF) of water to various users.10' Approximately 75 percent of Mesa's water is provided by local groundwater pumped from Orange County's natural groundwater basin via nine wells. Similar to the City's service, the remaining 25 percent of Mesa's water is imported water from MWD, which delivers water imported from the Colorado River and State Water Project. At various times of the year, Mesa will supplement its groundwater with imported water.10' As discussed previously, the area served within the Planning Area represents approximately one percent of Mesa's total service area. Thus, information regarding water demand and use was not obtained.
Recycled Water
City of Newport Beach
The City of has approximately 10 miles of recycled water distribution pipeline, which currently supplies eight recycled use sites. Recycled water is supplied to the City from the Orange County Water District (OCWD) from Fountain Valley as part of OCWD's Green Acres Project. OCWD produces approximately 7.5 mgd of tertiary treated, disinfected recycled water. Some of the sites served by recycled 98 Irvine Ranch Water District, 2005. Urban Water Management Plan, November. 99 Irvine Ranch Water District, 2005. Urban Water Management Plan, November. 100 Irvine Ranch Water District, 2005. Urban Water Management Plan, November. 101 Mesa Consolidated Water District. 2003. Water Quality Report. 102 Mesa Consolidated Water District. 2003. Water Quality Report.
City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 4.14-13
water include the Newport Beach County Club, the Big Canyon Country Cub, median strips, and a City - owned park.
Potential recycled water users are locations where recycled water could replace potable water use. These potential users are typically landscape or agricultural irrigation systems. In 2003, the City identified potential recycled water users by looking at past studies, water and irrigation meter records, and assistance from OCWD. User types included golf courses, landscape medians, school athletic fields, a cemetery, and park irrigation. Specific potential customers were listed, along with an estimate of recycled water use at that site.
The City has identified and approached all of the cost-effective end users, and the number of users could only be increased if a neighboring agency provided the reclaimed water and provided it to the City.
However, in most areas, the cost to install mains and services would make the conversion very expensive or cost prohibitive. The City currently serves approximately 3,336 AFY of irrigation demand using potable water, but these demands are mostly located a long distance from the existing recycled system, and it is not cost-effective to connect. To promote the use of recycled water, the City provides financial incentives by offering a 20 percent discount off potable water rates. The current rate for recycled users is $1.66 per unit (one unit equals 748 gallons).
Irvine Ranch Water District
Currently, reclaimed accounts for over 20 percent of IRWD's total water resource demands.103 The reclaimed water is delivered through a completely separate distribution system that includes more than 245 miles of pipeline, eight storage reservoirs, and twelve pump stations throughout IRWD's entire service area. Reclaimed water was originally served to agricultural users and expanded to include landscape irrigation (parks, golf courses, school grounds and play fields, community associations, open space area, green belts). Eventually, the reclaimed water system expanded further to include front and backyard irrigation for large estate -sized residential lots, toilet flushing for large commercial buildings, carpet dying, construction dust control, and a cooling tower application. In addition, many water features such as fountains are filled with reclaimed water. IRWD's recycled water program has enhanced local water supply reliability for both IRWD and the region, because it directly offsets the need for firm treated, imported water for municipal irrigation, and other nonpotable uses.
Mesa Consolidated Water District
At the time of preparation of this document, limited information was available regarding Mesa's recycled water program. However, it is known that Mesa encourages commercial and industrial customers to use reclaimed water for greenbelt areas."'
103 Irvine Ranch Water District, 2005. Urban Water Management Plan, November. 104 Mesa Consolidated Water District, Website: http://www.mesawater.org/html/new_customer.htm , accessed on January 27, 2006.
4.14-14 City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR
Regulatory Context
Federal Regulations
Clean Water Act
The Federal Clean Water Act (CWA) establishes regulatory requirements for potable water supplies including raw and treated water quality criteria. The City of Newport Beach would be required to monitor water quality and conform to the regulatory requirements of the CWA.
Safe Drinking Water Act
The Federal Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) established standards for contaminants in drinking water supplies. Maximum contaminant levels or treatment techniques were established for each of the contaminants. The listed contaminants include metals, nitrates, asbestos, total dissolved solids, and microbes.
State Regulations
Safe Drinking Water Act (1976)
California enacted its own Safe Drinking Water Act. CDHS has been granted primary enforcement responsibility for the SDWA. Title 22 of the California Administrative Code establishes CDHS authority and stipulates drinking water quality and monitoring standards. These standards are equal to or more stringent than the Federal standards.
Recycled Water Regulations
Within the State of California, recycled water is regulated by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the State Water Resources Control Board, Regional Water Quality Control Boards, and DHS.
The State Water Resources Control Board has adopted Resolution No. 77-1, Policy with Respect to Water Reclamation in California. This policy states that the State Board and Regional Boards will encourage and consider or recommend for funding water reclamation projects that do not impair water rights or beneficial instream uses. The CDHS establishes the recycled water uses allowed in the State, and designates the level of treatment (i.e., undisinfected secondary, disinfected secondary, or disinfected tertiary) required for each of these designated uses (Title 22, California Code of Regulations).
The Regional Water Quality Control Boards implement the State Board's Guidelines for Regulation of Water Reclamation and issue waste discharge permits that serve to regulate the quality of recycled water based on stringent water quality requirements. The State Department of Health Services develops policies protecting human health and comments and advises on Regional Water Quality Control Board permits.
City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 4.14-15
Title 22
The California Water Code requires the Department of Health Services (DHS) to establish water reclamation criteria. In 1975, the DHS prepared Title 22 to fulfill this requirement. Title 22 regulates production and use of reclaimed water in California by establishing three categories of reclaimed water:
primary effluent, which typically includes grit removal and initial sedimentation or settling tanks; adequately disinfected, oxidized effluent (secondary effluent) which typically involves aeration and additional settling basins; and adequately disinfected, oxidized, coagulated, clarified, filtered effluent (tertiary effluent) which typically involves filtration and chlorination. In addition to defining reclaimed water uses, Title 22 also defines requirements for sampling and analysis of effluent and requires specific design requirements for facilities.
Local Regulations
City of Newport Beach Municipal Code
Chapter 14.16 of the City's Municipal Code, Water Conservation, provides a mechanism for quickly imposing mandatory water conservation measures ranging from voluntary consumption reductions to measures that restrict water usage to the minimum necessary for basic human health and sanitation. The mandatory restrictions on water use, the prohibitions of activities that waste water as well as the penalties and surcharges provided by this chapter, are the minimum controls necessary to insure adequate supplies of water are available now and in the future.
In addition, Chapter 14.17, Water -Efficient Landscaping, establishes reasonable procedures and standards for the design, installation, and maintenance of water -efficient landscapes in conjunction with new construction projects within the City to promote the conservation and efficient use of water within the City and prevent the waste of available water resources. s Thresholds of Significance
The following thresholds of significance are based on Appendix G of the 2005 CEQA Guidelines. For purposes of this EIR, implementation of the proposed project may have a significant adverse impact on water systems within the Planning Area if it would result in any of the following:
■ Require or result in the construction and/or expansion of water supply facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts
■ Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed
Project Impacts, Mitigation Measures, and Proposed Policies Effects Not Found to Be Significant
The IS/NOP prepared for the proposed project did not identify any effects not found to be significant associated with water systems. Therefore, all thresholds are addressed in this section.
4.14-16 City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR
Project Impacts
Threshold Would the project require or result in the construction of new and/or expanded water treatment or conveyance facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects?
Impact 4.14.1-1 Implementation of the proposed General Plan Update could require or result in the construction of new and/or expanded water treatment plants or water conveyance systems in the Planning Area.
As discussed in the Existing Conditions section, the City's imported surface water supply is primarily treated at the MWD Diemer Filtration Plant, located in Yorba Linda, with a treatment capacity of approximately 520 MGD, flowing at an average of 140 MGD in the winter (27 percent capacity) and 375 MGD in the summer (72 percent capacity). In addition to Diemer-treated imported water, IRWD also receives potable water from MWD's Weymouth Filtration Plant, which operates at approximately 42 percent capacity during the winter and 65 percent capacity during the summer. Currently, the City's groundwater supply is treated at the City's Utility Yard, located at 949 W. 16`h Street, and consists of five pumps and two chamber reservoirs that can accommodate up to 1.5 MG each. In addition, the new Big Canyon Reservoir Disinfection Facility was put into service December 2004.
Additional development accommodated under the proposed General Plan Update would increase water use within the City, thus increasing the need for water treatment services. As discussed above, MWD can meet 100 percent of the City's imported water needs until the year 2030. Beyond that date, improvements associated with the State Water Project supply, additional local projects, water conservation, and additional water transfers would be needed to adequately serve the City. OCWD, which provides the groundwater supply to the City and portions of IRWD, anticipates that there would be sufficient groundwater supplies to meet projected future demand requirements in Newport Beach.
Further, IRWD has identified sufficient groundwater supplies to meet demands through 2030.
Furthermore, any request for service resulting from new development would be subject to a site -specific evaluation of the existing water system's capacity to service the development. If improvements to the existing water system are required or additional facilities are needed, the property developer would be required to pay its fair share of the cost of all or portions of the needed improvements. Within the City, environmental impacts associated with any new infrastructure would be ascertained at a later time, prior to implementation, as impacts related to individual development projects are beyond the scope of this program -level analysis. In addition, proposed General Plan Update goals and policies, as stated below under Impact 4.14.1-2, direct the City to implement water conservation measures to limit water consumption and meet the current and projected future daily and peak water demands of Newport Beach. Proposed General Plan Update Policy LU 2.8 directs the City to accommodate land uses that can be adequately supported by infrastructure, including water treatment and conveyance facilities. As such, adequate water infrastructure would be provided for all development under the proposed General Plan Update. These impacts would be less than significant.
City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 4.14-17
Threshold Would the project have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed?
Impact 4.14.1-2 Implementation of the proposed General Plan Update could result in increased demand for water supply within the Planning Area beyond existing entitlements.
Water service within Newport Beach is provided by the City, IRWD, and Mesa. Generally, Newport Beach provides water service to approximately 36 square miles of the City; IRWD serves approximately nine square miles; and Mesa serves less than one square mile.
Domestic water for the Planning Area is supplied by both groundwater and imported surface water sources, as discussed above. Currently, a majority of water supplied to the Planning Area (through both the City and IRWD) is supplied by groundwater from the Basin. Specifically, approximately 75 percent of the water supplied by the City's service area is supplied by groundwater from the Basin, and the remaining 25 percent of water supply is provided by MWD. Similarly, approximately 65 percent of IRWD's water comes from local wells, while the remaining 35 percent is imported from MWD.
Implementation of the proposed General Plan Update would increase the population and amount of development within the City, which in turn would increase the demand for water supplies.
City of Newport Beach Service Area Analysis
The future water supply projection assumes that the City will continue to produce groundwater and purchase local water. Currently, the City purchases imported water from the MWD through MWDOC.
Buildout of the proposed General Plan Update would increase water demand by approximately 428 AFY within the City service area (excluding the Banning Ranch area), above existing conditions. Buildout of the Banning Ranch area under the alternative included in the proposed General Plan Update would increase water demand by an additional 570 AFY. In total, the proposed General Plan Update would increase water demand within the City service area by approximately 998 AFY. MWDOC's 2030 projected availability is illustrated in Table 4.14-1. However, according to the MWD 2005 UWMP, the 2030 projected availability of imported water supply exceeds the 2030 projected region -wide demand for imported water supply by at least 155,000 AF. Therefore, MWDOC has indicated that there is adequate existing and planned imported water supply to accommodate the increased demand associated with the proposed General Plan Update.'os
This amount of projected development within the City could place more demand on the local groundwater supply to avoid the purchase of additional imported water, even though sufficient imported water is projected to be available. However, the proposed General Plan Update has identified the minimization of water consumption as one of its goals in the Natural Resources Element. The policies to achieve this goal include enforcement of water conservation measures that limit water usage, prohibit activities that waste water or cause runoff, and require the use of water efficient landscaping and ios Metropolitan Water District Orange County. Memorandum to City staff re: Proposed General Plan Update. April 18, 2006.
4.14-18 City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR
irrigation in conjunction with other water conserving devices and practices in both new construction and major alterations and additions to existing buildings. Policy NR 1.3 also directs the City to explore the appropriateness of implementing tiered water rates. The proposed General Plan Update has also identified expanding the use of alternative water sources to provide adequate water supplies for present use and future growth as a goal. Policies proposed to achieve this goal include Policy NR 2.1, which aims to increase the use of recycled water in the City by continuing to provide financial incentives, staff assistance, and training opportunities for customers, and expand the recycled water infrastructure and programs, when feasible; and Policy NR 2.2, which directs using alternative water sources for the City water supply by implementing advanced water treatment processes such as brackish groundwater and seawater desalination programs, when feasible. Implementation of these policies would ensure that water conservation measures are implemented and potential impacts to groundwater supply are reduced.
Because implementation of the proposed policies would reduce future water demand and MWDOC has indicated sufficient imported water supplies are available to serve buildout of the proposed General Plan Update, the proposed General Plan Update would not require new or expanded water entitlements. The water supply impact associated with the City's water service boundaries within the Planning Area is less than significant.
IRWD Service Area Analysis
Implementation of the proposed General Plan Update would increase the amount of development in the IRWD service area. IRWD estimates that the proposed General Plan Update would increase potable water demand by 270 AFY, compared to the assumptions in the current IRWD UWMP. The additional water demand generated by buildout of the proposed General Plan Update would not change the IRWD UWMP conclusions with respect to projected water supply reliability.106 As discussed previously, IRWD has identified sufficient water supplies during normal, single dry year scenarios, and multiple dry year scenarios for both imported and groundwater supplies. IRWD has also identified surplus water supplies under all of these scenarios.
Consequently, because IRWD anticipates a sufficient water supply to cover estimated demands as well as future demands resulting from unanticipated changes in land use throughout its service area boundaries (such as the General Plan Update), IRWD would be able to serve the future land uses under the proposed project from existing entitlements and resources. The water supply impact associated with IRWD service boundaries within the Planning Area would be less than significant.
Mesa Consolidated Water District Service Area Analysis
The land use changes within the Mesa service area due to implementation of the proposed General Plan Update are projected to increase water demand compared to existing conditions by approximately 58.6 AFY. Mesa has indicated that they have adequate water supply sources to supply the additional demand 106 Diamond, Richard A. Irvine Ranch Water District. Memorandum to City of Newport Beach Re: Draft EIR for the General Plan Update, April 13, 2006.
City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 4.14-19
resulting from the proposed General Plan Update.107 The water supply impact associated with Mesa service boundaries within the Planning Area would be less than significant.
Cumulative Impacts
The geographic context for the analysis of cumulative impacts associated with water systems would be the water provider projections for the Planning Area.
Currently, the City, IRWD, and Mesa provide water service to the Planning Area. Although all water providers are required to prepare plans to ensure that adequate water supplies exist for future growth, there is ongoing controversy surrounding the State's water supply and distribution efforts. MWDOC, the City's provider of imported water, IRWD, and Mesa have each indicated they can accommodate the additional demand from the proposed General Plan Update in addition to future growth assumed in the respective UWMPs. In addition, the implementation of conservation measures would be required on a project -specific basis and water shortage contingency plans would further reduce additional water demand. Finally, future development is required to adhere to Section 10910 of the California Water Code. Therefore, the cumulative impact to water supply would be less than significant. ■ Proposed General Plan Update Policies
Implementation of policies within the Land Use and Natural Resources Elements of the proposed General Plan Update would reduce impacts associated with water supplies, treatment, and conveyance systems to a less -than -significant level. The policies that are applicable to the project are included below.
Policies identified below that are also contained in the Harbor and Bay Element are denoted with an "HB."
Land Use Element
Goal LU 2 A living, active, and diverse environment that complements all lifestyles and enhances neighborhoods, without compromising the valued resources that make Newport Beach unique. It contains a diversity of uses that support the needs of residents, sustain and enhance the economy, provide job opportunities, serve visitors that enjoy the City's diverse recreational amenities, and protect its important environmental setting, resources, and quality of life.
Policy LU 2.8 Adequate Infrastructure
Accommodate the types, densities, and mix of land uses that can be adequately supported by transportation and utility infrastructure (water, sewer, storm drainage, energy, and so on) and public services (schools, parks, libraries, seniors, youth, police, fire, and so on).
107 McVicker, Rob. Mesa Consolidated Water District. Written communication via email to City staff, April 5, 2006.
4.14-20 City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR
Goal LU 3 A development pattern that retains and complements the City's residential neighborhoods, commercial and industrial districts, open spaces, and natural environment.
Policy LU 3.2 Growth and Change
Enhance existing neighborhoods, districts, and corridors, allowing for re -use and infill with uses that are complementary in type, form, scale, and character.
Changes in use and/or density/intensity should be considered only in those areas that are economically underperforming, are necessary to accommodate Newport Beach's share of projected regional population growth, improve the relationship, and reduce commuting distance between home and jobs, or enhance the values that distinguish Newport Beach as a special place to live for its residents. The scale of growth and new development shall be coordinated with the provision of adequate infrastructure and public services, including standards for acceptable traffic level of service.
Water Supply
Goal NR 1 Minimized water consumption through conservation methods and other techniques.
Policy NR 1.1 Water Conservation in New Development
Enforce water conservation measures that limit water usage, prohibit activities that waste water or cause runoff, and require the use of water —efficient landscaping and irrigation in conjunction with new construction projects. (Imp
2.1, 7.1, 13.1, 17.1, 23.1, 37.1)
Policy NR 1.2 Use of Water Conserving Devices
Establish and actively promote use of water conserving devices and practices in both new construction and major alterations and additions to existing buildings. This can include the use of rainwater capture, storage, and reuse facilities. (Imp 2.1, 13.1, 23.1)
Policy NR 1.3 Tiered Water Rates
Explore the appropriateness of implementing tiered water rates. (Imp 23.2) Policy NR 1.4 Alternative Conservation Measures
Explore implementation of alternative conservation measures and technology as they become available. (Imp 23.10)
Policy NR 1.5 Education
Establish educational programs on water conservation. (Imp 23.1, 44.1) City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 4.14-21
Goal NR 2 Expanded use of alternative water sources to provide adequate water supplies for present uses and future growth.
Policy NR 2.1 Recycled Water Use
Increase the use of recycled water in the City by continuing to provide financial incentives, staff assistance, and training opportunities for customers, and expand recycled water infrastructure and programs, when feasible. (Imp
23.1)
Policy NR 2.2 Advanced Water Treatment Processes
Use alternative water sources for the City's water supply by implementing advanced water treatment processes such as brackish groundwater and seawater desalination programs, when feasible.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures are necessary, as the proposed General Plan Update policies fully mitigate the impacts.
Level of Significance After Policies/Mitigation Measures Impacts associated with the water supplies, treatment plants, and conveyance systems would be less Man significant. In addition, cumulative impacts associated with the water supplies, treatment plants, and conveyance systems would also be less than significant.
4.14.2 Sewer System
L Existing Conditions
The following information summarizes as much of the information for each service provider as was available during the preparation of this document. Therefore, the type and detail of information for each service provider differs.
Service Providers
Wastewater service within the Planning Area is provided by the City, Irvine Ranch Water District (IRWD), and Costa Mesa Sanitation District (CMSD). Similar to the boundaries of the City's potable water system, the City provides sewer service to most of the Planning Area, for a total service area of approximately 13.5 square miles, as illustrated in Figure 4.14-2.10' 108 City of Newport Beach, Master Plan of Sewers, 1996.
4.14-22 City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR
The IRWD boundaries encompass nearly 85,019 acres, or 133 square miles, in southern central Orange County. IRWD is responsible for serving the southeastern portion of the Planning Area, which includes the areas of Newport Coast and Newport Ridge. In addition, IRWD serves a contiguous portion of land that parallels SR-73 at the northern boundary of the Planning Area. IRWD's service area within the Planning Area is approximately nine square miles, accounting for approximately six percent of IRWD's total service boundaries.
The CMSD boundaries encompass all of the City of Costa Mesa and portions of Newport Beach and unincorporated Orange County for a total service area of approximately 19 square miles. CMSD serves small portions of the western boundary of the Planning Area, also shown in Figure 4.14-2. CMSD serves approximately less than one-half square mile within the Planning Area, which accounts for approximately two percent of CMSD's total service boundaries.109
Treatment System
City of Newport Beach
Wastewater from the City's sewer system is treated by the Orange County Sanitation District (OCSD).
The OCSD is responsible for safely collecting, treating, and disposing the wastewater generated by
2.3 million people living in a 470-square-mile area of central and northwest Orange County. The two sewage water treatment plants operated by the OSCD include Treatment Plant No. 2 in Huntington Beach, and Reclamation Plant No. 1 in Fountain Valley.
