Newport Beach City Council
April 9, 2024

Impact
Significance Before
Mitigation
Mitigation Measures
Significance
After
Miti afion
Impact 4.6-7 Implementation of the
proposed General Plan Update could
result in a safety hazard for people
residing or working in the Planning Area as
a result of the proximity of a public airport.

LTS
(S—should residential
No mitigation is required.

No mitigation measures
LTS
SOU
development be constructed
would be feasible)
within the 65 dBA CNEL
noise contour)

Impact
Significance Before
Miii ation
Miff ation Measures
Significance
After
Mf i afion
Impact 4.8-1 Implementation of the proposed
General Plan Update could involve new uses and
structures that may result in intensification of
development within the Planning Area that creates
incompatibilities with adjacent land uses.

LTS
(S—should residential
No mitigation is
required.

No mitigation
measures would be
LTS
development be
constructed within the 65
dBA CNEL noise contour]
f i I
City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 9-1

Impact
Significance Before
Mitigation
Mill afion Measures
Significance
After
Mitigation
Impact 4.8-3 Implementation of the
proposed General Plan Update could
conflict with applicable land use plans,
policy, or regulations.

LTS
(S-should the AELUP be
No mitigation is required.

No mitigation measures
LTS
overridden by City Council)

Impact
Significance
Before
Mitigation
Mitigation
Measures
Significance
After
Mitigation
Impact 4.11.1.1 Implementation of the proposed General Plan Update could increase the demand for fire protection services, which could result in the need for additional fire facilities.

LTS
No mitigation
is required.

LTS
Impact 4.11.2-1 Implementation of the proposed General Plan Update LT
No mitigation
LTS
could increase the demand for police protection services, which would is required.
result in the need for additional police facilities.

Impact 4.11.3-1 Implementation of the proposed General Plan Update LT
No mitigation
LTS
would result in an increase in the student enrollment which could result is required.
in the need for additional staff and school facilities.

Impact 4.11.4-1 Implementation of the proposed General Plan Update LT
No mitigation
LT
could result in the need for additional library facilities in order to maintain is required
acceptable service ratios.
■ Project Description

The updated General Plan prioritizes the —accluisition of the Banning Ranch property as open space, consolidating existing oil operations, restoring wetlands and habitat, and development of a community park with active playfields to serve adjoining neighborhoods....

Pages 3-13 and 3-14, Table 3-3 has been amended as follows:
9-2 City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR

Subareas
West Newport Mariners' Newport Center/ Airport Banning Balboa Balboa West Newport Old Newport Remainder of Mesa Mile Fashion Island Area Ranch Villaae Peninsula Hiahwav Boulevard City Office (sf)
Existing
12,616,827
453,530
266,270
3,592,080
5,513,429
0 22,920
305,540
97,740
3 Current GP
14,576,930
784,280
466,190
3,635,670
5,873,012
235,600
89,260
375,390
147,020
2,970,508
Proposed
12,867,500
1,025,865
294,725
3,675,670
4,911,197
0 12,000
80,656
185,696
MUM
Residential (du)
MFR
21,477
2,472
188
245
0 0
178
8 292
8 18086
Existing
SFR(A)
18,702
108
820
0 1,191
257
384
j, 42
Total Units
40,179
2,580
1,008
245
0 0
1,369
265
292
392
MW
Current
MFR
30,159
2,649
188
245
0 2,510
242
8 293
8 24,016
GP
SFR(A)
19,570
98 837
225
1,190
352
584
RIM
Total Units
49,729
2,747
1,025
245
0 2,735
1,432
360
293
592

40.300
MFR
33,992
3,542
625
845
4,300
687
512
823
361
244
2 Proposed
SFR(A)
20,402
98 837
688
1,196
291
579
Total Units
54,394
3,640
1,462
845
4,300
1,375
1,708
1,114
361
823
38,766
Commercial (sf)
Existing
5,539,388
72,170
633,950
1,556,320
665,019
0 203,360
643,020
35,350
48,700
68 Current GP
7,412,132
72,170
779,800
1,861,980
871,500
50,000
217,340
669,110
50,030
66,380
2 773 22
Proposed
7,685,030
50,910
853,208
1,986,980
880,620
75,000
192,503
745,320
57,935
92,848
22 74�_7_0
Visitor Serving (hotel -motel rooms)
Existing
3,365
177
925
974
0 34
41 90
23 t101
Current GP
5,676
204
1,110
984
0 34
41 90
53 _1�_6_
Proposed
6,549
204
1,175
1,213
75 265
240
90 53
UN
Industrial (sf)
Existing
1,569,229
678,530
508,759
0 58,950
300
322490
Current GP
2,234,242
1,191,722
551,930
164,400
0 0
Proposed
1,163,460
837,270
0 0
0 0
326,190
City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 9-3

Subareas
West Newport Mariners' Newport Center/ Airport Banning Balboa Balboa West Newport Old Newport Remainder of Mesa Mae Fashion Island Area Ranch Villaae Peninsula Hiahwav Boulevard City Institutional (sQ
Existing
694,820
886,270
99,410
100,000
86,096
21,710
498,666
Current GP
893,213
1,235,797
105,260
105,000
97,000
32,010
-681,854
Proposed
853,413
1,235,797
105,260
105,000
96,996
96,710
-TOM
Parks (acres)
Existing
133.5

0.2 0
133.3
Current GP
178.8

0.2 0
178.E
Proposed
254.7
1 30
223.7
9-4 City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR

■ Aesthetics and Visual Quality

Policy LU 6.19.9 requires that buildings be located and sites designed to provide adequate and ~ ed-slear views significant visual corridors of the Bay from Coast Highway (Mariners' Mile).

NR 10.10 Development on Banning Ranch
Protect the sensitive and rare resources that occur on Banning Ranch. If future development is permitted, require that an assessment be prepared by qualified biologist that delineates sensitive and rare habitat and wildlife corridors, Require that development be concentrated to protect biological resources and coastal bluffs, and desigirstructures designed to not be intrusive on the surrounding landscape. Require the restoration or mitigation of any isensitive or rare habitat areas that are affected by future development. (Imp 2.1, 19.7, 19.11, 19.12).

Policy LU 5.56.2 Form and Environment
Require that new and renovated buildings be designed to avoid the use of styles, colors, and materials that unusually impact the design character and quality of their location such as abru t changes in scale, building form, architectural style, and the use of surface materials that raise local temperatures, result in glare and excessive illumination of adioinin�Z pro erties and open spaces, or adversely modify wind patterns.

Policy LU 6.5.4 Relationship of Development to Environmental Resources Development should be located and designed to preserve and/or mitigate for the loss of wetlands and drainage course habitat. It shall be located to be contiguous and compatible with existing and planned development along its eastern property line, preserving the connectivity of wildlife corridors, and set back from the bluff faces, along which shall be located a linear park to provide public views of the ocean, wetlands, and surrounding open spaces. Exterior hag shall be located and designed to minimize light trespass from developed areas onto the bluffs, riparian habitat, arroyos, and lowland habitat areas.

City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 9-5

! Biological Resources

The Planning Area is located within the boundaries of four watersheds, each of which contain an interconnected system of surface water resources that feed into the underlying groundwater aquifer or drain into the ocean.

Areit4e disetissed i dete.' bele_- The watersheds within the Planning Area include the Newport Bay, Newport Coast, Talbert, and San Diego Creek watersheds. Both the Newport Bay and Newport Coast watersheds cover most of the Planning Area, with the remaining smaller portions covered by the Talbert and San Diego Creek watersheds. Section 4.7 (Hydrology and Water Quality) of this EIR contains detailed descriptions of these four watersheds.

Coastal Sand Dunes
Coastal sand dune communities are the first terrestrial plant communities above the high tide line where sandy beaches and/or sand dunes occur. This habitat type is restricted to the Pacific Coast of North America and is characterized by unstable, sandy soil with a low fertility and low water -holding capacity. Vegetation is often covered with sand particles due to coastal winds. Several species are typical of coastal dunes. including California saltbush (Atui lex calf ornicaL beach saltbush (Atri ilex leucobhvlla , croton (Croton californicus , and American dune grass Levmus mollisl.

As a signatory agency, the City is responsible for enforcing mitigation measures and other policies identified in the NCCP/Habitat Conservation Plan Implementation Agreement for properties located within the City Limit that are part of the NCCP Subregional Plan. In addition. the Citv annexed Newport Coast which includes Buck Gully in 2005. Buck Gully is hart of the Reserve System of the NCCP/Habitat Conservation Plan.

This would preclude most sites within Banning Ranch containing riparian habitats from being developed under the proposed General Plan update.

Because rare natural communities do not need to be formally listed as threatened or endangered under any state or federal regulations to be considered "sensitive," the proposed General Plan Update and future projects within the County would fza+-prohibit development within areas that contain sensitive natural communities....

amended as follows:

The Natural Resources Element of the proposed General Plan Update includes policies that would address issues related to biological resources within the City of Newport Beach. The paheies that are appheable to the pfajeet are . 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."
9-6 City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR

Geology, Soils, and Mineral Resources

The highest risks originate from the Newport -Inglewood fault zone, the Whittier fault zone, the San Joaquin Hills fault zone, and the Elysian Park fault zone, and other identified fault zones within the Planning Area each with the potential to cause moderate to large earthquakes that would cause ground shaking in Newport Beach and nearby communities.

... building design standards of the CBC Chapter 33 for the construction of new buildings and/or structures, specific engineering design and construction measures would be implemented to anticipate and avoid the potential for adverse impacts. Compliance with applicable regulations and local City requirements_ and the policies contained in the General Plan Update would ensure that impacts related to strong seismic ground shaking remain at a less -than -significant level. No mitigation is required.

Policy LU 6.4.11 Comprehensive Site Planning and Design Require the preparation of a master development or specific plan for any development on the Banning Ranch specifying lands to be developed, preserved, and restored, land uses to be permitted, parcelization, roadway and infrastructure improvements, landscape and improvements, development regulations, architectural design and landscape guidelines, exterior lightin defines_ processes for oil operations consolidation, habitat preservation and restoration plan, sustainability practices plan, financial implementation, and other appropriate elements.
■ Hazards and Hazardous Materials

John Wayne Airport QWA) generates nearly all aviation traffic above the City of Newport Beach. On an average business day, approximately 4-50-300 commercial flights (150 departures and 150 arrivals) and 20 regional flights arrive at and depart from JWA.... ■ Hydrology and Water Quality

NR 3.76 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. Ensure that enforcement and regulatoryayenci� ate upstream dischargers cities.

Orange County, residential and commercial uses) in the San Diego Creek and Santa Ana/Delhi Channel watersheds. (Policy HB8.7) (Imp 19.3, 19.16) City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 9-7

! Land Use and Planning

"*Accommodate a community park of w f 20 to 30 acres that contains active playfields that may be lighted and is of sufficient acreage to serve adjoining neighborhoods and-, € d&veleped- residents of Banning Ranch, if developed.

Population and Housing
Pages 4.10-6 to 4.10-7, "Cumulative Impacts" section, second paragraph has been amended as follows:

SCAG's regional growth data project that the population of Orange County will be 3,552,742 persons in 2030, an increase of 495,877 persons over the County's existing population. SCAG also projects that the population of the City will be 94,167 persons in 2030. The proposed General Plan Update projects that the population of the City will be 103,753 persons in 2030, an increase of 9,586 persons over what SCAG projects in 2030 for the City and Orange County. As stated in Impact 4.10- 1, this is an increase of approximately 10 percent over what SCAG projects for the City in 2030. In the cumulative context of Orange County, this represents an increase of approximately less than one percent over what is projected by SCAG for 2030. On a ettfnttlative level, wet4d not rest4t iii substantial population gr-awth beyond _Hd wetild net induce substantial population growth in aft area, either dir- A proiected increase of less then one percent would not represent a cumulatively substantial and significant increase in population growth in the SCAG region. This would be well below the projected -wide population increase of 495,877 persons and would not represent a cumulatively significant increase in population for the County as a whole. This cumulative impact would be less than significant. The project would have a less -than -significant contribution to this effect.

Public Services

The Newport Beach Fire Department (NBFD) and the Orange County Fire Authority provide fire protection services for the City and Planning Area. The NBFD provides fire protection services for the entire City. Most of the Banning Ranch is ffe+-nD3Y served by the Orange County Fire Authority (OCFA), an agency __that provides regional fire protection and emergency services to unincorporated portions of Orange County and nineteen city jurisdictions. If Banning Ranch is annexed into the City, potential increases in the need for fire protection services provided by the OCFA and the CMFD would not be required. Instead, all additional need for fire protection services would be assumed by NBFD.

All emergency calls for police, fire, and paramedic services are initially answered by one of the 14 full-time or three part-time dispatchers at the Dispatch Center. While the number of calls received varies with the season, an average of 20,000 emergency calls is received per month, with an average answer time of just five seconds....
9-8 City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR

■ Regulatory Context
California State Assembly Bill 2926 (AB 2926)—School Facilities Act of 1986 In 1986, AB 2926 was enacted by the state of California authorizing entities to lew statutory fees on new residential and commercial/industrial development in order to pay for school facilities. AB 2926 entitled the School Facilities Act of 1986_ was expanded and revised in 1987 through the passage of AB 1600, which added Section 66000 et sea. of the Government Code. Under this statute, pavm�nt of statutory fees by developers would serve as total CEOA mitigation to satisfv the impact of evelopment on school facilities.

California Government Code Section 65995—School Facilities Legislation The School Facilities Legislation was enacted to generate revenue for school districts for cal iW acquisitions and improvements.

California Senate Bill 50 (S"50
The nassaPe of SB 50 in 1998 defined the Needs Analvsis process in Government Code Sections 65995.5-65998.Under the provisions of SB 50, school districts may collect fees to offset the costs associated with increasing school capacity as a result of development. The fees (referred to as Level One fees) are assessed based upon the proposed square foota e of residential, commercial/industrial and/or parking structure uses. Level Two fees require the developer to provide one-half of the costs of accommodating students in new schools, while the state would provide the other half. Level Three fees require the developer to pay the full cost of accommodating the students in new schools and would be implemented at the time the funds available from proposition 1A (approved by the voters in 1998) are expended. School districts must demonstrate to the state their long-term facilities needs and costs based on long-term population growth in order to qualify for this source of fundin= However, voter approval of proposition 55 on March 2. 2004,E recludes the imposition of the Level Three fees for the foreseeable future. Therefore. once aualified. districts may impose only Level Two fees, as calculated according to SB 50.

U Recreation and Open Space
e 4.12-3, Table 4.12-1, Parkland Acrea

12. Ne
Totals
Coast*
has been amended as follows:
50 1 58.1 * 1 0 1 --50 1 -50
415.6 a 1 286.4 1 90.4 b 1376.8 1 -38.8"
* Newport Coast includes public and private parks, including 14 acres of Newport Ridge park dedicated for public use upon City acceptance.
**Deficit/excess acreage if no additional parks are built. a 83,120 x 5 ac. per thousand = 415.6 ac.
b Includes beach area where active recreation takes place (i.e., typically within 100 feet of the water). In addition, there are 174 acres of passive beach open space, 136 acres of open space land in the Upper Bay Ecological reserve, and an undetermined amount of water open space in the Upper Bay and Newport Harbor.

Service Area 12—Newport Coast. This area is deficient in public facilities, but exceeds the City park ratio standard if its extensive private facilities are included. Currently,�a public park City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 9-9

s under designjestimated to be completed by 2008) near
the of Ridge Park Road,
Newport Ridge park; largely owned and operated by the Newport Ridge Community Association, includes land that the City perates as an active ballfield along with the site of the Newport Coast Community Center that will include community meeting rooms and a gymnasium.

The City's Recreation Department does not offer programs at the privately -owned parks. The youth of the Newport Coast Service Area participate in programs outside of the service area.

has been amended as follows:

Parkland dedication standards associated with the Quimby Act and the Newport Beach Subdivision Code are applicable to development in the City. Chapter 19.52, Park Dedication and Fees of the City's Municipal Code provides for the dedication of land, the payment of fees in lieu thereof or a combination of both, for park or recreational purposes in conjunction with the approval of residential development subdivisions....

R 9.5 Private/Gated Communities
Protect public access to coastal resources from encroachment from private/gated communities. (Imp 2.1, 12.3)
s Transportation/Traffic

Jamboree Road is a northeast/southwest roadway with six divided lanes between Coast Highway and Campus Drive. South of Coast Highway it is a four -lane divided roadway. Jamboree Road has volumes between 302,000 and 647,000 ADT. Volumes south of Coast Highway are 12,000 ADT.

Federal
Safe, Accountable. Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act —A Leaacv for Users (SAFETEA-LLI)
SAFETEA-LU funds highway-, transit; and safety programs through the use of gas tax revenue and user fees deposited into the federal Highway Trust Fund, which is then distributed to State and local transportation agencies. SAFETEA-LU also provides the regulatory framework for transportation planning in urban areas at the federal level. Under SAFETEA-LU. the U.S. Department of Transportation reauires that metropolitan planning organizations prepare long-range transportation p"n
9-10 City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR

onaestion Manaaement Program (CMP)
In order to meet federal certification requirements for the Federal Transportation Improvement Program (ETIP). SCAG and the County Congestion Management Agencies (CMAs) have developed a Congestion Management Program (CMP) process for the region. Image County, the CMS is comprised of the combined activities of the RTP. the State Congestion Management Program (CMP), and the Regional Transportation Improvement Program t State Regulations
California Transportation Plan (CTP)
The CTP, which was formulated and is maintained by the Caltrans, is a state-wide long-range transportation plan that is updated every two years to reflect new and completed projects, County; Caltrans District 12 coordinates with OCTA each time the CTP is updated to ensure consistency with the long-range transportation lap.

to state:

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)
There are three CMP intersections in Newport Beach:
■MacArthur Boulevard S) at Jamboree Road (NSl
■MacArthur Boulevard (NS) at Coast Highway (EW
■Coast Highway X)X) at Newport Boulevard (,

Policy CE 3.1.5 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, or alternative improvements that achieve the same improvements in regional traffic flow, without disproportionate impacts on Newport Beach.

City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 9-11

■ Utilities and Service Systems

follows:

Currently, 7-64 percent of the water supplied by the City's service area is supplied by groundwater from the Orange County Groundwater Basin, and the remaining 2�36 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.2
2 Newport Beach, City of. 1999204S. Water ALvtff "'-' an. Prebared v Bro2vn and Caldwell.

December.

amended to state:

On an annual basis, Mesa delivers approximately 6.8 billion gallons (24;50020 850 AF) of water to various users.101 Approximately 7592 percent of Mesa's water is provided by local groundwater pumped from Orange County's natural groundwater basin via nine wells. , tThe 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.102 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. 101 Mesa Consolidated Water District. 20032003. Water Qttahty Repert=Urhata=)Yxter Management Plan. 102 Mesa Consolidated Water District. 20032043. Urban Water Management Plan.

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 insufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed

logy McVicker, Robta. Mesa Consolidated Water District. Written communication via email to City staff, April 5, 2006.

modified to state:

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 4,123K,173 gpd (4.12$ mgd) within the City. 9-12 City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR

Type of Land Use
Estimated Potential New
Development
Sewer Generation
Factor
Additional Projected
Wastewater p
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
5006. 330 students
10 gpd/student
5-0062,300
Parksa

55.4 acres
n/a
n/a
Total
4,1233$Q,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.

. I

follows:

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, Bonita Canyon- and Santa Ana Heights.1z6 ...

City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 9-13

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 ' r li in Table 4.14-12a:
■Staiitan Tr-aiisfer and Reeyeling Center #8 11232 Kronatt Avenue, Staiiteoi CA 90680 ■
>Anaheim,
CA 928
-Stinset Eiiviraftffiefita4 ifte. Tr-aiTsfe Stag._... ftd D..,.ettree D. eyel_fig L',..._l:a...1 /_122 r.....,.t....etie... ■
��^er_-rr_�� �'easz��er_�r��rae�s_ersrsex�ea�r��eerTersrer�.asr_e:ser� ��exr�e��er_rr�r_�r.��v��� Table 4.14-12a Transfer Station Cgpacity
Averagely Load
TransferStalion Location
Maximum Daily
Stanton Transfer and Recycling -Center #8
11232 Knott Avenue, Stanton, CA 90680

25.26 No Maximum
anacity
Rainbow Recycling/Transfer Station
17121 Nichols Street, Huntington Beach, CA 92647

1.700
am
Consolidated Volume Transporters
1131 Blue Gum Street, Anaheim, CA 92806
Varies (Typically does not hit max

6.000
capacity except for after holidays)
Sunset Environmental Inc. Transfer Station and Resource Vries (Typically does not hit max
am
Recycling Facility 16122 Construction Circle West, Irvine. CA capacity except for after holidays)
92606
Waste Management of Orange
2050 North Glassell, Orange, CA 92865
120
City of Newport Beach Transfer Station
592 Superior Avenue. Newport Beach, CA 92663
140
300

Currently. the Citv of Newport Beach is serviced by six solid waste transfer stations operated by a number of service
providers as
shown in Existing Conditions of this
section. As a result of the
General Plan Update.
the City is
expecting to increase the number of residential units in the Citv by abnroximately 4.96
percent and
will reduce the square feet of office_ commercial,
and industrials ace
by approximately 12.2 percent.

This overall reduction in the land use
intensity within the cites
reduce the daily
demand on the transfer stations which serve the City.

Each of the transfer stations
currently have
sufficient remaining
capacity to handle the solid waste
load from Newport Beach as
9-14 City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR

shown in Table 4.14-12a and these transfer stations are expected to have sufficient future capacity after implementation of the General Plan Update and all associated growth based on this net decrease in land use intensity
f Alternatives

Newport
West
Center/
West
Old
Newport
Mariners'
Fashion
Airport
Banning
Balboa
Balboa
Newport
Newport
Mesa
Mile
Island
Area
Ranch
Village
Peninsula
Highway
Boulevard
Office (sf)
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 4,519,602 46. 23,733 60,000 201,189 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
365
1,950
14 242
763
273
250
Alt
SFR(A)
98 837
419
1,190
5W
462
659
Commercial (sf)
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 2 0 99,960 854,167 217,340 774,492 18,105 120,879 Visitor Serving (hotel -motel rooms)
Proposed GPU
204
1,175
1,213
75 265
240
53 Alternative 4
204
1,036
1,431
34 350
145
53 Industrial (sf)
Proposed
837,270
Alternative 4
499,457
606,370
Institutional (sf)
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
36,650
Parks (acres)
Proposed GPU
1 30
Alternative 4

0.4 20
City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 9-15

■ Other CEQA Considerations

m Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Impact 4.6-7 Should residential development be constructed within the 65 dBA CNEL noise contour, implementation of the proposed General Plan Update could result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the Planning Area as a result of the proximity of a public airport.
■ Land Use and Planning
Impact 4.8-1 Should residential development be constructed within the 65 dBA CNEL noise contour; implementation of the imposed General Plan Update could involve new uses and structures that majr result in intensification of development within the Planning Area that creates incompatibilities with adjacent land uses. 9-16 City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR

CHANGES TO DRAFT EIR FIGURES
Changes to Draft EIR figures are listed below and reproduced on the subsequent pages:
■ Figure 4.1-3 (Coastal Views —Map 3 of 4) on page 4.1-7 of Section 4.1 (Aesthetics and Visual Quality) has been amended to show MacArthur Boulevard from San Joaquin Hills Road to Coast Highway as a Coastal View Road.
■ Figure 4.1-4 (Coastal Views —Map 4 of 4) on page 4.1-9 of Section 4.1 (Aesthetics and Visual Quality) has been amended to show MacArthur Boulevard from San Joaquin Hills Road to Coast Highway as a Coastal View Road.
■ Figure 4.3-1 (Biological Resources) on page 4.3-11 of Section 4.3 (Biological Resources) has been amended to clarify the location of the giant kelp beds. The legend in this figure also will be amended to indicate County.
■ Figure 4.7-1 (Water Resources) on page 4.7-5 of Section 4.7 (Hydrology and Water Quality) has been amended to correctly reflect tidelands and submerged lands within the City limits.

City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 9-17

CITY of NEWPORT BEACH

GENERAL PLAN UPDATE EIR
Figure 4.1-3
COASTAL VIEWS MAP 3 OF 4
(HARBOR AREA)
Legend
Public View Point
'"%a
Coastal View Road
•'.
coastal Zone Boundary
''•.

City Boundary
*+,
Shoreline Height
Limitation Zone
:.

Proposed Park
Public Beach or Park
Note, GIS Data Projection - CA State Plane, Zone 6, NAD83, Feet, kCifyBeach
\:l
Miles
Source: Chy of Newport Beach (West Newport Area), August, 2005.