A majority of the City's sewage flow is pumped to the OCSD Plant No. 2, while flows from the portion of the City north of the Corona del Mar (73) Freeway are pumped to Plant No. 1.110 The OCSD Reclamation Plant No. 1 currently maintains a design capacity of 174 million gallons per day (mgd) and treats an average of 90 mgd. Treatment Plant No. 2 maintains a design capacity of 276 mgd and currently treats on average a flow of 153 mgd. Currently Plant No. 1 and Plant No. 2 are operating at 52 percent and 55 percent of design capacity, respectively."' The OCSD wastewater treatment plants are divided into several operating systems that work together. The major processes are preliminary treatment, primary treatment, anaerobic digestion, secondary treatment, and solids handling.'12 Wastewater treated by the OCSD is discharged into the ocean through a 120-inch-diameter ocean outfall pipe that extends five miles offshore to a discharge point 180 feet below the ocean surface."' The treatment levels meet all current State and Federal requirements. OCSD also reclaims up to 10 million gallons of treated wastewater every day, which is sent for further processing and then used for landscape irrigation and for injection into the groundwater seawater intrusion barrier. 109 Costa Mesa Sanitary District, Administration, Assistant Manager, personal communication, January 27, 2004. 110 City of Newport Beach, Master Plan of Sewers, 1996. 111 City of Huntington Beach, Lowe's Home Improvement Warehouse/Northeast Corner of Beach and Warner Project EIR ( http://www.ci.huntington-beach.ca.us/files/users/planning/IV_L_3_UTILS_Sewer.pdo , 2003. 112 Orange County Sanitation District, Treating Wastewater, Webpage:
http://www.ocsd.com/info/treating_wastewater/default.asp , 2004. 113 City of Newport Beach, Urban Water Management Plan, 2000.
City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 4.14-23
Irvine Ranch Water District
Flows from the IRWD wastewater system are treated at the OCSD Reclamation Plant No. 1, Treatment Plant No. 2, or at the Michelson Water Reclamation Plant (MWRP) located in Irvine. The nominal, dry weather treatment capacity of the Michelson Water Reclamation Plant is 18.0 mgd. In 2005, average effluent flow into the plant was 13.5 mgd because of denitrification of the reclaimed water, thus, the plant was operating at approximately 75 percent of design capacity.114 The District is currently in the process of adding an additional clarifier to return the MWRP to its full capacity. Wastewater collected at the plant undergoes tertiary treatment, which is commonly defined as advanced cleaning that goes beyond the secondary or biological stage, removing nutrients such as phosphorus, nitrogen, and most biological oxygen demand and suspended solids
Costa Mesa Sanitary District
CMSD sewer lines are tributary to the OCSD treatment plants, and thus, similar to the City, wastewater from the CMSD system is treated by the OCSD.15 See the above referenced discussion for additional information regarding the OCSD treatment system.
Collection System
City of Newport Beach
The existing collection system for the City of Newport Beach consists of over 200 miles of gravity and force flow sewer mains, varying in size from 2 to 42 inches in diameter, also shown in Figure 4.14-2.
Residential and commercial wastewater collected by the City's wastewater collection system is transported, using a system of 20 pump stations, for treatment to the OCSD."1' In addition, OCSD trunk sewers and force mains also receive sewage flows from Newport Beach sewers at many locations throughout the City."" The OCSD trunk sewers, which vary in size from 18 to 42 inches in diameter, substantially reduce the size and number of sewers needed to be built and operated by the City. The OCSD also operates seven pump stations in the City of Newport Beach as follows:
■ Bitter Point Pump Station (Service Area DO)
■ Lido Pump Station (Service Area FO)
■ 14'h Street Pump Station (Service Area FO)
■ A Street Pump Station (Service Area FO)
■ Rocky Point Pump Station (Service Area GO)
■ Bay Bridge Pump Station (Service Area LO)
■ MacArthur Pump Station (Service Area MO)
114 Irvine Ranch Water District, Water Resources Master Plan., adopted 2000, most recently updated in 2003, p. 4-4. 115 Costa Mesa Sanitary District, Sewer System Management Plan, July 19, 2002. 116 City of Newport Beach, Draft Coastal Land Use Plan, 2003. 117 City of Newport Beach, Master Plan of Sewers, 1996.
4.14-24 City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR
\%C
LU<
§ » U
K39
5 *
$
/\
£\�
\k)!§/
/
/
23Jk
Irvine Ranch Water District
The existing collection system for the IRWD sewer system consists of gravity and force flow sewer mains. The wastewater collected by the IRWD collection system from the Planning Area is delivered via a system of pump stations for treatment at the MWRP in Irvine, or the OCSD's Reclamation Plant No. 1 or No. 2.18
Costa Mesa Sanitation District
The existing collection system for the CMSD sewer system consists of sewer mains, manholes, laterals, pumping stations and pressurized sewer lines (force mains)."' Maintenance
City of Newport Beach
As part of the City's Sewer System Management Plan (SSMP), which covers the City's service area, the City's Utilities Department follows a defined Sewer Master Plan to replace or reline older wastewater lines.120 The City also uses remote cameras in sewer lines to look for pipe cracks, root intrusion, and grease buildup to assist in prioritizing the line replacement program. In addition, the City's Sewer Master Plan includes upgrades of its pump stations, including replacing pump stations with gravity systems where possible to prevent plumbing failures associated with pump stations, which can result in sanitary sewer overflows (SSOs). The upgraded pump stations also include spill -warning systems with multiple communication methods (radio, telephone, pager, and direct line to the City's Utilities yard) to inform Utilities staff of any malfunction.
Irvine Ranch Water District
IRWD routinely monitors the wastewater that flows through its sewer system, watching for any illegal substances such as chemicals or improperly pre-treated industrial waste that could cause an upset of the delicate biological process used at the MWRP.121
Costa Mesa Sanitary District
Currently, the CMSD cleans the sewer system once a year, which is the industry standard for agencies with comprehensive sewer maintenance programs. Areas that need more frequent cleaning, also known as hot spots, are cleaned as frequently as once a week. The CMSD has two sewer cleaning trucks, each with a two -man crew that performs daily cleaning of the gravity sewer lines. In addition, the CMSD has a pumping station maintenance program.122
118 Michael Hoolihan, Irvine Ranch Water District, personal communication, December 17, 2003. 119 Costa Mesa Sanitary District, Sewer System Management Plan, July 19, 2002. 120 City of Newport Beach, Draft Coastal Land Use Plan, 2003. 121 Irvine Ranch Water District, website: http://www.irwd.com:8090/waterquahty/hmc.html , accessed January 27, 2004. 122 Costa Mesa Sanitary District, Sewer System Management Plan, July 19, 2002.
City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 4.14-27
Planned Improvements and Existing Deficiencies
City of Newport Beach
The Master Plan of Sewers, or the Plan, dated August 1996, identified portions of the City's collection system that are in need of improvement or replacement. In accordance with the Plan, approximately 7,500 linear feet of sewers at four locations within the City were improved, consistent with the Priority "A" designation which required design and construction to commence within three years. In addition, approximately 3,100 linear feet of sewer on San Joaquin Hills Road and Marguerite were designed and constructed, consistent with their Priority "B" category in the Plan. Priority "C" projects were also identified that would be undertaken beyond seven years from the date of the Plan on an as -needed basis.
The remaining sewer deficiencies within the City were further classified as Priority "D" projects, which would likely never be required despite their inability to meet strict theoretical design capacity requirements.
The City's pumping system was also reviewed and was generally found to have adequate capacity.
However, some pump cycling problems were identified that required operational adjustments. In addition, problems were also identified associated with aging pumping mechanical works, controls, and structures. The Master Plan of Sewers indicated that pump station upgrades would be required for a majority of the City's pump stations, and would be considered as Priority "A" projects. Presently, the City has completed 16 out of 20 sewer lift stations, and the remaining stations to be rebuilt include:
Collins Island, Diamond Street, Back Bay, and the Brent Tract.121 The remaining sewer collection system deficiencies identified in the City by the Master Plan of Sewers are summarized below:
■ Approximately 9,500 linear feet of 8- and 10-inch-diameter unlined concrete sewers that need to be replaced
■ Approximately 6,300 linear feet of welded steel sewers that need to be replaced ■ Manhole replacement at nineteen locations to enable proper maintenance procedures to be followed, and manhole replacements at an additional twenty-eight sites where gaseous conditions have corroded interior unlined manhole surfaces
■ Approximately 1,000 feet of sewer with failed pipe joints that need to be repaired ■ Approximately 10,600 linear feet of sewer in need of tree root removal The Plan further recommended the implementation of a television inspection program that would involve video inspection of five to 10 percent of the sewage system per year, followed up by any required remedies.
Irvine Ranch Water District
IRWD recently prepared an Environmental Impact Report to increase the capacity of the MWRP to 33 mgd.
123 Antista, Pete. 2006. Written communication via email with Utilities Director, City of Newport Beach. 20 March.
4.14-28 City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR
Costa Mesa Sanitary District
The CMSD Sewer Master Plan Update contains a list of each project identified as necessary to increase the capacity of portions of the system. Currently in CMSD's service area within the Planning Area, no improvements are required in the near future, and long-term improvements will be planned according to development and metered sewer flows.124
1 Regulatory Setting
Federal Regulations
National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permits The NPDES permit system was established in the Clean Water Act (CWA) to regulate both point source discharges (a municipal or industrial discharge at a specific location or pipe) and nonpoint source discharges (diffuse runoff of water from adjacent land uses) to surface waters of the United States. For point source discharges, such as sewer outfalls, each NPDES permit contains limits on allowable concentrations and mass emissions of pollutants contained in the discharge.
Disposal of Biosolids
Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 503, Title 23 California Code of Regulations, and standards established by the CVRWQCB regulate the disposal of biosolids. ■ Thresholds of Significance
The following thresholds of significance are based on Appendix G of the 2005 CEQA Guidelines. For purposes of this EIR, implementation of the proposed project may have a significant adverse impact on the City's wastewater system if it would result in any of the following:
■ Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board
■ Require or result in the construction/expansion of wastewater treatment facilities or recycled water conveyance systems that could cause significant environmental effects Project Impacts, Mitigation Measures, and Proposed Policies Effects Not Found to Be Significant
The IS/NOP prepared for the proposed project did not identify any effects not found to be significant associated with wastewater service. Therefore, all thresholds are addressed in this section. 124 Costa Mesa Sanitary District, Sewer System Management Plan, July 19, 2002, page 31.
City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 4.14-29
Project Impacts
Threshold Would the project exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board?
Implementation of the proposed General Plan Update would not exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the Regional Water Quality Control Board.
The City of Newport Beach requires NPDES permits, as administered by the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), according to Federal regulations for both point source discharges (a municipal or industrial discharge at a specific location or pipe) and nonpoint source discharges (diffuse runoff of water from adjacent land uses) to surface waters of the United States. For point source discharges, such as sewer outfalls, each NPDES permit contains limits on allowable concentrations and mass emissions of pollutants contained in the discharge.
New development under implementation of the proposed General Plan Update would continue to comply with all provisions of the NPDES program, as enforced by the RWQCB. Therefore, the proposed General Plan Update would not result in an exceedance of wastewater treatment requirements.
Additionally, the NPDES Phase I and Phase II requirements would regulate discharge from construction sites. All future projects under the proposed General Plan Update would be required to comply with all applicable wastewater discharge requirements issued by the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) and RWQCB. Therefore, implementation of the proposed General Plan Update would not exceed applicable wastewater treatment requirements of the RWQCB with respect to discharges to the sewer system or stormwater system within the City. The proposed General Plan Update specifies minimal adverse effects to water quality from sanitary sewer outflows as a goal. Specifically, Policy NR
3.5 requires all development to comply with the regulations under the City's municipal separate storm sewer system permit under NPDES; Policy NR 3.7 directs the City to support and participate in watershed -based runoff reduction, water quality control, and other planning efforts with the RWQCB; Policy NR 3.8 directs the City to update and enforce the Newport Beach Water Quality Ordinance; Policy NR 5.1 requires implementation of the Sewer System Management Plan and the Sewer Master Plan; Policy NR 5.2 requires waste discharge permits for all food preparation facilities that produce grease; and Policy NR 5.4 requires compliance with the RWQCB's Waste Discharge Requirements associated with the operation and maintenance of the City's sewage collection system. Consequently, because future development under the proposed General Plan Update would be required to adhere to existing regulations and the proposed policies identified above, no impactwould result.
4.14-30 City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR
Threshold Would the project require the construction or expansion of wastewater treatment facilities or conveyance systems that could cause significant environmental effects?
Impact 4.14.2-1 Development associated with the proposed General Plan Update could increase sewer demand but would not exceed the capacity of existing wastewater treatment facilities.
Implementation of the proposed General Plan Update would generate additional demand on the existing sewer system from increased sewage flows. New residential growth would generate wastewater that would require treatment. As described in the Existing Conditions section, wastewater service within the Planning Area is provided by the City, IRWD, and CMSD. Wastewater from the City's system and CMSD is treated by the OCSD at their two treatment plants. The OCSD Treatment Plant No. 1 currently maintains a design capacity of 174 mgd and treats on average a flow of 90 mgd. Treatment Plant No. 2 maintains a design capacity of 276 mgd and currently treats on average a flow of 153 mgd.
Currently Plant No. 1 and Plant No. 2 are operating at 52 percent and 55 percent of design capacity, respectively. Flows from the IRWD wastewater system are treated at the OCSD Reclamation Plant No. 1, Treatment Plant No. 2, or at the Michelson Water Reclamation Plant (MWRP) located in Irvine, which is currently in the process of adding an additional clarifier to return the MWRP to its full capacity at 18 mgd. Therefore, each of the treatment plants serving the City is operating below their design capacity.
Under development of the proposed General Plan Update, the number of housing units could increase by approximately 14,215 units; commercial, visitor serving, and institutional uses would also increase, while industrial uses would decrease compared to existing conditions. Based on sewer flow generation factors provided in the Newport Beach Master Plan of Sewers, as shown below in Table 4.14-12, this increased development under the proposed General Plan Update is anticipated to generate an estimated additional wastewater flow of 4,123,173 gpd (4.12 mgd) within the City.
Type of Land Use
Estimated Potential New
Development
Sewer Generation
Factor
Addfffonal Projected Wastewater
(pc)
Single -Family Residential
1,700 units
370 gpd/du
629,000
Multi -Family Residential
12,515 units
213 gpd/du
2,665,695
Commercial
1,851,122 sf
200 gpd/1,000 sf
370,224
Visitor Serving (hotel)
3,184 rooms
150 gpd/room
477,600
Industrial
-405,769 sf
60 gpd/1,000 sf
-24,346
Institutionala
120,343 sf
n/a
n/a
Schools
500 students
10 gpolstudent
5,000
Parksa
55.4 acres
n/a
n/a
Total
4,123,173
SOURCE: Sewer Generation Factors based upon the City of Newport Beach, Master Plan of Sewers, August 1996. a The Master Plan of Sewers does not contain generation rates for institutional or park uses.
City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 4.14-31
The additional 4.12 mgd of wastewater would be distributed between OCSD Treatment Plant No. 1 and Treatment Plant No. 2. Each of these plants has the capacity to treat the full increase in sewage from the proposed General Plan Update. To illustrate the most conservative analysis, if the entire City's sewage went to Treatment Plant No. 1, its average flow would increase to approximately 94 mgd, an increase of
4.8 percent, and the plant would still operate at approximately 54 percent of its design capacity. If the entire City's sewage were directed to Treatment Plant No. 2, its average flow would increase to approximately 157 mgd, an increase of 2.8 percent, and the plant would operate at 57 percent of its design capacity. Because increased wastewater due to implementation of the proposed General Plan Update could be accommodated within the existing treatment infrastructure, expansion would not be required.
In addition, policies under the proposed General Plan Update require the renovation of all older sewer pump stations and the installation of new plumbing according to most recent standards, and implementation of the Sewer System Management Plan and Sewer Master Plan. Implementation of the proposed General Plan Update policies requires adequate wastewater facilities and conveyance systems to be available to the City residents. Therefore, impacts to the wastewater treatment facilities associated with increased growth in the City would be less than significant.
Impact 4.14.2-2 Increased development could increase the demand for recycled water that could result in the construction of new or expansion of existing conveyance systems.
Increased development and growth under the proposed General Plan Update is expected to increase water demands substantially in the future. As described in the Existing Conditions section, OCSD reclaims up to 10 million gallons of treated wastewater every day, which is sent for further processing and then used for landscape irrigation and for injection into the groundwater seawater intrusion barrier. As discussed in the Water Supply section above, the City annually purchases between 300 and 800 AFY, or approximately 98 to 261 MG, of recycled water from the Orange County Water District (OCWD).
According to the City's 2005 Urban Management Plan, the City has investigated future sites or locations for reclaimed water, but there are limitations to the availability of reclaimed connections. The City is investigating the possibility of inter -district reclaimed water transfers to provide reclaimed water to some homeowner associations and recreation facilities.
The City currently serves approximately 1,200 AFY of irrigation demand using potable water. However, in most cases these demands are located a long distance from the existing recycled system such that it is not cost effective to construct additional connections to the system. Currently, reclaimed water makes up 20 percent of IRWD's total water supply. Reclaimed water is currently used for toilet flushing in select facilities, approximately 1,000 acres of fields and orchards, and is also used to irrigate landscapes including parks, schools, golf courses, streetscapes, and open space managed by many community associations. In addition, many water features such as fountains are filled with reclaimed water.
The proposed General Plan Update Policy NR 2.1 encourages the use of recycled water in the City by continuing to provide financial incentives, staff assistance, and training opportunities for customers, and expanding recycled water infrastructure and programs, when feasible. If expansion or creation of new
4.14-32 City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR
recycled water infrastructure is necessary, further environmental review would be required when specific details are known regarding the infrastructure. This ensures that associated environmental effects would be determined prior to implementation. Thus, impacts associated with the construction of new recycled water conveyance systems within the City would be less than significant.
Cumulative Impacts
The geographic context for the analysis of cumulative impacts associated with sewage treatment systems and recycled water conveyance systems would be the wastewater service providers' areas for the Planning Area.
Currently, the City of Newport Beach, IRWD, and CMSD provide wastewater infrastructure to the Planning Area. OCSD provides regional wastewater treatment service and the providers listed above utilize OCSD facilities for the treatment of wastewater collected with their infrastructure. Development of cumulative projects within the wastewater service providers' areas, including the proposed project, would generate additional quantities of wastewater, depending on net increases in population, square footage, and intensification of uses. Cumulative projects would contribute to the overall regional demand for wastewater treatment service.
The design capacities of the wastewater treatment facilities are based on the regional growth forecast adopted by SCAG, which in turn is based on cities' general plans and other forecasts of SCAG's member cities. Although the proposed project is not included within SCAG's growth forecast, the existing treatment plants operate well below their design capacity. Thus, it is anticipated that cumulative development would not exceed the capacity of the wastewater treatment system. This cumulative impact is considered less than significant. The City would continue to implement water conservation measures that would result in a decrease in wastewater generation, and each of the wastewater treatment plants would still have excess capacity. Consequently, the proposed General Plan Update would not result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to an impact on wastewater treatment. The cumulative impact of the project would be less than significant.
Cumulative growth in the wastewater service providers' areas could result in the need for additional wastewater conveyance infrastructure, which could result in significant cumulative impacts depending upon the nature and extent of the proposed improvements. However, any person connecting to the sewer system is required to pay connection fees in accordance with existing regulations. Existing regulations ensure that all users pay their fair share for any necessary expansion of the system, including expansion to wastewater treatment facilities and would ensure that the cumulative impact is less than significant. Therefore, the project's cumulative impact would be less than significant.
Proposed General Plan Update Policies
Implementation of policies within the Land Use and Natural Resources Elements of the proposed General Plan Update would further reduce impacts associated with sewer services. The policies that would reduce impacts to sewer services are included below.
City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 4.14-33
Land Use Element
Goal LU 2 A living, active, and diverse environment that complements all lifestyles and enhances neighborhoods, without compromising the valued resources that make Newport Beach unique. It contains a diversity of uses that support the needs of residents, sustain and enhance the economy, provide job opportunities, serve visitors that enjoy the City's diverse recreational amenities, and protect its important environmental setting, resources, and quality of life.
Policy LU 2.8 Adequate Infrastructure
Accommodate the types, densities, and mix of land uses that can be adequately supported by transportation and utility infrastructure (water, sewer, storm drainage, energy, and so on) and public services (schools, parks, libraries, seniors, youth, police, fire, and so on).
Goal LU 3 A development pattern that retains and complements the City's residential neighborhoods, commercial and industrial districts, open spaces, and natural environment.
Policy LU 3.2 Growth and Change
Enhance existing neighborhoods, districts, and corridors, allowing for re -use and infill with uses that are complementary in type, form, scale, and character.
Changes in use and/or density/intensity should be considered only in those areas that are economically underperforming, are necessary to accommodate Newport Beach's share of projected regional population growth, improve the relationship, and reduce commuting distance between home and jobs, or enhance the values that distinguish Newport Beach as a special place to live for its residents. The scale of growth and new development shall be coordinated with the provision of adequate infrastructure and public services, including standards for acceptable traffic level of service.
Natural Resources Element
Water Supply
Goal NR 2 Expanded use of alternative water sources to provide adequate water supplies for present uses and future growth.
Policy NR 2.1 Recycled Water Use
Increase the use of recycled water in the City by continuing to provide financial incentives, staff assistance, and training opportunities for customers, and expand recycled water infrastructure and programs, when feasible.
4.14-34 City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR
Policy NR 2.2 Advanced Water Treatment Processes
Use alternative water sources for the City's water supply by implementing advanced water treatment processes such as brackish groundwater and seawater desalination programs, when feasible.
Water Quality
Goal NR 3 Enhancement and protection of water quality of all natural water bodies, including coastal waters, creeks, bays, harbors, and wetlands. (Goal HB8) Policy NR 3.5 Storm Sewer System Permit
Require all development to comply with the regulations under the City's municipal separate storm sewer system permit under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System. (Policy HB8.5)
Policy NR 3.7 Watershed Runoff Quality Control
Support and participate in watershed -based runoff reduction, water quality control, and other planning efforts with the California Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), the County of Orange, and upstream cities. (Policy HB8.7)
Policy NR 3.8 Newport Beach Water Quality Ordinance
Update and enforce the Newport Beach Water Quality Ordinance. (Policy HB8.8)
Policy NR 3.12 Site Design and Source Control
Include site design and source control BMPs in all developments. When the combination of site design and source control BMPs are not sufficient to protect water quality as required by the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES), structural treatment BMPs will be implemented along with site design and source control measures. (Policy HB8.12) Policy NR 3.16 Street Drainage Systems
Require all street drainage systems and other physical improvements created by the City, or developers of new subdivisions, to be designed, constructed, and maintained to minimize adverse impacts on water quality. Investigate the possibility of treating or diverting street drainage to minimize impacts to water bodies. (Policy HB8.16)
City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 4.14-35
Goal NR 4 Maintenance of water quality standards through compliance with the total maximum daily loads (TMDLs) standards.
Policy NR 4.1 Total Maximum Daily Loads
Develop and implement the TMDLs established by the RWQCB, Santa Ana Region and guided by the Newport Bay Watershed Executive Committee (WEC).
Goal NR 5 Sanitary Sewer Outflows —Minimal adverse effects to water quality from sanitary sewer outflows.
Policy NR 5.1 City Sewer Management and Master Plans
Implement the Sewer System Management Plan and the Sewer Master Plan.
Policy NR 5.2 Waste Discharge Permits
Require waste discharge permits for all food preparation facilities that produce grease.
Policy NR 5.3 Sewer Pump Stations
Renovate all older sewer pump stations and install new plumbing according to most recent standards.
Policy NR 5.4 Waste Discharge Permits
Comply with the RWQCB's Waste Discharge Requirements (WDRs) associated with the operation and maintenance of the City's sewage collection system.
■ Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures are necessary, as the proposed General Plan Update policies fully mitigate the impacts.
Level of Significance after Policies/Mitigation Measures Impacts associated with the sewer system and recycled water infrastructure would be less than significant. In addition, cumulative impacts associated with the sewer system and recycled water infrastructure would also be less than significant.
4.14.3 Solid Waste
This section describes existing solid waste management and resource recovery systems for the Newport Beach Planning Area. In addition, a discussion of current local and regional policies regarding the collection and disposal of solid waste is provided. Information for this section is based on the City's
4.14-36 City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR
Resource Allocation Plan, Source Reduction and Recycling Element, data from the Integrated Waste Management Board, and conversations with City staff.
■ Existing Conditions
As discussed in more detail below, the majority of residential solid waste generated in the City of Newport Beach is collected by the City's Refuse Division and the remaining solid waste is collected by waste haulers and transported to a City -owned transfer station. Refuse is then consolidated and transported to a materials recovery facility where recyclable materials are then sorted from refuse by machines and other methods. The remaining solid waste is then taken to one of three County landfills.
Details regarding waste haulers, transfer stations, recycling facilities, and landfills are provided below.
Solid Waste Haulers
Newport Beach Municipal Code 12.63.030 states that no person shall provide commercial solid waste handling services or conduct a solid waste enterprise in the City without having been awarded an exclusive franchise and entered into an agreement with the City. As part of its franchise agreement, all solid waste haulers that serve the City are prohibited from transporting any waste, residential, commercial, or industrial, outside of County limits.121 The Refuse Division of the City General Services Department collects refuse from single-family homes and some multi -family complexes within the City, with the exception of Newport Coast.12' The remaining residential and all commercial refuse is collected by eight licensed and franchised commercial solid waste haulers, and include the following:
■ Federal Disposal in Santa Ana
■ Rainbow Disposal in Huntington Beach
■ CR&R in Stanton
■ Ware Disposal in Newport Beach
■ Briggeman Disposal Services in Anaheim
■ Waste Management of Orange County in Santa Ana
■ Key Disposal in Montebello
■ EZ Disposal in Fountain Valley
There are a number of licensed and franchised construction and demolition debris solid waste haulers that also serve the City. These include the following:
■ American Wrecking, Inc. in South El Monte
■ Greenleaf Grading company in Huntington Beach
■ Kevin Ray Demolition in Brea
■ The Lane Company in Santa Ana
■ Tight Quarters, Inc. in Santa Ana
■ West Coast Land Clearing, Inc. in Long Beach
■ Cousyn Grading and Demolition in Costa Mesa
125 Jeremy Hammond, personal communication, September 24, 2003 126 Jeremy Hammond, personal communication, September 16, 2003 City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 4.14-37
■ Roche Excavating in Santa Ana
■ Tim Greenleaf Engineering in Huntington Beach
■ Southern California Environmental in Lake Forest
■ Pacific Earthworks in Dana Point
■ Trojan Portable Services in Los Angeles
■ Thomas Demolition in Lawndale (Newport Beach, General Services website, 2003, 16 September) Transfer Stations
Transfer stations are facilities where trash is sorted from recyclable materials, and the residue is then transported to landfills that serve the residents of the County of Orange. There are six active, large volume transfer processing facilities that serve the City. All are sorting and recycling facilities, with the exception of the City of Newport Beach Transfer Station, and include the following:
■ Stanton Transfer and Recycling Center #8 11232 Knott Avenue, Stanton, CA 90680 ■ Rainbow Recycling/Transfer Station17121 Nichols Street, Huntington Beach, CA 92647 ■ Consolidated Volume Transporters1131 Blue Gum Street, Anaheim, CA 92806 ■ Sunset Environmental Inc. Transfer Station and Resource Recycling Facility16122 Construction Circle West, Irvine, CA 92606
■ Waste Management of Orange (Owner of the Sunset Environmental Transfer Station)2050 North Glassell, Orange, CA 92865
■ City of Newport Beach Transfer Station592 Superior Avenue, Newport Beach, CA 92663 ■ Landfills
Presently, it is anticipated that the Orange County landfill system will have adequate capacity to operate until 2035. The Orange County Integrated Waste Management Department (IWMD) presently owns and operates three active landfills, including: Frank R. Bowerman Landfill in Irvine; Olinda Alpha Landfill in Brea; and Prima Deshecha Landfill in San Juan Capistrano. All three landfills are permitted as Class III landfills and have a combined design capacity of over 20,000 tons per day. Class III landfills accept only non -hazardous municipal solid waste for disposal; no hazardous or liquid waste can be accepted (OCIWMD 2006). Table 4.14-13 shows the existing capacities of each of these landfills, as well as their anticipated closure dates and annual usage.
TableCapacity
Current
Remaining
Maximum
Maximum
Annual
Capacity
Capacity Estimated
Daily Load
Usage
Landfill
Location
(Tons)
(Tons) Close Date
(tons)
(tons)
Frank R.
11002 Bee Canyon Access Road
44,560,000
81,600,000
2022
8,500
2,332,576
Bowerman
Irvine, CA 92602
Olinda
1942 North Valencia Avenue
19,730,000
53,000,000
2013
8,000
2,069,835
Alpha
Brea, CA 92823
Prima
32250 La Pata Avenue
78 600,000
89,400,000
2067
4,000
814,488
Deshecha
San Juan Capistrano, CA 92675
SOURCE CIWMB 2006; OC IWMD, personal communication, March 17, 2006.
4.14-38 City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR
Currently only the Frank R. Bowerman Sanitary Landfill, located at 11002 Bee Canyon Access Road in Irvine, serves the City of Newport Beach. Closure is currently estimated at year 2022; however, IWMD is preparing an EIR to expand the landfill and extend its closure date to 2053. At approximately 725 acres in size, this landfill has 341 acres that are used for waste disposal. The permitted daily tonnage limit for the Bowerman Landfill is 8,500 tons per day of refuse except for 36 days per year that a higher tonnage of 10,625 tons per day is allowed. If the expansion is approved, the landfill would accept 11,500 tons per day.127
The California Integrated Waste Management Board (CIWMB) requires that all counties have an approved Countywide Integrated Waste Management Plan (CIWMP). To be approved, the CIWMP must demonstrate sufficient solid waste disposal capacity for at least 15 years, or identify additional available capacity outside of the County's jurisdiction. To this end, the Regional Landfill Options for Orange County (RELOOC) program, a 40-year strategic plan being prepared by the IWMD, was created.
RELOOC evaluates options for trash disposal for Orange County citizens and to ensure that waste generated by the County is safely disposed of and that the County's future disposal needs are met (OCIWMD 2006).
Waste Stream Diversion
In 2002, which represents the most recent data available that has been approved by the CIWMB, the City of Newport Beach maintained a 52 percent diversion rate from the Orange County landfills, which meets the AB939 requirement of 50 percent diversion of solid waste by the Year 2000 (CIWMB 2006). The City has one composting facility, five recycling programs, and six programs specializing in source reduction.
Waste Reduction Programs
Recycling Programs
Newport Beach recycled over 25 percent of its residential waste stream in 2002, which represents the most recent data available that has been approved by the CIWMB, as well as 100 percent of the concrete, asphalt, and green and brown wastes generated by City operations. The City recycling program is part of the waste collection process. All residential wastes are collected together. Since the early 1990's the City has partnered with CR&R to recycle the City's residential waste. Following collection, the waste is transferred by trailer truck to a materials recovery facility in Stanton where the recyclables are extracted from the waste stream manually and mechanically. This process eliminates the need for additional containers and separate collection pick-ups.
128
The City's nonexclusive solid waste franchise program requires all commercial haulers to recycle at least 50 percent of the waste they collect from Newport Beach. The City's landscape, turf maintenance, and 127 County of Orange Integrated Waste Management, John Arnau, Planner 3, written communication, October 28, 2005. 128 City of Newport Beach website, 2006.
City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 4.14-39
tree trimming contractors are also required to recycle 100 percent of the waste generated from their operations. The City purchases compost and mulch made from these recycled materials.
Beverage Container Recycling
The Department of Conservation, Division of Recycling administers the California Beverage Container Recycling and Litter Reduction Act enacted in 1986. It provides a number of services to achieve those goals, including enforcement, auditing, grant finding, technical assistance, and education. Consumers pay CRV (California Refund Value) when they purchase beverages from a retailer reimbursed when they redeem the container at a recycling center. The following facilities operate CRV redemption centers:
■ Ralph's, 2555 Eastbluff Drive, Newport Beach, CA 92660 ■ Vans, 185 E. 17ffi Street, Costa Mesa, CA 92627
■ Ralph's, 380 E. 17'hStreet, Costa Mesa, CA 92627
■ ASOCC Recycling Center, 2701 Fairview Boulevard, Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Used Oil and Oil Filters
The City has obtained a used oil -recycling grant. The funds are used to provide oil -recycling options to local residents. The General Services Department Administrative Division oversees the recycling of these materials, and can direct residents to one of six local drop sites in the City listed below:
■ Superformance, 3767 Birch Street, Newport Beach, CA 92660 ■ Newport Coast Chevron, 1550 Jamboree Road, Newport Beach, CA 92660 ■ Jiffy Lube, 1520 W. Coast Hwy., Newport Beach, CA 92663 ■ Grahm's 76, 2690 San Miguel, Newport Beach, CA 92660
■ Newport Landing Fuel Dock, 503 E. Edgewater, Newport Beach, CA 92661 ■ Grease Monkey, 2230 S.E. Bristol, Newport Beach, CA 92660 Household Hazardous Waste Programs
There are a number of household hazardous waste collection centers (HHWCC) in Orange County where residents can safely dispose of materials such as paint, wood preservatives, batteries, auto products, motor antifreeze, household chemicals, and other hazardous substances. These include the Huntington Beach Regional HHWCC, located at 17121 Nichols in Huntington Beach, the Anaheim Regional HHWCC, located at 10710 North Blue Gum Street, the San Juan Capistrano Regional HHWCC, located at 32250 La Pata Avenue, and the Irvine Regional HHWCC at 6411 Oak Canyon in Irvine. Generation Rates
According to the City's Source Reduction and Recycling Element, which analyzes all solid waste in the City, the residential waste stream composes 19.4 percent of the total waste stream while the industrial and commercial sector each account for 40.3 percent of the waste stream.129 The City uses the following generation rates for solid waste:131 129 Jeremy Hammond, personal communication, October 8, 2003. 130 John Arnau, personal communication, October 28, 2005.
4.14-40 City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR
1. Commercial daily disposal (lbs. per employee per day)-10.53
2. Residential daily disposal (lbs. per unit per day —single-family residential)-12.23
3. Residential daily disposal (lbs. per unit per day —multiple -family residential)-6.41
4. Industrial daily disposal (lbs. per square foot per day)-007
5. Office daily disposal (lbs. per 100 square foot per day)-1
6. Hotel daily disposal (lbs. per room per day)-2.5
Improvements to Solid Waste Facilities
All future facilities expansion is currently dependent upon the "Regional Landfill Options for Orange County" (RELOOC) Study being undertaken by the Orange County Integrated Waste Management Department (IWMD). RELOOC is a 40-year strategic plan that will examine options for trash disposal in Orange County. The IWMD is in the process of conducting the environmental review of the RELOOC Strategic Plan as directed by the Board of Supervisors on May 21, 2002. The RELOOC program was created to ensure that the waste generated by the County is properly disposed of and that the County's future disposal needs can be adequately met. The stated goals of RELOOC are as follows:131 To have a feasible, balanced, and flexible 40-year strategic plan approved and ready for implementation by 2004 that addresses Orange County's solid waste disposal and capacity needs ■ To protect Orange County's public health, safety, and environment ■ To sustain the economic vitality of the Orange County's solid waste disposal system by ensuring consistent and reliable features and adequate revenue to maintain efficient, cost effective, and high quality operations
■ To provide a fair, objective, open planning process that is presented in nontechnical, easily understood terms, responsive to and involves stakeholders and the public, and results in public understanding
Regulatory Context
Federal
With the exception of determining where disposal sites are located and operational standards, there are no applicable Federal laws, regulations, or policies that pertain to solid waste.
State
At the State level, the management of solid waste is governed by regulations established by the California Integrated Waste Management Board (CIWMB), which delegates local permitting, enforcement, and inspection responsibilities to local enforcement agencies. In 1997, some of the regulations adopted by the State Water Quality Control Board (SWQCB) pertaining to landfills (Title 23, Chapter 15) were 131 IWMB website, February 21, 2006.
City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 4.14-41
incorporated with CIWMB regulations (Title 14) to form Title 27 of the California Code of Regulations (CCR).
Assembly Bill 939
The State Legislature, through Assembly Bill 939, The California Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989, mandated that all cities and counties prepare, adopt, and submit a comprehensive solid waste management plan to the county. The plan must address and detail each individual community's efforts and intended policies in the areas of waste characterization, source reduction, recycling, composting, solid waste facilities, education/public information, funding, special wastes, and hazardous wastes. The law also mandates that communities meet certain specific identified targets for percentages of waste reduction and recycling over specific identified targets for percentages of waste reduction and recycling over specified time periods (25 percent by 1995 and 50 percent by the year 2000.) Public Resources Code §§ et seq.—California Integrated Waste Management Act In 1989, the Legislature adopted the Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989, which established an integrated waste management hierarchy that consists of the following in order of importance: source reduction, recycling, composting, and land disposal of solid waste. The law also required that each county prepare a new Integrated Waste Management Plan. The Act further required each city to prepare a Source Reduction and Recycling Element (SRRE) by July 1, 1991. Each source reduction element includes a plan for achieving a solid waste goal of 25 percent by January 1, 1995, and 50 percent by January 1, 2000. Recently, a number of changes to the municipal solid waste diversion requirements under the Integrated baste Management Act were adopted, including a revision to the statutory requirement for 50 percent diversion of solid waste. Under these provisions, local governments shall continue to divert 50 percent of all solid waste on and after January 1, 2000.
Local Regulations
City of Newport Beach Municipal Code
In order to fulfill the requirements of the State mandate, the City of Newport Beach has a number of City ordinances related to solid waste management. The City Municipal Code, Section 12.63.030, requires businesses that provide commercial solid waste handling services in City limits to obtain a franchise in order to operate. The ordinance states that because State law requires the City to substantially reduce the amount of solid waste it sends to landfills, and the City is required to report to the State the amount of materials diverted from landfills in compliance with State law, the City must be able to regulate the collection of solid waste from residential and commercial premises through the requirements of a franchise.
Section 20.60.090 of the City Municipal Code contains an ordinance on recyclable materials. This section establishes a comprehensive set of regulations and guidelines regarding the requirement for specific areas for collecting and loading recyclable materials in certain developments in the City.
4.14-42 City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR
I Thresholds of Significance
The following thresholds of significance are based on Appendix G of the 2005 CEQA Guidelines. For purposes of this EIR, implementation of the proposed project may have a significant adverse impact on solid waste service if it would result in any of the following:
■ Be served by a landfill with insufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs
■ Fail to comply with applicable Federal, State, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste
Project Impacts, Mitigation Measures, and Proposed Policies Effects Not Found to Be Significant
The IS/NOP prepared for the proposed project did not identify any effects not found to be significant associated with solid waste service. Therefore, all thresholds are addressed in this section.
Project Impacts
Threshold Would the project be served by a landfill with insufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs?
Impact 4.14.3-1 Implementation of the proposed General Plan Update could result in insufficient landfill capacity to accommodate the increased demand for solid waste service provided to the Planning Area.
Currently, only the Frank R. Bowerman Sanitary Landfill services the City of Newport Beach, as described in the Existing Conditions section above. IWMD has plans to expand this landfill and extend the closure date from 2022 to approximately 2053. Should the expansion be approved, the landfill will accept 11,500 tons per day, but currently accepts 8,500 per day except for 36 days per year that a higher tonnage of 10,625 tons per day is allowed (annual acceptance of approximately 3,179,000 tons.) New residential uses under implementation of the proposed General Plan Update would increase the population in the Planning Area. In total, approximately 14,215 additional residential units could be built within the Planning Area. Commercial uses could increase by 2,145,642 sf and office uses could increase by approximately 250,673 s£ As discussed in Section 4.10 (Population and Housing) of this EIR, implementation of the General Plan Update would result in a population increase of approximately 31,131 residents. This increase would result in a total citywide population of 103,753 persons at buildout of the proposed General Plan Update, which would represent an approximately 43 percent increase in population over the 2002 population, and an approximately 37 percent increase in population over 2005 existing conditions.
In addition, this increase in growth and development as a result of the proposed General Plan Update would result in an increase of solid waste stream to the landfill, and increased demand for solid waste City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 4.14-43
services throughout the City. This analysis is based on solid waste generation rates utilized by the City of Newport Beach, as illustrated below in Table 4.14-4. Development under the proposed General Plan Update could result in an additional 21,659.10 tons per year of solid waste to be disposed of at the Frank R. Bowerman Sanitary Landfill, representing approximately 0.68 percent of the amount of solid waste the landfill is allowed to accept annually.
ITable4
Land Use
-. Increase of Solid Waste
Potential New Solid Waste Generation
Development Rate
Generation
Solid Waste Generation
bs/day
Residential—MFR
12,515 units
6.41 Ibs/unit/day
80,221.15
Residential—SFR
1,700 units
12.231bs/unit/day
20,791
Commercial
2,145,642 sq ft
5 Ibs/1000sgftlday*
10,728.21
Industrial
(-)405,769 sq ft
.007 Ibs/sf/day
(-)2,840.38
Office
70,673 sf
1 Ib/100sf/day
706.73
Visitor Serving
3,184 rooms
2.5 Ibs/room/day
7,960
Institutional
158,593 sf
.007 Ibs/sf/day*
1,110.15
TOTAL
118,677 lbs/day
(59.34 tons/day)
(21,659.10 tons/year)
SOURCE: John Arnau, personal communication, October 28, 2005. *Integrated Waste Management Board, at www.ciwmb.ca.gov 1 ton [short, US] = 2 000 pound
A different commercial solid waste generation rate was used (compared to the City's) because the proposed General Plan Update is based on permitted square footage, not anticipated employees.