Project No, 10579-03
' EIP

FAMPIC OCEAN
CITY of NEWPORT BEACH

GENERAL PLAN UPDATE EIR
Figure 4.1-4
COASTAL VIEWS MAP 4 OF 4
(NEWPORT COAST)
Legend
PUbllc View Point
r\.o Coastal Mew Road
Local Coastal Zone Boundary
". City Boundary
Proposed Park
Public Beach or Park
k0tyt Beach
4 0 0.5 1
Miles
Source: City of Newport Beach, 2006,
Project No. 10579-03 I
.(� EIP

CITY of NEWPORT BEACH

GENERAL PLAN UPDATE EIR
Figure 4.3-1

BIOLOGICAL

RESOURCES
Legend
Ee1grass Bed
= giant Kellp Bed
Historic Grunion Spawning
Are[
Upper Newpcwl Bay
Nature Preserve
Upper NewperF Beach
State Marine Pork
r City Boundary
*City of Newport Beach
4 0 0.5 1
Miles
Source: Chy of Newport Beach, 2005,
Project No. 10579-03

VPORT
ORES

COSTA MESA

NEWPORT
PIER
-BA
ALBOA
PIER

PACIFIC OCEAN
0 ISLAND
IRVINE
zo
I o
9 FASHION
ISLAND
NEWPORT �� COAST
CRYSTAL COVE /1

STATE PARK

CRYSTAL COVE

STATE PARK
CITY of NEWPORT BEACH

GENERAL PLAN
Figure 4.7-1
WATER

RESOURCES
Legend
�i City Bounda ry
C ounty
C oa sta I Pla in of
Orange County
Groundwater Basin
Estua ry
Freshwa ter Wetla nd
Tide landsand
Submerged Lands
Waterway
0"\.o Highway
Right -of -Way
7 0 0.5 1
Miles
Source: City of Newport Beach, 2005
California Department of Water Resources, 2000
US Fish and Wildlife Serivice, National Wetland
Inventory, 1989
PROJECT NUMBER; 10579-01
Date; 7/05/06

10.1 OVERVIEW
The City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR was circulated for review and comment by the public and other interested parties, agencies, and organizations for a 45-day public review period that began on April 21, 2006, and concluded on June 5, 2006. The City subsequently extended the public review period to June 13, 2006, the last of the public hearings in the City Council chamber during which the public was given the opportunity to provide comments on the Draft EIR. No new comments were received. During the public review period, 21 written comment letters on the Draft EIR and the proposed project were received by the City. Public hearings on the proposed General Plan Update and Draft EIR were held on April 6"' (Planning Commission [PC]), April 11d' (City Council [CC]), April 20 h (PC), April 25 h (CC), May 4 h (PC), May 9 h (CC), May 18d' (PC), May 23rd (CC), June 1" (PC), June 13d' (CC). Public hearings on the General Plan Update were held on June 15d' (PC), June 22°d (PC), June 27` (CC), July 6d' (PC), and July 11d' (CC). Public hearings on the General Plan Update and the Final EIR with this response to comments will be held on July 13d' (PC), July 20d' (PC), and July 256, 2006 (CC).

During the public review period, copies of the Draft EIR were distributed to public agencies through the State of California, Office of Planning and Research. The City also directly distributed the document to individuals, agencies, and organizations. In addition, the Draft EIR was available for public review during normal business hours at the City of Newport Beach, Planning Department, Newport Beach Public Libraries, and the City of Newport Beach website ( http://www.nbvision2025.com/) .

The complete text of the written comments —and the City's response to environmental issues raised in those comments —is presented in this chapter, with a copy of each comment letter followed by its response(s).

Table 10-1 provides a summary of Draft EIR comment letters, including: (1) the reference code used to identify the commenter; (2) a comprehensive list of commenters; (3) the date of the comment letter; and (4) the specific comment numbers to which this Final EIR responds.

City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 10-1

Reference Code
Commenter Name
Date
US
United States Department of the Interior
June 9, 2006
CT
State of California, Department of Transportation
June 8, 2006
CR
California Regional Water Quality Control Board
June 13, 2006
SC
Southern California Association of Governments
June 5, 2006
M
Mesa Consolidated Water District
May 8, 2006
CM
The City of Costa Mesa
June 8, 2006
IR
City of Irvine
May 4, 2006
B
Barry Eaton, Planning Commission
May 29, 2006
EQ
Environmental Quality Affairs Citizens Advisory Committee —Newport Beach June 5, 2006
G1
Greenlight
May 30, 2006
G2
Greenlight
June 13, 2006
HO
HOAG Hospital
June 6, 2006
T
The Irvine Company
June 13, 2006
N
Newport Banning Ranch LLC
June 6, 2006
P
Philip Bettencourt
June 8, 2006
SA
Sandra Genis
June 13, 2006
R
R.A. Nichols Engineering
June 7, 2006
L
Larry Porter
June 13, 2006
JA
Jan D. Vandersloot
June 13, 2006
JA2
Jan D. Vandersloot
February 27, 2006 in
the NOP response period
PR
Governor's Office of Planning and Research
I June 19, 2006

10.2 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
This section of the Final EIR contains all comments received on the Draft EIR during the public review period, as well as the Lead Agency's responses to these comments. Reasoned, factual responses have been provided to all comments received, with a particular emphasis on significant environmental issues.

Detailed responses have been provided where a comment raises a specific issue; however, a general response has been provided where the comment is relatively general. Where a comment does not raise a environmental issue, or expresses the subjective opinion of the commenter, the comment is noted, but no response is provided. Generally, the responses to comments provide explanation or amplification of information contained in the Draft EIR.

10.2.1 Master Responses
Master responses are provided for broad issue areas where there was extensive public comment.

Specifically, master responses are provided to address the following issues:
10-2 City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR

A: Inclusion of 19"' Street Bridge in EIR Analysis
B: Cumulative Analysis Methodology
C: Use of 2002 Baseline
D: Analysis of Impacts Beyond City Boundaries
E: Level of Environmental Analysis
■ Master Response A: Inclusion of 19th Street Bridge in EIR Analysis The Orange County Master Plan of Arterial Highways (MPAH), administered by Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA), is a long range planning tool that ensures the application of consistent standards and coordinated planning of arterial streets in Orange County. The MPAH was initially established in 1956 and is continuously updated to reflect changing development and traffic patterns. The MPAH includes a future bridge crossing of the Santa Ana River channel at Banning Avenue/19th Street to provide an important connection between Costa Mesa and Huntington Beach in this vicinity. This improvement has been included in the MPAH for several decades. The Circulation Elements of the cities within Orange County are required to be consistent with the MPAH.

Inconsistencies can lead to the loss of Measure M and Congestion Management Program funding.

Therefore, local agencies are discouraged from adopting General Plan Circulation Elements that would preclude the implementation of the MPAH.

The City of Costa Mesa's General Plan reflects these requirements. Its Circulation Element depicts the crossing. (See Exhibits CIR-3 and CIR-4 of Costa Mesa Circulation Element.) The Circulation Element at page CIR-5 acknowledges that "[a]n implication of having these two additional river crossings in the Master Plan of Highways is that all City planning efforts for future conditions must include these crossings."
Similarly, the City of Huntington Beach's General Plan identifies the future crossing of the Santa Ana River at 19'' Street, which is designated as Banning Avenue within the City of Huntington Beach. (See Exhibit CE-3 of Huntington Beach Circulation Element.) However, as stated on page III-CE-6, the Huntington Beach General Plan did not assume the existence of the 19' Street bridge within its traffic analysis "because their exclusion reflects Huntington Beach City Council current policy decisions and sentiment." (Emph. Added.) Page III-CE-7 of the Huntington Beach General Plan does acknowledge that future land use planning and transportation planning will need to reflect the potential construction of additional Santa Ana River crossings, such as the 19`h Street Bridge.

In January 2006, the OCTA published New Directions. Charting the Course for Orange County's Future Transportation System, Orange County Tran portation Authority 2006 Long Range Transportation Plan, which includes a discussion of coordinating to ensure roadways are built according to the MPAH. Four scenarios are evaluated and discussed in the document, two of which include the 19t1i Street bridge. The four scenarios are documented:
■ "The Baseline is our starting point. It is comprised of projects or services that have secured funding and have been assessed for their environmental impacts and approved to be implemented... In essence, the Baseline is a `No Project' alternative, being made up of projects that would occur if no preferred Long -Range Transportation Plan was approved." Page 51 City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 10-3

■ "The Constrained Alternative is a set of projects and services that can be carried out within Orange County's traditional revenue sources for transportation improvements. It assumes that the current Measure M one half -cent sales tax sunsets in 2011." Page 55 ■ "The Balanced Plan provides greater improvement to the transportation system. It includes projects and services that can be implemented with a higher level of investment, which is achieved if the traditional funds are supplemented with a voter -approved local one half -cent sales tax beyond 2011." Page 59
■ "The Unconstrained Alternative is the highest level of investment in the transportation system, a look at the optimum combinations of projects and services that could be implemented to meet Orange County's travel demand, if funds were not an issue." Page 67 The Balanced Plan (which includes the 19`' Street bridge) was selected as the preferred plan as documented on page 73: "The Baseline and Unconstrained Alternatives provide points of reference for analysis... Comparing the projected performance of the remaining alternatives, the Balanced Plan provides the highest level of improvement for Orange County travelers and is the preferred Long -Range Transportation Plan Alternative. It is important to note that this level of improvement is only possible if additional local revenues become available —a reasonable assumption, but critically dependent on voter approval of an extension to the one half -cent sales tax for transportation, Measure M." If the bridge were to be deleted from the MPAH, impacts from this change are required to be analyzed in environmental documentation by OCTA, as the lead agency for that effort. In 2001, the OCTA prepared the Santa Ana River Crossings (SARX) Program Environmental Impact Report (Program EIR). The report identified specific impacts associated with implementation or deletion of the Banning Avenue/19`h Street bridge, in addition to the Garfield Avenue/Gisler Avenue bridge. The affected cities have not reached agreement on critical issues associated with implementation or deletion of the bridges. As such, the SARX Program EIR is still at Draft stage. OCTA requires that all affected cities agree on a recommendation prior to its consideration by the OCTA Board. OCTA recently initiated a traffic circulation study to address issues associated with the Garfield Avenue/Gisler Avenue Bridge. However, no such study has been proposed for the Banning Avenue/19`' Street Bridge.

Construction of the Banning Avenue/19t' Street Bridge, while included in the MPAH, is currently not programmed. However, it is identified as a long-range improvement in the area, and it is appropriate to assume this improvement in the General Plan buildout scenario for traffic. Approval of the proposed project would not interfere with the implementation of the Banning Avenue/19th Street bridge, nor would it preclude a later decision by OCTA and the affected cities to amend the MPAH to delete the bridge crossing. Further, consideration of deleting this improvement from the MPAH is not part of the proposed project. Therefore, the EIR was not required to analyze the impacts of its deletion, although as explained below, the Transportation Study did have some discussion of this point. Along the same lines, because no improvements associated with the Banning Avenue/19t' Street Bridge are planned as part of the proposed project, this Draft EIR was not required to assess the impacts of constructing the bridge.

The construction of the 19th Street bridge would be a separate project that requires a certified CEQA document prior to construction of the improvement.

The proposed General Plan update would not preclude a later decision by OCTA and the affected cities to amend the MPAH to delete the bridge crossing and/or to implement alternative solutions, some of 10-4 City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR

which were identified in the SARX Program EIR. The City of Newport Beach has a history of supporting the 19`' Street Bridge, and Policy CE 3.1.5 in the proposed Circulation Element reflects that history. However, to make it clear that it is not the Newport Beach's intent to preclude alternative solutions, Policy CE 3.1.5, which is also listed on page 4.13-52 of the Draft EIR will be amended, as noted below and as shown in Chapter 9 (Text Changes) in the Final EIR:

Policy CE 3.1.5 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, or alternative improvements that achieve the same improvements in regional traffic flow, without dispropor impacts on Newport Beach.

While the EIR was not required to examine the environmental effects of deleting the 19th Street bridge from the MPAH, the Transportation Study (Appendix D to the DIER) includes a discussion of the City of Newport Beach General Plan Traffic Study Preliminary Alternatives Analysis (Urban Crossroads, Inc., May 3, 2005) which, in turn, outlined the additional roadway improvements that may be necessary if the MPAH was amended to delete the 19th Street bridge. Pages ES-21' and 6-1 of the Transportation Study state that without the potential 19th Street bridge over the Santa Ana River, Bluff Road at Coast Highway and Superior Avenue at Coast Highway experience deficient operations requiring substantial additional improvements. The bridge would provide relief to Coast Highway, resulting in the need for at least one fewer additional through lane in each direction. Additional through lanes on Coast Highway would be inconsistent with the General Plan, and the MPAH designation. Widening of Coast Highway would likely result in a reduction in the size of parklands south of the highway, a reduction in existing commercial parcels, and the displacement of residents in the area. The City Council has determined that these improvements would be unacceptable and infeasible. Further, the Newport Beach Fire Department has identified implementation of the 19th Street Bridge as an improvement for emergency and mutual aid response (Riley 2006).2 For these reasons, the City Council has proposed Policy CE 3.1.5 to be included for consideration in this General Plan update.
r Master Response B: Cumulative Analysis Methodology
Methodology for Determining Cumulative Impacts
The methodology for determining cumulative impacts involves a three -step process. Step one is determining whether or not the project has an impact for a given threshold. As explained in Sierra Club v. West Side Irrig. Dist. (2005) 128 CA4th 690, 27 CR3d 223, if a project have an incremental environmental effect, the effect cannot be characterized as having a cumulative impact of that project.

Because a cumulative impact of a project is an impact to which the project contributes and to which other projects contribute as well, the project must make some contribution to the impact. Otherwise, it cannot be characterized as a cumulative impact of that project. 1 The City has discovered that Page ES-21 contains a typographical omission. The last two lines of text are missing. The missing text states "additional through lane in each direction. Therefore it is recommended that Newport Beach continue to be a strong advocate for this bridge." The text was not missing page 6-1. This typographical omission will be corrected. 2 Riley, Tim. Fire Chief, Newport Beach Fire Department, communication, 3 July 2006.

City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 10-5

If a project will have an impact for a given threshold, then step two is determining whether the project in combination with other projects results in a cumulative impact (i.e., a potentially significant impact from the combination of projects). CEQA Guidelines Sections 15130(a)(2) states:

When the combined cumulative impact associated with the project's incremental effect and the effects of other projects is not significant, the EIR shall briefly indicate why the cumulative impact is not significant and is not discussed in further detail in the EIR. A Lead Agency shall identify facts and analysis supporting Agencies conclusion that the cumulative impact is less than significant.

If the project, when combined with other past and future projects, creates a cumulative impact, then step three is determining whether the project's contribution to the impact is "cumulatively considerable." CEQA Guidelines Sections 15130(a)(3) states:

An EIR may determine that a project's contribution to a significant cumulative impact will be rendered less than cumulatively considerable and thus is not significant. A project's contribution is less than cumulatively considerable if the project is required to implement or fund its fair share of a mitigation measure or measures designed to alleviate the cumulative impact. The lead agency shall identify facts and analysis supporting its conclusion that the contribution will be rendered less than cumulatively considerable.

As stated on page 1-1, this EIR has been prepared as a Program EIR pursuant to Section 15168 of the CEQA Guidelines. A Program EIR has the advantage of being able to "Ensure consideration of cumulative impacts that might be slighted in a case -by -case analysis" (Section 15168(b)(2)). Additionally, the EIR determined the significance of cumulative impacts in accordance with relevant laws, codes, regulations and ordinances.

Comments received regarding the adequacy of the cumulative impact analysis have questioned whether the EIR used a comparative or ratio approach in analyzing the significance of cumulative impacts.

Specifically, comment SA-12 indicated that the cumulative impact analysis was flawed because, "The Draft EIR dismisses the significance of cumulative impacts in a number of cases, such as increased runoff and population growth, on the basis that the City would make only a very small contribution to the cumulative impact, since 'Newport Beach represents less than one percent of the total population growth."'
Regarding the claim that increased runoff was evaluated using a ratio approach, the EIR instead used a project -level analysis and identified that the direct and cumulative impacts from individual projects would be addressed by laws, regulations, and or ordinances that would apply to individual projects. Page 4.7-42 of the Draft EIR states that:
... new development would be required to comply with existing regulations regarding construction practices that minimize risks of erosion and runoff. Among the various regulations are the applicable provisions of Orange County Ordinance 3988 (Stormwater Management and Urban Runoff —Orange County Flood Control District Regulations), Best Management Practices, compliance with appropriate grading permits, and NPDES permits. This would minimize degradation of water quality at individual project construction sites. As such, cumulative impacts would be less than significant. Compliance by the City and SOI with applicable SWRCB and RWQCB regulations and the City of Newport Beach Municipal Code, as discussed in Impact 4.7-1, would ensure that water quality is maintained to the maximum extent practicable for new development under the proposed General Plan Update.
10-6 City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR

Pages 4.7-20 to 4.7-26 list and describe the applicable federal, state, and local water quality statutes, regulations, and standards that currently apply to development and would continue to apply to development under the proposed General Plan. These applicable regulations include the SARWQCB NPDES permit, with which the City is a co-permittee, as well as the City's MS4 NPDES permit. In addition, applicable storm water and urban runoff regulations include what are termed "Total Maximum Daily Loads" or "TMDLs", which are regulations that limit the total amount of a problem pollutant(s) that may be discharged into an impaired water body. TMDLs are to be designed to achieve applicable water quality standards. As described on page 4.7-22 of the Draft EIR, the MS4 permit directs the City to ensure that flows entering the recreational waters from the MS4 "do not cause or contribute to exceedences of water quality standards," and requires the City to, among other things, control contaminants in storm drain systems, control and runoff from construction sites, and inspect commercial and industrial sites for compliance with NDPES regulations. Also, as described on page 4.7-23 of the Draft EIR, Provision C.3 of the General Construction Activity Stormwater Permit requires new and redevelopment projects that would create or replace impervious surface area to ensure that post -project runoff and volume do not exceed pre -project values. Further, as described on page 4.7-25 of the Draft EIR, Chapter 14.36 (Water Quality) of the City's Municipal Code the City, under its Municipal NPDES Permit, must comply with applicable federal water quality standards established by the Clean Water Act.

In addition to these existing regulations and standards, development under the proposed General Plan would also be subject to the applicable policies of the General Plan itself, and these policies include numerous measures, listed on pages 4.7-44 to 4.7-55 of the Draft EIR, to protect water quality.

The Draft EIR explains on page 4.7-42 that because current and future projects within the geographic cumulative context would be required to comply with requirements imposed by the City, as needed for the City to comply with the terms of its Municipal NPDES Permit, including complying with applicable water quality standards. TMDLs will further limit the maximum amount of problem pollutants that may be discharged into an impaired water body so as to bring any existing impaired water body into compliance with applicable water quality standards. The Draft EIR also explains on the same page that projects undertaken under the proposed General Plan would be subject to applicable policies of the proposed General Plan, some of which would require, as a matter of policy, compliance with NPDES permits (see especially proposed Policy NR 3.5). Consequently, in addition to monitoring and enforcement by the RWQCB and the City, compliance of future City projects with conditions to enable the City to comply with applicable water quality standards would be required. Accordingly, development under the proposed General Plan would necessarily be conditioned to meet established and future water quality standards, and thus would not result in a cumulative adverse impact on water quality because all these requirements are designed to alleviate potential cumulative impacts.

As stated on Page 4.7-43 of the Draft EIR:

Buildout of the proposed General Plan Update, in combination with all other development that would occur within the County, would involve development that would increase stormwater runoff from new impervious surfaces. This increased development would require the construction of new, or expansion of existing, storm drain facilities; however, all new development would be required to comply with existing State and local regulations regarding construction and operation practices that minimize the amount of stormwater runoff that enters the storm drain system. In addition, the proposed General Plan Update policies require that adequate storm water conveyance and storage control facilities be maintained and/or constructed for all development.

City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 10-7

As described above, the analysis identifies the laws, regulations, and/or ordinances that would be required to ensure that applicable water quality standards are met (i.e., that water quality within the [geographic area] would be in compliance with applicable State and federal requirements), and concludes that cumulative impacts for water quality and storm drainage would be less than significant given the need for these legal requirements to be met. Consequently, although the Draft EIR acknowledges that additional runoff resulting from the implementation of the General Plan Update would be small on a percentage basis, the cumulative analysis does not rely on this percentage to determine the significance of the impact.

Use of a ratio approach is not of itself inappropriate. The population and housing analysis did use a ratio approach. Page 4.10-5, under Impact 4.10-1, states:

This estimated population increase represents the most conservative or worst -case scenario, as it assumes that all allowed units would be built, which has not occurred under the existing General Plan. Additionally, this estimate assumes that all units in the City would be occupied. However, as previously discussed, the City currently has a 10.9 percent vacancy rate, which is substantially higher than that of the County. Thus, units that would likely remain vacant (due to conditions such as seasonal housing) are included in the calculation of the City's population upon buildout of the proposed General Plan Update. Further, implementation of the proposed General Plan Update would include development of more multi -family residential units, which typically have fewer persons residing in each unit as compared to single-family units. Because multi -family residential units do not presently make up a substantial portion of the City's residential land uses, the existing

2.19 pph does not reflect a reduction in future pph rates.

The Draft EIR acknowledges that an increase of 31,131 residents is a substantial increase in population for the City, and would represent an approximately 43 percent increase in population over the 2002 population and an approximately 37 percent increase in population over existing conditions. However, as previously stated, the SCAG 2030 population projection for Orange County is 3,552,742. As such, at full buildout of the General Plan Update, the City's population increase would represent less than one percent of Orange County's total 2030 population increase. The Draft EIR concluded that the project's projected increase of less than one percent would not represent a cumulatively substantial and significant increase in population growth in the SCAG region. This would be well below the projected county -wide population increase of 495,877 persons and would not represent a cumulatively significant increase in population for the County as a whole.

The EIR based its conclusion upon the effect of exceeding SCAG's 2030 population projections for the City of Newport Beach, and found that the increase in population was a significant impact on a project level, but a less than significant impact cumulatively when examined with the proposed project, past projects, other current projects and probable future projects.

To clarify the methodology used in the cumulative analysis, the following text change has been made to the Draft EIR on page 4.10-6, as noted below and as shown in Chapter 9 (Text Changes) in the Final EIR. This text change is not a substantial change to the EIR and does not affect the cumulative analysis contained in Section 4.10 (Population and Housing):

SCAG's regional growth data project that the population of Orange County will be 3,552,742 persons in 2030, an increase of 495,877 persons over the County's existing population. SCAG also projects that the population of the City will be 94,167 persons in 2030. The proposed General Plan Update projects that the population of the City will be 103,753 persons in 2030, an increase of 9,586 10-8 City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR

persons over what SCAG projects in 2030 for the City and Orange County. As stated in Impact 4.10- 1, this is an increase of approximately 10 percent over what SCAG projects for the City in 2030. In the cumulative context of Orange County, this represents an increase of approximately less than one percent over what is projected by SCAG for 2030. ,
' Affected increase of less then
one percent would not represent a cumulatively substantial and significant increase in population growth in the SCAG region. This would be well below the proiected county -wide population increase of 495.877 persons and would not represent a cumulatively significant increase in t)ot)ulation for the nty as a whole. This cumulative impact would be less than significant. The project would have a less -than -significant contribution to this effect.

Scope of Cumulative Impact Analysis
The scope of the cumulative impact analysis is dictated by the nature of the resource under consideration; consequently, the geographic context of the cumulative impact analysis varies according to resource, and the context is clearly stated in each cumulative impact section, in accordance with 14 Cal Code Regs Section 15130 (b) (3), which states:

Lead agencies should define the geographic scope of the area affected by the cumulative effect and provide a reasonable explanation for the geographic limitation used.

The following discussion describes the geographic context for the cumulative impact analysis of each resource section:

Aesthetics
As stated on page 4.1-22 of the Draft EIR, the geographic context for the analysis of cumulative impacts on visual resources is southwestern Orange County, specifically Newport Beach and the visible portions of adjacent cities, such as Huntington Beach, Costa Mesa, and Irvine. This is the appropriate geographic context because visual impacts are generally limited to the immediate vicinity of a proposed project, impacts to where views of and from a project area are most likely to be experienced. Development under the General Plan Update would be visible within this geographic area, and contribution of visual resources impacts of the proposed project that other projects contribute to would be in this geographic context.

Air Quality
As stated on page 4.2-17 of the Draft EIR, the geographic context for the analysis of cumulative air quality impacts is Source Receptor Area (SRA) 18 of the South Coast Air Basin. This area extends from the Los Angeles County Line on the north through Newport Beach on the south, and Interstate 405 on the east to the Pacific Ocean on the west. It includes the Planning Area for the proposed General Plan Update, as well as the cities of Costa Mesa, Huntington Beach, and Seal Beach, and represents a discrete area for the purpose of air quality monitoring. The significance of cumulative air quality impacts is typically determined according to the project methodology employed by the SCAQMD, the regional authority in this area, taking regional growth projections into consideration. Under the method prescribed by the SCAQMD, projects contemplated under a single regulatory program or a program EIR should be evaluated additively for cumulative air quality impacts. If there are no such projects, then the City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 10-9

significance of the project -specific impact determines the significance of the project's cumulative impact.

In the case of the General Plan Update, all potential development under the General Plan, which establishes the program for the entire City of Newport Beach and governs projects to be developed within the City, is considered in the Draft EIR; consequently, as the governing program of development, the General Plan Update is both the project and the cumulative context under SCAQMD cumulative impact analysis methodology.

Biological Resources
As stated on page 4.3-29, the geographic context for the analysis of cumulative biological impacts includes the Orange County Central and Coastal Natural Community Conservation Plan/Habitat Conservation Plan (NCCP/HCP). The plan was designed to guide habitat conservation and compatible land use over 209,000 acres of developed land and open space in two noncontiguous areas of Orange County (the Central and Coastal subregions). The plan establishes a permanent reserve of about 38,000 acres of several types of habitat, including 19,000 acres of coastal sage scrub habitat. Impacts to covered species and establishment and implementation of a regional conservation strategy and other measures included in the NCCP/HCP are intended to address the federal, state, and local mitigation requirements for these species and their habitats. This is due to the fact that the creation of the Reserve System provides essential habitat necessary to sustain the target and identified species within each subregion. The commitment of land mitigates, on a regional basis, the loss of habitat value while the mitigation fees provide for future management of the Reserve System as well as providing lands, and funds for future habitat restoration and enhancement (refer to page II-423 of the NCCP/HCP). As the NCCP/HCP focuses on multiple species and habitats and address the conservation of these species on a regional context, the NCCP/HCP by design addresses cumulative biological impacts for take of covered species within the Planning Area for the General Plan Update.

Cultural Resources
As stated on page 4.4-19, the geographic context for the analysis of cumulative cultural resources is Orange County, as cultural resources within the City could be expected to provide important scientific information regarding culture groups that generally ranged throughout portions of the county.

Consequently, the overall effect of impacts to cultural resources as a result of the proposed project would contribute to the cumulative impacts on cultural resources of other projects within Orange County.

Geology and Soils
As stated on page 4.5-18, the geographic context for the analysis of impacts resulting from geologic hazards generally is site -specific, rather than cumulative in nature, because each project area has unique geologic considerations that would be subject to uniform site development and construction standards.

This geographic context is appropriate. Because these effects are site -specific, and impacts would not be compounded by additional development, and because development that would occur under the General Plan Update would be sited and designed in accordance with appropriate geotechnical and seismic guidelines and recommendations consistent with the California Building Code, any contribution of impacts resulting from geologic hazards of the proposed project would not contribute to those of other projects; therefore, this geographic context is appropriate. 10-10 City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR

Mineral Resources
As stated on page 4.5-32, the geographic context for cumulative mineral resources impacts that would occur under the proposed General Plan Update is Orange County. This is the appropriate geographic context as any impacts to a mineral or oil resource due to implementation of the proposed project would cumulatively contribute to impacts of other mineral or oil resources within the local geological formations in Orange County. Any contribution of impacts on mineral or oil resources of the proposed project that other projects contribute to would be in this geographic context.

Hazardous Materials
As stated on page 4.6-30, the geographic context for cumulative hazardous impacts is the entire Planning Area (encompassing the City and the SOI). As impacts associated with hazards and hazardous materials are generally considered site -specific, the Planning Area is the appropriate geographic context.

Hydrology and Water Quality
Water Quality
As stated on page 4.7-42, the geographic context for the analysis of cumulative impacts associated with water quality is the area covered by the Newport Bay, Newport Coast, Talbert, and San Diego Creek Watersheds. This is the appropriate geographic context as any potential project -related impacts on water quality would affect water quality within the above mentioned watersheds.

Groundwater
As stated on page 4.7-42, the geographic context for the analysis of cumulative impacts associated with groundwater is the area underlain by the Coastal Plain of Orange County Groundwater Basin. This is the appropriate geographic context as any potential project related -impacts on groundwater resources would contribute to impacts to groundwater resources only within that basin.

Storm Drainage
As stated on page 4.7-43, the geographic context for cumulative impacts to storm drainage is the Orange County. Some local storm drain facilities within the City ultimately flow into the County facilities, and development that would occur within the County would increase stormwater runoff into the County system. This increased development could require the construction of new, or expansion of existing, County storm drain facilities. Therefore, the County is the appropriate geographic context.

Flood Hazards
As stated on page 4.7-43, the geographic context for the analysis of cumulative impacts associated with flooding hazards is the area covered by the Newport Bay, Newport Coast, Talbert, and San Diego Creek Watersheds. Cumulative growth and development throughout the watersheds could result in the introduction of new structures and impervious surfaces that would increase stormwater runoff within these watersheds, which could subsequently lead to increased flood hazards within these watersheds.

Additionally, cumulative development could potentially result in increases in the number of people living City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 10-11

in potential dam, levee, seiche, tsunami, and mudflow inundation areas within the watersheds that these events could affect. Therefore, these identified watershed areas are the appropriate geographic context.

Land Use and Planning
As stated on page 4.8-24, the geographic context for the cumulative impacts associated with land use issues is Orange County. This is the appropriate geographic context as regional growth will be reviewed for consistency with adopted land use plans and policies by the County. The City of Newport Beach, and other incorporated cities in the County, in accordance with the requirements of CEQA, the State Zoning and Planning Law, and the State Subdivision Map Act. Additionally, incompatibility would generally occur only with adjacent uses and municipalities.

Noise
As stated on page 4.9-35, the geographic context for the analysis of cumulative noise impacts is the Planning Area. Noise and vibration from localized sources, such as construction sites, HVAC equipment, etc., decrease rapidly with distance from those sources; therefore, the Planning Area is the appropriate geographic context for this localized effect.

Population and Housing
As stated on page 4.10-6, the geographic context for the analysis of cumulative impacts associated with population and housing is Orange County. This context is appropriate because impacts to population and housing resulting from implementation of the proposed project would have the potential to cumulatively contribute to impacts throughout the County, and County -wide population projections generally form the basis for long-term planning and transit planning.

Public Services
Fire Services
As stated on page 4.11-10, the geographic context for the analysis of cumulative impacts associated with fire service is the Newport Beach Fire Department service area. Because impacts to fire service are limited to the area served by the NBFD, this is the appropriate geographic context.

Police Services
As stated on page 4.11-16, the geographic context for the analysis of cumulative impacts associated with police protection services would be the NBPD service area. Because impacts to police service are limited to the area served by the NBPD, this is the appropriate geographic context.

Schools
As stated on page 4.11-24, the geographic context for the analysis of cumulative impacts associated with schools is the Newport Mesa Unified School District and the Santa Ana Unified School District. Because impacts to school service are limited to the area served by the NMUSD and the SAUSD, this is the appropriate geographic context.
10-12 City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR

Library Services
As stated on page 4.11-29, the geographic context for the analysis of cumulative impacts associated with library services would be the capacity of the NBPL. Because impacts to library service are limited to the area served by the NBPL, this is the appropriate geographic context.

Recreation and Open Space
As stated on page 4.12-17, the geographic context for the analysis of cumulative impacts associated with parks and recreational facilities is the City of Newport Beach and its SOI. Because impacts to recreation and open space are limited to the planning area, this is the appropriate geographic context.

Transportation/Traffic
As stated on page 4.13-46, future traffic volumes for the General Plan Buildout With Project and General Plan Buildout Without Project scenarios were projected using the Newport Beach Traffic Model, Version 3.1 (NBTM 3.1). The NBTM 3.1 is a model that incorporates regional model data and projects on the regional system within and outside of the City. This includes traffic from neighboring jurisdictions. It includes most of Southern California, although the level of detail for areas further away from the City is less detailed than for areas closer to the City. These projections do include all reasonably foreseeable and probable future projects in the region, including growth in other municipalities.

Therefore, this is the appropriate geographic context as any potential project traffic and transportation impacts, as well as those from other related projects, would be part of the NBTM model.

As explained in the TBR, Chapter 3, p. 2, the NBTM 3.1 is a three-tier system, with tier 1 being the least detailed analysis and tier 3 being the primary study area. Additionally, the forecasts presented by the application of the NBTM 3.1 are consistent with and inclusive of regional forecasts (i.e. the Newport Beach forecasting process has been accepted by Orange County Transportation Authority as providing results that satisfy their consistency requirements). Pursuant to the Orange County Subarea Modeling Guidelines Manual (OCTA, September, 2004), each subarea model under consideration for consistency determination with OCTAM must meet the guidelines and criteria established in this chapter. Subarea consistency is established by comparing OCTAM and the subarea model for each modeling step. This information is used as a reference point for consistency findings and to provide a basis for comparing changes in the subarea modeling assumptions and input data. Consistency comparisons are made for both the OCTAM base year and horizon year projections. The NBTM 3.1 was found consistent with OCTAM in a letter to Rich Edmonston, Newport Beach Transportation and Development Services Manager, dated March 31, 2004.

Further, the transportation study is based on the best available information regarding development outside the City of Newport Beach at the time the study was prepared. The most current regional projections of growth in housing, population, and employment are the OCP-2004 demographic projections. These projections have been used to reflect cumulative development potential throughout Orange County. Similarly, the most current regional demographic projections as reflected in the Orange County Transportation Analysis Model (OCTAM) have been included in the analysis. The Pacific City project would have been included in the OCP-2004 because it did not involve a General Plan City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 10-13

Amendment. While the Westside Revitalization Plan was not included in OCP-2004, the City of Costa Mesa's environmental analysis identified no impacts related to that project as provided below.

In its own environmental documents for projects in the Irvine Business Complex (IBC), the City of Irvine has consistently concluded that development in the IBC will not result in impacts greater than those found in the 1988 EIR for the IBC General Plan amendment. The level of development studied in this EIR is included in regional growth projections, and therefore in the Draft EIR for the proposed General Plan update.

For example, the Supplemental Draft EIR for the Central Park project in March 2004 found that, due to complying with the IBC trip budget and using a transfer of development rights (TDR), the project would have no traffic impacts in Newport Beach or Tustin or on I-405 ramps. Only one intersection in Irvine was found to have a significant impact, which was reduced to a non -significant impact after mitigation.

An Addendum to the 1998 EIR was prepared for the Plaza -Irvine project in June 2004. Again using the IBC trip budget and TDR, it found that there would be a reduction in both daily and peak hour trips.

Phases III and IV of the Plaza -Irvine were found to be within the scope of the IBC EIR, and no further environmental evaluation was done. In August 2005, another Addendum to the 1998 EIR was done for the Kelvin Jamboree Village project. It found that the project would generate trips within the IBC trip budget and that the regional transportation impacts had been analyzed as part of the 1992 IBC Rezoning Traffic Study (part of the 1988 IBC EIR, which was certified in 1992). A Subsequent EIR was prepared for the Avalon Bay project in June 2006, with the traffic study showing that only one intersection in Irvine would be impacted and requiring a contribution to a future traffic improvement as mitigation. The Preliminary Final Subsequent EIR for the 2323 Main Street project found no significant adverse impacts from traffic. Finally, the Draft Negative Declaration for the IBC Residential and Mixed Use Overlay Zone and Vision Plan, released in January 2006, concluded that there would be no significant impacts due to increase in trips related to capacity of the system from this comprehensive planning program that could result in development of an additional 10,000 residential units.

The City of Newport Beach has commented on some of these environmental documents, and does not believe that the analysis to support their conclusions has been adequate in every case. Nonetheless, Newport Beach is unable to analyze the cumulative impacts of these and other projects in Irvine if the City of Irvine has not provided the needed information in the environmental documents on these projects.

Further, some commenters, including the City of Costa Mesa, have referenced other project -level traffic analyses. The City has reviewed several of Costa Mesa's environmental documents in the vicinity of Banning Ranch, including the Mixed -Use Overlay District and Sobeca Urban Plan IS/MND, which analyzed 2025 conditions. Although it is not stated whether the analysis took into consideration existing conditions or the existing General Plan, the difference is relatively moderate, as shown below:

Average Daily Trips
Existing 135,561
General Plan 173,286
Revised Plan 157,647
10-14 City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR

The analysis included several worst -case assumptions, including no extension of SR-55 and no bridge along 19th St at the Santa Ana River. It also assumes numerous local intersection improvements. As a result the three intersections with LOS E under existing conditions would improve, and all intersections would operate at LOS D or better under either the General Plan or the Revised Plan, which adheres to the City's goal for acceptable level of service of LOS D.

Utilities and Service Systems
Water System
As stated on page 4.14-20, the geographic context for the analysis of cumulative impacts associated with water systems would be the water provider projections for the Planning Area. MWDOC, the City's provider of imported water, IRWD, and Mesa Consolidated have each indicated they can accommodate the additional demand from the proposed General Plan Update. As any potential project related water system impacts would cumulatively contribute to water system impacts of the above -mentioned water providers, this is the appropriate geographic context.

Sewer Systems
As stated on page 4.14-33, 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. As any potential project -related and related projects' wastewater system impacts would cumulatively contribute to wastewater system impacts of the above -mentioned wastewater service providers, this is the appropriate geographic context.

Solid Waste
As stated on page 4.14-45, the geographic context for the analysis associated with cumulative solid waste impacts is Orange County. As any potential project -related and related projects' solid waste impacts would cumulatively contribute to solid waste impacts to the County landfill system, making this the appropriate geographic context.

Energy
As stated on page 4.14-50, the geographic context for the analysis of cumulative energy impacts is the SCE and the SCGC service areas. As any potential project -related and related projects' energy impacts would cumulatively contribute to energy impacts within the SCE and SCGC service areas, this is the appropriate geographic context.
■ Master Response C: Use of 2002 Baseline
It should be noted that the reasoning and justification for the 2002 baseline was previously presented in Section 1.2.1 (Environmental Setting/Definition of the Baseline) starting on page 1-3 of the Draft EIR.

However, additional information is provided herein for clarification purposes.

City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 10-15

The General Plan update process has been a lengthy one that progressed from visioning, to identification of land use alternatives, to preparation of the TBR, to selection of land use alternatives, to evaluation of the environmental impacts of the various alternatives in the Draft EIR. The General Plan update process included an extensive public participation process that included four years of effort by a 38-member citizen General Plan Advisory Committee (GPAC). As a result of these efforts, the City's vision and strategic directions to implement the vision were identified and documented in the Community Directions for the Future Qanuary 2003).

While the City's process to update the General Plan began with a Visioning Process in late 2001, it was in 2002 that the main technical analyses were developed. The City completed its compilation of the TBR and published the document in June 2004. Subsequently, a framework of principles was identified to guide the formulation of land use alternatives and updated General Plan policies. Alternative land use development scenarios were then formulated in context of the City's vision and guiding principles. The alternatives were evaluated to determine their environmental and economic impacts, based on information in the TBR. The alternative land use scenarios and their impacts were presented to City Council in August 2005 at which time they selected a land use plan for use in the EIR. The update of the General Plan, inclusive of policies, was based on this land use plan, and it constitutes the project analyzed in the Draft EIR.

The purpose of the TBR is stated clearly in the Introduction to the document, as follows:

The purpose of this document, the City of Newport Beach General Plan Technical Background Report (TBR), is to serve as a comprehensive database that describes the City's existing conditions for physical, social, and economic resources. This information includes discussion of the existing characteristics, trends and forecasts, and issues associated with each resource. The planning issues, which were identified based on existing conditions, will be presented as a separate document. The TBR is the foundation document from which subsequent planning policies and programs will be formulated. In addition, the TBR will serve as the "Environmental Setting" section for each technical environmental issue analyzed in the Environmental Impact Report, which will be completed as a component of the preparation of the General Plan.

The January 2006 NOP identified that the EIR analysis would be based on the TBR. Page 1 of the NOP stated:

The City of Newport Beach General Plan Technical Background Report (TBR) provides existing data for the entire Planning Area. The TBR was published June 2004 and is available for review at the Planning Department and Central Library.

The TBR has been publicly available since June 2004, and clearly states that the study year is 2002. The definition of the baseline is identified on pages 1-3 and 1-4 of the Draft EIR.

The use of a 2002 baseline is considered appropriate for this document because, among other reasons, the TBR and traffic modeling efforts were initiated in 2002, subsequent to the initiation of the General Plan update process. The process undertaken for this General Plan update moved forward from visioning to selection of a preferred plan without interruption, in a manner that is entirely consistent with the General Plan process outlined the State of California General Plan Guidelines (2003), which is the State of California's official document interpreting and explaining California's legal requirements for general plans. Specifically, the General Plan Guidelines state that "data collection, data analysis, and special studies should be coordinated with the needs of the CEQA document being written for the plan. In the 10-16 City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR

interest of efficiency, data collection and analysis should be comprehensive enough to satisfy the needs of both the CEQA document and the general plan." The Guidelines further state that "To the extent feasible, the planning process and the environmental analysis should proceed concurrently, sharing the same information."
Accordingly, the TBR (including documents referenced therein), which was completed in June 2004 using data collected in 2002, was used both for purposes of identifying a preferred plan and for use as the environmental setting in the EIR. In some cases, portions of the concurrently prepared General Plan provided additional relevant setting information, and, in those cases, such data was specifically identified in the EIR section. For example, the recreation section of the EIR relied on both the TBR and the 2005 General Plan Update Recreation Element, the latter of which was not available when the TBR was prepared. Similarly, if additional relevant information became available since preparation of the TBR, such as the 2005 Urban Water Management Plan, that information was also used and specifically cited in the EIR. Also, 2005 traffic counts were collected so that the public and decision makers have additional information to help them understand the changes from currently existing conditions that would result from the proposed General Plan update. However, much of the information in the TBR does not change over the course of a few years (e.g., infrastructure, biological resources, hydrology, topography, geology, mineral resources, or hazards).

With respect to Public Services, new data was collected from the fire department, police department, and the Newport -Mesa Unified School District to reflect the most current and available information. No information from the Newport Beach Public Library was presented in the TBR; therefore, information was collected from the library as part of the EIR process in order to evaluate library impacts, although this analysis is not required under CEQA.

With respect to fire protection, the Newport Beach Fire Department (NBFD) uses accepted service levels to determine whether fire protection services are adequate. In this case, "adequate" is defined as a five-minute response time for a first -arriving fire engine at a fire or medical aid event, and an 8-minute response time for a first -arriving fire engine for a paramedic event. The data collected in 2002 and again in 2005 indicates that acceptable service levels are being provided. No new or different impacts would result from use of the 2002 data as compared to the 2005 data.

In terms of police protection, the City considers a ratio of officers to population when determining whether adequate police protection services are provided. With respect to population, the General Plan population projections were used in the EIR analysis. With respect to the number of officers available to serve that population, 2005 staffing levels were used. If 2002 data were used for staffing levels, it would result in an officer -to -population ratio that is higher than under 2005 levels, which would essentially indicate that there were more officers available to accommodate the increased growth; therefore, the 2005 data represents a more conservative analysis. Nonetheless, even if 2002 data were used, no new or different impacts would result and, further, the same General Plan policies would be recommended and no mitigation measures would be required.

For the schools analysis, capacity and campus size are the thresholds used to evaluate school impacts.

Using both the 2002 and 2005 data, current school capacity is adequate to serve current levels of enrollment, and any additional population associated with the General Plan update could exceed this City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 10-17

capacity. General plan policies have been developed to address this potential capacity issue. Therefore, no new or different impacts would result from use of the 2002 data as compared to the 2005 data.

With respect to campus size, the same number of public schools were available to City residents in 2002 and 2005; therefore, if new facilities are required (either an expansion of existing facilities or new facilities), as supported by General Plan policy, the use of 2002 data would not result in new or different impacts as compared to 2005 data.

While CEQA Guideline Section 15125(a) notes that the baseline condition for the environmental review of a project will be the NOP date, CEQA permits the use of alternative dates provided substantial evidence supports the lead agency's choice of reference points. Refer to, for example, Fat P. County of Sacramento (2002) 97 Ca1.App.4th 1270, 1281; Napa Cit.Zens for Honest Gov't. v. Napa County Bd. of Supervisors (2001) 91 Cal.App.4 h 342, 363.

To suggest that in the context of the massive undertaking of a city-wide General Plan update, all of the technical studies have to be re -commissioned to match the NOP date would lead to a never-ending review process that would be counter to the State of California General Plan Guidelines and general CEQA practice, which establishes the goal of a one-year deadline between NOP issuance and EIR certification.

See Pub. Res. Code §21100.2 (a)(4), 21151.5(a); CEQA Guideline §15108; Kostka and Zischke, Practice Under the California Environmental Quality Act, vol. 1, 516.5. By way of example, the TBR here took approximately two years to complete.

Further, the use of 2002 data as the baseline conditions for the EIR analysis provides a more conservative analysis of the impacts with a greater potential change between baseline and buildout. For these reasons, the Draft EIR's baseline analysis is appropriate.

Master Response D: Analysis of Impacts Beyond City Boundaries As explained in Section 1.2 of the Draft EIR on page 1-2, the scope of the Draft EIR was determined through the preparation of an Initial Study which is included in Appendix A of the Draft EIR, as well as through the issuance of a Notice of Preparation (NOP). An NOP is designed to solicit guidance from other agencies regarding the scope and content of an EIR. Pub. Res. Code §21080.4; CEQA Guideline §15082. If an agency with jurisdiction over a resource which may be impacted by the project fails to request any particular analysis within 30 days of receiving the NOP, the Lead Agency is authorized to presume that such agency is not asking for the inclusion of the unidentified analysis in the Draft EIR.

CEQA Guideline �15082(b)(2).

In this instance, the City issued a combined NOP/Initial Study on January 27, 2006, and sent it to all required agencies, organizations, and interested parties. The recipients included the neighboring cities and the County of Orange, each of whom have jurisdiction over the roadway systems within their boundaries. In addition, the City sent the NOP to Caltrans, since it has jurisdiction of the state highways within and in the vicinity of the City. The NOP asked the adjacent Cities and Orange County to provide their "views on the scope and content of the environmental information relevant to your agency's statutory responsibilities in connection with the proposed project...". Similarly, interested parties were asked to provide their comments on what should be addressed in the Draft EIR. 10-18 City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR

The NOP notified the recipients that the City would be focusing on impacts at a Citywide level. The NOP states that, "While policies regarding future land use and growth are addressed from a citywide perspective, the majority of land use changes are limited to nine primary study areas. Accordingly, the EIR will comprehensively address the impacts of all policies throughout the City and, additionally, focus on those areas in which the most significant land use changes could occur." With regard to Transportation/Traffic, the Initial Study stated that the General Plan Update could potentially result in a substantial traffic increase in the City. The NOP noted that the General Plan Technical Background Report (TBR) had already been prepared and was available for review. The TBR identified the 65 intersections that the City proposed to study. See Exhibit S. The City of Costa Mesa responded to the NOP, but did not request that any intersections or roadway segments within its boundaries be examined in the Draft EIR. Instead, with regard to traffic issues, it merely made suggestions regarding the assumptions about roadway improvements shown on the MPAH within its boundaries. Those suggestions were addressed in the Draft EIR and are further addressed in Master Response A.

The City of Huntington Beach requested no analysis specific to its jurisdiction. Indeed, it simply said it wished to review the Draft EIR when was available.

The City of Irvine requested some specific analysis be included to the Draft EIR, presumably due to increases in land use intensities near the border between the two cities. The impact analysis at the following specific border intersections was requested: MacArthur Boulevard at Campus Drive, Von Karman Avenue at Campus Drive, Jamboree Road at Campus Drive, and MacArthur Boulevard at Jamboree Road. These intersections were included in the analysis, and transportation improvements to achieve LOS D (or LOS E, which is the City of Irvine standard) in the Airport Area were identified for MacArthur Boulevard at Campus Drive, Von Karman Avenue at Campus Drive, Jamboree Road at Campus Drive, MacArthur Boulevard at Ford Road/Bonita Canyon Drive, and MacArthur Boulevard at San Joaquin Hills Road. These improvements are included in the proposed Circulation Element.

The City of Irvine also requested that the traffic analysis include arterials and intersections within the City of Irvine bounded by Main Street to the north, Red Hill Avenue to the west and Harvard Avenue/University Drive to the east. The transportation study found that the proposed General Plan update would not cause significant impacts at the border intersections shared between Irvine and Newport Beach on Campus Drive. This conclusion has been reached because the improvements required to provide acceptable traffic conditions at the border intersections are the same for both the currently adopted General Plan land uses and the Draft EIR General Plan Preferred alternative land uses.

Based on this finding, and the professional engineering judgment of Urban Crossroads, Inc., it was determined that intersections further from the City of Newport Beach would not be impacted.

Therefore, they were not included in the transportation study.

Caltrans' NOP response focused on coordination between the City and Caltrans at the individual project construction level. It did not request any analysis beyond what was included in the Study. In addition, none of the other individuals or entities who submitted comments on the NOP requested that analysis be expanded outside of the City's jurisdiction.

City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 10-19

At the core of the traffic analysis completed for the Draft EIR is the Newport Beach Traffic Model, Version 3.1 (NBTM 3.1). The NBTM 3.1 is a model that includes most of Southern California, although the level of detail for areas further away from the City is less detailed than for areas closer to the City. As explained in the TBR, Chapter 3, p. 2, the NBTM 3.1 is a three-tier system, with tier 1 being the least detailed analysis and tier 3 being the primary study area. Additionally, the forecasts presented by the application of the NBTM 3.1 are consistent with and inclusive of regional forecasts (i.e. the Newport Beach forecasting process has been accepted by Orange County Transportation Authority as providing results that satisfy their consistency requirements). Pursuant to the Orange County Subarea Modeling Guidelines Manual (OCTA, September, 2004), each subarea model under consideration for consistency determination with OCTAM must meet the guidelines and criteria established in this chapter. Subarea consistency is established by comparing OCTAM and the subarea model for each modeling step. This information is used as a reference point for consistency findings and to provide a basis for comparing changes in the subarea modeling assumptions and input data. Consistency comparisons are made for both the OCTAM base year and horizon year projections. The NBTM 3.1 was found consistent with OCTAM in a letter to Rich Edmonston, Newport Beach Transportation and Development Services Manager, dated March 31, 2004.

Some comments on the Draft EIR have suggested that the City should have studied additional roadway systems outside of its planning area. Applying the NBTM 3.1, the City's independent traffic experts, Urban Crossroads, outlined the existing vehicle trips per day throughout the Planning Area and also in areas adjacent to the City (see Exhibit ES -A of the Transportation Study, Appendix D of the Draft EIR), and projected the traffic volumes in the buildout condition both with and without the project on some 142 roadway segments, throughout the Planning Area and also in areas adjacent to the City. (See, e.g., Exhibits ES-B and ES-C and Table 5-6 of Appendix D.)
In total, 62 intersections under existing conditions and 64 future intersections under projected conditions were selected for study. The study intersections were identified by Urban Crossroads and City staff as the intersections with the greatest potential for being impacted by the project. They include the border intersections with the City of Irvine, as requested by the City of Irvine, but not the more distant intersections requested by Irvine, as explained above. The location of the intersections is depicted in Figure 4.13-5 of the Draft EIR. Intersection improvements needed to achieve acceptable levels of service at boundary intersections with Irvine along Campus Avenue were reviewed in the Transportation Study.