With the remaining capacity of approximately 44.6 million tons, as well as a 16-year lifespan at the Frank R. Bowerman Sanitary Landfill without the proposed expansion, the increase in solid waste generated by the development under the proposed General Plan Update would not exceed capacity of the landfill. In addition, AB 939 mandates the reduction of solid waste disposal in landfills. Consequently, this analysis assumes a worst -case scenario, as it is anticipated that at least approximately 50 percent of the estimated increase in solid waste generation could be diverted (or approximately 10,830 tons/year). Therefore, as the Frank R. Bowerman Sanitary Landfill would have sufficient capacity to serve the increased development within the City under the proposed General Plan Update, impacts would be less than significant.
Threshold Would the project fail to comply with applicable Federal, State, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste?
Implementation of the proposed General Plan Update would not comply with all applicable Federal, State, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste.
As described above, Public Resources Code 540000 et seq. requires that local jurisdictions divert at least 50 percent of all solid waste generated by January 1, 2000. The City consistently diverts 50 percent or more of solid waste and, therefore, is in compliance with this legislation. The City remains committed to
4.14-44 City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR
continue its existing waste reduction and minimization efforts with the programs previously discussed in Section 4.14.3 (Existing Conditions). Thus, implementation of the proposed General Plan Update would not conflict with any Federal, State, or local statutes or regulations related to solid waste disposal.
Therefore, no impact would occur.
Cumulative Impacts
Despite the anticipated sufficient capacity of the Bowerman Landfill discussed above, any existing capacity that currently exists within the landfill's service boundary is finite. Thus, it is considered that, without approved specific plans for substantial expansion of the landfill facilities that serve the County, solid waste generation from approved and foreseeable cumulative projects in the project area vicinity would exacerbate regional landfill capacity issues in the future. That is, any additional solid waste incrementally added to existing facilities will decrease the amount of time until they are completely full.
The implementation of source reduction measures would be required on a project -specific basis and plans such as those for recycling would partially address landfill capacity issues by diverting additional solid waste at the source of generation. However, because of the issues discussed above, development associated with cumulative projects within and around the City would be cumulatively considerable.
Although the project itself, however, would have a less -than -significant contribution to this effect, impacts associated with cumulative development would be significant and unavoidable.
All cumulative development within the project area and Orange County would be required to comply with all applicable Federal, State, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste. This includes compliance with AB 939, which requires a 50 percent diversion of all solid waste from disposal in local landfills. There is no cumulative impact related to compliance with applicable regulations.
Proposed General Plan Update Policies
No policies related to solid waste are contained in the proposed General Plan Update.
Mitigation Measures
Implementation of the General Plan Update would result in less -than -significant project impacts associated with solid waste, and no mitigation measures would be necessary. However, cumulative impacts would be significant and unavoidable.
Level of Significance After Policies/Mitigation Measures There are no policies associated with solid waste under the proposed General Plan Update, although existing City ordinances address solid waste collection and source reduction. No mitigation measures would be required. Project impacts associated with solid waste within the Planning Area would be less than significant. However, cumulative impacts would be significant and unavoidable.
City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 4.14-45
4.14.4 Energy
f Electricity
Southern California Edison Company (SCE) is the primary distribution provider for electricity in the Planning Area.112 SCE is a regulated electrical utility and as such maintains electrical facilities and infrastructure within the City and surrounding areas. Those facilities and infrastructure are expected to be used to provide service to the Planning Area under the applicable rules and tariffs approved by the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC). Currently, SCE has no immediate plans for expansion within the City of Newport Beach, as most of the City is built out. However, every year SCE expands and improves existing facilities according to demand.1 ' Standard electricity generation rates used by SCE currently exist under tariff schedules General Service (GS-2) and Time -of -Use (TOU) as filed with the CPUC. The primary distribution voltage levels serving the Newport Beach area are 12,000 volts (kV) for commercial uses and 4,000 kV for residential uses.
Currently, the City is placing existing overhead facilities underground. Substations within the City of Newport Beach include McArthur, Newport, Crown, and Lafayette Substations. However, there are a number of other substations in adjacent cities, such as Hamilton substation in the City of Huntington Beach, which feed circuits in Newport Beach in order to provide reliable service within the City.134 SCE derives its electricity from a variety of sources, as shown in Table 4.14-15. Nearly half of its electricity comes from natural gas, with renewable resources constituting another nearly 20 percent.
The 2005 Integrated Energy Policy Report prepared by the California Energy Commission (CEC) summarizes the State of California's electrical and natural gas supplies. Despite improvements in power plant licensing, highly successful energy efficiency programs and continued technological advances, development of new energy supplies is not keeping pace with the State's increasing demands. A key constraint in energy is the State's electricity transmission system. Under most circumstances, the State's power grid is able to reliably delivery energy to consumers; for the majority of the days during the year adequate energy supplies are reliably provided to consumers. California's electricity demand is driven by short summer peaks, such that reducing peak demand is the essential factor in adequately planning for the State's electrical needs. These peak demands include a few hours to several days each year, such that managing demand, rather than developing supplies at new power plants for this limited time appears the most efficient method to meet State needs on peak days. The CEC has developed an action plan which includes increasing energy capacity in investor -owned utilities, incentives for combined heat and power projects (cogeneration), energy efficiency programs, expansion of renewable energy programs. 132 SCE website 2003, 30 September
133 Leanne Swanson, personal communication, 2003, 30 September 134 Ken Eatherton, personal communication, 2003, 30 September
4.14-46 City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR
Energy Resources
SCE Power Mix(projedecQ
Eligible Renewable
19%
Biomass & Waste
2%
Geothermal
11 %
Small hydroelectric
1 %
Solar
1 %
Wind
4%
Coal
11 %
Large Hydroelectric
4%
Natural Gas
49%
Nuclear
17%
Other
<1 %
Total
100%
SOURCE: Tran 2004
Percentages are estimated annually by the California Energy Commission based on electricity sold to California consumers during the previous year.
L Natural Gas
This section defines the existing natural gas service provided to the City of Newport Beach. Information was obtained from communication with service providers and online resources.
Southern California Gas Company (SCGC) provides natural gas service for the Planning Area. Natural gas is a "fossil fuel," indicating that it comes from the ground, similar to other hydrocarbons such as coal or oil. SCGC purchases natural gas from several bordering states.
Most of the major natural gas transmission pipelines within the Planning Area are owned and operated by SCGC. However, if a customer within Newport Beach meets the requirements to purchase gas from a contracted marketer or agent they may do So.135 SCGC customers have the option of purchasing their natural gas from a list of natural gas suppliers. The list of approved natural gas suppliers is available on the Southern California Gas web site, which is updated periodically.13' The Public Utilities Commission (PUC) regulates SCGC, who is the default provider required by State law, for natural gas delivery to the Planning Area. SCGC has the capacity and resources to deliver gas except in certain situations that are noted in State law. As development occurs, SCGC will continue to extend its service to accommodate development and supply the necessary gas lines. SCGC does not base its service levels on the demands of the Planning Area; rather it makes periodic upgrades to provide service for particular projects and new development. Approximately two months before construction 135 Ella Abidere, personal communication, 2003
136 SCE website 2003, 3 November
City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 4.14-47
commences on a project, SCGC requests that the developer contact them with detailed information about the project's natural gas requirements. If necessary, SCGC customizes pipelines and mains to better serve newly constructed facilities. The cost for such service differs from project to project.13' SCGC is continuously expanding its network of gas pipelines to meet the needs of new commercial and residential developments in Southern California.
California has not experienced a widespread natural gas shortage in many years. Current supplies are adequate to meet demands, although natural gas storage could be expanded to improve reliability. The State imports 87 percent of its statewide natural gas supply. ■ Thresholds of Significance
The following thresholds of significance are based on Appendix G of the 2005 CEQA Guidelines. For purposes of this EIR, implementation of the proposed project may have a significant adverse impact with respect to energy if it would result in the following:
■ Require or result in the construction of new energy production and/or transmission facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects
Project Impacts, Mitigation Measures, and Proposed Policies Effects Not Found to Be Significant
The IS/NOP prepared for the proposed project did not identify any effects not found to be significant associated with Energy. Therefore, all thresholds are addressed in this section.
Project Impacts
Threshold Would the project require or result in the construction of new energy production or transmission facilities, the construction of which could cause a significant environmental impact?
Implementation of the General Plan Update would not require or result in the construction of new energy production or transmission facilities.
The State is currently experiencing constraints related to energy supply and delivery. These constraints are generally limited to peak demand days during the summer months, such that for the majority of the days during the year adequate energy supplies are reliably provided to consumers. Implementation of the proposed General Plan Update would increase use of electricity in the project area, in particular, the demand for electricity to light, heat, and air condition the residential, commercial, and business development.
137 Ella Abidere, personal communication, 2003
4.14-48 City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR
On peak days, the increase in demand from implementation of future development under the proposed General Plan Update would contribute to electricity supply and delivery constraints. However, all future development would be constructed in compliance with Title 24 energy efficiency standards. Policy 24.1 of the Natural Resource Element requires the City to develop incentives that encourage the use of energy conservation strategies by both private and public development. Compliance with this policy would ensure that no impacts related to electricity supply occur. In addition, the electrical distribution system is continually being upgraded as growth occurs.
By the time future development would be constructed under the proposed General Plan Update, it is expected that some steps outlined in the CEC action plan will have been implemented to alleviate energy constraints. If these constraints do remain, they could be addressed through "rolling blackouts," which are limited to specific geographic areas for a period of hours. Further, if energy constraints remain, they are a reflection of the broad energy supply issues experienced by California as a whole, and not unique to the demands of the development in the City.
Further, the California Energy Commission licensed two additional power plants in 2001 that were anticipated to provide California with electrical energy supply capacity and the ability to meet peak load demand in excess of forecasts of regional energy supplies. Consequently, although the proposed General Plan Update would result in an increased electricity demand in the City, additional energy demands resulting from the proposed project would be adequately met by current and planned infrastructure during most of the year. Further, development under the proposed General Plan Update would be required to comply with the energy conservation measures contained in Title 24, which would reduce the amount of energy needed for the operation of any buildings constructed as a part of the proposed General Plan Update.
Additionally, the current electrical demand of the Planning Area is within the capacity limitations of the electrical facilities serving the City. Excluding any unforeseen problems, existing distribution resources have the ability to serve all existing customer loads in accordance with its rules and tariffs. The projected electrical demand of the Planning Area and for buildout under the proposed General Plan Update is expected to be within SCE's current 10-year load forecasts. Though SCE's total system demand is expected to continue to increase annually, excluding any unforeseen problems, SCE's plans for new distribution resources would be adequate to serve all existing and new customer loads throughout the next decade. SCE does not expect that utilities deregulation will affect service to the Planning Area.
However, to reduce any potential impacts associated with buildout of the proposed General Plan Update, SCE recommends the use of energy efficient and high-performance design for nonresidential and residential building design and construction. Therefore, no impact would result.
City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 4.14-49
Threshold Would the project require or result in the construction of new natural gas production or transmission facilities, the construction of which could cause a significant environmental impact?
Implementation of the General Plan Update would not require or result in the construction of new natural gas production or transmission facilities.
SCGC declares itself a "reactive" utility and will provide natural gas as customers request its services.
SCGC has also indicated that an adequate supply of natural gas is currently available to serve additional development, and that the natural gas level of service provided to the City would not be impaired by buildout under the proposed General Plan Update. Any expansion of service necessitated by implementation of the proposed General Plan Update would be in accordance with SCGC's policies and extension rules on file with the California Public Utilities Commission at the time contractual agreements are made. Because the natural gas demand projected for the proposed General Plan Update would not exceed available or planned supply, new infrastructure would not be required to serve the proposed project. Therefore, no impactwould result.
Cumulative Impacts
Development under the proposed General Plan Update, in combination with all other development within the SCE and SCGC service areas, would result in the permanent and continued use of electricity and natural gas resources. However, as both SCE and SCGC are reactive providers, which supply electricity and natural gas services to customers at their request, it is assumed that they would be able to service future developments under the proposed General Plan Update buildout in combination with all projected future developments within their service boundaries. Therefore, the project's contribution to these impacts would not be cumulatively considerable and cumulative impacts to energy demand within SCE and SCGC service boundaries would be less than significant.
Proposed General Plan Update Policies
The proposed General Plan Update contains policies within its Natural Resources Element to reduce or minimize the effects of the additional demand and consumption of energy resources (electricity and natural gas) associated with the prospective growth within the project area. The following proposed General Plan Update policies will directly or indirectly address energy resources. Implementation of the following policies would help reduce the effects of the additional demand and consumption of natural gas and electricity.
4.14-50 City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR
Natural Resources Element
Goal NR 24 Increased energy efficiency in City facilities and operations and in private developments.
Policy NR 24.1 Incentives for Energy Conservation
Develop incentives that encourage the use of energy conservation strategies by private and public developments.
Policy NR 24.2 Energy -Efficient Design Features
Promote energy -efficient design features.
Policy NR 24.3 Incentives for Green Building Program Implementation Promote or provide incentives for "Green Building" programs that go beyond the requirements of Title 24 of the California Administrative Code and encourage energy efficient design elements as appropriate to achieve "green building" status.
Policy NR 24.4 Incentives for Provision of LEED Certified Buildings Provide incentives for implementing Leadership in Environmental and Energy Design (LEED) certified building such as fee waivers, bonus densities, and/or awards recognition programs.
Policy NR 24.5 New Methane Extraction Activities
Allow new methane extraction activities to reduce reliance on fossil fuels. ■ Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Implementation of the General Plan Update not result in any impacts associated with electricity or natural gas resources and no mitigation would be required.
Level of Significance After Policies/Mitigation Measures Existing regulations and policies outlined in the proposed General Plan Update would ensure that no impact associated with energy resources would occur.
4.14.5 References
Antista, Pete. 2006. Written communication via email with Utilities Director, City of Newport Beach. 20 March.
EIP Associates. 2004. Nenport Beach General Plan Update Technical Background Report.
Irvine Ranch Water District, 2005. Urban WaterManagementPlan, November.
City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 4.14-51
Irvine Ranch Water District. 2003. Wlater Resources Management Plan. Adopted 2000, most recently updated in 2003.
Newport Beach, City of. August 1996. Master Plan of Sewers. 1999. Water Master Plan.
2003. Personal communication with Jeremy Hammond, General Services Division, 16 September.
2003. Personal communication with Jeremy Hammond, General Services Division, 24 September
2003. Licensed and Franchised Commercial Solid Waste Haulers. Website:
http://www.city.newport-beach.ca.us/GSV/Frachised%20Haulers.htm , 16 September. 2005. Urban Water Management Plan. Prepared by Brown and Caldwell. December. 2006. Newport Beach CA Municipal Code. Website:
http://ordlink.com/codes/ne"ortb/index.htm , 23 September.
Orange, County of. Integrated Waste Management Department. 2003. Landfill Tonnage Reports, 2002- 2003. Provided by Christine Knapp
2003. Personal communication with Susan Amirhosseini, Assistant Public Information Officer, Integrated Waste Management Department, State of California, 16 September.
October 28, 2005. Personal communication with John Arnau, Planner. 2006. Landfill Information. Website: http://www.oclandfills.com/landfill— information.htm, 16 September.
Trask, Willy. 2004. Personal communication with Metropolitan Water District, Water Quality Division, 9 January.
4.14-52 City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR
5.1 INTRODUCTION
CEQA requires that an EIR describe a range of reasonable alternatives to the project or to the location of the project that could feasibly avoid or lessen any significant environmental impacts while substantially attaining the basic objectives of the project. An EIR should also evaluate the comparative merits of the alternatives. This chapter sets forth potential alternatives to the proposed project and evaluates them, as required by CEQA.
Key provisions of the CEQA Guidelines (Section 15126.6) pertaining to the alternatives analysis are summarized below:
■ The discussion of alternatives shall focus on alternatives to the project or its location that are capable of avoiding or substantially lessening any significant effects of the project, even if these alternatives would impede to some degree the attainment of the project objectives, which are identified in Chapter 3 (Project Description, Statement of Objectives) of this EIR, or would be more costly.
■ The No Project alternative shall be evaluated along with its impact. The No Project analysis shall discuss the existing conditions at the time the notice of preparation is published. ■ The range of alternatives required in an EIR is governed by a "rule of reason"; therefore, the EIR must evaluate only those alternatives necessary to permit a reasoned choice. The alternatives shall be limited to ones that would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project.
■ For alternative locations, only locations that would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project need to be considered for inclusion in the EIR. ■ An EIR need not consider an alternative whose effects cannot be reasonably ascertained and whose implementation is remote and speculative.
The range of feasible alternatives is selected and discussed in a manner to foster meaningful public participation and informed decision -making. Among the factors that may be taken into account when addressing the feasibility of alternatives (as described in CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6[f][1]) are environmental impacts, site suitability, economic viability, availability of infrastructure, general plan consistency, regulatory limitations, jurisdictional boundaries, and whether the proponent could reasonably acquire, control, or otherwise have access to the alternative site. An EIR need not consider an alternative whose effects could not be reasonably identified, whose implementation is remote or speculative, or one that would not achieve the basic project objectives. The alternatives analysis meets the requirements of CEQA Section 15126.6, which requires that a reasonable range of alternatives is identified in the EIR. The analysis includes sufficient information about each alternative to provide meaningful evaluation, analysis and comparison with the proposed project.
City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 5-1
5.2 POTENTIAL FEASIBLE ALTERNATIVES
The alternatives identified below were selected for analysis. ■ Alternative 1: No Project/No Development —With this alternative, development under the proposed General Plan Update would not occur. The Planning Area would remain developed with existing land uses and intensities.
■ Alternative 2: No Project/No Action (Existing General Plan) —With this alternative, development under the proposed General Plan Update would not occur. Development would be guided by the existing General Plan.
■ Alternative 3: GPAC Recommendations —With this alternative, development would be guided by a General Plan consisting of the land use recommendations formulated by the General Plan Advisory Committee (GPAC), which would generally result in less development. ■ Alternative 4: Subarea Only Minimum —With this alternative, development would be guided by a General Plan consisting of land uses resulting in the lowest density of all the alternatives (except the existing General Plan) studied during the preparation of the General Plan Update. This alternative would result in the least amount of new development, when considered against the other action alternatives.
5.3 ALTERNATIVE 1: NO PROJECT/NO DEVELOPMENT
ALTERNATIVE
5.3.1 Description
The No Project/No Development Alternative would prohibit all new development, restricting urban growth to its current extent. This alternative assumes that no additional development and growth within the Planning Area would occur. The population would remain at existing levels of approximately 83,120 residents, and no construction of additional dwelling units or non-residential building area would occur.
No alterations to the City would occur (with the exception of previously -approved development) and all existing facilities including residential development and commercial and industrial uses would generally remain in their current condition. Some minor population growth could occur within the City, to the extent that existing residential units or units that have already been approved could accommodate additional residents. None of the impacts of the proposed General Plan Update would result. Future conditions within the City, except for the impacts of regional growth, would generally be the same as existing conditions, which were described in the environmental setting section for each environmental topic.
5.3.2 Impact Evaluation
No new physical environmental effects would directly result from implementation of this alternative.
Since no ground disturbance or demolition activities would be required, impacts associated with biological resources, cultural resources, hazards, or hydrology would not occur. With no new development, the potential impacts from changes to visual character, land use compatibility issues, or loss of open space would not exist. There would also be less demand on utilities and public services with 5-2 City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR
less additional development in the City. Additionally, with less residents and development, traffic, air quality, and noise impacts, as well as exposure to geological hazards would be reduced. However, implementation of this alternative would not provide adequate housing supply required to meet the City's obligations to provide its fair share of affordable housing. In addition, development under this alternative would not expand mixed use development that would place residential units in proximity to employers and potentially reduce the number of commuters. Further, this alternative would not result in the construction of transportation improvements identified in the proposed project. However, regional traffic growth would still occur, resulting in the potential for traffic impacts that would otherwise be mitigated by the proposed project. Notwithstanding this effect, this alternative would result in less severe impacts than under the proposed project.
5.4 ALTERNATIVE 2: NO PROJECT/NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE
(EXISTING GENERAL PLAN)
5.4.1 Description
Implementation of the No Project/No Action Alternative (Alternative 2) would result in development within the Planning Area that would not meet all of the project objectives established for the proposed General Plan Update for the City of Newport Beach. The No Project/No Action Alternative represents the continuation of the City's existing General Plan to guide future growth and development within the City. For this alternative, impacts would be analyzed under a maximum buildout scenario within the City with the allowed land uses and approved transportation improvements that are designated in the City's existing General Plan. Compared with the proposed project, the overall development potential in the City under this alternative would generally be reduced for some land use types, but would be increased for other types. Table 5-1 compares the buildout of each land use designation between the existing and the proposed General Plan Update for the City. The existing General Plan allows more square feet of office space, industrial and institutional land uses than the proposed General Plan Update, while the proposed General Plan Update would allow more residential, commercial, visitor -serving commercial (hotel/motel), and park land uses than the existing General Plan.