In all cases, the improvement needs do not change as a result of the proposed General Plan update.

Moreover, given the fact that the majority of the trips generated by the proposed project are internal to the City and the impacts of the City -generated trips dissipate and become more difficult to predict as they move from the source, the City believes the scope of the Study is appropriate. In addition, in response to public input during development of the proposed General Plan update, various Freeway/Tollway segments and ramp conditions were studied. (See, e.g., Draft EIR, p. 4.13-13.) For the study intersections and the Freeway/Tollway segments and ramps, the Study analyzed and disclosed the Level of Service under the existing scenario, with buildout of the existing General Plan, and with the buildout of the proposed General Plan update.

The projected daily traffic volume on Newport Boulevard north of Hospital Road in the Newport Beach General Plan update Draft EIR is 54,000 vehicles per day. The results of the General Plan analysis from 10-20 City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR

the City of Costa Mesa 2002 General Plan update have been reviewed to determine the comparable traffic volume in the Costa Mesa analysis. This review indicates that the projected daily traffic volume on Newport Boulevard south of 16th Street is 66,000 vehicles per day per the City of Costa Mesa analysis.

The Newport Beach analysis is based on updated regional demographic projections (OCP-2004 socioeconomic data forecasts) and results in a lower daily traffic volume. This indicates that the finding in the Costa Mesa General Plan Update environmental documents of no significant impact along Newport Boulevard is still valid, even with the minor increase in trip generation identified for the With Project scenario compared to the No Project (Currently Adopted General Plan) alternative.

Furthermore, the City of Newport Beach City Council has directed further modifications to the Newport Beach Land Use element that will result in a net reduction in traffic compared to the currently adopted General Plan. This would also result in a reduction in the traffic volume forecasts in the Costa Mesa General Plan Update environmental documentation, which were found to result in less than significant traffic impacts by the City of Costa Mesa.

In addition, based upon daily traffic volumes shown for areas outside the City of Newport Beach (see Exhibits 2 J, 4-B, and 5-A of the Transportation Study), the City of Newport Beach has concluded that traffic from buildout of the proposed General Plan update being added into the roadway system outside of the City's borders is not likely to create significant impacts. At the edges of the City of Newport Beach, traffic volumes do not show a large increase when a comparison is made between the "without project" condition to "with project" conditions. For example, the volume on the SR-55 freeway between 22nd Street and 19th Street is identical without and with the project. Most other locations at the edge of the City of Newport Beach experience increases of 1,000 or fewer vehicles per day from the adopted General Plan to the proposed General Plan scenario.

The scope of the City's traffic analysis is appropriate for a programmatic study. It is consistent with the approach taken by the City of Newport Beach when it completed its last update of the General Plan Land Use and Circulation elements in 1988.

The neighboring cities have taken a similar approach in the traffic analysis completed for their respective General Plan Updates. For example, Irvine limited analysis to intersections within its city limits in the EIR prepared for the Irvine Business Complex General Plan Amendment and Rezoning Project in 1988.

The EIR prepared for Irvine's General Plan Update in 1995 again did not include analysis of any intersections outside the City of Irvine. There were two intersections analyzed by the City of Irvine that have since come into the City of Newport Beach through a municipal reorganization, the Bonita Canyon detachment and annexation. The EIR prepared and certified for the City of Costa Mesa's 2002 General Plan Update expressly limited its impact analysis to whether the implementation of its General Plan Update would (1) "result in an increase of traffic volumes for the horizon year of 2020, which in turn would impact the capacities of roadways within the City of Costa Mesa"; and (2) "result in the exceedance of LOS standards established by the CMP for designated Costa Mesa roadway segments" [emphasis added]. It also examined the update's consistency with the OCTA's MPAH. See Chapter 4.4 of the EIR for Costa Mesa General Plan Update, 2002. Similarly, when Huntington Beach updated its General Plan in 1996, its traffic analysis was limited to the roadway system within its borders. See Chapter 5.3 of the Huntington Beach General Plan EIR. Generally speaking, the recent General Plan Traffic Studies completed by Urban Crossroads, Inc. and included in certified environmental documents City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 10-21

for the following additional jurisdictions also focused on analysis within the Sphere of Influence of the jurisdiction: Downey, Rancho Mirage, Moreno Valley, San Jacinto, and Rancho Santa Margarita.

The regional agency (the Orange County Transportation Authority) administers the Master Plan of Arterial Highways, and monitors and plans for regional issues. OCTA administers projects that evaluate regional issues (recent projects include the I-405 freeway Major Investment Study, the Orange County to Riverside County MIS, etc.). Additionally, OCTA worked with affected Cities in a cooperative study to evaluate alternatives for the Santa Ana River Crossings. Individual cities participate in and contribute to these efforts, but do not lead them.

Finally, because this is a Programmatic EIR and assumes full buildout of the City's General Plan as well as full buildout of the surrounding cities' general plans, the future trip generation and related impacts are likely overly conservative. For example, the existing Newport Beach Land Use Element was adopted in 1988, and significant amounts of the development authorized in that Element have not been implemented. This unused development includes 300 dwelling units on Lido Isle, 530 dwelling units on the Balboa Peninsula, 996 dwelling units on Balboa Island, 360 dwelling units in Corona del Mar, 800 dwelling units in Newport Coast, 100 hotel rooms in Newport Center, 350,000 square feet of office space in the Airport Area, 550,000 square feet of commercial use in Mariners' Mile, 600,000 square feet of commercial and industrial use in West Newport Mesa, 250,000 square feet of commercial space in Corona del Mar, and 200,000 square feet of office and retail use in Santa Ana Heights. In addition, and as mentioned in Chapter 8, minor changes to the General Plan have occurred as a result of the public involvement process that the City has undertaken. Table 1 in Chapter 8 provides a comparison of the General Plan for ease of understanding. However, more realistic and focused review of traffic impacts will be completed for individual projects. If such projects have the potential to cause a substantial impact on roadways outside of the City, those impacts will be analyzed at that time in the project level documents, and impacted agencies will have an opportunity to raise concerns regarding impacts and suggest mitigation at that point in time.
■ Master Response E: Level of Environmental Analysis
Consistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15146, "the degree of specificity required in an EIR will correspond to the degree of specificity involved in the underlying activity ... described in the EIR." As further stated, "the EIR [on a local general plan] need not be as detailed as an EIR on the specific construction projects that might follow." The EIR complies with these Guidelines by focusing on the overall, programmatic effect of increased development; specific information is not warranted for inclusion and cannot be reasonably determined based on currently available information. The environmental effects of project -specific details (i.e., transportation improvements) have been analyzed in the EIR at a programmatic level, consistent with available information and CEQA requirements. A more detailed analysis would be prepared consistent with CEQA once specific proposals have been articulated and the project is proposed as an individual construction project subject to review and consideration by the City.
10-22 City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR

10.2.2 Individual Responses to Comments
The following section contains all of the responses to individual comments received on the Draft EIR, isolated by individual commenter. All of the original comment letters, in their entirety, are provided before the responses. Pursuant to CEQA, the purpose of the Draft EIR is to evaluate the significance of physical changes in the environment resulting from approval of the City of Newport Beach General Plan Update. Therefore, consistent with Sections 15088(a) and 15088(b) of the CEQA Guidelines, comments that raise significant environmental issues are provided with responses. Comments that are outside of the scope of CEQA review but include anecdotal evidence or opinion will be forwarded for consideration to the decision -makers as part of the project approval process. All comments will be considered by the decision -makers of the City of Newport Beach when making a decision on the project.

City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 10-23

US
United States Department of the Interior
In Reply Refer To:

FWS-OR-3410.4
Gregg Ramirez

FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Ecological Services
Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office
6010 Hidden Valley Road
Carlsbad, California 92011
OF 4 r EAG
City of Newport Beach
3300 Newport Boulevard
Newport Beach, California 92658-8915
JUN 14 2006
AM Ph
0 9 2006
Subj: Draft Environmental Impact Report for City of Newport Beach General Plan 2006 Update, City of Newport Beach, California
Dear Mr. Ramirez:
9ERVYCE
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) has reviewed the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the City of Newport Beach General Plan 2006 Update,. received April 26, 2006. The General Plan update includes changes in the type of development anticipated in the City of Newport Beach (City) (e.g., proportion of development and industrial development), slight changes in proposed areas of development and open space, and new guidelines with respect to project review and coordination with applicable agencies prior to project approval.

We offer the following specific comments and recommendations regarding project -associated biological impacts based on our review of the DEIR, our knowledge of declining habitat types and species within Orange County, and as a signatory to the Central/Coastal Orange County Natural Community Conservation Plan/Habitat Conservation Plan (NCCP/HCP). These comments are provided pursuant to the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (Act), as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), and in keeping with our agency's mission to "work with others to conserve, protect, and enhance fish, wildlife, and plants and their habitats for the continuing benefit of the American people."
Comments:

1. As mentioned in the DEIR, the City is a participating jurisdiction in the NCCP/HCP. In addition, ownership of Buck Gully was transferred from the County of Orange to the City in 2005. Buck Gully is part of the Reserve System established under. the NCCP/HCP, so the City now owns and. manages part of the NCCP/HCP Reserve System. "Although the City signed the NCCP/HCP in 1999, we have not received a permit application from the City. The NCCP/HCP permit would authorize impacts to coastal sage scrub and incidental "take" of federally threatened coastal California gnatcatcher M3"

Gregg Ramirez (FWS-OR-3410.4)
2 (Polioptila californica californica, "gnatcatcher") associated with routine maintenance of infrastructure in the Reserve System (provided guidelines provided in the NCCP/HCP are adhered to) and would enable landowners within the City to pay an "in -lieu fee" to offset project -associated impacts to coastal sage scrub, the gnatcatcher, and other Covered Species within identified areas. If the City has questions regarding the permit application process or what activities would be authorized by the permit, please contact the Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office at the number listed below.

In addition, as an entity that owns land within the Reserve System, we recommend that the City contact the Nature Reserve of Orange County to discuss the possibility of participating on the Board of Directors of the Nature Reserve of Orange County, which helps implement the NCCP/HCP.

2. We support the City's commitment to "prepare natural habitat protection regulations for Buck Gully and Morning Canyon for the purpose of providing standards to ensure both the protection of the natural habitats in these areas and of private property rights" and to "include standards for the placement of structures, native vegetation/fuel modification 2 buffers, and erosion and sedimentation control structures." We recommend that the City coordinate with the Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office during preparation of these plans to ensure consistency with the NCCP/HCP and the Act and to explore potential grant opportunities for restoration of habitat in these areas.

3. The DEIR defines "Environmental Study Areas" as "undeveloped areas supporting natural habitats that may be capable of supporting sensitive biological resources." Environmental Study Areas are mapped in Figure 4.3-2. We recommend that Figure 4.3- E be revised to include all areas that are part the NCCP/HCP Reserve System or are identified as "Existing Use Areas," and "Non -Reserve Open Space" in the NCCP/HCP, as all of these areas are likely to support natural habitats that may be capable of supporting sensitive biological resources. Furthermore, even if Figure 4.3-2 is revised as recommended, there will be areas outside of the Environmental Study Areas that support sensitive biological resources, so projects should be evaluated on a case -by -case basis to ensure consistency with applicable environmental laws.

4. We support the City's efforts to maintain Newport Banning Ranch as open space in perpetuity. Newport Banning Ranch supports a wide variety of sensitive species including the federally threatened coastal California gnatcatcher (Polioptila californica californica), federally endangered least Bell's vireo (Vireo bellii pusillus) and San Diego fairy shrimp (Branchinecta sandiegonensis), and state -listed endangered Belding's savannah sparrow (Passerculus sandwichensis beldingi). If recreation facilities or development are considered for Newport Banning Ranch, we strongly recommend early coordination with the Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office to ensure that impacts to sensitive resources and federally listed species are avoided, minimized, and offset. 3 Cl

Gregg Ramirez (FWS-OR-3410.4)
We appreciate the opportunity to comment on the DETR for the City of Newport Beach General Plan 2006 Update. Should you have any questions pertaining to these comments, please contact Jonathan Snyder of my staff at (760) 431 -9440, extension 307.

Sincerely,
LA, zl,
Karen A. Goebel
Assistant Field Supervisor
cc:

David Kiff, City of Newport Beach, Newport Beach, California Lyn McAfee, NROC, Irvine, California
Leslee Newton -Reed, CDFG, San Diego, California
Warren Wong, CDFG, San Diego, California
3 Response to Comment Letter US
Letter from the United States Department of the Interior, received June 9, 2006 Us-1
The City does not have, or anticipate receiving, an application for a project requiring a "take" within the scope of this plan.

The first full paragraph on page 4.3-21 has been amended, as noted below and as shown in Chapter 9 (Text Changes) in the Final EIR.

As a signatory agency, the City is responsible for enforcing mitigation measures and other policies identified in the NCCP/Habitat Conservation Plan Implementation Agreement for properties located within the City Limit that are part of the NCCP Subregional Plan. In 2000, the Citv annexed Niue port Coast which includes Buck Gully. Buck Gull_ispart of the Reserve System of the NCCP/Habitat Conservation Plan.

The City shall comply with all provisions of the NCCP Subregional Plan, including the recommendations and requirements of the NCCP/HCP with respect to permit requirements and applications. In addition, this comment will be forwarded to the City Council for its consideration regarding participation on the Board of Directors of the Nature Reserve of Orange County.

US-2
Comment noted. No response required. The City will coordinate with the Carlsbad office when it prepares the regulations.

US-3
The Environmental Study Areas (ESAs) include those areas within the City limits that require further study to determine their ability to support sensitive biological resources. These areas have been identified by the City and may or may not include all areas designated as part of the NCCP/HCP Reserve System.

The exclusion of those areas in Figure 4.3-2 does not imply exclusion of those areas from consideration by the City as biologically sensitive. They are protected/regulated by the NCCP/HCP and will be taken into consideration by the City during any future development. Further, every development project conducted within the City limits will be subject to its own project -level CEQA review. As part of that review, a site -specific biological analysis may be conducted, depending upon the biological resources present or potentially present, to ensure that potential impacts to sensitive biological resources, whether contained within an ESA or not, will be addressed.

US-4
Should development of Banning Ranch be considered in the future, the City will coordinate with the appropriate agencies, including the Carlsbad office of the Fish and Wildlife Service, regarding the potential impacts of development within the Banning Ranch ESA.

City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 10-27

— .,RvW�.uaur�wnrcr,�Jy�GGFIt �nvcr��u

DEPARTMEN' OF 'MANSPURTATTON
District 12 i a -
3337 Michelson Driv4 Suite A0
irvinc, CA 92G12-88914
Tel: (949) 724-2267 !
Fax: (949) 774-2-592 Flexyourpowerl
Rc eaer�p+v�ciuirl

FAX & MAIL
June S, 200J
Greg Ramirel CT
City of Newport l ach File: IGRICA
SCFH9. 2406bi 1119
3304 Newport Bouaevard Log #: I67$A
Newport Beath, Cal.ifortria 92685 SR-1, 1-5, SR-73, SR-55 Subjects: Cily of Newport Beach General Plan Update 2006- DEIR i
Dear Mr. ?E�.atrurez,
t
3 Thank you f6r the :opportunity to review and comment on the Draft EnvirouAlental Impact Report (DETh) for tht- City of Newport Beach General Plan Update 2006. rThc IbEIR discusses impacts asso8iated with implemQatation of the proposed General plan Update add its Sphere of Influence. `
Caltrans DUtrict 12 status is a responsible agency on this project and hao the following comments: 1
l . The issueb of gireatest conecrc, to Caltrans are those that may impact u afI"ic circulation and increase c e 11 A on State Transportation Facilities. For all new developing a4as, major; new developments, r6development areaq that may -re-quire new or improved access,inew sills or 1 any impr6vemehts to State Transportation Facilities will require close ca�rdination with Caltrans. ;This iequiremcnt should be included in the, Land Use and clrculatibn Elemonts of the General Plan, and the Final EIR.

2. Traffic Obcratibns requests all appiiuuuts to use the Haghway Capacity Manual (HCM) method outlined in the latest version when amlyzing traffic impacts oxl, State'rransportation Facilities.; The use ofHCM is preferred by Caltrans because it ie an operatWnal analysis as opposed. tb the Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) method, which is a pla€�ng analysis.

In the cast of p40jects that lave ducat impacts on the state°s facilities Caltrans recommends 2 that the traffic impact analysis be based on HCM method- Should the prn4ect require an encroachnhent pbrxmt, traffic operations may find the Traffic Impact Study lbased on ICU methodoldgy in,'rldequate resulting in possible, delay or denial of a permit byf Caltrans. All input slxcrts, a.s umptions and volumes on State Facilities including ramps arhd interscetian analysis should be submitted to Caltrans for review and approval. r

3. Table 2-2!and Page 4,13-25 - Impact 4.13,1. "The Comparicnn of the Existing: With Project scenario (,6hich does not include any regional traffic growth) with the General Plan Buildout With Project scomario, regional traffic is directly responsible for over balf of iihe total traffic 3 volume increase'§ on the City's axferial roadway system, The proposed GeneJi Plan update itself would generate 44% of the total increase in. traffic." Therefore, file project will impact the surroWi-dingi Statc Transportation Facilities SR-73, 1-405 Frceways, eurJ SR-1, S:R-S5 Conventional Highways. This section mi the DE�IR should indicate that, there will be Potential i l
I
' "�Qltr+crns irnprO�Ps moUll!!y aerrux Califwrsin" {
' 1
i
f
S

i
i
Sivdficantllwpa�ts and appropriate mitigation sliould be identified and submitted to Caltrans for review b nd comments. x

4. Table 2-2,! Impala 4.13.2 - implementation of the proposed General Plan Vpdate would contribute �o a substantial increase in deficient freeway segments and rampo. Appropriate mitigation j measures should lie developed and submitted to Caltrans fo> Fac Operations South Isaac Alor so Rico', traffic Operations North
Praveern Gupta, 8nvironmenW Planning A
Leslie Malxdersclicid, Environmental Planning
Mary MolitasherF j., Perrnits
i
i�
5 IVallnan-v frempmtirc nmob4hy arrn rx California"

Response to Comment Letter CT
Letter from the State of California, Department of Transportation, received June 8, 2006 CT-1
Comment acknowledged. The proposed General Plan Update already includes goals and policies related to this comment's request and those goals and policies are echoed in the EIR. More specifically, Goal CE

3.1 on page 4.13-51 of the Draft EIR, Goal LU 2 on page 4.13-59 of the Draft EIR, Goal LU 3 on page

4.13-60 of the Draft EIR, and their corresponding policies identify the necessary coordination between the City and other agencies, such as Caltrans, to ensure that the appropriate level of transportation infrastructure/facilities are available and whether improvement of existing facilities will be necessary.

Should a proposed development within the City limits potentially impact Caltrans facilities, the City shall coordinate with Caltrans to determine the need and subsequent method of providing new or improved access, new signals, or any improvements to State Transportation Facilities.

CT-2
Comment acknowledged. ICU analysis is an appropriate long range planning tool and has been used pursuant to City policies, consistent with other long range analyses that have been completed with respect to Caltrans facilities in Orange County. More detailed analysis may be appropriate as future design activities are initiated. Individual development projects will be analyzed further as they are proposed. Should any proposed development within the City limits impact Caltrans facilities and potentially require a permit from Caltrans, the City will coordinate with Caltrans to ensure that impacts to State Transportation Facilities related to any proposed development are adequately addressed, including review of modeling results and methodology.

CT-3
Please note that the reference to the proposed General Plan Update accounting for 44 percent of the total increase in traffic refers to the impacts of the proposed General Plan Update on the City of Newport Beach, and does not refer to impacts on surrounding State transportation facilities, SR-73, I- 405 Freeways, and SR-1, SR-55 Conventional Highways.

As stated under Impact 4.13-2 on page 4.13-32 and the discussion of cumulative impacts on page 4.13- 46, impacts to State Transportation Facilities are considered significant. Further, on page 4.13-62, the Draft EIR states that due to the location of the impacts outside of the City's jurisdiction (and within Caltrans jurisdiction), impacts are considered significant and unavoidable. However, the EIR does state that measures can be implemented but would need to be performed in cooperation with Caltrans, as requested under Comments CT-1 and CT-2. See also Tables 1 and 2 which identify the improvements for the roadways and freeway segments. At the present time and because the General Plan Update has not been approved, such coordination has not taken place. Should the General Plan Update be approved and the EIR certified, the City shall coordinate with Caltrans regarding the development of feasible mitigation measures to reduce potential impacts to freeway segments and ramps. Please also note that 10-30 City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR

Caltrans does not currently have in place a mechanism to allocate a fair share or pro rata to participating jurisdictions.

The forty-four percent increase is Citywide, not on the freeway system. Freeway/tollway and ramp analysis is included for each scenario in the Transportation Study. Existing freeway/tollway and ramp analysis is included from pages 2-62 through 2-66. Evaluation of freeways/tollways and ramps for without project conditions starts on page 4-20. The with project evaluation of freeways/tollways and ramps starts on page 5-32. Evaluation of impacts to Coast Highway is included with the intersection analysis just prior to the freeway/tollway analysis for each scenario. There is no established program for contributing to improvements to the freeway system.

Refer to response to comment CT-2 regarding coordination with Caltrans with respect to impacts on State Transportation Facilities.

SR-73 Freeway Northbound:
405 Fw. To Bear St.
■ Anticipated Regional Improvements
Construct 4th and 5th NB freeway lanes.
■ Additional Improvements
Construct 6th NB freeway lane.

Bear St. to 55 Fw.
■ Anticipated Regional Improvements
Construct 4th and 5th NB freeway lanes.
■ Additional Improvements
Construct 6th, 7th, and 8th NB freeway lanes.
55 Fw. To Jamboree Rd.
■ Anticipated Regional Improvements
Construct 4th and 5th NB freeway lanes.
■ Additional Improvements
Construct 6th and 7th NB freeway lanes.

Jamboree Rd. to Bonita Canyon Dr.
■ Anticipated Regional Improvements
Construct 4th and 5th NB freeway lanes.

Bonita Canyon Dr. to Newport Coast Dr.
■ Anticipated Regional Improvements
Construct 5th and 6th NB freeway lanes.
■ Additional Improvements
Construct 7th NB freeway lane.

Newport Coast Dr. to Toll Plaza
■ Anticipated Regional Improvements
Construct 4th and 5th NB freeway lanes.
■ Additional Improvements
Construct 6th NB freeway lane.

SR-73 Freeway Southbound
405 Fw. To Bear St.
■ Anticipated Regional Improvements
■ Additional Improvements
Bear St. to 55 Fw.
■ Anticipated Regional Improvements
■ Additional Improvements
55 Fw. To Jamboree Rd.

Construct 4th SB freeway lane.

Construct 5th and 6th SB freeway lanes.

Construct 4th and 5th SB freeway lanes.

Construct 6th and 7th SB freeway lanes.

City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 10-31

Table I General Plan Buildout with Project Summary of Freeway Improvement Needs Beyond 2005 Existing Lanes
INTERSECTION 7 ADDITIONAL IMPROVEMENTS WITH PROJECT
■ Anticipated Regional Improvements
Construct 4th and 5th SB freeway lanes.
■ Additional Improvements
Construct 6th SB freeway lanes.

Jamboree Rd. to Bonita Canyon Dr.
■ Anticipated Regional Improvements
Construct 4th and 5th SB freeway lanes.

Bonita Canyon Dr. to Newport Coast Dr.
■ Anticipated Regional Improvements
Construct 5th and 6th SB freeway lanes.

Newport Coast Dr. to Toll Plaza
■ Anticipated Regional Improvements
Construct 4th, 5th, and 6th SB freeway lanes.
■ Additional Improvements
Construct 6th SB freeway lane.

SR-73 Freeway Northbound at:

Bristol St. Off Ramp
Construct 6th NB freeway lane.

Construct 2nd ramp lane.

Extend acceleration lane to 280 feet.

MacArthur Bl. On Ramp
Construct 6th NB freeway lane.

Construct 2nd ramp lane.

Bonita Canyon Dr. On Ramp
Decrease acceleration lane to 1020 feet.

Newport Coast Dr. Off Ramp
Construct 6th NB freeway lane.

Extend acceleration lane to 240 feet.

Newport Coast Dr. On Ramp
Construct 6th NB freeway lane.

Decrease acceleration lane to 860 feet.

SR-73 Freeway Southbound at:

Jamboree Rd. On Ramp Construct 6th SB freeway lane.

Decrease acceleration lane to 1570 feet.

MacArthur BI.Off Ramp Construct 6th SB freeway lane.

Construct 2nd ramp lane.

Newport Coast Dr. Off Ramp I Extend acceleration lane to 240 feet.

The comment is acknowledged. The City recognizes the need to provide adequate bicycle and pedestrian trails within city limits. This comment will be forwarded to the decision -makers for their consideration prior to taking action and taken into consideration during the planning of any trail project within City limits under the proposed General Plan Update. The bikeways map has been reviewed for feasibility by the City of Newport Beach Traffic Engineer.
cr-s
These comments are acknowledged. The City will apply for any necessary encroachment permits, as necessary, in conformance with the requirements of the appropriate permitting agency, which may include Caltrans.
10-32 City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR

Should improvement of a Caltrans right-of-way be necessary due to development under the proposed General Plan Update, the City shall aid in the performance of any necessary improvement in compliance with CEQA and in cooperation with Caltrans.

The EIR is a programmatic document and does not identify a schedule or identify implementation procedures for any specific projects within the City limits. Any development or project carried out under the proposed General Plan Update would be subject to its own environmental review under CEQA.