Table 5-1 Citywide Existing and Proposed General
Existing General Plan
Land Use Land Use Designations
Plan Update Designations
Proposed General Plan Update
Land Use Designations
Residential (du)
Multi -Family
30,159
33,992
Single -Family
19,570
20,402
Office (st
14,576, 930
12,867,500
Commercial (st
7,412,132
7,685,030
Visitor Serving (hotel -motel rooms)
5,676
6,549
Industrial (s
2,234,242
1,163,460
Institutional (st)
893,213
853,413
Parks (acres)
178.8
254.7
City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 5-3
5.4.2 Impact Evaluation
■ Aesthetics
The types of impacts associated with degradation of scenic vistas, decreased visual quality, obstruction/alteration of scenic resources within a State- or locally -designated scenic highway, and increased light and glare would be similar to the proposed project under this alternative, as the overall character of General Plan buildout would be similar. Similar to the proposed General Plan Update, this alternative could result in obstruction of views of a scenic vista from places of public interest. Policies outlined in the proposed General Plan Update would still protect scenic vistas in the City, and this impact would be less than significant. Similar to the proposed project, because no scenic highways are currently designated within the City, implementation of this alternative would have no impact on scenic resources within a designated scenic highway. Development under the existing General Plan could result in changes to the visual character of the area, and the existing General Plan does not include the community character and neighborhood protection policies contained in the proposed General Plan Update. Impacts would remain less than significant, but would be greater than the proposed project.
Development under the existing General Plan would be more likely to convert open space areas to urban uses on Banning Ranch. In addition, light and glare would also be expected to increase with full buildout of the existing General Plan, as described for the proposed project. Future projects would be subject to further environmental and design review, and impacts associated with these resources would be addressed, similar with the proposed project. Banning Ranch could be more intensely developed under this alternative, and the impact of nighttime lighting would be significant and unavoidable, similar to the proposed project.
■ Air Quality
The existing General Plan was considered in the preparation of the 2003 Air Quality Management Plan, and implementation of this alternative would be consistent with the Plan. This impact would be less than significant. The total emissions including objectionable odors, generated by construction of individual projects, which may have overlapping schedules, would be expected to remain in exceedance of SCAQMD thresholds. Construction impacts on air quality would remain significant and unavoidable. Although total air emissions may be less than the proposed project, operation of projects under the existing General Plan would be significant and unavoidable. The growth envisioned under this alternative would not generate CO concentrations exceeding national and State ambient air quality standards. Similar to the proposed project, the resulting air quality impacts would be less than significant.
S Biological Resources
The existing General Plan does not include updated objectives and policies for protection of biological resources which reflect the current regulatory environment and sensitivity of habitats within the City.
The existing General Plan permits more development on Banning Ranch than the General Plan Update, 5-4 City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR
with no priority for open space preservation. It does not impose the same restrictions on development and preservation of open space as the proposed General Plan Update.
There is potential for disturbance of sensitive species under the No Project/No Action Alternative, as new developments could destroy or disrupt important habitat. While the existing General Plan allows development in areas where sensitive species might occur, projects would be required to obtain approvals from regulatory agencies on a case -by -case basis in these areas. This would ensure that sufficient mitigation measures are built into each development plan in order to protect sensitive species, if they were present on -site, such that impacts would be less than significant.
Indirect impacts to riparian habitat could result from development of the Banning Ranch subarea as allowed under the existing General Plan. The placement of development next to riparian habitats would disturb wildlife that relies on these areas. Federal regulations do not address protection of riparian vegetation under the Section 404 permitting process, and in light of the fact that the CDFG Section 1600 SAA is a negotiated agreement, some unmitigated loss of riparian resources may occur. Therefore these regulations would not serve to fully protect and manage riparian habitat under future development.
Similarly, the existing General Plan has no policies to reduce impacts on the movement of native, resident, or migratory wildlife species or corridors in Banning Ranch. Therefore, the impacts associated with riparian habitats within the Planning Area would be significant.
The California Wetlands Conservation Policy is intended to ensure that no net loss of wetlands would occur within the State. The existing General Plan does not contain policies providing protection to riparian areas and sensitive communities. However, the City would require strict adherence to the identified State and Federal laws and regulations and the "no net wetland loss" policy currently in place.
This would ensure that impacts on jurisdictional waters and wetlands would be less than significant.
There are a number of policies and ordinances beyond the General Plan that regulate impacts to biological resources. The Orange County Central and Coastal NCCP is the applicable habitat conservation plan for the Planning Area, of which the City is a signatory agency. As development projects are implemented, they would be required to comply with the most stringent adopted policies, and there would be no impact.
■ Cultural Resources
Under this alternative, the overall development potential under the existing General Plan would be reduced for some land use types, but would be increased for other types. While the development potential for land use categories would differ from the proposed project under continuation of the existing General Plan, impacts to cultural resources would be expected to be substantially similar to those of the proposed project. Because development could still occur within the City (regardless of the type), the potential demolition of historic structures could still occur and would remain significant and unavoidable. In addition, ground -disturbing activities associated with buildout of the existing General Plan would continue to occur in order to accommodate new development. Consequently, the potential of encountering fossil -bearing soils and rock formations, destroying below -ground paleontological resources, affecting archaeological sites and sites of cultural significance to Native Americans would still City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 5-5
occur, similar to the proposed project. However, cultural resources are governed on a site -by -site basis and the probability of uncovering new resources or of disturbing known resources is considered in project -level environmental review. Mitigation measures are created for projects that have the potential to disturb cultural resources, to lessen or negate impacts. Therefore, implementation of the No Project/No Action Alternative would result in impacts similar to buildout of the proposed General Plan Update, which are considered to be less than significant. ■ Geology and Soils/Mineral Resources
Geologic hazards associated with seismic ground shaking would be of similar magnitude under the No Project/No Action Alternative, as compared to the proposed project because future development would still occur throughout the City. Other site -specific geological hazards associated with erosion, loss of topsoil, liquefaction, subsidence, landslides, and expansive soils would also be similar for this alternative relative to the proposed project. New developments under both projects would be expected to conform to the most recent California Building Codes, which include strict building specifications to ensure structural and foundational stability. In terms of geologic hazards, this alternative would have a less - than -significant impact.
Under this alternative, existing oil and gas wells would continue to operate in the West Newport and Newport production areas. However, the existing General Plan permits development on Banning Ranch but does not impose the same restrictions on development (as compared to the proposed project).
Unlike the proposed project, the existing General Plan does not have any policies that would ensure that development would not lead to a loss of availability of these resources. Consequently, future development on Banning Ranch under the existing General Plan could lead to a greater impact on mineral resources, as compared to the proposed project. As the General Plan Update policies would not be adopted to ensure that impacts on the availability of mineral resources remain less than significant, future analysis and mitigation would be required at the time specific development is set forth. In the absence of policies protecting access to mineral resources, impacts would be significant. ■ Hazards and Hazardous Materials
This impact would be similar to the proposed project because, while the existing General Plan allows more industrial land uses, the proposed General Plan Update allows more commercial uses; both of these land uses have the potential to introduce hazardous materials into the environment. Consequently, impacts related to the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials, as well as those related to reasonably foreseeable upset conditions would all be substantially similar, and less than significant.
In addition, development under the existing General Plan could expose people to hazardous substances that may be present in soil or groundwater, and demolition activities could expose workers and the environment to asbestos -containing materials and/or lead based paint and residues. However, development under both the proposed project and this alternative would be held to Federal, State and local policies protecting humans and the environment from exposure to hazards. Compliance with the provisions of hazardous material policies in the City's Municipal Code and implementation of the existing regulations related to hazardous materials would reduce this impact to a less -than -significant 5-6 City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR
level. For future developments located on a hazardous materials site, appropriate remediation activities would be required before construction activities would be permitted. Similar to the proposed project, impacts would be less than significant. In addition, impacts associated with the release of hazardous emissions within one -quarter mile of a school may also be similar to the proposed project as some school uses could be located in close proximity to areas that are designated for commercial and industrial uses.
Impacts would remain less than significant. Under the existing General Plan, residential uses would not be permitted in the Airport Area, and as such, impacts related to a potential safety hazard of people residing within two miles of an airport would be less than the proposed project. No impact would result. Similar to the proposed project, implementation of this alternative would not significantly interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. This impact would remain less than significant. Development under the existing General Plan could lead to an increase in residential or commercial development in areas that are susceptible to wildland fires. This impact would be similar to the proposed project, as similar numbers of uses are generally proposed in wildland areas under the existing General Plan. This impact would be less than significant. ■ Hydrology and Water Quality
Implementation of the No Project/No Action Alternative would have similar hydrology and water quality impacts to the proposed project. Although the total amount of development could differ from the proposed project under this alternative, similar alterations to drainage patterns and alterations to hydrological patterns would occur. However, under the existing General Plan, industrial uses would be allowed on Banning Ranch whereas no industrial uses are proposed for this subarea under the proposed General Plan Update. Thus, the discharge of pollutants could be greater than under the proposed General Plan Update. Similar to the proposed project, runoff would be subject to NPDES permit standards and provisions stipulated in the DAMP. If necessary, treatment would be employed to remove excess pollutants from runoff during the construction and operational phases of development. General Plan policies that offer additional protection from water quality impairment (such as protection of sensitive areas on Banning Ranch) would not be adopted, although runoff would be expected to be treated to the maximum extent practicable. In terms of water quality, this alternative would have a less - than -significant impact, similar to the proposed project. As the City does not include any significant recharge areas, depletion of groundwater and percolation of pollutants into groundwater aquifers would be less than significant, similar to the proposed project. This alternative would increase the impervious surface groundcover over existing conditions, and increase the quantity of runoff discharged into the City storm drain system, similar to the proposed project. General Plan policies adopted to minimize total site runoff would not be implemented. Projects would be subject to additional review in order to ensure that they do not exceed the capacity of the storm drain system. It is therefore expected that the net effect would be similar, and individual projects would not exceed the capacity of the storm drain system. These impacts would be less than significant, similar to the proposed project. Although fewer residences would be constructed under the existing General Plan, similar numbers of homes could be developed in low-lying areas that could be exposed to flooding in the event of a 100-year flood. Structures constructed in the floodplain would be required to adhere to floodproofing requirements contained in the City Municipal Code. This would ensure that impacts from flooding under this alternative would be less than significant, and impacts would be similar to the proposed project. This alternative would have less - City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 5-7
than -significant impacts resulting from exposure to flooding as a result of a levee or dam, or effects of seiche, tsunami, or mudflow, similar to the proposed project. ■ Land Use and Planning
The existing pattern of land uses would be retained under the General Plan. The improvements from aggregating similar uses in proximity to each other, particularly in West Newport Mesa would also not occur. While significant impacts would not result, this benefit of the project would not occur. Land use changes in the Airport Area would not occur under this alternative, and it would remain developed by commercial and light industrial uses. The preservation of existing patterns of use would not result in land use conflicts. Further, no land use development would occur that would physically divide an established community, and no conflicts with adopted plans and policies would occur. Impacts, would be less than the proposed General Plan Update, and would be less than significant.
Continued use of the existing General Plan under the No Project/No Action Alternative would be consistent with existing land use policies with the exception of the Local Coastal Plan (LCP). The existing General Plan is the umbrella document guiding most local land use policies; local land use plans and regulations were built using the General Plan as a framework. However the LCP, a California Coastal Commission mandated document, was shaped under State rather than local regulations, and as such, does not follow the same set of objectives as the General Plan. The most recent LCP incorporates new State laws and agency precedents governing coastal resources and is not consistent with the General Plan. For example, the existing General Plan allows a greater amount of industrial uses throughout the City, which the LCP no longer allows in certain areas. Industrial developers trying to obtain land use permits would not be allowed to build in areas where the existing General Plan allows industrial uses but where the LCP does not. The existing General Plan is constrained by the development restrictions laid out in the LCP. Although existing General Plan land use policies may permit certain uses, all new development occurring in the City under the existing General Plan would be also required to meet LCP standards. Although the LCP and the existing General Plan have areas of incompatibility, development under this alternative would be required to be consistent with all applicable policies. No development allowed under the existing General Plan but prohibited under the LCP would occur. In terms of implementation, therefore, impacts from policy inconsistencies are considered to be less than significant. However, implementation of this alternative would result in a decrease in certain types of development within the City when compared with the proposed project because of the incompatibility between the existing General Plan and the more recently revised LCP. ■ Noise
Under the No Project/No Action Alternative, continuation of the existing General Plan would not expose sensitive receptors in proximity to the John Wayne Airport to excessive noise levels because the land use pattern in the general vicinity would not change from current conditions. Consequently, the noise impacts to land uses in the vicinity of the airport would be less than the proposed project, and would remain less than significant. Similar to the proposed General Plan Update, construction activities under the No Project/No Action Alternative would be subject to the City's Municipal Code 5-8 City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR
standards, and unreasonably loud construction noise would be prohibited during specified hours. This impact would be less than significant, similar to the proposed project. Future development under the existing General Plan could expose persons to vibration levels generated during construction activities that would exceed the standards adopted by the City. There are no mitigation measures available that would ensure that the threshold would not be exceeded in all cases. Consequently, this would be a significant and unavoidable impact, similar to the proposed project. Future development under the No Project/No Action Alternative could generate or expose persons to noise levels in excess of City standards. Although developments would be required to comply with existing noise standards, noise effects on exiting noise -sensitive uses could remain. Consequently, this impact would be similar to the proposed project, and would be significant and unavoidable. Similar to the proposed General Plan Update, the No Project/No Action Alternative would result in substantial permanent increases in traffic - related ambient noise levels. Development would still increase, which would result in additional motor vehicles traveling throughout the City and other sources of ambient noise. Although the development pattern throughout the City would be different under the existing General Plan, it is anticipated that the increased traffic on local roads would still result in a significant and unavoidable impact, similar to the proposed project.
■ Population and Housing
Full buildout of the existing General Plan would allow an increase of approximately 9,550 additional residential units over 2002 conditions. At buildout, the City would have approximately 49,729 units.
According to the Department of Finance, the 2002 population was approximately 72,622 residents.
Using the City's existing persons per household (pph) rate of 2.19, the net increase of 9,550 residential units would result in a population increase of approximately 20,915 residents. Consequently, this increase would result in a total population of 93,537 persons at buildout of the existing General Plan. This would represent a 29 percent increase in population over 2002 conditions, which is considered to be less substantial than that projected under the proposed project (43 percent increase). Although the housing increases anticipated under the existing General Plan at buildout would exceed SCAG 2030 projections by approximately 15 percent, the existing General Plan would not exceed SCAG 2030 population projections. Growth under the existing General Plan was already accounted for in SCAG's projections, and the anticipated future growth would result in less than under the proposed General Plan Update.
Consequently, because buildout of the existing General Plan would not exceed SCAG 2030 population projections, it is assumed that this impact would be less than the proposed project, and would constitute a less -than -significant impact. Similar to the proposed General Plan Update, the existing General Plan also does not propose uses that would displace substantial numbers of existing housing or people, and there would be no impact.
■ Public Services
Under the No Project/No Action Alternative, development would occur throughout the City as permitted by the existing General Plan. Under this alternative, impacts associated with fire protection, law enforcement, and library services could be slightly less compared to the proposed project, since there would be less residential development at full buildout. Demands for fire, police, and library services City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 5-9
would be updated as part of the City's annual budget process. Law enforcement needs can be measured by population increase, and the potential population increase of 20,915 under the existing General Plan would require 36 additional officers and 21 additional non -sworn employees to maintain the existing ratio of 1.7 officers per 1,000 population. As with the proposed project, the existing police facility cannot accommodate this increase in staff, and any future project to expand police facilities would require environmental review. Therefore, this alternative is considered to have a less -than -significant impact in terms of the provision of fire, police and library services, and its impacts would be similar to implementation of the proposed project.
Additional students would be generated that would impact school facilities within the Planning Area.
There would be 832 fewer single family residences and 3,833 fewer multifamily residences, resulting in fewer new students when compared to the General Plan Update. In addition, as no residential units would be developed in the Airport Area under the existing General Plan, there would be no impact to the SAUSD. Impacts to school services would be less than significant, and since fewer students would be generated, impacts would be less than under the proposed project. ■ Recreation and Open Space
The overall amount of land designated for parks and active open space under the No Project/No Action Alternative would be less than the proposed project. The existing General Plan includes 178.8 acres of parks, while the proposed General Plan Update would include 254.7 acres, or more, if the acquisition of the Banning Ranch property for public open space was determined to be feasible. There would be less population increase under this alternative when compared to the proposed project, such that increased demands for parkland would be less. In particular, as no new residential uses would be developed in the Airport Area, there would be no demands for parkland in that area. However, population would continue to rise, placing increased pressure on open spaces within the City, which could potentially cause degradation of those recreational areas. The increase in need for park land (at the existing standard of five acres per 1,000 population) would be 105 acres versus 156 additional acres under the proposed General Plan Update. This impact would be less than significant under the proposed project, and, as even less parkland would be developed under this alternative, increased usage of parks and their subsequent degradation would also be greater than the proposed project. It is anticipated, however, that this impact would be less than significant. This impact would be greater than the proposed project.
Some physical development in parks or recreational facilities could occur, for instance in Banning Ranch or Sunset Ridge. The provision of these facilities would not result in substantial adverse physical impacts.
This impact would be similar to the proposed project, and would remain less than significant. ■ Transportation and Circulation
Growth under the existing General Plan would increase vehicle trips citywide by 26.9 percent over 2002 existing conditions (20.1 percent over 2005 existing conditions), compared to an increase of 30.9 percent in vehicle trips over 2002 existing conditions (23.9 percent over 2005 existing conditions) with implementation of the proposed project. In general, daily traffic volumes on most roadways in the Planning Area would be approximately 1,000 fewer vehicles per day under the existing General Plan than 5-10 City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR
under the proposed project. However, under the existing General Plan, more intersections would experience an unacceptable level of service than under the proposed project. Specifically, 18 intersections (13.16 percent of study intersections) would experience LOS E or F under the existing General Plan, while under the proposed project, five intersections (8.33 percent of study intersections) would experience LOS E or F. Excluding regional growth, only three intersections would experience LOS E or F under the proposed project. The existing General Plan does not contain a clear policy that the City's intersection LOS standard is D, but refers to that standard as a "goal" and describes circumstances when the goal may not be met. The proposed General Plan Update includes a more specific policy on intersection LOS, stating clearly that the City's standard is LOS D, but for a limited number of specifically -identified "exception intersections". Because the existing General Plan would adversely affect more intersections than the proposed project, this impact would be greater than the proposed project, and would be significant.
Under this Alternative, increases in deficient freeway segments and ramps would be less than under the proposed project. The volumes on the SR-73 would still increase to the extent that all the studied segments would be failing upon implementation of this alternative. Even with the improvements identified by the County, several segments would continue to operate at a deficient level of service. Since development under this alternative is slightly lower than the proposed project, this impact would be less, but would remain significant and unavoidable. Fewer residential uses would occur under this Alternative, particularly in the Airport Area, where no residential development and fewer trips would occur. As a result, operations at JWA would not be significantly affected by implementation of this Alternative. Impacts related to air traffic would be less than under the proposed project, and would remain less than significant. Although development under this impact would be less than that of the proposed project, impacts related to the adequacy of emergency access would be similar, as all development is required to adhere to specific provisions in the City's Municipal Code. This impact would, therefore, remain less than significant. Since development under this Alternative would be less than the proposed project, impacts to parking would be less than the proposed project, and would remain less than significant. Impacts associated with consistency of applicable regional transportation plans would be similar for this alternative when compared to the project, and less -than -significant impacts would occur.
Utilities and Service Systems
Implementation of the No Project/No Action Alternative would result in more office space, and industrial and institutional land uses and less residential, commercial, visitor -serving commercial (hotel/motel), and park land uses than the proposed project in the City. Impacts related to the construction of infrastructure associated with water, sewer, storm drains, and power lines would be similar compared to the proposed General Plan Update. If new or expanded infrastructure is required, the infrastructure project would undergo the City's environmental review process, such that significant environmental effects from infrastructure improvements would be mitigated. Construction impacts related to infrastructure would be less than significant, similar to the proposed project.
Increases in population and additional high -water -use land uses under this alternative would put increased pressure on the water supply. However, the water service providers have indicated that City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 5-11
adequate water service would be provided to accommodate the increased population. This would result in a less -than -significant impact, similar to the proposed project.
As development occurs under the existing General Plan, increases in electricity, natural gas, wastewater flows, solid waste facilities and electricity demand would be expected to occur. Demands associated with these utilities are associated with population and total development. The population increase resulting from residential development would be less than the proposed project; however, and more square footage of commercial, office, and retail development would occur under this alternative. Thus, on balance, a similar level of demand would occur on utilities. Increased demands would be met by available infrastructure, similar to the proposed project. Current service projections for local utilities agencies are sufficient to cover new demand for services, and therefore, a less -than -significant impact would result, similar to the proposed project.