Due to the location of Caltrans facilities within the City, Caltrans will be notified of any future project that may impact Caltrans facilities.

City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 10-33

06/13/2006 15:47 9517816288 RWQCB PAGE 02/07
California Regional Water Quality Control Board
Santa Ana Rsion
3737 Maiit Strcct, Suite 500, Riverside, California 92541.3348 phone (951) 782-4130 4 FAX (951) 781-6288 - TOD (951) 782.3221 Linda S. Ad$m5 wwwmatcrhoards.ea.govls;mtama Arnold Schwarzenegger Gn1+QTfier
Secretaryfor
Envirojunenfirl prolectfan C R ri i_�J
June 13 2006 NL%NNIIxjCV,
_
GH
Gregg B. Ramirez, Senior Planner JUN 13 2006
Planning Dept, Community and Economic Development AM P
City of Newport Beach 7�819110I1111 jl�12i'31415 6
P.O. Box 1768
Newport Beach, CA 92658-8916

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (DEIR), CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH GENERA, PLAN UPDATE, STATE CLEARING HOUSE NO, 2006011119 Dear Mr. Ramirez:

Staff of the Regional Water Quality Control Board, Santa Ana Region (RWQCB), has reviewed the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the City of Newport Beach (City) comprehensive General Plan update (project). The project focuses on accommodating infill development, redevelopment, and use conversions within the nearly built -out City and Sphere of Influence (SOI), The planning areas consist of approximately 13,000 acres (ac) of land area and 11,000 ac of marine and estuarine area. The letter includes varied coastline, tributary stream -channels., and Lower and Upper Newport Bay with associated bayshores and wetlands.

The following comments apply citywide to many of the General Plan elements and nine designated study subareas as discussed in the DEIR. We request incorporation of these comments into the final EIR:
11—Water,Qualily Beneficial. Uses
The DEIR states on p.4.3-36 that for implementation of the General Plan elements, "no mitigation measures are necessary, as the proposed General Plan Update policies fully mitigate the impacts," Elsewhere in the document (Chapter 4; Table 2-2 summary of impacts) the City explains that no mitigation measures are anticipated for future actions taken under the revised General Plan because preventive measures and programs will intercept any environmental impacts, including those affecting the City's groundwater, surface water bodies, and varied aquatic habitats. Despite the DEIR's knowledgeable summaries of regulations, permits, and Best Management Practices (BMPs), we believe that Chapters 4.3 (Biological Resources) and 4.7 (Hydrology) should reflect that mitigation must be conducted for impacts to, or loss of, the water quality beneficial uses of these water bodies and their tributaries as listed in the Water Quality Control Plan for the Santa Ana River Basin (Basin Piano), 1995, and subsequent amendments. 1 The Basin Plan establishes water quality standards, i.e., water quality objectives, beneficial uses, and an appropriate ,antidegradation policy, for waters of the region.

California ., rr. onmental Protection Agency
Recycled i}npvr

06/13/2006 15:47 9517816288 RWQG13
Gregg B. Ramirez - 2 -
PAGE 03/07
June 13, 2006
While the Basin Plan and beneficial uses are briefly introduced on p. 4.7-23, beneficial uses should be specifically listed. Within the project area, the beneficial uses of San Diego Creels, Reach 1 (listed as "present or potential") are Non -contact Water Recreation (REC2), Warm Freshwater Habitat (WARM), Wildlife Habitat (WILD), and restricted Water Contact Recreation (REC1). The beneficial Uses of both Upper and Lower Newport Bay include Commercial and Sportfishing (COMM), REC1, REC2, WILD, Rare, Threatened or Endangered Species habitat (RARE), Spawning, Reproduction and Development waters (SPWN), Marine Habitat (MAR), and Shellfish Harvesting (SHEL). Upper Newport Bay also is designated for the Estuarine Habitat (EST) and Preservation of Biological Habitats of Special Significance (BIOL) beneficial uses, while Lower Newport Bay is designated for the Navigation (NAV) beneficial use.

The beneficial uses of Upper Newport Bay apply to the Delhi Channel, Big Carryon Oreek, and other tributaries not listed in the Sasin Plan, according to the "tributary rule" of the Basin Plane,
Further, in 2004 the Irvine Groundwater Management Zone (GMZ) was adopted for the Newport Beach/Irvine area by the Regional Board as part of Resolution No. RS-2004- 0001 with the following four beneficial uses: Municipal and Domestic Supply (MUN), Agricultural Supply (AGR), Industrial Service Supply (IND), and Industrial Process Supply (PROC), The following water quality objectives were adopted for the Irvine GMZ: total dissolved solids (TDS; 910 milligrams per liter, mgA) and nitrate -nitrogen (NC37-N; 6.9 mgll).
2, Clean WaterAct Section 401 Water Quality Certifications DEIR pgs. 4.3-25 and 30 acknowledge that future development may cause potential impacts to riparian habitats, but consider these indirect and cumulative impacts to be "less than significant" because General Plan Update policies will regulate such development, thereby reducing the threat. Further, p. 43-25 infers that "some unmitigated loss of riparian resources may occur" because there exists a regulatory gap where "federal regulations do not specifically address protection of riparian vegetation under the [Clean Wafter Act, CWA] Section 404 permitting process" and the Fish and Game Code provides only "negotiated agreement," That discussion does not acknowledge that losses of riparian vegetation and other resources are mitigated through CWA Section 401, As a prerequisite to issuance of a Section 404 permit by the U.S. Army Carps of Engineers (Corps) for excavation of ("dredging") and/or placement of fill into waters of the U.S., the RWQCB must issue a CWA Section 401 Water Quality Certification (Certification) finding that sufficient mitigation measures will Waters not specifically listed in the Basin Plan have the same water quality standards as the waters to which they are tributary. See Basin Plan, 1995, page 3-a.

The issuance of a 401 Certification represents a determination by the Executive Officer that discharges of waste to waters of the U.S. that are associated with the project will comply with the applicable provisions of Sections 301 (Effluent Limitations), 302 (Water Quality Related Effluent Limitations), 303 (Water Quality Standards and Implementation Plans), 306 (National Standards of Performance), and 307 (Toxic and Pretreatment Effluent Standards) of the Clean Water Act, and with other applicable requirements of State law. In order for such a determination to be meaningful, projects subject to Certification are evaluated for their direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts to waters of the U.S., specifically, impacts to water quality objectives and beneficial uses. Further, Certification applies not only to impacts to water quality standards that occur during project E
I3
0 Califon-nia Err. pninen!al Protedion Agency
RMicleli Paper

06/13/2006 15:47 9517816288 RWQCE PAGE 04/07
Gregg B. Ramirez - 3 - June 13, 2006
be conducted for impacts to beneficial uses of waters of the Unified States and the 4 State. - However, the following clarifications should be added to the DEIR:
a. Every reasonable effort must be made to avoid impacts to surface waters of the United States, including waters such as known ephemeral drainages in the Newport Beach area. Impacts to waters of the U.S. that are unavoidable must be minimized.

Where impacts are unavoidable, Certification requires mitigation that, at a minimum, replaces the full function and value of the impacted water's beneficial uses that existed prior to impact. As discussed in the DEIR, pursuant to the Porter -Cologne Water (duality Control Act (Water Code), the Regional Board has the authority to issue waste discharge requirements (WDRs) requiring implementation of mitigation measures that compensate for impacts to water quality standards. The DEIR should reflect that operations entailing excavation, dredge, and/or fill activities within waters of the State, such as the periodic maintenance dredging projects necessary in Upper/Lower Newport Bay, remain subject to regulation under WDRs. For example, WDRs will continue to regulate turbidity from bay dredging through required monitoring and necessitating the use of silt curtains or similar practices, as well as requirements for replanting with such community keystone vegetation as eelgrass and pickleweed.
5 b. Authorization under General WDRs may accompany Certifications, as appropriate, 41 or individual WDRS may be issued by the Regional Board when surface waters of the state, including wetlands and seasonal pools, are deemed by the Corps to be . 6 isolated (SWANCC4 decision, 2001) and not subject to the Corps' jurisdiction. Any such isolated wetlands. should be identified in undeveloped open spaces such as the Banning Ranch or the San ,Joaquin Hills.

3. H dromodifcation 41
Rapid urbanization in subwatersheds identified for the Newport Beach City/SOI has increased the volume and velocity of stormwater runoff and the persistence of dry - weather flows. Consequently, marine terrace drainages with abrupt elevation changes, such as Buck Gully and Morning Canyon Creek, have experienced headcutting erosion 7 that increased the amount of sediment transported to receiving water bodies. Such artificial changes to channel geometry and hydrology (hydromodification) threatens property and diminishes the drainage's support of beneficial uses. The DEIR should reflect that review of, and mitigation for, hydromodification is part of the Certification process and discuss measures to prevent it.

Established native riparian vegetation along and within drainage systems, flanked by adequately vegetated upland buffer areas, will capture storm flows and thereby lessen 8 erosion. Therefore, we encourage the proactive replanting and hydroseeding of native development and construction, but also to water quality standards impacts that may or are likely to occur during the operational life of the project. Such impacts must be mitigated to receive a Certification. Information concerning Section 401 certification can be found at y1Ww.swrb,C4oylrw cb8.l}trnil„01.htm1.

Solid Waste Agency of Northern cook County v. Army Corps of Engineers, U.S_ Supreme Court, 2001.

California DE a*anntental.Protection agency
flwycded Asper

06/13/2006 15:47 9517815288 RWUCB PAGE 05107
Gregg B. Ramirez -4- June 13, 2006
vegetation in most operations. The following EPA website, 8 www.epa,gov/npdes/"m� enuofbmps/ ost.htm contains information on construction BMPs.

4. Generai Non -Point Source Runoff
DEIR Chapter 4, Environmental Analysis, should analyze the likely impacts of nan-point source pollution, posed by increased development within the project area, on the above - referenced beneficial uses of the receiving waters identified by the DEIR, Sediment, selenium, nitrates, residual pesticides, and other pollutants discharged from the San 9 Diego Creek and Newport Bay watersheds (which involves much of the project area), into Lipper and Lower Newport Bay, all impact the Bay's robust biota by causing or contributing to impacts on beneficial use, including bacterial contamination and toxicity.

Excessive nutrients in storm water runoff and surface waters tributary to Upper Newport Bay facilitates algal blooms.

The DEIR should refer to State Board General Order No. 2004-0017-DWQ, which . requires owners/operators of specified vessel terminals located in Newport Bay (and Huntington Harbour in Huntington Beach) to install, maintain, and operate pumpout facilities and dump stations to receive vessel sewage. The Regional Board's Vessel Waste Program implementing this Order may be viewed at 10 h�tt :// www.waterboards.ca . ov/santeanal df/n h m out. df. Sewage, ballast, and deck washwater must never be discharged into waters of the State. Similarly, the particulate wastes created by underwater hull blasting or other cleaning techniques carried out within madnasmay contain metals and/or other substances that adversely impact the Bay's beneficial uses. The public should be referred to information in our "Marinas and Boating" link at
htt '1 www.waterboards.ca . ov santaana htmllnon oint source.html.

The DEIR should reflect that Upper Newport Bay, the Newport Coast (Corona Del Mar 40 Mate Beach to the Little Corona tidepools), and the Irvine Coast to the south are designated Critical Coastal Areas (CCA) by the Coastal Commission, the Regional Board, and the State Water Resources Control Board because they are significant ecological areas affected by non -point source runoff. Upper Newport Bay was assigned CCA status given its designation as a Marine Managed Area. Mention should be 11 made that the Newport and Irvine Coasts have been designated State Water Quality Protection Areas (formerly Areas of Special Biological Significance, ASBS), or generally pristine waters to which no discharges of wastes are allowed. The Newport Coast, the Irvine Coast, and Upper Newport Bay have been combined into one CCA pilot project (with Heisler Park, Laguna Beach) for a grant project intended to improve control of non -point source pollutant discharges affecting these areas. a TMQL Comp_ljance 41
We commend the DEIR's summary and reference. website introducing Total Maximum Daily Loads (p. 4.7-8; TMDL) and requirements for TMDL compliance. Upper and Lower Newport Bay, and Reaches of San Diego Creek tributary to Newport Bay (and 12 therefore affecting City compliance), have been listed as impaired by various pollutants, pursuant to Clean Water Act Section 303(d). The following list of existing and Califoraia LZri►nenad Protection Agency
Recycled Paper

06/13/2006 15;47 9517816288 RWQCS
Gregg B, Ramirez
PAGE 06/07
June 13, 2006
anticipated TMDLs, with website links, should be helpful to any revisions of the DEIR summary:

TMDLs have been adopted for sedimentation and nutrients for Lower Newport Bay, Upper Newport Bay, San Diego Creek Reach 1, and San Diego Creek Reach 2 (see htt :llwww,swrcb.ca, ovlrw cb81 dfITMDL02. df for sediment, and htt :Il www.waterlooards.ca . ovlsantaanal df/TMDL01. df for nutrients).

A fecal coliform TMDL has been adopted for Lower Newport Bay and Upper Newport Bay (see htt :ll www.waterboards.ca . ov/santaana/ df/TMDLA3. df.) A chlorpyrifos TMDL has been adopted for Upper Newport Bay; a diazinonlchlorpyrifos TMDL has been issued for San Diego Creek Reach 1 (see
htto:llwwuv.,waterboards.ca.aoylsantaanafodflfimdilg3r39 attar . df.} TMDLs for toxic pollutants, including selenium, were promulgated by the USEPA in June 2002. See °USEPA, Region 9: Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) for Toxic Pollutants, San Diego Creek and Newport Bay" at http:Ll www.eoa.gov/reu.ionOg/` ­Waterltmdl/-final,html.

The DEIR should evaluate the extent to which the project will affect attainment of load reductions required by these TMDLs. Future TMDLs are anticipated for selenium and metals (Lower and Upper Newport Say), selenium and fecal coliform (San Diego Creek Reach 1), and specified metals (San Diego Creek Reach 2). TMDLs for orga.nochlorine compounds (particularly DDT, chlordane, and PCBs) are anticipated for all four of these water bodies (as well as Newport Bay"s Rhine Channel), with toxaphene also targeted in San Diego Greek Reaches 1 and 2.

The DEIR should add that where groundwater samples required from local construction projects proposing dewatering discharges indicate selenium and nitrate levels that exceed TMDL or California Toxics Rule numeric targets, the discharger must obtain a discharge authorization under Order No. R&2004-0021, NPDES No. CAG998002, General Waste Discharge Requirements for $hort Term Groundwater Related Discharges and De Minimus Wastewater Discharges to Surface Waters Within the San Diego Creek/Newport Bay Watershed. Discharge activities requiring more than one year to complete must be covered under individual WDRs.

6. Low-Im act Develo ment
The DEIR should encourage BMPs that utilize the principles of low impact development (LID) as part of a comprehensive, community -wide system for protecting water quality standards. These principles are intended to reverse the trend of increasingly paved and constructed areas that alter the rate and volumes of surface water runoff and groundwater recharge. LID makes use of project -level features such as grassed 1 paseos to manage urban runoff quantity and quality while conserving water. LID is 1 among the Ahwahnee Water Principles for Resource Efficient Land Use, adopted in 2005 by the Local Government Commission (LGC; www.lac.orq) , which encourages communities to incorporate these principles into general plans. The State Water Resources Control Board management has expressed support of LID and the Ahwahnee principles in addressing the SWRCB's major goals and objectives. 12 13
14 15
C'aiiforyda Ere a mental Protection Agency
Recycled Paper

06/13/2006 15:47 9517816288 RWGlCB PACE 07/07
Gregg B. Ramirez - 6 - June 13, 2006
if you have any questions, please contact Glenn Robertson at (951) 782-3259, or me at (951) 782-3234.

Sincerely,
29kvv"-teIa, , f pe_�_
Mark G. Adelson, Chief
Regional Planning Programs Section
cc; State Clearinghouse —Scott Morgan
Califomla pepaftent of Fish and Game, Ontario , Scott Dawson U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Carlsbad —lack Fancher
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers - Stephanie Phil
Newport Bay Watershed Management Committee
K: Groberts on MlagnolialDeta/CEQA/CEQA ResponseslDEIR- City of Newport Beach- General Plan_br mga2.doc C41iforaid Eup&onmentdl Protection Agency
Recycled Paper

Response to Comment Letter CR
Letter from the California Regional Water Quality Control Board, received June 13, 2006 1 As required by the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit for Orange County (Permit No. CAS618030), which was adopted by the Santa Ana and San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Boards in early 2002, the County of Orange, the Orange County Flood Control District, and the incorporated cities of Orange County prepared a Drainage Area Management Plan (DAMP) to provide a program for reducing the discharge of pollutants from municipally separate storm drains to the maximum extent practicable and, therefore, satisfying the NPDES permit requirements.

In order to maintain the integrity of the receiving waters and their ability to sustain beneficial uses, the DAMP includes — as a component - a countywide baseline stormwater management program to assess the conditions of waters within the county and to determine the impact, if any, of urban stormwater discharges to the beneficial uses of those waters. This baseline effort is complimented by local water quality implementation plans that are designed to reduce impacts to beneficial uses, if they occur. In summary, the DAMP provides a program to meet the requirements of the stormwater permit by implementing water management strategies on a local level in order to protect the beneficial uses of receiving waters within the Orange County watershed area, including the Santa Ana drainage area. Thus, development within the City resulting from implementation of the proposed General Plan Update would also be subject to the provisions of the DAMP, which would ensure that beneficial uses of the receiving waters in that portion of the Santa Ana drainage area within the City are also protected to the maximum extent practicable through an existing program that has been approved by both the Santa Ana and San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Boards. Therefore, no further mitigation measures are recommended or required.

The commenter is further directed to Master Response B.

CR-2
The beneficial uses presented in the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) letter for San Diego Creek, Reach 1, and the Upper Newport Bay tributaries are accurate, and, by inclusion of the RWQCB's letter in this Final EIR, such beneficial uses are also specifically listed.

CR-3
The beneficial uses and water quality objectives presented in the RWQCB letter for the Irvine Groundwater Management Zone are accurate, and, by inclusion of the RWQCB's letter in this document, such beneficial uses and water quality objectives are also specifically listed in this EIR. This information does not affect the analysis or conclusions presented in the Draft EIR. 10-40 City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR

CR-4
The section of the EIR referenced in this comment refers to situations where Section 404 of the Clean WlaterAct does not apply, nor do any other federal actions, and, therefore, Section 401 of the Clean rater Act would not be required. However, the commenter is correct in noting that a prerequisite to issuance of a Section 404 permit is certification, or a waiver thereof, under Section 401 of the Clean WlaterAct.

CR-5
The clarification suggested in this comment (for inclusion in the EIR) is already required pursuant to existing laws or orders (the latter of which functions as law), which include, but are not necessarily limited to, Sections 401 and 404 of the Clean WlaterAct, Executive Order 11990 (Protection of Wetlands), and the Porter -Cologne i-Vater Quality Control Act. As such, the measures (or clarifications) suggested are required by law and the inclusion of separate mitigation is not necessary.

CR-6
This comment suggests that general/individual waste discharge requirements (WDRs) may accompany a water quality certification issued pursuant to Section 401 of the Clean Water Act. This is an accurate statement.

Further, should certain development proposed under the General Plan be located within or adjacent to wetland areas, state and federal laws and regulations would be implemented to identify and protect resources from development through compliance with Section 1600 et al. of the Fish and Game Code of California, Section 404 of the Clean Wlater Act (which is a discretionary rather than negotiated process), and the California Wetlands Conservation Policy (CWCP 1993), all of which would require the identification of wetlands, including isolated wetlands, prior to disturbance. In addition to the state and federal regulations, proposed General Plan Update Policies NR 13.1 and NR 13.2 would protect, maintain, and enhance the City's wetlands.

CR-7
In addition to NDPES regulations, the City's Municipal Code, and any other applicable laws or regulations, General Plan policies NR 3.10, NR 3.11, NR 4.4, NR 3.20, S 5.3, NR 3.16, and NR 3.21 are designed to reduce impacts associated with operational erosion by requiring preparation of a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP), implementation of Best Management Practices (BMPs), incorporation of stormwater detention facilities, design of drainage facilities to minimize adverse effects on water quality, and minimization of increases in impervious areas. Implementation of these policies would reduce the volume sediment -laden runoff discharging from sites within project area. In addition, as noted by the commenter, a review of, and mitigation for, hydromodification may be part of the certification process required by Section 401 of the Clean WlaterAct.

CR-8
Comment noted.

City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 10-41

CR-9
The impact of non -point source pollutants on receiving waters (including the potential to impair beneficial uses) as the result of both construction and operational activities associated with the proposed General Plan update is addressed in Impact 4.7-1. In addition, existing surface water and groundwater quality conditions, including the measures used to monitor, control, and/or improve these conditions, are discussed in detail on page 4.7-8 through 4.7-11 of the Draft EIR. In fact, the pollutants identified by the commenter, including selenium, nitrates, pesticides, nutrients, and other pollutants, are specifically addressed.

CR-10
By inclusion of the RWQCB's letter in this document, State Board General Order No. 2004-0017-DWQ, which requires owners/operators of specified vessel terminals located in Newport Bay to install, maintain, and operate pumpout facilities and dump stations to receive vessel sewage, is specifically identified in this Final EIR. This information does not affect the analysis or conclusions presented in the Draft EIR.

CR-11
By inclusion of the RWQCB's letter in this document, the fact that Upper Newport Bay, the Newport Coast (Corona Del mar State Beach to the Little Corona tidepools), and the Irvine Coast to the south are designated Critical Coastal Areas by the California Coastal Commission, the Regional Water Quality Control Board, and the Water Resources Control Board because they are significant ecological areas affected by nonpoint source runoff is specifically identified in this Final EIR. This information does not affect the analysis or conclusions presented in the Draft EIR.

CR-12
Comment noted. Further, by inclusion of the RWQCB's letter in this document, the additional website links related to existing and anticipated Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) are also specifically identified in this Final EIR. This information does not affect the analysis or conclusions presented in the Draft EIR.

CR-13
The City of Newport Beach, Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board, California Department of Fish and Game, County of Orange, and other cities in the Newport Bay watershed have established the Newport Bay Watershed Executive Committee, which is advised by the Watershed Management Committee (WMC), to implement the TMDLs. Generally, all the TMDLs established by the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board requires that watershed -based solutions are developed by the watershed stakeholders, followed by joint funding for the implementation of these projects throughout the watershed. Through this mechanism, compliance with existing TMDLs can be ensured. Further, General Plan Goal NR4 requires the maintenance of water quality standards through compliance with the TMDL standards. This goal is implemented by Policy NR 4.1, which requires that the TMDLs established by the RWQCB, Santa Ana Region, and guided by the Newport Bay Watershed Executive 10-42 City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR

Committee, are implemented. This goal and policy ensures that compliance with any future TMDLs is also achieved.

CR-14
By inclusion of the RWQCB's letter in this document, the fact that a discharger must obtain a discharge authorization under Order No. R8-2004-0021, NPDES No. CAG998002 (General Waste Discharge Requirements for Short -Term Groundwater Related Discharges and De Minimus Wastewater Discharges to Surface Waters Within the San Diego Creek/Newport Bay Watershed) for circumstances where groundwater samples indicate selenium and nitrate levels that exceed TMDL or California Toxics Rule numeric targets and construction activities will require dewatering, is also specifically identified in this Final EIR. This information does not affect the analysis or conclusions presented in the Draft EIR.

CR-15
The principles of low impact development (LID) are addressed in the proposed General Plan Update and Draft EIR. As stated on page 4.7-31, "[i]mplementation of Policy NR 3.21 [now NR 3.18 under the revised General Plan] contained in the proposed General Plan Update would minimize the creation of and increase in impervious surfaces, while increasing the area of pervious surfaces, where feasible." In addition, Policy NR 3.15 (now NR 3.13 under the revised General Plan) is identified on page 4.7-46 states "[r]etain runoff on private property to prevent the transport of pollutants into recreational waters, to the maximum extent practicable. (Policy HB 8.15)." These policies have been incorporated into the proposed General Plan Update to address LID.

City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 10-43

SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
31 May 2006
Mr. Gregg Ramirez
Planning Department
City of Newport Beach
3300 Newport Boulevard
Newport Beach, CA 92658-8915
SC

RECEIVED BY
PLANNING DIEPARTMEN i
CITY OF NEWPOR 4 BEACH
SUN 0 6 2006 PM
AM 19I10111112I1k2131415}6
ASSOCIATION of

GOVERNMENTS
RE: Comments on the Notice of Availabilityof a Draft Environmental Impact Report p p
for the General Plan 2006 Update
SCAG No.120060304
Main Office
1 Dear ith' Ramirez:
818 West Seventh Street
Thank you for submitting the Draft Environmental Report for the above -mentioned project to lath Floor
SCAG for review and comment. As areawide clearinghouse for regionally significant Los Angeles, California
projects, SCAG reviews the consistency of local plans, projects, and programs with 90017-3435
regional plans. This activity is based on SCAG's responsibilities as a regional planning organization pursuant to state and federal laws and regulations. Guidance provided by these reviews is intended to assist local agencies and project sponsors to take actions that t (z13) z36-
contribute to the attainment of regional goals and policies. f {213) z3b-1800
8z5
SCAG staff has evaluated your submission for consistency with the Regional Comprehensive Plan and Guide, Regional Transportation Plan, and Compass Growth wvvw.scag.ca.gov
Vision. The Draft EIR addresses SCAG's policies and forecasts appropriately and has Officers: President: Yvonne & Burke, Las
Angeles County •First Vice President Gary Ovitt,
provided sufficient explanation of how the plan helps meet and support regional goals.

San BernardinoCounly- SecondVicePresfdent
Based on the information provided in the EIR we have no further comments.

Richard Dixon, Lake Forest • Immediate Past
President: Toni Young, PortHueneme
Imperial County: Victor Carrillo, Imperial County
A description of the proposed project was published in the May 1-15, 2006 • Jon Edney, ElCentro
Intergovernmental Review Clearinghouse Report for public review and comment.

Los Angeles County: Yvonne B. Burke, Los
Las Angeles
Angeles County • Zev va Manhattan HarIf
County • Jim Aldingen Manhattan Beach •Harry
you have an questions, lease contact me at 213 236-1851. Thank you.

Y y q p � } -
Baldwin, San Cali • Paul Bowlen, Cerritos •
Todd Campbell, Burbank • Tony Cardenas, Los
1 Angeles • Stan Carroll, La Habra Heights
Margaret Clark, Rosemead • Gene Daniels,
Sincerely
Paramount • Mike Dispenza, Palmdale • Judy
r
Dunlap, Inglewood • Rae Gabelich, Lang Beach
David yarn. Downey • Eric Las Angeles
Wendy Greuel, Los Angeles • Frank Gurule,
nic
Cudahy •Jae Hahn, Loss Angeles
Angell es •Isadore
Halt, Compton • Keith W. Hanks. Azusa • lose
Huizar, Los Angeles • tom LaBonge, Los Angeles
• Paula Lantz, Pomona • Paul Nowatka, Torrance
Brian Wallace - -
•Pam.r Connor, Santa Mnnira• Alex Padilla, Lr,S
Angeles • Bernard Parks, Los Angeles • Ian Perry,
.Assoe*b�-RegtbnalPla niter
Los Angeles • Ed Reyes. Los Angeles • Bill
Intergovernmental Review
Rosendahl, Los Angeles • Greig Smith, Los
Angeles • Tom Sykes, Walnut - Paul Talhot,
Alhambra • Mike Ten, South Pasadena • Tonia
Reyes Hranga, Long Beach • AntanioVi€laraigosa,
Los Angeles • Dennis Washburn, Calabasas
lark Weiss. Los Angeles • Herb I. Wesson, fr.. Los
Angeles • Dennis Zinc, Los Angeles
Orange County: Chris Norby, Orange County
Christine Barnes, La Palma •John Beauman,
Brea • Lou Bone, Tustin • Art Brown, Buena Park
• Richard Chavez, Anaheim • Debbie Cook,
Huntington Beach • Leslie Daigle, Newport Beach
• Richard Dixon, Lake Forest • Paul Glaab,
Laguna Niguel • Marilynn Poe, Jos Ain miles
Riverside County: Jeff Stone, Rlverside County •
_
Thomas Buckley, Lake Nsinore • annnie
-
Flickinger, Moreno Valley • Ron Loveridge,
Riverside • Greg Pettis, Cathedral City • Ron
-
Roberts.Temecula
- - -
San Bernardino County: Gary Ovitt, San
- - -
Bernardino County • Lawrence Dale, Barstow •
. -
Paul Eaton. Montclair- Lee Ann Garcia, Grand
Terrace • Tim Jasper, Town oLAppie Valley • Larry
McCallon, Highland • Deborah Robertson, Rialto
• Alan Wapner, Ontario
Ventura County: Judy Iyukels, Ventura County
Glen Becerra, Simi Valley • Carl Morehouse, San
Buenaventura • Toni Young, Port Hueneme
Orange County Transportation Authority: Lou
Correa, County of Orange
Riverside County Transportation Commission:

DOCS # 122665
Rohln Lowe. Hemet
Ventura County Transportation Commission:

Keith Millhouse. Moorpark
® rrinmi on Rc¢.yded Papa 559 05.09.06

Response to Comment Letter SC
Letter from the Southern California Association of Governments, received June 5, 2006 SC-1
Comment acknowledged. The Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) had concluded that the Draft EIR addresses SCAG's policies and forecasts appropriately and has provided sufficient explanation of how the plan helps meet and support regional needs. No response required.

City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 10-45

M
From: Ramirez, Gregg [ mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Monday, May 08, 2006 1:37 PM
To: Wood, Sharon; Temple, Patty; Avila, Kimberly; Efner, Erin T; Elwood Tescher
Subject: FW: City of Newport Beach Draft Environmental Impact Report General Plan 2006 Update
Here's the e-mail from Mesa. Exhibit sent seperatley.
-----Original Message -----
From: Bob McVicker [ mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Thursday, May 04, 2006 3:20 PM
To: Ramirez, Gregg
Subject: City of Newport Beach Draft Environmental Impact Report General Plan 2006 Update
Hello Gregg, Please revise the subject document based on the comments 1 in the attached file. Also please change my name in reference 107 on 2 page 4.14-20 to either Robert or Bob. Thanks.

Robert R. "Bob" McVicker
District Engineer
Mesa Consolidated Water District
(949)631-1291
[email protected]

V McSa Consolldded
)NF-\NCtE)r DdTict
April 20, 2006
District Mission:

Dedicated to Satisfying
our Community's
Water Needs
Ms. Sharon Wood
Assistant City Manager
City of Newport Beach
P.O. Box 1768
Newport Beach, CA 92658-8915

BOARD OF DIRECTORS
PAULE. SHOENBERGER
,Subject: Water Supply for Changes in Land Use in the City of Newport Beach's President
Division11
Proposed General Plan
JAMES F. ATKINSON
First Vice President
Division IV
Dear Ms. Wood:

FRED BOCKMILLER
Vice President
Division I
As requested, Mesa Consolidated Water District Mesa analyzed the irn act on q (Mesa) Y p
water supply of the changes in land use within Mesa's service area ila. the City of sHAWN DEWANE
Vita Preside
� proposed Ne ort Beach General Plan. The changes were an increase in MFRJSRA Division lion U
land use area of 15.6 acres, an increase iu Public/Semi-Public Use land use area of

TRUDY OHLIG-HALL
Vice President

8.5 acres, a decrease in Commercial land use area of 1.3 acres and a decrease Ila Division III
Iaidustrial land use area of 22.2 acres. These changes in land use result in an increase in water demand estimated to be 58.6 acre-feet per year. Mesa has sufficient supply DIANA M. LEACH
sources (groundwater, treated colored groundwater and imported water) to supply the General Manager
additional demands that would result from the proposed changes in land use.

COLEEN L. MONTEer
District Secretary
VICTORIA L. BEATLEY
If you have any questions or require additional information, please contact me at TreasurerlAuditor
(949) 631-1291 or via e-mail at. boblm@,,lmesawater.org.

BOWIE, ARNESON, WILES
& GIANNONE
Legal Counsel
Sincerely,
Robert R. McVicicer, P.E.

District Engineer
c: Diana M. Leach, General Manager
9 P.O. Box 5008 A 1965 Placentia Avenue (92627) A Costa Mesa, California 92628-5008 Telephone (949) 631-1200 • FAX (949) 574-1036
www.mesawater.org

P-&, sliflo (0
4,14 Utilities and Service Systems
year operating conditions. Imported water deliveries are expected to be reduced in the projected supply anix, only because IRWD is developing local supplies; however, IRWD owns inore 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." Secure, potable water supplies are required to meet (1) maximum day demands under normal operating conditions, acid (2) to ineet maximum month demands under worst -case, short term supply outage scenarios. In the event of a single dry year, IRNM has sufficient supply to meet demand without requiring any reduction in use. In regards to a'WM's imported supplies, MWD fully expects to be 100 percent reliable throughout the next 20 years through effective management of its water supply.s' IRWD's effective water efficiency improvements and additional water supply will help to enhance IRW.D's water supply position and ensure IR ID meets projected water demand. The District will continue to assess improving water supplies, including expanding water recycling through conversions, groundwater storage, other groundwater tteatment 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, acid mnplinsize voluntary reduction in water use to all customers, but may not impose any additional restrictions. IRWD anticipates having sufficient water supplies to meet estimated dernands under projected multiple dry year scenatios."e
Mesa Consolidated Water District
qZ
On an annual basis, Mesa livers approximately a'billion gallons (2q--a8 Al) of water to various users."" Apptwdmately percent of Mesa's water is provided by local groundwater pumped from Orange County's natural groundwater basin via nine wells. ' , the reinaining,2rf percent of Mesa's water is imported water from MWD, which delivers water inapotted £.corm the Colorado River and State Water Project. At various tunes of the year, Mesa will supplement its groundwater with imported water.70' 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 rngd of tertiary treated, disinfected recycled water. Some of the sites served by recycled 98 Irvine F mch Water District, 2005. Urban Water Management Plan, November. 91 Iz ine Ranch Water District, 2005. Urban Water Management Plan, November. 11H� Irvine Ranch Water District, 2005. Urban Water Management Plan, November. 1 101 M, esa Consolidated Water District . Zti a5 Uk-4eil &Jr, e..- fie. ^,.c 30'- Mesa Consolidated Water District.

City of Newport Beach General Flan Update EIR 4.14-13
M

Response to Comment Letter M
Letter from Mesa Consolidated Water District, received May 8, 2006 M-1
Refer to responses to comments M-3 and M-4 below.

M-2
The following text change has been made to the Draft EIR in response to this comment. On page 4.14- 20, reference number 107 has been changed, as noted below and as shown in Chapter 9 (Text Changes) in the Final EIR:
107 McVicker, Robert. Mesa Consolidated Water District. Written communication via email to City staff, April 5, 2006.

M-3
Comment 3 noted. This information is consistent with the water supply analysis in the Draft EIR. No response required.

M-4
The following text changes have been made to the Draft EIR pursuant to updated information received from the Mesa Consolidated Water District.

On page 4.14-13, the paragraph under the heading Mesa Consolidated Water District has been changed to reflect the information in the comment, as noted below and as shown in Chapter 9 (Text Changes) in the Final EIR.

On an annual basis, Mesa delivers approximately 6.8 billion gallons (24,50020.850 AF) of water to various users.101 Approximately 7-52 percent of Mesa's water is provided by local groundwater pumped from Orange County's natural groundwater basin via nine wells. Similar- fe the ! ity's sevvie tThe remaining 2-8 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.102 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. 101 Mesa Consolidated Water District. 2-0 32005.Water Quahty Repi3ft Urban Water Management Plan. tot Mesa Consolidated Water District. 2-0 32405. Water Quality Repewt Urban Water Management Plan.

City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 10-49

June 8, 2006

CITY OF COSTA MESA
P.O. BOX 1200 + 77 FAIR DRIVE - CALIFORNIA 02624.1200

DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT
CM
Mr. Gregg B. Ramirez, Senior Planner
Planning Department, Community and Economic Development City of Newport Beach
3300 Newport Boulevard
P.O. Box 1768
Newport Beach, CA 92658-8915
hr—ur-i V L4.� L� ,
JUN -0 8 2006
7 3j1101111121k121 1 1 6
SUBJECT: DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE CITY OF

NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL IPLAN UPDATE
Dear Mr. Ramirez:

The City of Costa Mesa has reviewed the Drift Lnvironmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the City of Newport Beach General Plan update encompassing the City of Newport Beach corporate boundaries and its sphere of influence. Please see Attachment 1 for our comments on the DIER.

Thank you for the opportunity to comment since the City of Costa Mesa is very interested in the update. Additionally, we respectfully request a copy of the Responses to Comments document prior to the EIR's certification by your City Council. If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact me at (714) 754-5610.

Sincerely,
IR�M�ICHACLROBINS�ON,A�JCP
Assistant Dev, Svs. Director
Attachments: 1. City of Costa Mesa Comments

2. 19 West Urban Plan

3. Mesa West Bluffs Urban Plan
cc: Donald D. Lamm, Deputy City Mgr., Derr. Svs. Director Peter Naghavi, Transportation Mgr.

Building Division (714)164-5M - Code Enforremeni (794) 754-5823 • Planning Division (714) 754-5245 FAX (714) 754.450 - 7DD (714) 7545244 • www.d.costa• mesa.ca.us Sd Wd2V : E0 900E 80 -unf 9S8V VS L VZZ : "ON XaA dSEW a.LS00 d0 hl I O : WOdd

N@Mort Beach General Plan bEll
Comments on New ort Beach General Plan DER

LAND USE PLANNING
1) Annexation Issues- The Environmental Impact Report should discuss the annexation issues associated with both Banning Ranch and West Santa Ana Heights, and both Newport Beach's and Costa Mesa's pending applications to LAFCO for changes in the municipal boundaries. The EIR should account for the 2 changes to the draft General Plan that would be necessary in order for West Santa Ana Heights to be incorporated into Newport Beach.
2) Banning Ranch- The City recommends the EIR address the following regarding Banning Ranch.

The appropriate location for the clustering of the oil extraction activities on 3 Banning Ranch and the potential impact to existing and planned land uses in the City of Costa Mesa.
■ The recently adopted Costa IVIesa urban plans for the West 19t' Street and the Mesa West Bluffs areas as they relate to planned land uses in Banning 4 Ranch and the West Newport Mesa area. A copy of both plans is attached for your use.

The impact of Newport Beach's proposed Master Plan of Streets and Highways in respect to both development options for Banning Ranch.

Specifically, if Banning Ranch is developed primarily as open space, how would that development option affect the City's Master Plan of Streets and 5 Highways, as well as the respect:ive master plans of the County of Orange and the City of Costa Mesa?
The consistency of Newport Beach's proposed Master Flan of Streets and Highways with the master plans of the County of Orange and the City of Costa Mesa.

TRANSPORTATIOWCIRC ULA TION
1) Expansion of traffic study area is recommended:
• aEIR Page: 3-13 (Table 3-3)
The proposed City of Newport Beach General Plan Update includes significant 6 increases in land uses in several planning areas adjacent to the City from existing conditions will result in significant traffic impacts to several intersections in the City of Costa Mesa. The increases listed below (but not limited to) are also substantially higher than their current 137eneral Plan:
vd Wdev : z0 900z 80 -unf 9S817 17SL b LZ : 'ON Xdd HS3W d1SO0 d0 Ai I S : WOLIA

NeWpoll QMh General Plan DER
• West Newport Mesa
Mariners.' Mile)
Airport Area
• Old Newport Boulevard
Therefore, the study area should be expanded to cover Costa Mesa intersections. Specifically, Newport Boulevard (including 19' Street), Intersections along 171' Street from Newport Boulevard up to (and including) Irvine Avenue, and intersections along Superior Avenue should be included.

DER Page: 4.13-6
Existing traffic conditions analysis should be expanded to include Costa Mesa intersections listed above.
• DER Page: 4.13-31
With the proposed General Plan Update, the intersection of Newport Boulevard/Hospital Road was impacted. These impacts would likely continue to other intersections along Newport Boulevard to the north of the study area. This should be addressed in the study.

DER Page: 4.13-32
The analysis should be expanded to include SR-55 segments north of 19' Street as they would affected by the significant increases in land uses proposed in the General Plan Update.
• Appendix D Tables: 4-5, 4-6
The analysis does not include intersections or roadway segments within the City of Costa Mesa. The roadway volumes are expected to grow by approximately 20 percent on Newport Boulevard with No Project condition. This will be even higher with the proposed General Plan land uses. The impact of this growth should be addressed.

Appendix D Page: 5-1
Section 5.1.1 states that "Large land use changes occur in Airport Area (to incorporate residential uses.--), in Newport Center and in places like Mariners Mile and Old Newport Boulevard (where a mixed use component has been added)." The impact of this growth at nearby Costa Mesa intersections should be addressed and included in the study.
• Appendix D Page: 5-6
The trip generation with the proposed General Plan land uses will exceed existing trip ends by approximately 29 percent (220,772 trips). Due to the 3 Ed WdEv : Za 90❑Z Bo -unf 9S8b VSZ VTL : '❑N Xdd USE]w HISOO d0 Ai I O : WONA

N R ach General Plan DER
proximity of the projected growth to Costa Mesa, several intersections in the City of Costa Mesa would be impacted. This should be identified in the environmental impact report and the impacts should be addressed.

Appendix D Page: 5-7
The projected growth of traffic on Newport Boulevard north of Hospital Road is approximately 25 percent with the proposed General Plan land uses. However, the analysis was limited to City limits. The projected increase in traffic will affect 6 roadway segments and intersections to the north in the City of Costa Mesa. This should be addressed in the environmental document.

Appendix D Table: 5-8
Due to the proximity of the projected growth to Costa Mesa, several intersections in the City of Costa Mesa would be impacted. This should be identified in the environmental impact report and the impacts should be addressed. 2) Additional analysis should be conducted under the assumption that the 191" Street bridge over the Santa Ana River is not constructed:
• ❑EIR Page: 4.13µ23
The study is correct in analyzing "constrained roadway system." However, the constrained system includes 19t' Street bridge over Santa Ana River. Similar to the SR-55 freeway extension, the possibility of 19t' Street bridge over Santa Ana River to be implemented in the General Plan timeframe is very remote considering that the Cities of Costa Mesa and Huntington Beach are opposed to it and the feasibility of constructing 'the bridge has not been determined. By including the 19t' Street bridge, the true impacts of the proposed General Plan land uses are not addressed in the study. The full analysis presenting impacts and mitigations without 19P Street bridge should be included at least as an altemative within the General Plan.
■ DEIR Page: 4.13-25
Project Impacts — The study includes le Street bridge over Santa Ana River.

The study should be expanded to ilnclude Costa Mesa intersections and an analysis of constrained network without the 1 e Street bridge should be included. ■ Appendix D Page: 4-8, 5-8
The constrained network was revised to include the bridge over 19t' Street. By incorporating an improvement that is not feasible due to jurisdictional and environmental issues, the true impacts of the General Plan Update are understated. The analysis should be revised without the 19'" Street bridge over Santa Ana River.
7 4
Ed WdZV:Z0 900E 80 -unf 9S8V VSZ VTZ: 'ON Xdd dSSW d1S00 d0 AM: WONA

Response to Comment Letter CM
Letter from the City of Costa Mesa, received June 8, 2006 CM-1
Comment noted. The Final EIR will be forwarded to the City pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines.

CM-2
The General Plan incorporates policies only for properties within the current jurisdictional boundaries of the City and does not speculate on any pending or anticipated future boundary adjustments. An exception is Banning Ranch, which is within the City's designated Sphere of Influence. As required by State law, the Plan indicates the City's intentions regarding use and conservation of this property should it be annexed. It does not specify a pro -active strategy on behalf of the City for annexation. Any annexation procedures would be processed according to LAFCO requirements.

The EIR does not address annexation of West Santa Ana Heights, as any annexation that may occur of this area would be separate from the current General Plan Update. An amendment to the General Plan in order for West Santa Ana Heights to be incorporated into the City has been approved by the City Council and would be effective if and when annexation of this area occurs. This amendment made no land use changes.

CM-3
The consolidation of oil extraction activity on Banning Ranch is not proposed at this time. Should it be proposed in the future, the appropriate location for clustering of the oil extraction activities and the impact to existing and planned land uses in Costa Mesa would be determined through its own environmental review under CEQA. Without knowing the proposed location of oil extraction activities, no further analysis can be done at this time. The commenter is also directed to Master Response E.

CM-4
The City is aware of the land use changes for Costa Mesa. These plans did not warrant any revision to the Draft EIR relative to the uses in the Newport Mesa area. Further, the land use impact analysis specifically addresses compatibility with the City of Costa Mesa under Impact 4.8-1, page 4.8-10. "Properties along the northern edge abutting the City of Costa Mesa would be encouraged to retain light manufacturing and research and development uses. It is possible that adjacent to these uses, in the City of Costa Mesa, additional residential units may be developed." Because these conditions would not result in any new land use conflicts, impacts have been identified as less than significant.

In addition, the City has reviewed several of Costa Mesa's environmental documents in the vicinity of Banning Ranch, including the Mixed -Use Overlay District and Sobeca Urban Plan IS/MND, which analyzed 2025 conditions. Although it is not stated whether the analysis took into consideration existing conditions or the existing General Plan, the difference is relatively moderate, as shown below:
10-54 City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR

Average Daily Trips
Existing 135,561
General Plan 173,286
Revised Plan 157,647
The analysis included several worst -case assumptions, including no extension of SR-55 and no bridge along 19th St at the Santa Ana River. It also assumes numerous local intersection improvements. As a result the three intersections with LOS E under existing conditions would improve, and all intersections would operate at LOS D or better under either the General Plan or the Revised Plan, which adheres to the City's goal for acceptable level of service of LOS D.

CM-5
The City of Newport Beach General Plan Trafc Study Preliminary Alternatives Analysis (Urban Crossroads, Inc., May 3, 2005) included evaluation of open space in Banning Ranch. Discussion of the impacts of open space on Banning Ranch is included on pages ES-32 and 6-2 of the Transportation Study. If an open space option is ultimately selected and implemented, no roadways would be anticipated upon Banning Ranch.

The City of Newport Beach proposed Master Plan of Streets and Highways is consistent with the MPAH.

CM-6
The proposed project in the northerly areas of Newport Beach (particularly the Airport Area) reflects a better balance of employment and residential opportunities and has less impact on Costa Mesa than the existing General Plan. The net impact of Project Only growth is an increase in LOS that is generally less than the threshold for acceptable traffic operations that is accepted by the City of Costa Mesa. Any explicit development projects increasing development over existing levels will be required by the City of Newport Beach to evaluate impacts until they reach a level of insignificance.

In addition, in public hearings on the General Plan, the City Council has directed that staff revise the proposed General Plan Update to respond to the impacts identified in the Draft EIR. For the areas discussed in the comment most likely to affect Costa Mesa these reductions are as follows:
■ Airport Area: residential growth reduced by 2,100 units to 2,200 units, with commercial development the same as the existing General Plan, but since most of the residential growth has to occur in association with elimination of existing commercial development, no traffic increases from the existing General Plan will occur.
■ West Newport Mesa: permitted floor area ratios reduced to below existing General Plan levels, reducing projected daily traffic by 3,406 trips.
■ Old Newport Boulevard: The proposed General Plan is now status quo from the existing, with no increase in trips.
■ Mariners Mile: The introduction of residential will reduce the amount of commercial available for development, with an overall trip reduction of 3,629 from the existing General Plan.

City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 10-55

The potential for a cumulative impact outside the City of Newport Beach, consistent with previously completed analysis (for instance the City of Costa Mesa General Plan and Santa Ana River Crossings studies) is acknowledged as part of this effort.

Refer to the Master Response D regarding analysis of traffic impacts beyond City boundaries.

CM-7
Refer to the Master Response A regarding inclusion of the 19' Street bridge in the EIR analysis.

CM-8
The comment connects the roadway network used within the traffic study to the proposed Circulation Element roadway network. This is not a correct connection to make. While the City used a network for analysis that reflects what might reasonably be built within the timeframe of the proposed General Plan Update, the City is not proposing any changes to the circulation network of the MPAH.

The City of Neitport Beach General Plan Traffic Study Preliminary Alternatives Analysis (Urban Crossroads, Inc., May 3, 2005) included evaluation of an alternative with the Orange County Master Plan of Arterial Highways. The City of Newport Beach proposed Master Plan of Streets and Highways is consistent with the Orange County Master Plan of Arterial Highways. Refer to Master Response A regarding including the 19`t' Street bridge consistent with the MPAH. The two access points through the Banning Ranch property (15th Street and Bluff Road) are similar to the Bluff Road and 17th Street connections. These minor differences in the road connections through Banning Ranch have been on the City and County Master Plans for a long time, and the City of Newport Beach has always been found to be consistent with the MPAH. As part of the Santa Ana River Crossings study process, the three cities that would be affected by the extension of Bluff Road north of 19th Street to Victoria Avenue have determined this to be an unnecessary improvement.
10-56 City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR

05/04/2006 00:43
N0.437 9001
May 4, 2006
wwaci.:rvine.ca �:s
City 0't r'Ji''e: Qr'.fl DVl,^, -4L�V7o^ , I!vil - .e. orna G-jam97523 ,rC 4911, ?J�r• IR
Sent via fax:
(949) 644-3229
Mr. Gregg Ramirez
City of Newport Beach
3300 Newport Boulevard
Newport Beach, CA 92663
Subject: Review the Draft Environmental Impact Report for the City of Newport Beach General Plan Update
Dear Mr. Ramirez:

The City of Irvine has received and reviewed the information on the above referenced project and has the following comments:

General Plan
Please revise the language for the statement .on Page 3-96 of the General Plan:
"Recent development activity in the City of Irvine's Business Complex (IBC), to the north, has included the transfer of development rights, bringing more intense development closer to the Airport Area, and resulting in the conversion of office to residential entitlement." The transfer of development rights between sites within the IBC does not necessarily mean that more intense development will be located closer to the Airport Area. The conversion of land uses between office and residential is required to remain within the overall intensity limits established for the IBC, Therefore, the change in land uses does not necessarily mean that the City has allowed more intense. development to occur.

The following comments are based on the review of the Circulation Element of the DEIR and the Traffic Study associated with the general plan update. 2, Although Tables ES-1 1 and 5-11 of the Traffic Study Tables appear to be consistent with Figure CE-3 of the Circulation Element, it is unclear why Table ES-8 is Inconsistent with Figure CE-3. Please address the inconsistencies shown for build - out conditions at the following six Intersections that lie partially within the Irvine city limits:

I2
PRiN E ON F.=_C CL=D ?APER

05/04/2006 00.43
N0.437 P002
Mr. Gregg Ramirez
May 4, 2006

Intersection
Figure CE-3
Table ES-8
Circulation Element
Traffic Stud
MacArthur/Campus
Provide 2" NB LT lane;
Provide 2r' NB LT lane;
Remove 4th SB thru lane to
SB free-RT lane
provide shared thrulRT
lane.