5.5 ALTERNATIVE 3: GPAC RECOMMENDATIONS
5.5.1 Description
Implementation of the GPAC Recommendations Alternative (Alternative 3) would result in development within the Planning Area that would generally meet the project objectives established for the proposed General Plan Update for the City of Newport Beach. This alternative would result in less development than the proposed General Plan Update. As shown in Table 5-2 below, there would be less development in the Airport Area and Banning Ranch subareas, including approximately 1,936 fewer residential units. In addition, mixed use along Old Newport Boulevard and Balboa Peninsula would be less than under the proposed General Plan Update, and there would also be a somewhat different mix of uses in Balboa Village. Outside the subareas, potential residential density would be reduced in Lido Isle, Balboa Island and West Newport. As compared to the proposed project, the mix of development permitted under this alternative would result in a reduction in average daily traffic (ADT) by approximately four percent. This alternative would still increase development citywide, when compared to existing conditions. Policies within the proposed General Plan Update would still be adopted, except those related to residential development in the Airport Area.
The amount of development that would be allowed citywide relative to allowable development under the proposed General Plan Update is specified according to land use type in Table 5-2, below.
5.5.2 Impact Evaluation
f Aesthetics
The types of impacts associated with degradation of scenic vistas, decreased visual quality, obstruction/alteration of scenic resources within a State- or locally -designated scenic highway, and increased light and glare would be similar to the proposed project under this alternative, as the overall character of General Plan buildout would be similar. This alternative could result in obstruction of views 5-12 City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR
Newport
West
Center/
West
Old
Newport
Mariners'
Fashion
Airport
Banning
Balboa
Balboa
Newport
Newport
Mesa
Mile
Island
Area
Ranch
Village
Peninsula
Highway
Boulevard
Office (so
Proposed GPU 1,025,865 294,725 3,675,670 4,911,197 12,000 80,656 185,696 Alternative 3 1,025,865 294,725 3,675,670 4,753,613 98,000 167,310 Residential NO
Prop
MFR
3,542
625
845
4,300
687
512
823
361
244
GPU
SFR(A)
98 837
688
1,196
291
579
MFR
3,492
625
845
3,300
439
400
643
361
153
Alt 3
SFR(A)
98 837
436
1,188
291
584
Commercial (sf)
Proposed GPU
50,910
853,208
11986,980
880,620
75,000
192,503
745,320
57,935
92,848
Alternative 3
50,910
853,208
1,986,980
768,395
35,000
203,624
809,154
57,935
68,370
Visitor Serving (hotel -motel rooms)
Proposed GPU
204
1,175
1,213
75 265
240
53 Alternative 3
204
1,175
984
75 265
328
53 Industrial (sf)
Proposed 837,270
Alternative 3 837,270 551,930
Institutional (sf)
Proposed GPU 1,235,797 105,260 105,000 96,996 96,710
Alternative 3 1,235,797 105,260 105,000 13,470 16,650
Parks (acres)
Proposed GPU
Alternative 3
of a scenic vista from places of public interest, although this would occur in isolated instances and to a more limited extent than the proposed project. Policies outlined in the proposed General Plan Update would still protect scenic vistas in the City, and this impact would be less than significant. Similar to the proposed project, because no scenic highways are currently designated within the City, implementation of this alternative would have no impact on scenic resources within a designated scenic highway. Development intensification could result in changes to the visual character of the area, but the change would be less pronounced in the Airport Area and Banning Ranch, where no or fewer residential units would be built. While there would be fewer mixed use developments, General Plan policies would remain that would minimize impacts among incompatible uses in new development. Projects would be required to comply with design criteria that would ensure new development is consistent with the visual character of the area. Impacts to changes in the visual character would be less than significant, and City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 5-13
would be substantially similar to the proposed project. This alternative could also convert open space areas to urban uses on Banning Ranch if it is not acquired for open space, although there would be less development in the subarea. In addition, light and glare would also be expected to increase with full buildout of this alternative. Future projects would be subject to further environmental and design review, and impacts associated with these resources would be addressed, similar with the proposed project.
Banning Ranch could be developed under this alternative, and the impact of nighttime lighting would be significant and unavoidable, similar to the proposed project. ■ Air Quality
Implementation of the GPAC Recommendations Alternative would result in less overall development than the proposed project in the City. However, future population levels would continue to exceed SCAG projections, such that the General Plan as a whole would not be consistent with the 2003 AQMP.
Similar to the proposed project, this impact would be considered significant and unavoidable. The total amount of emissions generated, including criteria pollutants and objectionable odors, under this alternative would be less than that of the proposed project, as this alternative would result in a lesser amount of construction. However, the total emissions generated by construction of individual projects, which may have overlapping schedules would be expected to remain in exceedance of SCAQMD thresholds. Construction impacts on air quality would remain significant and unavoidable, although they would be less in magnitude than compared to the proposed project. Although total air emissions may be less than the proposed project, operation of projects under this alternative would remain significant and unavoidable. The growth envisioned under this alternative would not generate CO concentrations exceeding national and State ambient air quality standards if mitigation measures were implemented, and relative to the proposed project, this impact would be of a lesser magnitude due to the slight reduction in development envisioned under this alternative. The resulting air quality impacts would be less than significantwith mitigation, and would be less than the proposed project. ■ Biological Resources
The types of impacts to biological resources from the GPAC Recommendations Alternative would be similar to the proposed project. The reduction in residential development in urbanized areas would not have a substantial effect on the magnitude of impacts to biological resources citywide. The reduction in potential development on Banning Ranch would reduce biological impacts in this area.
The effects of implementation of the proposed General Plan Update under this alternative would be minimized through General Plan policies and existing regulations governing protection of biological resources. Project effects, including disturbance to sensitive species, impacts on sensitive plant and wildlife species, direct and indirect impacts to riparian habitat, loss of wetlands, impacts to wildlife movement, and compliance with other policies and ordinances protecting would be less than significant. As less development would occur in the sensitive areas on and adjacent to Banning Ranch, impacts would be less than under the proposed project.
5-14 City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR
■ Cultural Resources
Under the GPAC Recommendations Alternative, construction activities would be reduced within the Planning Area. While the development potential for land use categories would differ from the proposed project under the GPAC recommendations, impacts to cultural resources would be expected to be substantially similar to those of the proposed project. Because development could still occur within the City (regardless of the type or extent), the potential demolition of historic structures could still occur and would remain significant and unavoidable. Under this alternative, less disturbance of land that could potentially contain cultural resources, on or below the ground surface, would occur. Since the overall amount of development would be reduced, implementation of this alternative would have less potential than the proposed project to disturb archaeological sites or sites of cultural significance to Native Americans. The reduced intensity of development uses would also result in less ground -disturbing activities associated with buildout of this Alternative for potential fossil -bearing soils and rock formations. Thus, with the reduction in overall development, the potential impacts to paleontological resources would be less in magnitude than the proposed project. Therefore, impacts to archaeological and paleontological resources would also be less than significant. ■ Geology and Soils
Slightly less development is proposed under the GPAC Recommendations Alternative, and thus, geologic hazards associated with seismic ground shaking would be of a lesser magnitude than the proposed project because less overall development would lessen the risk of exposure of structures to damage during ground shaking. Site -specific hazards associated with erosion, loss of topsoil, liquefaction, subsidence, landslides, and expansive soils would also be of a slightly lesser magnitude than the proposed project because less development would occur in the City under this alternative. As all future development under the GPAC Recommendations Alternative would be required to adhere to the most recent California Building Codes, which include strict building specifications to ensure structural and foundational stability, this alternative would have a less -than -significant impact.
Under this alternative, policies associated with consolidating oil and gas activities on Banning Ranch would still apply, as would policies that would ensure that a loss of availability would not occur by encouraging consolidation of oil operations. Consequently, future development on Banning Ranch under this alternative would have a similar impact on mineral resources, as compared to the proposed project.
Impacts on the availability of mineral resources would be less than significant. ■ Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Impacts associated with hazards and hazardous materials would be substantially similar to the proposed project. This alternative would result in more industrial and less commercial uses compared to the proposed General Plan Update. Consequently, impacts related to the routine transport, use, or disposal, as well as those related to reasonably foreseeable upset conditions would all be slightly greater than the proposed project, due to the more frequent use of hazardous substances. Impacts would, however, remain less than significant. Although slightly less in magnitude than the proposed project (due to less City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 5-15
development), development under the GPAC Recommendations Alternative could expose people to hazardous substances that may be present in soil or groundwater, and demolition activities could expose workers and the environment to asbestos -containing materials and/or lead based paint and residues.
Compliance with existing Federal, State, and local regulations, along with compliance with proposed General Plan Update policies, would reduce impacts to a less -than -significant level. For future developments located on a hazardous materials site, appropriate remediation activities would be required before construction activities would be permitted. Similar to the proposed project, impacts would be less Man significant. In addition, impacts associated with the release of hazardous emissions within one - quarter mile of a school would also be similar to the proposed project. Impacts would remain less than significant. Fewer residential uses would be permitted in the Airport Area, and as such, impacts related to a potential safety hazard of people residing within two miles of an airport would be slightly reduced.
However, compliance with existing regulations and proposed General Plan Update policies would minimize impacts associated with operation of the JWA on surrounding land uses. Nonetheless, this impact would remain significant and unavoidable. Implementation of this alternative would not significantly interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan, and this would occur to a slightly lesser extent than the proposed project because there would be less overall development, which would result in less congested traffic conditions in the Planning Area. This impact would remain less than significant. Similar to the proposed project, implementation of the GPAC Recommendations Alternative could lead to an increase in development in areas that are susceptible to wildland fires. However, General Plan policies would be implemented, and similar to the proposed project, impacts would be less than significant.
■ Hydrology and Water Quality
Implementation of the GPAC Recommendations Alternative would not result in significant impacts to hydrology or water quality. Less development on Banning Ranch would occur, thereby reducing hydrology and water quality impacts to this subarea. Although the total amount of development could differ from the proposed project under this alternative, similar alterations to drainage patterns, discharge of pollutants and alterations to hydrological patterns would occur. Runoff would be subject to NPDES permit standards and provisions stipulated in the DAMP. If necessary, treatment would be employed to remove excess pollutants from runoff during the construction and operational phases of development.
General Plan policies would offer additional protection from water quality impairment. In terms of water quality, this alternative would have a less -than -significant impact, and, due to reduction of potential development on Banning Ranch, impacts would be less than the proposed project. As the City does not include any significant recharge areas, depletion of groundwater and percolation of pollutants into groundwater aquifers would be less -than -significant, similar to the proposed project. This alternative would increase the impervious surface groundcover over existing conditions, and increase the quantity of runoff discharged into the City storm drain system, although this would occur to a lesser extent than the proposed project. General Plan policies adopted to minimize total site runoff would be implemented.
These impacts would be less than significant, and would be less than the proposed project. Fewer residences would be constructed under this alternative and fewer numbers of homes could be developed in low-lying areas that could be exposed to flooding in the event of a 100-year flood. Structures constructed in the floodplain would be required to adhere to floodproofing requirements contained in 5-16 City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR
the City Municipal Code. This would ensure that impacts from flooding under this alternative would be less than significant, and impacts would be similar to the proposed project. This alternative would have less than significant impacts resulting from exposure to flooding as a result of a levee or dam, or effects of seiche, tsunami, or mudflow, similar to the proposed project. ■ Land Use
Land Use changes would occur similar to the General Plan Update, although the allowed intensity of development would vary in several areas. In the Airport Area, 1,000 fewer residential units could be built.
The overall use and land use character of this subarea would still change, although the magnitude of land use changes would be less. Development within the 65 dBA CNEL contour could still occur if City Council makes the necessary findings to override this restriction. While fewer residential units could be developed in this area, significant and unavoidable land use conflicts could still occur, similar to the proposed project. These changes would reduce the potential for conflicts of use to occur, when compared to the proposed project. Policies that establish distinct districts and neighborhood would be implemented as outlined in the General Plan Update. This alternative would not result in land use changes that would physically divide an established community. Further, conflicts could still occur with the AELUP. Therefore, impacts on land use would be significant and unavoidable, and would be similar to the proposed project.
■ Noise
Under the GPAC Recommendations Alternative, future development would expose sensitive receptors in proximity to the John Wayne Airport to excessive noise levels because residential uses could still be developed in the area. Consequently, the noise impacts to land uses in the vicinity of the airport would be similar to the proposed project, and would remain significant and unavoidable. Similar to the proposed General Plan Update, construction activities under the GPAC Recommendations Alternative would be subject to the City's Municipal Code standards, and unreasonably loud construction noise would be controlled. This impact would be less than significant, similar to the proposed project. Future development under this alternative could expose persons to vibration levels generated during construction activities. There are no mitigation measures available that would ensure that the threshold would not be exceeded in all cases. Consequently, this would be a significant and unavoidable impact, similar to the proposed project. Future development under the GPAC Recommendations Alternative could generate or expose persons to noise levels in excess of City standards. Although developments would be required to comply with existing noise standards, noise effects on exiting noise -sensitive uses could remain. Consequently, this impact would be similar to the proposed project, and would be significant and unavoidable. Similar to the proposed General Plan Update, the GPAC Recommendations Alternative would result in substantial permanent increases in traffic -related ambient noise levels. Development would increase, although slightly less than the proposed project, which would result in additional motor vehicles traveling throughout the City and other sources of ambient noise.
Because slightly less development would occur under this alternative, it is anticipated that the increased traffic on local roads would also be slightly less than the proposed project, but would still result in a significant and unavoidable impact.
City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 5-17
■ Population and Housing
Full buildout of the GPAC Recommendations Alternative would result in similar impacts to population and housing. Reduced development potential would include approximately 1,936 fewer residential units, among other changes. The reduction in residential uses would also reduce the anticipated population by approximately 4,240 residents, for a total increase of approximately 26,891 persons and a buildout population of approximately 99,513 persons. While the estimated growth in population and housing is slightly less when compared to the proposed General Plan Update, the anticipated growth under the GPAC Recommendations Alternative would still represent a 37 percent increase in population over 2002 conditions, which is considered to be substantial. Similarly, future growth under this Alternative would continue to substantially exceed SCAG projections for population and housing. Therefore, while this impact would be less than the proposed project, this Alternative would still result in a significant impact to population and housing increases. Similar to the proposed General Plan Update, the GPAC Recommendations Alternative also does not propose uses that would displace substantial numbers of existing housing or people, and there would be no impact. ■ Public Services
Under the GPAC Recommendations Alternative, somewhat less development would occur throughout the City. Under this alternative, impacts associated with fire protection, law enforcement, and library services could be slightly less compared to the proposed project, since there would be less residential development at full buildout. Demands for fire, police, and library services would be updated as part of the City's annual budget process. Law enforcement needs can be measured by population increase, and the potential population increase of approximately 26,891 residents under the GPAC Recommendations Alternative would require 46 additional officers and 28 additional non -sworn employees to maintain the existing ratios of 1.7 officers per 1,000 residents. As with the proposed project, the existing police facility cannot accommodate this increase in staff, and any future project to expand police facilities would require environmental review. Therefore, this alternative is considered to have a less -than -significant impact in terms of the provision of fire, police, and library services and its impacts would be similar to implementation of the proposed project.
Additional students would be generated that would impact school facilities within the Planning Area.
There would be approximately 1,936 fewer residential units, resulting in fewer new students when compared to the proposed General Plan Update. Impacts to school services would be less than significant, and since fewer students would be generated, impacts would be less than under the proposed project. In addition, impacts related to development of SAUSD facilities would be similar to proposed project, but slightly less under this Alternative due to the development of fewer residential units in Airport Area.
■ Recreation
The overall amount of land designated for parks and active open space under the GPAC Recommendations Alternative would be the same as under the proposed project. As the population rises, 5-18 City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR
increased pressure would be placed on parkland and open space areas within the City, which could potentially cause degradation of those recreational areas. Because this alternative would result in a slightly lower population increase than the proposed project, the increase in need for park land (at the existing standard of five acres per 1,000 population) would be 134 acres versus 156 additional acres under the proposed General Plan Update. Therefore, this impact would be slightly less in magnitude comparatively.
As a result, this Alternative could result in more designated open space than under the proposed project.
The increased usage of existing parks and their subsequent degradation would remain less than significant. Similar to the proposed project, this alternative would provide additional parkland and open space, but the provision of these facilities would not result in substantial adverse physical impacts. This impact would be similar to the proposed project, and would remain less than significant.
L. Transportation and Circulation
Implementation of the GPAC Recommendations Alternative would result in a reduction in development potential. In turn, a reduction in traffic volume would occur, which would result in improved traffic conditions in the Planning Area when compared to the proposed project. Specifically, the GPAC Recommendations Alternative would allow a mix of development that would result in four percent fewer trips citywide than would occur under the proposed project. The policy regarding the City's intersection level of service standard included in the General Plan Update would be adopted, and the traffic improvement measures that would be implemented under the proposed project would also be implemented under this Alterative. As such, impacts related to this alternative could also be reduced, and traffic impacts to intersections would be less than the proposed project. Impacts would be less than significant.
Under this alternative, impacts to substantial increases in deficient freeway segments and ramps would be less than under the proposed project as development is slightly lower. The volumes on the SR-73 would still increase to the extent that all the studied segments would be failing upon implementation of this alternative. Even with the improvements identified by the County, several of the freeway segments and ramps would continue to operate at a deficient level of service. Since development under this alternative is slightly lower than the proposed project, this impact would be less, but would remain significant and unavoidable. Fewer residential uses would occur under this Alternative, including in the Airport Area, where less residential development and fewer trips would occur. As such, operations at JWA would not be significantly affected by implementation of this Alternative. Impacts related to air traffic would be less than under the proposed project, and would remain less than significant. Although development under this impact would be less than that of the proposed project, impacts related to the adequacy of emergency access would be similar as all development is required to adhere to specific provisions in the City's Municipal Code. This impact would, therefore, remain less than significant. Since development under this Alternative would be less than the proposed project, impacts to parking would be less than the proposed project demands on parking in the Planning Area would be less. However, new development is required to adhere to the City's Municipal Code with regard to parking requirements. As such, impacts under this Alternative would be similar t that of the proposed project, but would remain less than significant. Impacts associated with consistency of applicable regional transportation plans would be City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 5-19
similar for this alternative when compared to the project, and less -than -significant impacts would occur.
■ Utilities and Service Systems
Implementation of the GPAC Recommendations Alternative would reduce the number of new residential units. Construction of infrastructure associated with water, sewer, storm drains, and power lines could still be necessary. These impacts would be similar to those described for the proposed General Plan Update. If new or expanded infrastructure is required, the infrastructure project would undergo the City's environmental review process, such that significant environmental effects from infrastructure improvements would be mitigated. Construction impacts related to infrastructure would be less than significant, similar to the proposed project.
While population would be less than under the proposed project, it would still be greater than that which is currently projected for the City. Implementation of the proposed General Plan Update policies would reduce future water demand; this alternative would still require new or expanded water entitlements and would not be in compliance with the Urban Water Management Plan. As such, increases in population under this alternative would put increased pressure on the water supply. Water -service providers have indicated that adequate water supply would be available to accommodate the increased population. This would result in a less -than -significant impact, although this would be less in magnitude than the proposed project.
As development occurs under this alternative, increases in electricity, natural gas, wastewater flows, solid waste facilities, and electricity demand would be expected to occur. As demands associated with these utilities are linked to City population, and the population increase would be less than the proposed project under this alternative, somewhat less demand would occur on these utilities. Increased demands would be met by available infrastructure, similar to the proposed project. Current service projections for all local utilities agencies are sufficient to cover new demand for services, and therefore, a less than significant impact would result, and these impacts would be less in magnitude when compared to the proposed project.
5.6 ALTERNATIVE 4: SUBAREA ONLY MINIMUM
5.6.1 Description
Under the Subarea Only Minimum Alternative, new development would be less than the proposed General Plan Update. In addition, the amount of new development would be reduced when compared to development allowed under the existing General Plan and under Alternative 3, the GPAC Recommendations. Table 5-3 illustrates the land use under this Alternative compared to the proposed General Plan Update. Specifically, under this alternative, residential land uses would be less than the proposed project in the Airport Area, Balboa Peninsula, West Newport Mesa, Balboa Village, and Old Newport Boulevard. No residential development would occur in Banning Ranch. Development potential outside of the subareas would remain the same as under the proposed General Plan Update. Office uses 5-20 City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR
would be less in West Newport Mesa, Newport Center/Fashion Island, and Old Newport Boulevard (where no office uses are proposed). Commercial uses would be less in Newport Center/Fashion Island, Airport Area, Balboa Peninsula, West Newport Highway, Old Newport Boulevard, and Banning Ranch (where no commercial uses are proposed). Industrial uses are proposed in West Newport Mesa, but at a level significantly below the proposed project, while industrial uses in the Airport Area would be greater than under the proposed project. Finally, institutional uses would be the same or less under this alternative for all areas where such uses are proposed under the proposed project. The mix of development under this alternative would result in a trip generation that is approximately eight percent less than under the proposed General Plan Update. Policies within the proposed General Plan Update would still be adopted.
Newport
West
Center/
West
Old
Newport
Mariners'
Fashion
Airport
Banning
Balboa
Balboa
Newport
Newport
Mesa
Mile
Island
Area
Ranch
Village
Peninsula
Highway
Boulevard
Office (sQ
Proposed GPU 1,025,865 294,725 3,675,670 4,911,197 12,000 80,656 185,696 Alternative 4 850,950 363,557 3,635,570 6,001,692 60,000 103,185 Residential (du)
Prop
MFR
3,542
625
845
4,300
687
512
823
361
244
GPU
SFR(A)
98 837
688
1,196
291
579
MFR
3,172
817
1,226
1,950
14 242
638
273
250
Alt
SFR(A)
98 837
419
1,190
254
462
659
Commercial (sfl
Proposed GPU
50,910
853,208
1,986,980
880,620
75,000
192,503
745,320
57,935
92,848
Alternative 4
72,170
916,110
1,936,820
854,167
217,340
336,714
18,105
66,380
Visitor Serving (hotel -motel rooms)
Proposed GPU
204
1,175
1,213
75 265
240
53 Alternative 4
204
1,036
1,431
34 186
145
53 Industrial (st)
Proposed
837,270
Alternative 4
499,457
606,370
Institutional (st)
Proposed GPU
1,235,797
105,260
105,000
96,996
96,710
Alternative 4
1,235,797
95,360
105,000
10,900
13,470
6,000
Parks (acres)
Proposed GPU
1 30
Alternative 4
0.4 20
City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 5-21
5.6.2 Impact Evaluation
■ Aesthetics
The types of impacts associated with degradation of scenic vistas, decreased visual quality, obstruction/alteration of scenic resources within a state- or locally designated scenic highway, and increased light and glare would be similar to the proposed project under this alternative, as the overall character of General Plan buildout would be similar. This alternative could result in obstruction of views of a scenic vista from places of public interest, although this would occur in isolated instances and to a more limited extent than the proposed project. Policies outlined in the proposed General Plan Update would still protect scenic vistas in the City, and this impact would be less than significant. Similar to the proposed project, because no scenic highways are currently designated within the City, implementation of this alternative would have no impact on scenic resources within a designated scenic highway. Development intensification could result in changes to the visual character of the area, and the change would be less pronounced citywide, as less development than under the proposed project would occur. Banning Ranch, in particular, would not undergo visual changes, as development would be limited to an active park and the remainder of the area would remain as oil operations and open space. Projects would be required to comply with design criteria that would ensure new development is consistent with the visual character of the area. Impacts to changes in the visual character would be less than significant, and would be substantially similar to the proposed project. In addition, light and glare would also be expected to increase with full buildout of the existing General Plan. Future projects would be subject to further environmental and design review, and impacts associated with these resources would be addressed, similar with the proposed project. No residential development would occur on Banning Ranch under this Alternative; however, an active park site could be developed with nighttime lighting, which could impact adjacent land uses. Therefore, although the impact of residential nighttime lighting that would occur under the proposed project would be avoided, the impact of nighttime lighting of an active park could have the same effect. This impact would remain significant and unavoidable. ■ Air Quality
Implementation of the Subarea Minimum Alternative would result in less overall development than the proposed project in the City. However, future population levels would continue to exceed SCAG projections, such that the General Plan as a whole would not be consistent with the 2003 AQMP. Similar to the proposed project, this impact would be considered significant and unavoidable. The total amount of emissions generated under this alternative, including criteria pollutants and objectionable odors, would be less than that of the proposed project, as this alternative would result in a lesser amount of construction. However, the total emissions generated by construction of individual projects, which may have overlapping schedules, would be expected to remain in exceedance of SCAQMD thresholds.
Construction impacts on air quality would remain significant and unavoidable, although they would be less in magnitude than compared to the proposed project. Although total air emissions may be less than the proposed project, operation of projects under this alternative would be significant and unavoidable. The growth envisioned under this alternative would not generate CO concentrations exceeding national and State ambient air quality standards if mitigation measures were implemented, and 5-22 City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR
relative to the proposed project, this impact would be of a lesser magnitude due to the reduction in development envisioned under this alternative. The resulting air quality impacts would be less than significant with mitigation, and would be less than the proposed project. ■ Biological Resources
Impacts to biological resources from the Subarea Minimum Alternative would be similar to, but less than, the proposed project. The elimination of development on the Banning Ranch property would eliminate biological impacts in this area, which includes a large proportion of the biological resources in the Planning Area. The reduction in development in largely urbanized areas would not have a substantial effect on the magnitude of impacts to biological resources.
The effects of implementation of this alternative would be minimized through General Plan policies and existing regulations governing protection of biological resources. Project effects on areas outside of Banning Ranch, including disturbance to sensitive species, impacts on sensitive plant and wildlife species, direct and indirect impacts to riparian habitat, loss of wetlands, impacts to wildlife movement, and compliance with other policies and ordinances protecting biological resources would occur and would be less than significant. As less park development would occur in the sensitive areas on and adjacent to Banning Ranch, impacts would be less than under the proposed project. ■ Cultural Resources
Under the Subarea Minimum Alternative, because less development would occur, construction activities would be reduced within the Planning Area. While the development potential for land use categories would differ from the proposed project under this alternative, impacts to cultural resources would be expected to be substantially similar as those of the proposed project. Because development could still occur within the City (regardless of the type or intensity), the potential demolition of historic structures could still occur and would remain significant and unavoidable. Under this alternative, less disturbance of land that could potentially contain cultural resources, on or below the ground surface, would occur.
Since the overall amount of development would be reduced, implementation of this alternative would have less potential than the proposed project to disturb archaeological sites or sites of cultural significance to Native Americans. The reduced intensity of development would also result in less ground - disturbing activities associated with buildout of this Alternative for potential fossil -bearing soils and rock formations. Thus, with the reduction in overall development, the potential impacts to paleontological resources would be less in magnitude than the proposed project because the exposure of potential fossil - bearing soils and rock formations would be reduced. Therefore, impacts to archaeological and paleontological resources would also be less than significant. ■ Geology and Soils
Less overall development is proposed under the Subarea Minimum Alternative, and thus, geologic hazards associated with seismic ground shaking would be of a lesser magnitude than the proposed project because less overall development would lessen the risk of exposure of structures to damage City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 5-23
during ground shaking. Site -specific hazards associated with erosion, loss of topsoil, liquefaction, subsidence, landslides, and expansive soils would also be of a lesser magnitude than the proposed project because less development would occur in the City under this alternative. As all future development under the Subarea Minimum Alternative would be required to adhere to the most recent California Building Codes, which include strict building specifications to ensure structural and foundational stability, this alternative would have a less -than -significant impact.
Under the Subarea Minimum Alternative, existing oil and gas operations and open space would remain on Banning Ranch. Therefore, the availability of mineral resources would not be impacted, similar to the proposed project. No impactwould occur.
■ Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Impact associated with hazards and hazardous materials would be less than the proposed project because the permitted amount of industrial and commercial uses would be less under this alternative.
Consequently, impacts related to the routine transport, use, or disposal, as well as those related to reasonably foreseeable upset conditions would be less than the proposed project, and impacts would be less than significant. Although less in magnitude than the proposed project (due to less development), development under the Subarea Minimum Alternative could expose people to hazardous substances that may be present in soil or groundwater, and demolition activities could expose workers and the environment to asbestos -containing materials and/or lead -based paint and residues. Compliance with existing Federal, State, and local regulations, along with compliance of proposed General Plan Update policies, would reduce impacts to a less -than -significant level. For future developments located on a hazardous materials site, appropriate remediation activities would be required before construction activities would be permitted. Similar to the proposed project, impacts would be less than significant.
In addition, impacts associated with the release of hazardous emissions within one -quarter mile of a school would also be less than the proposed project. Impacts would remain less than significant. Fewer residential uses would be permitted in the Airport Area, and as such, impacts related to a potential safety hazard of people residing within two miles of an airport would be reduced. However, compliance with existing regulations and proposed General Plan Update policies would minimize impacts associated with operation of the JWA on surrounding land uses. Nonetheless, this impact would remain significant and unavoidable. Implementation of this alternative would not significantly interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan, and this would occur to a lesser extent than the proposed project because the decrease in overall development would result in less congested traffic conditions in the Planning Area. This impact would remain less than significant. Similar to the proposed project, implementation of the Subarea Minimum Alternative could lead to an increase in residential or commercial development in areas that are susceptible to wildland fires. However, General Plan policies would be implemented and impacts would be less than significant, but would be lesser in magnitude than the proposed project.
5-24 City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR
l Hydrology and Water Quality
Implementation of the Subarea Minimum Alternative would not result in significant impacts to hydrology or water quality. The only development on Banning Ranch would be for park uses, which would substantially lessen hydrology and water quality impacts to this subarea. Although the total amount of development could differ from the proposed project under this alternative, similar alterations to drainage patterns, discharge of pollutants and alterations to hydrological patterns would occur. Runoff would be subject to NPDES permit standards and provisions stipulated in the DAMP. If necessary, treatment would be employed to remove excess pollutants from runoff during the construction and operational phases of development. Proposed General Plan Update policies would offer additional protection from water quality impairment. In terms of water quality, this alternative would have a less - than -significant impact, and this impact would be less than the proposed project. As the City does not include any significant recharge areas, depletion of groundwater and percolation of pollutants into groundwater aquifers would be less than significant, similar to the proposed project. This alternative would increase the impervious surface groundcover over existing conditions, and increase the quantity of runoff discharged into the City storm drain system, similar to the proposed project. General Plan policies adopted to minimize total site runoff would be implemented. These impacts would be less than significant, similar to the proposed project. Although fewer residences would be constructed under this alternative, similar numbers of homes could be developed in low-lying areas that could be exposed to flooding in the event of a 100-year flood. Structures constructed in the floodplain would be required to adhere to floodproofing requirements contained in the City Municipal Code. This would ensure that impacts from flooding under this alternative would be less than significant, and impacts would be similar to the proposed project. This alternative would have less —than -significant impacts resulting from exposure to flooding as a result of a levee or dam, or effects of seiche, tsunami, or mudflow, similar to the proposed project.
■ Land Use
Land Use changes would occur throughout the City, although they would differ in magnitude when compared to the proposed project. Development throughout the City would result in fewer land use changes than proposed under the General Plan Update. The overall use and land use character of the Airport Area would still change, although the magnitude of land use changes would be less.
Development within the 65 dBA CNEL contour could still occur if City Council makes the necessary findings to override airport area land use regulations/limitations. While fewer residential units could be developed in this area, significant and unavoidable land use conflicts could still occur, similar to the proposed project. In addition, no land use changes would occur on Banning Ranch. These changes would lessen the potential for conflicts of use to occur, compared to the proposed project. Policies that establish distinct districts and neighborhoods would be implemented as outlined in the General Plan Update. This alternative would not result in land use changes that would physically divide an established community. Further, conflicts could still occur with the AELUP. Therefore, impacts on land use would be significant and unavoidable, similar to the proposed project.
City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 5-25
■ Noise
Under the Subarea Minimum Alternative, future development would expose sensitive receptors in proximity to the John Wayne Airport to excessive noise levels because residential uses could still be developed in the area. Fewer residential units could be developed in the area, although impacts would remain significant and unavoidable. Similar to the proposed General Plan Update, construction activities under Alternative 4 would be subject to the City's Municipal Code standards, and unreasonably loud construction noise would be controlled. This impact would be less than significant, similar to the proposed project. Future development under this alternative could still expose persons to vibration levels generated during construction activities. There are no mitigation measures available that would ensure that the threshold would not be exceeded in all cases. Consequently, this would be a significant and unavoidable impact, similar to the proposed project. Future development under this alternative could generate or expose persons to noise levels in excess of City standards. Although developments would be required to comply with existing noise standards, noise effects on exiting noise -sensitive uses could remain. Consequently, this impact would be similar to the proposed project, and would be significant and unavoidable. Similar to the proposed General Plan Update, this alternative would result in substantial permanent increases in traffic -related ambient noise levels. Development would increase, although less than the proposed project, which would result in additional motor vehicles traveling throughout the City and other sources of ambient noise. Because less development would occur under this alternative, it is anticipated that the increased traffic on local roads would also be less than the proposed project, but would still result in a significant and unavoidable impact. ■ Population and Housing
Full buildout of the Subarea Minimum Alternative would result in similar impacts to population and housing as the proposed project. Reduced development potential would include approximately 3,127 fewer residential units, among other changes. The reduction in residential uses would also reduce the anticipated population by approximately 6,848 residents, for a total increase of approximately 24,283 persons and a buildout population of approximately 96,905 persons over 2002 conditions. While the estimated growth in population and housing is less when compared to the proposed General Plan Update, the anticipated growth under the Subarea Minimum Alternative would still represent a 33 percent increase in population over 2002 conditions, which is considered to be substantial. Similarly, future growth under this Alternative would continue to exceed SCAG projections for population and housing. Therefore, while this impact would be less than the proposed project, this Alternative would still result in a significant impact to population and housing increases. Similar to the proposed General Plan Update, the Subarea Minimum Alternative also does not propose uses that would displace substantial numbers of existing housing or people, and there would be no impact. ■ Public Services
Under the Subarea Minimum Alternative, less development would occur throughout the City. Under this alternative, impacts associated with fire protection, law enforcement, and library services could be slightly less compared to the proposed project, since there would be less residential development at full buildout. 5-26 City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR
Demands for fire, police, and library services would be updated as part of the City's annual budget process.. Law enforcement needs can be measured by population increase, and the potential population increase of 24,283 under the Subarea Minimum Alternative would require 41 additional officers and 25 additional non -sworn employees to maintain the existing ratio of 1.7 officers per 1,000 residents. As with the proposed project, the existing police facility cannot accommodate this increase in staff, and any future project to expand police facilities would require environmental review. Therefore, this alternative is considered to have a less -than -significant impact in terms of the provision of fire, police and library services and its impacts would be similar to implementation of the proposed project.
Additional students would be generated that would impact school facilities within the Planning Area.
There would be fewer new residences, resulting in fewer new students when compared to the General Plan Update. Impacts to school services would be less than significant, and since fewer students would be generated, impacts would be less than under the proposed project. In addition, impacts related to development of SAUSD facilities would be less than the proposed project due to the development of fewer residential units in Airport Area.
■ Recreation and Open Space
The overall amount of land designated for parks and active open space under the Subarea Minimum Alternative would be the same as or more than under the proposed project because Banning Ranch would be kept as open space. As described for the proposed project, as the population rises, increased pressure would be placed on parkland and open space areas within the City, which could potentially cause degradation of those recreational areas. Because this alternative would result in a lower population increase than the proposed project, the increase in need for park land (at the existing standard of 5 acres per 1,000 residents) would be 121 acres versus 156 additional acres under the proposed General Plan Update. As a result, this Alternative could result in greater designated open space areas than under the proposed project. Therefore, this impact would be less in magnitude comparatively. The increased usage of existing parks and their subsequent degradation would remain less than significant. Similar to the proposed project, this alternative would provide additional parkland and open space, but the provision of these facilities would not result in substantial adverse physical impacts. This impact would be similar to the proposed project, and would remain less than significant. ■ Transportation and Circulation
Under the Subarea Only Minimum Alternative, residential, office, and industrial land uses would in most areas be lower than with the proposed project. In turn, a lower increase in traffic volume would occur, which would result in improved traffic conditions in the Planning Area when compared to the proposed project. Specifically, the Subarea Only Minimum Alternative would result in a mix of development that would lead to approximately eight percent fewer trips citywide than would occur under the proposed project. The policy regarding the City's intersection level of service standard included in the General Plan Update would be adopted, and the transportation improvement measures that would be implemented under the proposed project would also be implemented under this Alterative. As such, impacts to intersections that would occur under this alternative would also be reduced, and traffic impacts to City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 5-27
intersections would be less than the proposed project, but would remain less than significant. Under this alternative, increases in deficient freeway segments and ramps would be less than under the proposed project as development would be lower than under the proposed project. The volumes on the SR-73 would still increase to the extent that all the studied segments would be failing upon implementation of this alternative. Even with the improvements identified by the County, several of the freeway segments and ramps would continue to operate at a deficient level of service. Since development under this alternative is lower than the proposed project, this impact would be less, but would remain significant and unavoidable. Less intense land uses would occur under this Alternative, including in the Airport Area, where less residential development and fewer trips would occur. As such, operations at JWA would not be significantly affected by implementation of this Alternative. Impacts related to air traffic would be less than under the proposed project, and would remain less than significant. Although development under this impact would be less intense than that of the proposed project, impacts related to the adequacy of emergency access would be similar as all development is required to adhere to specific provisions in the City's Municipal Code. This impact would, therefore, remain less than significant.
Since development under this Alternative would be less than the proposed project, impacts to parking would be less than the proposed project demands on parking in the Planning Area would be less.
However, new development is required to adhere to the City's Municipal Code with regard to parking requirements. As such, impacts under this Alternative would be similar to that of the proposed project, but would remain less than significant. Impacts associated with consistency of applicable regional transportation plans would be similar for this alternative when compared to the project, and less -than - significant impacts would occur.
■ Utilities and Service Systems
Implementation of the Subarea Only Minimum Alternative would reduce the number of new residential units. Construction of infrastructure associated with water, sewer, storm drains, and power lines could still be necessary. These impacts would be similar to those described for the proposed General Plan Update. If new or expanded infrastructure is required, the infrastructure project would undergo the City's environmental review process, such that significant environmental effects from infrastructure improvements would be mitigated. Construction impacts related to infrastructure would be less than significant, similar to the proposed project.
While population would be less than under the proposed project, it would still be greater than that currently projected for the City. Implementation of the General Plan Update policies would reduce future water demand; this alternative would still require new or expanded water entitlements and would not be in compliance with the Urban Water Management Plan. As such, increases in population under this alternative would put increased pressure on the water supply. Water -service providers have indicated that adequate water supply would be available to accommodate the increased population. This would result in a less -than -significant impact, although this would be less in magnitude than the proposed project.
As development occurs under this alternative, increases in electricity, natural gas, wastewater flows, solid waste facilities and electricity demand would be expected to occur. As demands associated with these utilities are linked to City population, and the population increase would be less than the proposed 5-28 City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR
project under this alternative, somewhat less demand would occur on these utilities. Increased demands would be met by available infrastructure, similar to the proposed project. Current service projections for all local utilities agencies are sufficient to cover new demand for services, and therefore, a less than significant impact would result, and these impacts would be less in magnitude when compared to the proposed project.
5.7 SUMMARY COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES
Table 5-4 below summarizes the relative magnitude of impacts from each alternative, when compared to the proposed project.
Table 5-4 Comparison of Alternatives
No Project/No
Environmental Issue Area Development
to the Proposed Project
No Project/No GPAC
Action Recommendations
Subarea Minimum
Aesthetics
—
+
_
—
Air Quality
—
_
—
—
Biological Resources
—
+
—
—
Cultural Resources
—
_
—
—
Geology
—
+
—
—
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
—
_
+
—
Hydrology
—
Land Use
—
—
Noise
—
—
_
—
Population
—
—
_
—
Public Services
—
—
—
—
Recreation and Open Space
—
+
—
—
Transportation
—
+
—
—
Utilities and Service Systems
—
(-) = Impacts considered to be less when compared with the proposed project. (+) = Impacts considered to be rg eater when compared with the proposed project. (_) = Impacts considered to be equal or similar to the proposed project.
5.8 ENVIRONMENTALLY SUPERIOR ALTERNATIVE
An EIR is required to identify the environmentally superior alternative from among the range of reasonable alternatives that are evaluated. This would ideally be the alternative that results in fewer (or no) significant and unavoidable impacts. CEQA Guidelines Section 15126(d)(2) states that if the environmentally superior alternative is the no project alternative, the EIR shall also identify an environmentally superior alternative from among the other alternatives.
City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 5-29
The No Project/No Development Alternative would be environmentally superior to the proposed project on the basis of the minimization or avoidance of physical environmental impacts. Among the remaining alternatives, the Subarea Minimum Alternative would be environmentally superior to the proposed project because environmental impacts to aesthetics, air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, geology, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, noise, population and housing, public services, transportation, and utilities would be lesser in magnitude, since this alternative proposes the least amount of future development. Significant and unavoidable impacts to air quality, cultural resources, land use, noise, population and housing, recreation and open space, transportation and circulation, and utilities (water supply) would remain, although they would be reduced in magnitude. This alternative would reduce significant and unavoidable impacts related to aesthetics to less than significant levels. As such, the Subarea Only Minimum Alternative would represent the environmentally superior alternative.
5-30 City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR
Section 15126 of the State CEQA Guidelines requires that an EIR include a discussion of significant environmental effects of the proposed project; significant environmental effects which cannot be avoided if the proposed project is implemented; significant irreversible changes that would be involved in the proposed project should it be implemented; and growth -inducing impacts of the proposed project.