Von Karman/Campus
Provide 2n EB LT lane;
Provide 1S WB RT lane; 1a
Remove EB and NB free-
SB RT lane.
ri ht turn lanes.

Provide NB free-RT lane; 4
Jamboree/Campus
Provide 4 SB thru lane;
NB RT lane; remove EB
SB thru lane; 1st SB RT lane;
free-RT lane.
3rd EB LT lane; -WB free-RT
lane
JamboreelBirch
Provide 4 SB thru lane
Provide 2n EB LT lane; 1
WB RT lane.

MacArthur/Jamboree
Provide 4n EB thru lane;
Provide 4 NB thru lane; 4
3rd WB LT lane.

EB thru lane; 3rd WB LT
lane.

SR-73 NB ramps
Provide 2 LT lane
(not included)
(Bonita C n
2 3. Traffic impacts were identified along the boundary of the study limits at the intersections of MacArthur/Campus, Von Kerman/Campus, Jamboree/Campus, Jamboree/Birch, Jamboree/MacArthur, and SR-73 NB ramps/Bonita Canyon, all of 3 which lie partially within Irvine city limits. Therefore, please expand the limits of the study area such that impacts dissipate to a level of insignificance. 4, The underlying assumptions made in the Traffic Study at the intersections of MacArthur/Campus and Von Karman/Campus are inconsistent with the City of Irvine's ITAM model. At the intersection of MacArthur/Campus, the eastbound right - turn lane from Campus to MacArthur will not exist with build -out conditions per the ITAM model, while the Traffic Study assumes that this right -turn lane will exist. At 4 the intersection of Von KarmanlCampus, the eastbound right -turn from Campus to Von Karman is a free -right per the ITAM model, while the Traffic Study assumes a designated right -turn lane. Please address these inconsistencies and reanalyze these intersections as appropriate.

5. Provide text in the Circulation Element as well as the Traffic Study indicating that improvements must be coordinated and feasibility analyzed for those impacted 5 intersections that lie within both the Irvine and Newport Beach city limits.

Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the proposed document. We would appreciate the opportunity to review any further information regarding this project

05/04/2006 00:43 N0.437 P003
Mr. Gregg Ramirez
May 4, 2006

as the planning process proceeds_ If you have any questions, please contact me at by phone at (949) 724-6375 Irby email at dinauyen(a),ci.irvine.ca.us.

Sincerely,
(r

DIANE NGUY
Associate Planner
cc: Barry Curtis, Principal Planner
Michael Haack, Manager of Development Services
Bill Jacobs, Principal Planner
File

Response to Comment Letter IR
Letter from the City of Irvine, received May 4, 2006
IR-1
This comment does not address the adequacy of the EIR analysis for the proposed General Plan Update.

No further response is necessary.

IR-2
The information in the comment letter under the heading of "Table ES-8" is not from Table ES-8 of the Transportation Study. The comment claims that there are inconsistencies in the improvements included in the "table" with Figure CE-3 of the Circulation Element. The Transportation Study Table ES-8 (beginning on page ES-17) only provides level of service (LOS) information without improvements and does not identify any improvements explicitly. Assuming the information has been extracted from Table ES-9, it is incorrect. Therefore, the comment fails to identify any inconsistencies with Figure CE-3. The improvements listed in Table ES-9 are consistent with Figure CE-3.

IR-3
The comment identifies cumulative impacts per the Draft EIR and traffic study report. Please also see Master Response D regarding analysis of impacts beyond City boundaries. However, review of the direct project impact analysis (consisting of Existing plus Project conditions) indicates that all of the referenced intersections experience acceptable traffic operations under Existing plus Project conditions. The cumulative analysis for the General Plan project also indicates that the proposed project has less impact than the Currently Adopted General Plan. Therefore, the overall study area evaluated in the traffic study is adequate and does not need to be expanded.

IR-4
The different lane configuration assumptions identified in the comment are based on minor differences in the City of Newport Beach and City of Irvine approaches to operational analysis and do not affect the overall conclusions of the Draft EIR.

The rightmost through lane at the intersection of MacArthur Boulevard at Campus Drive is 19' wide (including the 8' bike lane). This provides an implied or "defacto" right turn lane in which right turning vehicles can turn without waiting for / being impeded by through vehicles. This analysis approach is supported by field observation of driver behavior at this location.

The analysis at the intersection of Von Karman Avenue at Campus Drive differs based on differing definitions of a free right turn lane. While the City of Irvine considers any right turn lane with a concrete barrier (i.e. porkchop) separating vehicles from other traffic a free right turn lane, the City of Newport Beach does not recognize those lanes that are controlled by a Yield sign and/or do not have exclusive receiving lanes as free right turn lanes and treats them as exclusive right turn lanes. If the City of Irvine standard was used in this analysis, it would result in improved Level of Service at this intersection. To 10-60 City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR

maintain conservative results and because the south side of the intersection is within the City of Newport Beach, the analysis is considered accurate as stated in the traffic study report.

IR-5
It is acknowledged that the timing and feasibility of improvements to intersections shared with adjacent jurisdictions must be coordinated with said jurisdictions. This is consistent with Policies CE 3.1.2 and

3.1.4 recommended for adoption in the City of Newport Beach Circulation Element.

City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 10-61

From: Susan/Barry Eaton [ mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Monday, May 29, 2006 4:04 PM
To: Wood, Sharon; Temple, Patty; Ramirez, Gregg
Cc: Edmonston, Rich
Subject: Comments on DEIR for the GPU
Sharon, et al,
Pursuant to Patty's suggestion, I am herewith submitting my comments on the DEIR for the General Plan Update:

Executive Summar /eject Description:

The most important comment herein is that the entitlements that would be granted by the project have changed substantially since the project description was written. Those changes need to be described thoroughly, and the impacts based on that description analyzed. It seems to me that the response document should contain a description of all the changes that have been made, both for the described sub areas, and for the other areas that have been changed. This should include changes to the summary tables (such as Tables 2-1 and 3-3), the traffic generation tables (tables ES 1 through 3 in the Traffic Appendices) - preferably by adding a new column, so that a comparison can be made between the existing General Plan, the originally -proposed project, and the revised project, the dwelling unit and population totals (which appear at numerous places in the DEIR), and amending those paragraphs in the Executive Summary and Project Description that refer to specific proposals that have now been modified (such as the reference on page 3-15 to the number of proposed additional housing units in Newport Center, and the first paragraph under "Other Land Use Changes" on pages 2-3 and 3-17, that state that the area west of St. Andrews road is going to be redesignated). 40 In addition, the traffic model should be rerun (utilizing the budget allocation for this purpose) once all the changes have been made, and any differences in the resulting link 2 v/c ratios, and of intersection LOSs from the original project should be discussed in the traffic section responses and summarized in the Executive Summary responses.

If table 2-2 is supposed to list all the impacts, it appears to have several missing (e.g. - the Significant findings under Hazards and Land Use, and Public Services impacts 4.11.2 3 through 4.11.4).

Aesthetics and Visual Quality 40
Why is there no Coastal Views Figure for CDM or the Newport Coast (it should be 4 Figure 4.1-4)? 40
Air Quality

41

proposed population exceeds that estimated by SCAG by 9,748 people. At the stated household size of 2.19, a reduction of 4,377 dwelling units would bring the population estimate back down to the level estimated by SCAG, and possibly eliminate this significant impact. If the revised project does, in fact, reduce the residential component by that much, this finding should be changed. (However, it should be noted that in the Population and Housing Section (page 4.10-5), the DEIR states that the proposed project 5 exceeds the SCAG dwelling unit projections by 11,294. I fail to understand how there could be a greater discrepancy in the number of units than in total population - less than 1 person per unit? - unless one or the other of the population projections was based on occupied units, as the traffic model is.) If the remaining impact is based upon exceedance of SCAG's estimates of dwelling units, rather than population, then it would appear that this impact could not be modified. In any event, it should be made clear which exceedance creates the remaining impact.

Geolog3
Impact 4.5-2 (pages 4.5-14 and 4.5-15) includes impacts related to liquefaction, and concludes that those impacts are less than significant. However, the text doesn't appear to state how further structures permitted under the project could be prevented from the 6 effects of liquefaction, even if designed according to the latest codes. If, in fact, the effects of liquefaction cannot be prevented, then this section should so state, and probably a remaining effect should be declared.

Hazards:

The section on Aviation Hazards on page 4.6-9 far understates the number daily commercial flights at JWA. This should be corrected. 7
(See also the comment hereinbelow under Land Use.)
HydroloM.

The introductory paragraph in this section refers to a Technical Background Report for I g the City of Corona. Why? 1
Figure 4.7-1 in this section shows all of the islands in the lower bay as "tidelands and 9 submerged lands". Although they may have been so at one time, are they still considered submerged? (They appear to be pretty dry to me.)
The first paragraph under Seismically Induced Inundation" (on page 4.7-19) refers to the 10 threat of flooding from several open reservoirs, including the "Harbor View Reservoir".

Is there such an open reservoir?
Land Use:
10 Impact 4.8-1 (on page 4.8-12) refers to a remaining significant effect if the CC approves residential development within the 65 CNEL line around JWA. (Similar remaining effects are also reflected in the Hazards and Nose sections of the DEIR.) Now that the mixed use designation has been removed from the Airport Area within the 65 CNEL line 11 (thus presumably requiring a future General Plan Amendment, in addition to an ALUC override, to approve residential development within this area), do all three of these effects remain significant, or can they now be reduced to a level of less than significant? Noise:
12 (See comment just above, under Land Use.)
Population and Housing:
13 (See comment hereinabove under Air Quality.)
Public Services:

On page 4.11-14, the DEIR states that "There are no Federal, State, or local policies that 14 are directly applicable to police services within the Planning Area." Can this be serious? I hear statements from Police representatives all the time about how handcuffed they are by State and Federal regulations that control how they go about their business. Do none of those at all apply within this context?
With regard to schools, I have to say that this is just about the weakest EIR section that I have ever seen on this topic - especially as it applies to the Santa Ana Unified School 15 District (SAUSD), which serves the Airport Area (where thousands of new dwelling units are proposed where none have existed heretofore).

This starts with the paragraph under Standards, where the DEIR states that the capacity of 16 SAUSD "is currently unknown". Could not this have been established with a simple phone call? It should be.

Next, under Projected Needs, SAUSD is not even mentioned. Why not? 1 17 Under Planned Improvements, there is no mention of the improvements planned under Measure W for the NMUSD; and, again, SAUSD is not even mentioned. Why not? 18

Under Regulatory Context, the DEIR states that "There are no federal, state or local policies that are directly applicable to schools within the Planning Area." This statement seems almost absurd on its face. There are innumerable state laws governing the operation of school districts in California - so much so that they have very little local flexibility within which to operate.

More important, there is a specific state law which entitles school districts to charge impact fees for both residential and non-residential development, and limits the mitigation that might otherwise be required for school impacts. I don't think I have ever seen an EIR that failed to state this, with prominence. 19 Under project impacts, at the top of page 4.11-23, the DEIR states that "enrollment capacity and operating conditions of the SAUSD are unknown." Why? It doesn't seem 20 that that information would have been so difficult to obtain; and it should have been, in light of the potential impact to that District. 41
Two paragraphs later, this same "unknown" is used to avoid assessing the impact on that 21 District.

In the following paragraph, the DEIR talks about how the GPU policies "accommodate" and "allows for" the development of new schools in the area. No mention whatever is 22 made of the state law which specifically mitigates, and limits mitigation to, the fees that it authorizes school districts to charge to allay such impacts. 41 41 The concluding paragraph of this section (at the top of page 4.11-24) then concludes that there is a less than significant effect, based on the proposed GP Policies that 23 "accommodate" and "allows for"; without even mentioning the state law that governs the effect and mitigation of these impacts. This really needs to be changed! 41 41 Finally, in the Cumulative Impacts section (on the same page), the DEIR states that "it is presently unclear how many residential units the IBC [in the City of Irvine] would add to the area" (which is also served by the SAUSD). It seems to this reviewer that a phone call to the SAUSD could have established how many such units the District is planning 24 for, what student generation has been forthcoming from those units already completed and being occupied, and what the District is doing to plan for those students, as well as those being contemplated in this DEIR.

To conclude (in this same paragraph) that the impact is less than significant, in the absence of the information that could have been relatively easily gathered from the 25 SAUSD (they do have a full time planner, to deal with exactly this topic) is simply unfounded, in my opinion. 40
Transportation and Traffic:
(See comments under Executive Summary/Project Description, hereinabove.) 26

The 5th paragraph on Page 4.13-5 states that Jamboree Road "has volumes between 30,000 and 67,000 ADT." But Figure 4.13-3 (on page 4.13-7) shows no volumes higher than 47,000 ADT on Jamboree Road. Which is correct? (In the traffic study addendum 27 [in table 1, on page 4 of the letter immediately following Appendix E], it is noted that 2006 volumes on Jamboree, between Ford/Eastbluff and San Miguel, now exceed 50,000 ADT.)
In the section on Trails (on page 4.13-7), no mention whatever is made of equestrian 28 trails. Why not?
Under regulatory Setting (on page 4.13-19), the DEIR states that "There are no relevant federal regulations applicable to the General Plan Update." I have the impression that 29 there are a number of federal regulations that effect the planning and implementation of circulation system improvements. Is this not the case?
40 At the bottom of page 4.13-24, the DEIR states that "The current goal for acceptable level of service in the City of Newport Beach is as close to LOS D as possible". Is this a statement of the current General Plan, or the proposed project? It certainly does not 30 describe the proposed GPU; and I had the impression that the current GP is not so ambiguous, either.

In the actual traffic study (on page 2-25 of Appendix D) it is stated that "the regional 41 socioeconomic data (SED) based models generate fewer trips, then distribute the trips over longer distances." Inasmuch as all the carefully gathered Land Use data within Newport Beach has had to be converted into this more amorphous SED in the traffic 31 model (so that the model can be consistent with OCTAM - the regional model for Orange County), this fact should be included in the traffic summary section of the DEIR, along with an explanation of how the model was corrected to account for this discrepancy.

Finally, I believe that there should be some reference in the traffic section of the DEIR to 41 the "Special Issues" section of the traffic study (commencing on page 6-1 of Appendix D). There are a number of notable statements in this section of which any reader of the 32 DEIR should be aware, in my opinion
Utilities and Service Svstems:

The 2nd threshold of Significance (on page 4.14-16) states that the 2nd threshold is 33 "sufficient water supplies". Is that supposed to be insufficient water supplies, or is it an either/or threshold?
In the paragraph dealing with sewers (on page 4.14-30), the middle of the paragraph refers to a couple of policies dealing with watershed -based runoff reduction and enforcing the City's Water Quality Ordinance. Do these have anything to do with 34 sewers?

41 In table 4.14-12 (at the bottom of page 4.14-31), the table states that there would be 500 new students generated as a result of implementation of the proposed GPU. But the 35 section on school impacts states that the student generation could be as high as 6,230.

This is a difference of a magnitude of 12; and needs to be corrected.

On pages 4.14-35 and 36, six different policies are listed - all of which appear to have to do with surface water quality, not sewers. Why are they listed here? 36 Alternatives:

Table 5-2, on page 5-13 (summarizing the GPAC Alternative), appears to have several anamolies - e. g.: 500,000 sq. ft. less industrial in the Airport Area, no institutional (i.e. 37 courthouse) in the Airport Area, and 83% less institutional (i.e. no City Hall?) on the Balbaoa Peninsula. If these are errors, they should be corrected. 41 Similarly, Table 5-3, on page 5-21, (summarizing the "Sub Area Only Minimum" Alternative, appears to have numerous anamolies and errors - e.g.: 70,000 more sq. ft. of office in Mariner's Mile, 800 more units in Newport Center, 2300 less units in the Airport Area, 14 units total in Banning Ranch, almost 375 more units in West Newport Highway, 38 400,000 sq. ft. less commercial on the Balboa Peninsula, and the same two anamolies relating to institutional uses in the Airport and Balboa Peninsula as the summary table for the GPAC Alternative. To the extent that these are, in fact, errors, they should be corrected.

Other CEOA Considerations:

It appears that Section 6.2 (on pages 6-1 through 6-3) is supposed to be a summary of all of the Significant, Unavoidable Adverse Impacts. However, it does not include the 2 identified remaining impacts (in the Hazards and Land Use sections) if residential is 39 permitted within the 65 CNEL boundary around JWA. If these impacts do, in fact remain (see earlier comment herein, under Land Use), then they should be included in this Table.

Thank you for your consideration of these comments. I look forward to the responses thereto in the response document.

Barry

Response to Comment Letter B
Letter from Barry Eaton, Planning Commission, received May 29, 2006 B-1
In public hearings on the General Plan, the City Council has directed staff to make project modifications that reduce impacts below those identified in the Draft EIR. Therefore, the EIR analysis overstates the impacts of the proposed General Plan Update as there is little change in the density or amount of single- family land uses proposed in the General Plan Update. As mentioned in Chapter 8, minor changes to the General Plan have occurred as a result of the public involvement process that the City has undertaken.

Table 1 in Chapter 8 provides a comparison of the General Plan for ease of understanding.

B-2
Although a final model run to evaluate the land use plan approved by the City of Newport Beach will in fact be performed, it is not required or possible to include this information in the Final EIR.

B-3
In response to this comment, the following text changes have been made to the Draft EIR to incorporate all impacts into Table 2-2 of Chapter 2 (Summary).

On page 2-10, under Impact 4.6-7, the text has been amended to incorporate the significant impact referred to in the comment, as noted below and as shown in Chapter 9 (Text Changes) in the Final EIR.

Impact
Significance Before
Mitigation
Mitigation Measures
Significance After
Mitigation
Impact 4.6.7 Implementation of the
proposed General Plan Update could
result in a safety hazard for people
residing or working in the Planning
Area as a result of the proximity of a
public airport.

LTS
(S—should residential
No mitigation is
required.

No mitigation
measures would be
LTS
(SU)
development be constructed
within the 65 dBA CNEL
noise contour)
feasible
On page 2-12, under Impact 4.8-1, the text has been amended to incorporate the significant impact referred to in the comment, as noted below and as shown in Chapter 9 (Text Changes) in the Final EIR.

Impact
Significance Before
Miff afion
Mitigation
Measures
Significance
After Mitigation
Impact 4.8-1 Implementation of the proposed
General Plan Update could involve new uses
and structures that may result in intensification
of development within the Planning Area that
creates incompatibilities with adjacent land
uses.

LTS
(S—should residential
No mitigation is
required.

No mitigation
measures would
LTS
develo mp ent be
constructed within the 65
dBA CNEL noise contours
10-68 City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR

On page 2-12, under Impact 4.8-3, the text has been amended to incorporate the significant impact referred to in the comment, as noted below and as shown in Chapter 9 (Text Changes) in the Final EIR.

Impad
Signfficance Before
Miff ation
Mffi ation Measures
Significance After
Miff ation
Impact 4.8-3 Implementation of the
proposed General Plan Update could
conflict with applicable land use plans,
policy, or regulations.

LTS
(S-should the AELUP
No mitigation is
required.

No mitiaation
measures are feasible)
LTS
be overridden by City
nil
On page 2-13, under Public Services, the text has been amended to incorporate the impacts referred to in the comment, as noted below and as shown in Chapter 9 (Text Changes) in the Final EIR.

Impact
Significance
Before
Miff ation
Miff anon Measures
Significance After
Mifi ation
Impact 4.11.1-1 Implementation of the proposed
General Plan Update could increase the demand for
fire protection services, which could result in the
need for additional fire facilities.

LTS
No mitigation is
required.

LTS
Impact 4.11.2-1 Implementation of the proposed
LTS
No mitigation is
r it
LTS
General Plan Update could increase the demand for
police protection services, which would result in the
need for additional police facilities.

Impact 4.11.3-1 Implementation of the proposed
LTS
No mitigation is
r it
LT
General Plan Update would result in an increase in
the student enrollment which could result in the
need for additional staff and school facilities.

Impact 4.11.4-1 Implementation of the proposed
LTS
No mitigation is
re wired
LT
General Plan Update could result in the need for
additional library facilities in order to maintain
acceptable service ratios.

B-4
Corona Del Mar is included on Figure 4.1-3, on page 4.1-8. A Coastal Views Figure for Newport Coast has been added to the EIR as new Figure 4.1-4. This figure is reprinted in Chapter 9 (Text Changes) in the Final EIR.

B-5
The commenter has subtracted the number of households (43,100) projected by SCAG from the number of dwelling units (54,394) under the proposed General Plan Update. SCAG projections for population and the City's projection of dwelling units are two independent values. These are not the same thing, and cannot be correlated. Because the City has historically experienced vacancy rates of 10.9 percent, the EIR analyzed dwelling unit projections. As explained on page 4.10-3 of the Draft EIR, a household differs from a dwelling unit because the number of dwelling units includes both occupied and vacant dwelling City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 10-69

units. Thus, for the City dwelling unit projection to exceed the City population projection is not unusual.

The EIR analysis is based on the change in dwelling units as this number reflects a greater difference than the difference in population, and presents a conservative analysis.

B-6
As stated on page 4.5-15, in compliance with the California Building Code, an assessment of geologic hazards would be conducted that would consider the feasibility of development on a particular site in combination with available measures/design features that could mitigate potential liquefaction and other hazards. Should the potential liquefaction hazards not be mitigable, development of a particular project would be considered infeasible and not pursued. However, if a project is deemed feasible, any and all applicable codes, as well as the City's Safety Element, would be adhered to such that potential liquefaction hazards would be less than significant.

B-7
The information referred to in this comment was taken from a report prepared in 2003 by Gunnar J.

Kuepper of Emergency and Disaster Management for Earth Consultants International. His findings are based on in -person interviews with Michael R. Hart, the Deputy Director of Operations at John Wayne Airport, and Chuck Ulmann, the Air Traffic Manager in the FAA Tower at John Wayne Airport.

Information cited on the official website of the John Wayne Airport clarifies that on an average business day, 300 commercial flights (150 departures and 150 arrivals) arrive at and depart from JWA.

In response to this comment, the following text changes have been made on page 4.6-9, the second sentence under the heading Aviation Hazards, as noted below and as shown in Chapter 9 (Text Changes) in the Final EIR:

John Wayne Airport QWA) generates nearly all aviation traffic above the City of Newport Beach. On an average business day, approximately 3Qa-commercial flights (150 departures and 150 arrivals) and 20 regional flights arrive at and depart from JWA....

B-8
The City of Corona Technical Background Report (2003) was consulted during the preparation of the Hydrology Section to confirm certain regional hydrologic conditions.

B-9
The outer area of Balboa Island, Lido Isle, Bay Island, and Harbor Island contain tidelands. Figure 4.7-1 has been amended to identify the tidelands. This figure is reprinted in Chapter 9 (Text Changes) in the Final EIR.

B-10
Harbor View Dam is a small earthen reservoir that is usually empty and primarily used for flood control purposes. It is located approximately 700 feet upstream of Harbor View School and has a storage capacity of 28 acre-feet.
10-70 City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR

B-11
The commenter is correct that the EIR evaluates the project description identified within Chapter 3, and on page 3-15 specifically identifies new residential development within the Airport Area. Impacts related to new residential development within the Airport Area have been identified on pages 4.8-1 (land use compatibility), 4.6-28 (safety hazards associated with the airport), and 4.9-35 (exterior noise levels at new land uses) that are related to residential development within the 65 dBA CNEL. In public hearings on the General Plan, the City Council has directed that residential development be excluded within the 65 dBA CNEL. If the City approves the current version of the General Plan Update, the commenter is correct that these three identified significant impacts would no longer occur.

B-12
Refer to response to comment B-11. Similarly, significant noise impact 4.9-5 has been revised to indicate that exterior noise levels would be within acceptable levels, and the impact would be less than significant.

B-13
Refer to response to comment B-5.

B-14
The language quoted in the comment was intended to convey the fact that within the context of accommodating the need for new police infrastructure, no federal, state, or local policies are directly applicable to the number of police resources that would be needed as a result of the proposed General Plan Update's potential impacts.

B-15
This is a general stated of the commenter's opinion about the schools analysis. All of the commenter's specific comments with respect to schools are provided in comments B-16 through B-25, and responses are provided below.

B-16
Although the SAUSD did not respond to phone calls and other inquiries and the City was unable to obtain the current capacity of the SAUSD via phone or other methods, the EIR reflects a conservative analysis regarding potential impacts to SAUSD schools within the City limits. As stated on page 4.11-23 of the EIR, "because the current capacity of the SAUSD is unknown, it is possible that this potential increase in students may exceed" SAUSD's capacity. Further, it should be noted that during the project - specific environmental review of any development project within SAUSD jurisdiction, potential impacts to schools and the need for additional school facilities (to increase capacity) will be evaluated in conformance with Item XIII.a) of Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines.

B-17
Information contained under the heading "Projected Needs" includes any needs identified by local school districts that may require the expansion of existing infrastructure. As stated in response to City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 10-71

comment B-16, the EIR, since the capacity and needs of SAUSD were unknown, reflects a conservative analysis regarding the potential need for additional facilities within SAUSD. Further, it should be noted that during the project -specific environmental review of any development project within SAUSD jurisdiction, potential impacts to schools and the need for additional school facilities (to increase capacity) will be evaluated in conformance with Item XIII.a). of Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines.

B-18
Although the SAUSD did not respond to phone calls and other inquiries and the City was unable to obtain information regarding the current funding of SAUSD facilities, similar to the existing capacity, via phone or other methods, the EIR reflects a conservative analysis regarding potential impacts to SAUSD schools within the City limits. Further, from a programmatic perspective, the type and/or level of funding available for new schools does not affect analysis of the proposed General Plan Update's impact on local school districts.