Cumulative impacts are discussed under each environmental issue section in Chapter 3 (Environmental Analysis).
6.1 SIGNIFICANT, IRREVERSIBLE ENVIRONMENTAL
CHANGES
The implementation of the proposed General Plan Update could result in new developments in the Planning Area that would entail the commitment of energy and human resources. Manpower and resources will also be committed for the development of residential and non-residential uses, particularly in areas not currently urbanized such as Banning Ranch and Newport Coast. Long-term impacts would also result from an increase in vehicular traffic, and the associated air pollution and noise emissions. New industrial and commercial development could also contribute to the degradation of the groundwater supply serving the Planning Area. Furthermore, additional development that would occur under this project could result in loss of significant historical resources. This commitment of resources would be a long-term obligation because, practically speaking, it is impossible to return the land to its original condition after development.
6.2 SIGNIFICANT, UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS
Significant, unavoidable adverse impacts that would result from the proposed project include the following:
Aesthetics
Impact 4.1-3 If development ultimately occurs in Banning Ranch, the proposed project would result in increased light effects caused by new development.
Cumulative Cumulative development, in conjunction with the proposed project, could result in new sources of nighttime lighting within the Banning Ranch Area.
I Air Quality
Impact 4.2-1 Implementation of the proposed General Plan Update would conflict with or obstruct implementation of the Air Quality Management Plan.
City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 6-1
Impact 4.2-2 Implementation of the proposed General Plan Update would result in construction emissions that would contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation.
Impact 4.2-3 Implementation of the proposed General Plan Update would result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of criteria pollutants for which the region is in nonattainment under an applicable national or State ambient air quality standard.
Cumulative
= Cultural
Impact 4.4-1
Cumulative
F Noise
Cumulatively, the proposed project would also have significant and unavoidable impacts with regards to the above -mentioned impacts.
Development under the proposed General Plan Update would result in the demolition of historic structures.
Cumulatively, the proposed project would also have a significant and unavoidable impact with regards to the above -mentioned impact.
Impact 4.9-1 Implementation of the proposed General Plan Update would generate or expose persons to ambient noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies.
Impact 4.9-2 Implementation of the proposed General Plan Update would expose persons to vibration levels generated during construction activities that would exceed 72 VdB.
Impact 4.9-3 Implementation of the proposed General Plan Update would result in substantial permanent increases in traffic -related ambient noise levels.
Impact 4.9-5 Implementation of the proposed General Plan Update would expose sensitive receptors in proximity to the John Wayne Airport to excessive noise levels.
Cumulative Cumulatively, the proposed project would also have significant and unavoidable impacts with regards to the above -mentioned impacts. — Population and Housing
Impact 4.10-1 Implementation of the proposed General Plan Update would induce substantial growth in an area, either directly or indirectly. 6-2 City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR
Transportation
Impact 4.13-2 Implementation of the proposed General Plan Update would contribute to a substantial increase in deficient freeway segments and ramps.
Cumulative Cumulatively, the proposed project would also have a significant and unavoidable impact with regards to the above -mentioned impact.
6.3 GROWTH -INDUCING IMPACTS
This section discusses the ways in which the proposed General Plan Update could foster economic or population growth, or the construction of additional housing, either directly or indirectly, in the surrounding environment. Growth -inducing impacts are caused by those characteristics of a project that tend to foster or encourage population and/or economic growth. Inducements to growth include the generation of construction and permanent employment opportunities in the support sector of the economy. A project could also induce growth by lowering or removing barriers to growth or by creating an amenity that attracts new population or economic activity. The proposed project could result in the following types of growth -inducement: (1) extension of public facilities, such as roads, electrical lines, gas lines, sewers, and water; (2) the creation of short- and long-term employment opportunities; and (3) increased population.
6.3.1 Extension of Public Facilities
Implementation of the proposed General Plan Update would include development that would ultimately require extension of roadways, sewer, water, gas, and electrical lines, which would be developed to serve the project area. Though the City currently maintains extensive infrastructure, improvements would be completed in accordance with infrastructure master plans/goals identified in the proposed General Plan Update to serve ultimate buildout of the area. All roadways and utility lines already serving the project area would also serve future development in the project area where possible. However, because development associated with the proposed General Plan Update could result in extension of public facilities into areas not currently served by such facilities, such as Banning Ranch and would facilitate subsequent development in the area, the project would be considered growth inducing.
6.3.2 Population Growth
In 2002, there were approximately 40,179 residential units in the City. According to Table 3-3 in the Project Description, buildout of the proposed General Plan Update would increase the number of dwelling units by 14,215 units (approximately 12,515 multi -family units and approximately 1,700 single- family units), for a total of 54,394 units, representing a 35 percent increase in the number of dwelling units over 2002 conditions.
According to the Department of Finance (DOF), the 2002 population was approximately 72,622 residents. Using the City's existing pph rate of 2.19, the net increase of 14,215 residential units would City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 6-3
result in a population increase of approximately 31,131 residents. Consequently, this increase would result in a total population of 103,753 persons at buildout of the proposed General Plan Update, which would represent an approximate 43 percent increase in population over the 2002 population.
The number of households in the City is projected by SCAG at 43,100 by 2030, while the number of dwelling units under the proposed General Plan Update would be 26 percent higher, with 54,394 units.
The SCAG-projected population is 94,167 by 2030, and the population resulting from proposed General Plan Update buildout would be approximately 10 percent higher, or 103,753 residents. Therefore, the proposed project would also be growth -inducing with regards to an increase in population.
6.4 EFFECTS NOT FOUND TO BE SIGNIFICANT
The Initial Study, included as Appendix A to this EIR, determined that there were no significant impacts within the issue area of Agriculture and no impacts with regards to locating development in proximity to a private airstrip. Please refer to Appendix A (Notice of Preparation/Initial Study) for a detailed explanation of the reasons these effects that were not found to be significant. 6-4 City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR
Name I Issue Area/Role
LEAD AGENCY
City of Newport Beach
Gregg Ramirez Senior Planner
Patricia Temple Planning Director
Sharon Wood Assistant City Manager
EIR CONSULTANT TEAM
EIP Associates
Kim Avila
Project Director
Erin Efner
Project Manager
Marianne Tanzer
Project Management Team
T.J. Weule
Project Management Team
Marissa Staples
Deputy Project Manager
Randi Adair
Technical Analysis
Melissa Duncan
Technical Analysis
Demian Ebert
Technical Analysis
Erik Hansen
Technical Analysis
Geoffrey Hornek
Technical Analysis
Natalie Irwin
Technical Analysis
Shai Morris
Technical Analysis
Christopher Mundhenk
Technical Analysis
Shraddha Navalli
Technical Analysis
Ron Arzaga
Word Processing
Jackie Ha
Word Processing
Joel Miller
Word Processing
James Songco
Graphics
Kevin Tran
Word Processing
Urban Crossroads
Marlie Whiteman, P.E. Senior Engineer
Carleton Waters, P.E. Principal
City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 7-1
City of '°'Y2°°6
H&�aP(BT� 12&s@h
Final Environmental Impact Report
General Plan 2006 Update
SCH No. 2006011119
...._LL _ .. - - # —
Volume IA
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
GENERAL PLAN 2006 UPDATE
Volume IA
Final Environmental Impact Report
(Draft EIR Changes and Responses to Comments)
SCH No. 2006011119
Prepared for
City of Newport Beach
3300 Newport Boulevard
Newport Beach, California 92658-8915
Prepared by
EIP Associates
12301 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 430
Los Angeles, California 90025
July 2006
Volume IA Final Environmental Impact Report (Draft EIR Changes and Responses to Comments)
CHAPTER 8 Introduction to the Final EIR................................................................................ 8-1
8.1 CEQA Requirements......................................................................................................8-1
8.2 Use of the Final EIR.......................................................................................................8-1
8.3 Changes to the proposed general plan update............................................................8-2 CHAPTER9 Text Changes.......................................................................................................... 9-1
9.1 Format of Text Changes.................................................................................................9-1
9.2 Changes to Draft EIR Text............................................................................................9-1 Changes to Draft EIR Figures................................................................................................ 9-17 CHAPTER 10 Response to Comments........................................................................................10-1
10.1 Overview........................................................................................................................ 10-1
10.2 Response to Comments............................................................................................... 10-2
10.2.1 Master Responses.......................................................................................... 10-2
10.2.2 Individual Responses to Comments.........................................................10-23 CHAPTER 11 Final EIR Report Preparers..................................................................................11-1 Figures
Figure 4.1-3 Coastal Views —Map 3 of 4.................................................................................................. 9-19 Figure 4.1-4 Coastal Views —Map 4 of 4.................................................................................................. 9-21 Figure 4.3-1 Biological Resources.............................................................................................................. 9-23 Figure4.7-1 Water Resources..................................................................................................................... 9-25 Tables
Table 8-1 Comparison of Existing GP, EIR Project and City Council Land Use Recommendations and Average Daily Trips Generated.....................................................8-3 Table 10-1 Summary of Draft EIR Comment Letters......................................................................... 10-2 City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR
8.1 CEQA REQUIREMENTS
Before approving a project, the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires the Lead Agency to prepare and certify a Final Environmental Impact Report (Final EIR). The contents of a Final EIR are specified in Section 15132 of the CEQA Guidelines, which states that:
The Final EIR shall consist of.
a. The Draft EIR or a revision of the Draft.
b. Comments and recommendations received on the Draft EIR either verbatim or in summary. c. A list of persons, organizations, and public agencies commenting on the Draft EIR d. The responses of the Lead Agency to significant environmental points raised in the review and consultation process.
e. Any other information added by the Lead Agency.
In summary, this Final EIR consists of three volumes:
■ Volume I— City of Newport Beach General Plan 2006 Update Draft EIR ■ Volume IA —Draft EIR Changes, Responses to Comments, and Final EIR Report Preparers ■ Volume II —Technical Appendices to the Draft EIR
The determination that the City of Newport Beach (the City) is the "lead agency" is made in accordance with Sections 15051 and 15367 of the CEQA Guidelines, which define the lead agency as the public agency that has the principal responsibility for carrying out or approving a project. The Lead Agency must provide each agency that commented on the Draft EIR with a copy of the Lead Agencies' proposed response at least 10 days before certifying the Final EIR.
8.2 USE OF THE FINAL EIR
The Final EIR allows the public and the City an opportunity to review revisions to the Draft EIR, the response to comments, and other components of the EIR, prior to approval of the project. The Final EIR serves as the environmental document to support approval of the proposed project, either in whole or in part, if the project is approved.
After completing the Final EIR, and before approving the project, the Lead Agency must make the following three certifications, as required by Section 15090 of the CEQA Guidelines:
■ The Final EIR has been completed in compliance with CEQA ■ The Final EIR was presented to the decision -making body of the Lead Agency, and that the decision -making body reviewed and considered the information in the Final EIR prior to approving the project
■ The Final EIR reflects the Lead Agency's independent judgment and analysis City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 8-1
As required by Section 15091 of the CEQA Guidelines, no public agency shall approve or carry out a project for which an EIR has been certified that identifies one or more significant environmental effects of the project unless the public agency makes one or more written findings (Findings of Fact) for each of those significant effects, accompanied by a brief explanation of the rationale for each finding supported by substantial evidence in the record. 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 final 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 and 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.
These certifications and the Findings of Fact are included in a separate Findings document. Both the Final EIR and the Findings are submitted to the City for consideration of the proposed project.
8.3 CHANGES TO THE PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN UPDATE
It should be noted that since publication of the Draft EIR, the City Council and Planning Commission have scheduled/conducted 18 public hearings to discuss the proposed General Plan Update. As a result of this public involvement process, the City Council has directed changes to the proposed General Plan Update regarding land use intensities, type of use, and other policy revisions. These changes have been indicated where relevant in response to the comments provided by the public on the Draft EIR.
Table 8-1 identifies the proposed development directed by City Council in each subarea. For ease of comparison, the amount of development for the existing General Plan, as well as for the General Plan Update identified in the Draft EIR is also provided. The table also shows the average daily trips that would be generated by the existing General Plan, the proposed General Plan Update as analyzed in the Draft EIR, and the proposed General Plan Update as proposed to be revised by the City Council. 8-2 City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR
Table 8-1
Comparison of Existing GP, EIR Project
and City Council Land Use Recommendations and
Average
Daily Trips Generated
Average Daily Trip
Average Daily Trip
Existing
Recommended Reductions from EIR Project Changes EIR. vs.
Changes Existing GP
Area
GP
EIR Project
per PC and CC Hearings Revised Plan
vs. Revised Plan
Airport
■ Residential: 4,300
■ Reduces residential capacity by 2,100 units
■ Densities: 30-50 units per acre average over Village
(leaving 2,200 total); of these 550 may be
area
■ Nonresidential: per existing GP
developed as infill on parking lots; 1,650 must
replace nonresidential entitlement
■ Nonresidential: no change
117,430
128,638
117,430
-11,208
0 Balboa
Village Core:
Minor modification of land use designation boundaries.
Village
■ Mixed Use: FAR: 1.5
Village Core:
■ Non Residential: 0.25 to 0.75
■ Mixed use: FAR 1.5; min. 0.35 to 0.5 for
Bay Frontage:
nonresidential and max. of 1.0 for residential.
■ FAR: 0.5 to 1.25
■ Non residential: No change
Commercial Properties out of Village Core:
Bay Frontage:
■ 13.4 to 20 du/acre
■ FAR 0.75
Commercial Properties out of Village Core: No
change
19,981
20,849
19,858
-991
-123
Banning
Priority for open space acquisition
No change
Ranch
If not acquired:
■ 1,375 units subject to development plan if not
acquired for open space
■ 75,000 of retail commercial
■ 75 hotel units
22,075
14,296
14,296
0 -7,779
City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 8-3
Table 8-1
Comparison of Existing GP, EIR Project
and City Council Land Use Recommendations and
Average
Daily Trips Generated
Average Daily Trip
Average Daily Trip
Existing
Recommended Reductions from EIR Project Changes EIR. vs.
Changes Existing GP
Area GP
EIR Project
per PC and CC Hearings Revised Plan
vs. Revised Plan
Cannery
Interior Parcels:
Interior Parcels: No change
Village
■ Mixed Use: FAR: 1.5
Bayfront Parcels:
■ Multi -Family: 20.1 to 26.7 du/acre
■ Mixed use: FAR 1.5
Bayfront Parcels:
■ Non -Residential: FAR: 0.5
• Mixed -Use: FAR: 1.5 to 2.0
■ Non Residential: FAR: 0.25 to 0.5
14,190
10,342
10,342
0 -3,848
Corona
Retail and Service Uses: FAR: 0.5 to 0.75
Retail and Service Uses: No change
Del Mar
Existing institutional uses re -designated PI with
reduced FAR
54,431
54,534
52,274
-2,260
-2,157
Lido
Bay Fronting Properties:
Bay Fronting Properties:
Village
■ Commercial: FAR 0.3 to 1.0
■ Mixed use: FAR 1.25
■ Multi -Family Residential: 20.1 to 26.7 du/acre
■ Commercial: FAR 0.5
• Mixed Use: FAR 1.5
■ Multi -Family Residential: 12 units per adjusted
Inland side of Coast Highway(W of Rocky Point):
gross acre, with the number of units calculated
■ Commercial: FAR 0.5 to 0.75
based on a maximum of 50% of the property.
■ Multi -Family Residential: 20.1 to 26.7 du/acre
Inland side of Coast Highway(W of Rocky Point):
■ Mixed Use: FAR: 1.5
■ Commercial or Office: No change
Inland side of Coast Highway (E of Rocky Point):
• Multi -Family Residential: No change
■ FAR: 0.3 to 0.5
■ Mixed Use: No change
Inland side of Coast Highway (E of Rocky Point):
■ No change
51,410
55,576
47,781
-7,795
-3,629
8-4 City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR
Table 8-1
Comparison of Existing GP, EIR Project
and City Council Land Use Recommendations and
Average
Daily Trips Generated
Average Daily Trip
Average Daily Trip
Existing
Recommended Reductions from EIR Project Changes EIR. vs.
Changes Existing GP
Area
GP
EIR Project
per PC and CC Hearings Revised Plan
vs. Revised Plan
Mariners
Bay Fronting Properties:
Bay Fronting Properties:
Mile
■ Commercial: FAR 0.3 to 1.0
■ Mixed use: FAR 1.25
■ Multi -Family Residential: 20.1 to 26.7 du/acre
■ Commercial: FAR 0.5
• Mixed Use: FAR 1.5
■ Multi -Family Residential: 12 units per adjusted
Inland side of Coast Highway(W of Rocky Point):
gross acre, with the number of units calculated
■ Commercial: FAR 0.5 to 0.75
based on a maximum of 50% of the property.
■ Multi -Family Residential: 20.1 to 26.7 du/acre
Inland side of Coast Highway(W of Rocky Point):
■ Mixed Use: FAR: 1.5
• Commercial or Office: No change
Inland side of Coast Highway (E of Rocky Point):
• Multi -Family Residential: No change
■ FAR: 0.3 to 0.5
■ Mixed Use: No change
Inland side of Coast Highway (E of Rocky Point):
■ No change
51,410
55,576
47,781
-7,795
-3,629
Mc Fadden
■ Mixed Use: FAR 1.5 to 2.0
• Mixed Use: FAR 1.25
Square
■ Non Residential: FAR 0.25 to 0.5
■ Non Residential: No change
8,490
12,988
9,109
-3,879
+619
City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 8-5
Table 8-1
Comparison of Existing GP, EIR Project
and City Council Land Use Recommendations and
Average
Daily Trips Generated
Average Daily Trip
Average Daily Trip
Existing
Recommended Reductions from EIR Project Changes EIR. vs.
Changes Existing GP
Area GP
EIR Project
per PC and CC Hearings Revised Plan
vs. Revised Plan
Newport
Mixed Use:
Mixed Use:
Center/
■ Office: Max 40,000 sf additional
■ Office: addition is eliminated
Fashion
■ Residential: Max 600 additional units
■ Residential: Max 450 additional units
Island
■ Hotel: Max: 125 additional rooms
■ Hotel: Max 65 additional rooms
Regional Commercial:
Regional Commercial:
■ Max addition of 425,000 sf of retail and supporting
■ Max addition of 75,000 sf
uses
Medical Office:
■ 300,000 sf of retail capacity may transferred for office ■ FAR: 0.75
development
Regional Office:
Medical Office:
■ Addition eliminated
■ FAR: 0.35 to 1.25
Regional Office:
■ Max 40,000 sf additional
110,372
118,395
106,620
-11,775
-3,752
Old
East Side of Old Newport Boulevard:
Entire Area:
Newport
■ Mixed Use: FAR 1.5
■ General Office: FAR 0.5
Blvd
■ Non -Residential: FAR: 0.25 to 0.75
■ Residential: 13.4 to 20 d.u./acre
West Side of Old Newport Boulevard:
■ Mixed Use: FAR: 1.5
9,816
14,073
9,811
-4,262
-5
West
Western Entry Parcel:
Western Entry Parcel:
Newport
Residential: 20.1 to 26.7 d.u./acre
■ Residential: No change
Hwy &
Inland Parcels: mix of commercial and housing
Inland Parcels: no changes
Adjoin.
Residential
Coastal Side of West Coast Highway: R-2
Coastal Side of West Coast Highway: No change
9,076
9,901
9,876
-25
+800
8-6 City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR
Table 8-1
Comparison of Existing GP, EIR Project
and City Council Land Use Recommendations and
Average
Daily Trips Generated
Average Daily Trip
Average Daily Trip
Existing
Recommended Reductions from EIR Project Changes EIR. vs.
Changes Existing GP
Area
GP
EIR Project
per PC and CC Hearings Revised Plan
vs. Revised Plan
West
Medical Office:
Medical Office:
Newport
■ FAR 0.25 to 1.25
■ Area increased
Mesa
Residential:
■ FAR 0.75
■ 26.8 to 30 d.u./acre
Residential:
General Commercial:
■ 18 d.u./acre
■ FAR 0.3 to 0.5
General Commercial:
Neighborhood Commercial:
■ Area decreased
■ FAR: 0.3
■ FAR 0.75
Neighborhood Commercial:
■ No Change
Existing institutional uses re -designated PI with
reduced FAR
46,038
54,769
42,632
-12,137
-3,406
Subarea
477,180
504,818
450,697
-59,317
-26,483
Total
Remainder
488,531
486,094
486,094
0 -2,437
of City
Citywide
965,711
990,912
936,791
-59,317
-28,920
Total
City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 8-7
9.1 FORMAT OF TEXT CHANGES
Text changes are intended to clarify or correct information in the Draft EIR in response to comments received on the document or as initiated by Lead Agency (the City) staff. Revisions are shown in Volume IA, Chapter 9 (Text Changes), as excerpts from the Draft EIR text, with a line thro deleted text and a double underline beneath inserted text. The text changes appear in order of their location in the Draft EIR, and all figure changes appear at the end of this chapter.
9.2 CHANGES TO DRAFT EIR TEXT
r' Executive Summary