Ai
Comment acknowledged. On page 4.11-21, the text immediately following the heading "Regulatory Context" has been amended to include these regulations, as noted below and as shown in Chapter 9 (Text Changes) in the Final EIR. This amendment is not a substantial change to the EIR and does not affect the analysis contained in Impact 4.11.3-1.
iL Regulatory Context
There are no feder-a4, state, ar- laeal p9lieies that are direedy applieable to sehools within the Planein alifornia State Assembly Bill 2926 (AB 2926)—School Facilities Act of 1986 In 1986. AB 2926 was enacted by the state of California authorizing entities to levv statutory fees on new residential and commercial/industrial development in order to pay for school facilities. AB 2926. entitled the School Facilities Act of 1986_ was expanded and revised in 1987 through the passage AB 1600, which added Section 66000 et sea. of the Government Code. Under this statute, pavm�nt of statutory fees by developers would serve as total CEOA mitigation to satisfv the impact of evelopment on school fadliti
California Government Code Section 65995—School Facilities Legislation The School Facilities Legislation was enacted to generate revenue for school districts for capital acquisitions and improvements.

California Senate Bill 50 (SB 50)
The nassage of SB 50 in 1998 defined the Needs Analvsis process in Government Code Section 65995.5-65998.Under the provisions of SB 50, school districts may collect fees to offset the costs associated with increasing school capacity as a result of development. The fees (referred to as Level One fees) are assessed based upon the proposed square footage of residential: commercial/industrial. and/or parking structure uses. Level Two fees require the developer to provide one-half of the costs of accommodating students in new schools, while the state would provide the other half. Level Three fees require the developer to pay the full cost of accommodating the students in new schools and would be implemented at the time the funds available from Proposition 1A (approved by the voters in 1998) are expended. School districts must demonstrate to the state their long-term facilities needs 10-72 City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR

and costs based on long-term growth in order to qualify for this source of funding.

However, voter approval of Proposition 55 on March 2. 2004, precludes the imposition of the Level Three fees for the foreseeable future. Therefore, once qualified, districts may impose only Level Two fees, as calculated according to SB 50
B-20
The comment is acknowledged. Refer to response to comment B-16 regarding the current capacity of and assessment of impacts on SAUSD facilities.

B-21
The comment is acknowledged. Refer to response to comment B-16 regarding the current capacity of and assessment of impacts on SAUSD facilities.

B-22
Implementation of the goals and policies of the proposed General Plan would include and incorporate the state laws regarding educational facilities, which are primarily devoted to funding of new schools and do not aid in the assessment of the need for additional school facilities. However, please note that for informational purposes and as stated in response to comment B-19, the text of the EIR has been amended to include state legislation regarding the funding of educational facilities.

B-23
The comment is acknowledged. Refer to response to comment B-16 regarding the implementation of the proposed General Plan Update.

B-24
The City of Irvine has proposed a Negative Declaration for their IBC residential zoning overlay, which states that the proposed project does not authorize any residential development, and that the SAUSD has indicated they have sufficient capacity to accommodate additional population from the IBC, with the required payment of impact fees. The Negative Declaration does not provide any student projection numbers, nor does it reference any communication with SAUSD. Furthermore, one of the City of Newport Beach's comments on this proposed Negative Declaration is that it is unclear how much additional land would be allowed to develop with residential uses.

B-25
This is a general comment that reflects the opinion of the commenter. Comment is noted. The goals and policies of the proposed General Plan Update will guide development within the City and ensure that adequate public services, including school facilities are provided, thereby resulting in a less -than - significant impact.

B-26
Refer to responses to comments B-1, B-2, and B-3.

City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 10-73

B-27
Comment acknowledged. The existing traffic volumes for Jamboree Road shown in Figure 4.13-3 are correct, but the text was incorrect. Therefore, the third sentence of the fourth paragraph on page 4.13-5 has been modified to reflect the volumes shown in Figure 4.13-3, as noted below and as shown in Chapter 9 (Text Changes) in the Final EIR.

Jamboree Road is a northeast/southwest roadway with six divided lanes between Coast Highway and Campus Drive. South of Coast Highway it is a four -lane divided roadway. Jamboree Road has volumes between 302,000 and 647,000 ADT. Volumes south of Coast Highway are 12,000 ADT.

B-28
The trails listed in Section 4.13 are provided as a means of identifying alternative means of travel/transportation within the City. As equestrian trails would be used solely for recreational purposes, the listing of such trails was not deemed necessary to assess alternative means of transportation.

B-29
Comment acknowledged. While the federal and state regulations are primarily devoted to funding of transportation planning projects and does not directly affect the identification or planning of projects in the Newport Beach Area, Section 4.13.3 (Regulatory Setting) on page 4.13-19 has been amended to include these regulations, as noted below and as shown in Chapter 9 (Text Changes) in the Final EIR.

Federal
Safe, Accountable. Flexible. Efficient Transportation Equity Act —A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU)
SAFETEA-LU funds high-w-U, transit; and safety programs through the use of gas tax revenue and user fees deposited into the federal Highway Trust Fund. which is then distributed to State and local r n portation agencies. SAFETEA-LU also provides the regulatory framework for transportation planning in urban areas at the federal level. Under SAFETEA-LU. the U.S. Department of Transnortation reauires that metronolitan planning organizations t)ret)are long-range transt)ortation lan .
onaestion Management System (CMS)
In order to meet federal certification reauirements for the Federal Transnortation Improvement Program (FTIP), SCAG and the County Congestion Management Agencies (CMAs) have develop�le a Congestion Management System (CMS) process for the region. In Orange County, the CMS is comprised of the combined activities of the RTP. the State Congestion Management Program (CMP), and the Regional Transportation Improvement Program TIPI.

State Regulations
California Transportation Plan (CTP)
The CTP, which was formulated and is maintained by the Caltrans, is a state-wide long-range transportation plan that is updated every two years to reflect new and completed projects. IaOrang=e 10-74 City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR

County, Caltrans District 12 coordinates with OCTA each time the CTP is updated to ensure consistency with the long-range transportation plan.

B-30
Comment noted. The commenter is referred to the last paragraph on page 4.13-21, which states:

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.

This statement in the Draft EIR is correct with regard to the current General Plan. Policy 1 is to construct "facilities' improvements ... to accommodate all vehicular traffic generated by existing development and anticipated growth, as well as some regional traffic, at service levels as close to Level of Service D as possible." In fact, the discussion following Policy 1 refers to intersections that are predicted to function above LOS-D (i.e., at a higher intersection capacity utilization), and states, "... this Element represents a conscious decision to accept levels of service in the airport area that have been forecast by (sic) and focus efforts to improve service levels on those portions of our system less affected by regional traffic." Policy 2 also refers to "service levels as close to LOS-D as possible." B-31

The modifications to land use data are explained in this section (see third paragraph on page 4.13-24). An explanation of the intricacies of the model was not provided for ease of understanding within the EIR sections. However, the traffic study was included as an appendix of the Draft EIR to provide the public additional technical information such as inconsistencies inherent between the SED and OCTAM models.

The land use and socioeconomic data based modeling approaches may differ in some details, but the overall result is an accurate prediction of traffic volumes and potential project impacts.

B-32
Comment acknowledged. The Special Issues section provides further clarification regarding the intersection improvements within the City limits. For ease of understanding, this information, which does not contradict the EIR analysis or add information that would substantially alter the EIR analysis, was left in the traffic study appendix (Appendix D). Reference was made to the appendix throughout the EIR and Section 4.13 (Transportation/Traffic), and therefore, no information has been omitted that would deprive the public of the opportunity to provide meaningful comments.

B-33
The threshold, as accurately stated on page 4.14-18 of the Draft EIR is: "Would the project have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed?" The text on page 4.14-16 has been revised to clarify the threshold, as noted below and as shown in Chapter 9 (Text Changes) in the Final EIR.

City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 10-75

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 insufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed
B-34
It is surmised that this comment addresses the reference to Policies NR 3.7 and N.R 3.8. The threshold for this impact addresses wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board, and as such, is related to water quality. In addition to addressing watershed -based runoff, Policy NR 3.7 concerns water quality control and planning efforts of the RWQCB, both of which could affect wastewater discharges. Policy NR 3.8 relates to enforcement of the Newport Beach Water Quality Ordinance, a document which could address wastewater discharges. As such, reference to these policies is relevant to the discussion and no change to the EIR has been made.

B-35
Table 4.14-12 on page 4.14-31 has been amended, as shown in Chapter 9 (Text Changes) in the Final EIR. This amendment is not a substantial change to the EIR and does not affect the analysis contained in Impact 4.14.2-1. Due to the change to Table 4.14-12, subsequent changes to the final sentence on page 4.14-31, as noted below and as shown in Chapter 9 (Text Changes) in the Final EIR, have been made.

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 4,12-380,173 gpd (4.1-2$ mgd) within the City.

Table 4.14-12
Type of Land Use
Projected Wastewater within
Estimated Potential New Sewer Generation
Development Factor
the City
Additional Projected
Wastewater p
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
5096230 students
10 gpd/student
00 Parksa

55.4 acres
n/a
n/a
Total
4,12380173
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. 10-76 City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR

B-36
As correctly noted by this comment, Policies NR 2.2, NR 3.12, and NR 3.16 are not relevant to the analysis of wastewater discharges. Reference to these policies has been deleted from the EIR, as shown below. Policy NR 3.5 relates to the provision of a municipal separate storm sewer system permit, the procurement of which could affect wastewater discharges. With regards to the relevance of Policies NR

3.7 and NR 3.8, please refer to response to B-34.

On page 4.14-35 and 36, the following policies have been deleted, as noted below and as shown in Chapter 9 (Text Changes) in the Final EIR.

I mma =', -wom 1-m-M
B-37
.---
•
ffl
The General Plan, in fact, calls for no additional industrial development in the Airport Area, as shown in Table 3-3 and Table 5-2. The GPAC Recommendations Alternative would preserve some of the existing land use patterns in the Airport Area, including retention of up to 551,930 sf of allowable industrial development identified in the existing General Plan, an increase of 43,171 sf compared to existing conditions. Similarly, the GPAC Recommendations Alternative does not propose any institutional uses in the Airport Area, whereas 96,996 sf is recommended under the proposed General Plan. The information identified in the table has been verified, and no text correction is needed.

With regards to institutional development on the Balboa Peninsula, as shown in Table 3-3, the existing General Plan permits 32,010 sf of institutional development, with 21,710 sf existing. The proposed project would greatly expand institutional development through allowance of up to 96,710 sf. The GPAC City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 10-77

Recommendation Alternative would result in 16,650 sf of development in this area, thereby downsizing the amount of institutional development in this subarea.

B-38
Table 5-3 on page 5-21 of the Draft EIR that describes Alternative 4 does contain typographical errors.

However, the impact analysis was done on the correct numbers as shown in revised Table 5-3, reprinted below. The mix of development under the "Subarea Only Minimum" alternative consists of greater levels of land uses in some areas and less in other areas, however overall, implementation of this alternative would reduce the total number of new residential units, and result in an overall city-wide trip generation that is reduced by approximately eight percent from the proposed General Plan land use distributions.

The reduction of 2,350 allowable units would occur in the Airport Area, as this alternative would substantially reduce residential additional development within this subarea.

With regards to the institutional uses in the Airport Area and Balboa Peninsula, please refer to response to B-37.
10-78 City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR

Subareas
West
Newport
Mesa
Mariners'
Mile
Newport
Center/
Fashion
Island
Airport
Area
Banning
Ranch
Balboa
Village
Balboa
Peninsula
West
Newport
Highway
Old
Newport
Boulevard
Office (sf)
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
4,519,602

46. 23,733
60,000
201,189
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
M
1,950
14 242
7763
273
250
Alt
SFR(A)
98 837
419
1,190
538
462
659
Commercial (sf)
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 2 0 99,960 854,167 217,340 774,492 18,105 120,879 Visitor Serving (hotel -motel rooms)
Proposed GPU
204
1,175
1,213
75 265
240
53 Alternative 4
204
1,036
1,431
34 350
145
53 Industrial (sf)
Proposed
837,270
Alternative 4
499,457
606,370
Institutional (sf)
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
361650
Parks (acres)
Proposed GPU
1 30
Alternative 4

0.4 20
As indicated in response to comment B-11, significant land use and hazards impacts from locating residential development within the 65 dBA noise contour would no longer remain if, as has occurred during the public hearing process, the City Council has directed that residential uses be prohibited within the 65 dBA CNEL. However, the EIR evaluates the proposed General Plan Update and these text changes are made consistent with response to comment B-3. Therefore, inclusion of these impacts in Section 6.2 is included here. Page 6-2, is amended to add the following text between the discussion of Cultural and Noise impacts, as noted below and as shown in Chapter 9 (Text Changes) in the Final EIR:

City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 10-79

■ Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Impact 4.6-7 Should residential development be constructed within the 65 dBA CNEL noise contour, implementation of the proposed General Plan Update could result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the Planning Area as a result of the proximity of a public airport.

Land Use and Planning
Imnact 4.8-1 Should residential development be constructed within the 65 dBA CNEL noise contour, implementation of the imposed General Plan U date could involve new uses and structures that may result in intensification of development within the PlanningZ Area that creates incompatibilities with adjacent land uses.
10-80 City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR

EQ

MEMORANDUM
To: Gregg Ramirez, Senior Planner, City of Newport Beach From: Environmental Quality Affairs Citizens Advisory Committee City of Newport Beach
Subject: Draft Environmental Impact Report for the City of Newport Beach General Plan Update (the "Project")
Date: June 5, 2006
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Draft Environmental Impact Report ("DEIR") for the captioned Project. We offer the following comments in the hopes of improving the final Environmental Impact Report and this important Project for the City of Newport Beach ("City").

A. Proiect Description:

The Statement of Objectives defines an objective to "provide effective means to ensure compliance with Section 423 of the Charter". The Project description in the final EIR should define Section 423 of the Charter so that reviewers can determine whether 1 that objective is being met. (Page 3-9)
The Updated General Plan Land Use Changes describes the existing land use categories and summarizes proposed land uses under the General Plan Update on Table 3-3. These changes were reportedly made in response to the Objectives referred to above which resulted from the extensive public outreach process and in accordance with CEQA requirements. However, another guiding document for General Planning has been 2 published by California Air Resources Board and should be consulted as part of this EIR. "Air Quality and Land Use Handbook: A Community Health Perspective," published in 2005, contains valuable guidelines for making land use decisions which minimize the effects of air pollution on the affected community. (Page 3-10) Table 3-3 shows a planned increase of 1188 dwelling units and 430 hotel rooms on the Balboa Peninsula without any significant traffic impacts (Also see Table 3-4).

This seems wrong based on the experience of those who travel regularly on the peninsula.

The final EIR should clearly discuss whether a formal traffic study prepared for this area 3 reflecting the residential/hotel room growth as well as the theaters, nautical museum and other growth at Balboa Village. The final EIR should fully discuss the findings of such a study. (Page 3-13)

EQAC
City of Newport Beach

June 5, 2006
B. Environmental Checklist and Discussion:

I. Aesthetics and Visual Quality
Section 4.1 analyzes the impacts of the proposed General Plan Update on the aesthetic character of the City. The first threshold question to be addressed is whether the proposed Project would have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista. As the DEIR points out, there are numerous scenic vistas in the City due to the topography within the City and the natural features in and around the City, including the ocean and the bay, as well as nearby and distant mountain ranges.

The DEIR goes on to say that the proposed General Plan Update would protect the scenic vistas in the City; however, it states that there are no "officially designated scenic vistas in the City." The final EIR should define "official designation" with respect to scenic vistas in the City and discuss what, if anything, an official designation would add to the protection of the scenic vistas beyond the policies included in the proposed General Plan Update.

The second threshold question that is addressed in the Aesthetics and Visual Quality Section is whether the proposed Project would substantially damage scenic resources, including trees, rock outcroppings and historic buildings within a State scenic highway. The DEIR states that "there are currently no officially designated scenic highways within the City of Newport Beach," and the reason for that is because the City has not applied to Caltrans for scenic highway approval.

The final EIR should explain the implications of a highway being designated as a scenic corridor, including the effects such a designation would have on future development within the City of Newport Beach.

Another threshold question is whether the proposed Project would create a new source of substantial light and glare that would adversely affect day or nighttime views.

The DEIR states that if Banning Ranch is not acquired for open space and development occurs in that area, there will be significant and unavoidable light and glare impacts due to nighttime lighting. The final EIR should discuss why, even with sensitive siting of uses and structures, these impacts would not or could not be mitigated to a level less than significant.

As a point of correction, Figure 4.1-3 should be revised to include MacArthur Boulevard from San Joaquin Hills Road to Coast Highway.

II. Air Quality
4 5
Table 4.2-1 (Page 4.2-6) provides a summary of ambient air quality as measured at the South Coast Air Quality Management District ("SCAQMD") monitoring station in 8 Costa Mesa from 2001-2003 and lists the relevant Air Quality Standards for Ozone, CO,

EQAC
City of Newport Beach

June 5, 2006
NO2 and S02. However, the text describing Table 4.2-1 notes that "the largest contributor to inhalation cancer risk is small diameter particulate matter produced by diesel engines." The DEIR also describes atmospheric lead (Pb) particulates as a health concern.

Both of these health hazards (i.e. lead) and respirable particulate matter (PM2.5/PMIo) 8 should be included in SCAQMD monitoring station results in the final EIR. Since these are airborne contaminants, which are sure to increase in our elevated traffic and construction intensive areas (due to heavy use of diesel equipment), the final EIR should explain how the City can be assured that we are properly accounting for the health hazards associated with them.
41 Volume II of the DEIR contains Appendix B, related to Air Quality, which requires attention. Near the end of Appendix A, there is a letter from Steve Smith, Ph.D. of SCAQMD. Among other comments, Dr. Smith recommends that "projects generating or attracting vehicular trips, especially heavy-duty diesel vehicles, perform a mobile 9 source health risk assessment" in accordance with California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") Guidelines published on the CEQA website. The final EIR should include a mobile source health risk assessment and provide the results of the analysis.

Appendix B contains Air Quality Data based on computer analysis from a modeling program titled Urban Emissions Model "("URBEMIS") 2002 for Windows

8.7.0." Although Pb and PM2.5 have been previously noted as potential health hazards, 10 they are not included in the modeling. The final EIR should identify how the proposed Project would deal with these hazards, and identify other possible analysis tools that could be utilized.

In this same Appendix B, the URBEMIS modeling results are potentially confusing and contradictory. Compare the results from Appendix B, sheet #1 (marked page: 1, 3/8/2006, 2:36 pm) and sheet #5 (also marked page: 1, 3/2/2006, 2:37 pm). The titles on these pages are identical regarding on -road motor vehicle emissions summarized in pounds/day for summer. The final EIR should explain the difference, for example, in 11 ROG from 2937.54 lbs/day to 359.52 lbs/day, and state how the City can assure that the correct numbers are used in subsequent analyses. Also, ROG is not defined. Is this related to the volatile organic compounds ("VOCs") defined on page 4.2-2 of the DEIR? If so, the final EIR should fully explain. If not, the analysis of VOCs should be included in the final EIR.

Under Construction Emission Thresholds (Page 4.2-10), the DEIR identifies a 40 threshold of 150 lbs/day of PMIo, but says nothing about PM2.5 (another potentially dangerous respirable particulate pollutant). The final EIR should clarify whether this is a 12 potential problem in pollution enforcement and identify the thresholds for this component.

Table 2-2, identifies five Air Quality Impacts and states that three of these (Impacts 4.2-1, -2 and —3) are Potentially Significant with no feasible mitigation 13

EQAC
City of Newport Beach

June 5, 2006
measures available. This leaves three of the five Air Quality Impacts with Significant Unavoidable impacts due to these projects. (Page 2-7)
However, discussion of Impact 4.2-1 on page 4.2-12 states that this project would "obstruct implementation of the Air Quality Management Plan because the Updated 13 General Plan leads to a total Newport Beach population of 103,753 persons which is approximately 10% over the SCAG-projected population for this area." Since the City has the option to plan for any population level, it seems reasonable to plan for the SCAG- projected population in an effort to comply with thresholds implicit in Impact 4.2-1.

The discussion of Impact 4.2-2 regarding construction emissions states that, despite implementation of policies NR 8.1 through NR 8.5, we expect that construction emissions resulting from this project will lead to significant and unavoidable consequences. The final EIR should analyze whether the City's policies related to 14 construction emission should be strengthened to make them more effective. (Pages. 4.2- 13, 14, 15)
The discussion of Impact 4.2-3 regarding cumulative increases in non -attainment air pollutants is very encouraging and shows that the proposed policies should be effective in achieving 2003 AQMP performance standards and emission reduction 15 targets. It appears reasonable to for the final EIR to state that rigorous enforcement of these policies will lead to a less than significant impact. (Pages 4.2-14, 15) III. Biological Resources:
41 The second sentence under "Watersheds" appears to conflict with the final 16 sentence and should therefore be deleted. The watersheds are not discussed in detail in this chapter. (Page 4.3-3) 40
The location of giant kelp beds in Figure 4.3-1 is almost impossible to read. 40 Surely it is not in the State highways shown in red. It is suggested that an arrow and label be added to the diagram. Additionally, the legend shows "county boundary in green," but 17 the green area is simply everything outside of Newport Beach. In order to fulfill the informational function of CEQA, this diagram needs to be clarified.

Under Impact 4.3-2, the fourth sentence does not logically follow its predecessors.

The first part of the discussion states that the proposed Project would allow infill development and would concentrate new development in certain specified subareas. It goes on to state that the proposed Project priority for Banning Ranch is open space, "the Plan also considers the possible development of a mixed -density residential village with a small component of resident- and visitor -serving commercial ..." Then it states that "(t)his would preclude most sites containing riparian habitats from being developed under the proposed General Plan Update." What would preclude development of riparian sites? This may belong at the end of the paragraph discussing regulation. The discussion should be clarified or the sentence should be removed. (Page 4.3-24) ip

EQAC
City of Newport Beach

June 5, 2006
There is a typographical error in the paragraph entitled Proposed General Plan 19 Update Policies. The second and third sentences are duplicates. (Page 4.3-30) The use of the word "important" in Policy NR10.10 provides a loophole for a potential developer of the Banning Ranch to avoid habitat replacement if it is not "important." In order to support the conclusion of less than significant impact on 20 biological resources, the word "important" should be deleted and replacement of any habitat should be required. (Page 4.3-32)
The final EIR should state the official source of the Southern California Eelgrass 41 Mitigation Policy. This detail does not appear to be in the text of the DEIR. In order to 21 fulfill the informational purpose of CEQA the origin of this policy should be noted. (Page 4.3-32) 41
IV. Cultural Resources
The DEIR states that "(t)he City's Historic Resource Inventory includes 61 properties which while not officially adopted, serves as a useful guide to potentially historic properties...." The final EIR should clarify the City's criteria for selecting 22 potentially historic properties. (Page 4.4-14)
V. Geology, Soils and Mineral Resources
The section of the document is difficult to measure. It relies heavily on citing documents that are not included; i.e., "all activities within the City would be required to comply with standards, which will ensure implementation of appropriate ...etc." Short of 23 finding all of those documents and reviewing them, one must assume that future building will comply with all safety and earthquake standards, and that the soil beneath them, subject to geological studies, will also be in compliance.

In describing the coastal platform occupied by Corona del Mar, and the area of 40 Newport Coast, no mention is made of the sediment flows or major drainage courses 24 found in these areas. These areas should be identified in these opening descriptions in the final EIR, since they are referred to in later sections. (Page 4.5-1) 40 The subsection on regulatory framework sites Uniform Building Code, California Building Code, Seismic Hazards Mapping Act, National Pollution Discharge Elimination System ("NPDES") (general construction activity stormwater permit). However, there is no discussion of the Clean Water Act that would limit the AMOUNT of runoff or limit 25 the percentage if increase a project generates on the AMOUNT of runoff. Construction here and in surrounding cities increases the effects runoff has on all the concerns addressed in this section of geology and soils and other sections. The final EIR should address this issue.

EQAC
City of Newport Beach

June 5, 2006
The discussion of the Thresholds of Significance states that the "(i)mplementation of the proposed General Plan Update could result in substantial soil erosion and the loss of topsoil." The final EIR should identify the standards that would be used to determine 26 if a project results in significant impacts with respect to soil erosion and the loss of topsoil. (Page 4.5-15)
VI. Hazards and Hazardous Materials
With each and every item in the Hazards and Hazardous Materials section, the DEIR refers to regulations and the proposed policies as the factors that render each and every item LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT.

EXAMPLE: Future development could "uncover previously undiscovered soil contamination as well as result in the release of potential contaminants that may be present in building materials (e.g. mold, lead, etc.). This could result in a significant impact." (Page 4.6-19) The DEIR cites "compliance with existing regulations" and with proposed General Plan Update policies as factors that would "reduce impacts to less than significant."
The DEIR states it has been prepared as a "Program EIR" pursuant to CEQA guidelines and lists one advantage as allowing "the Lead Agency to consider broad policy 27 alternatives and program wide mitigation measures at an early time when the agency has greater flexibility to deal with basic problems or cumulative impacts." Accordingly, and in light of the DEIR's reliance on regulations and proposed policies as the factors that reduce any and all potential impacts to "less than significant," it appears necessary to include in the final EIR (1) a further discussion of the means of enforcement and the agencies/departments of enforcement of the City's proposed policies, (2) the timelines and response times for enforcement of each regulation and policy, and (3) the implementation of a General Plan Update -wide policy that sets forth a checklist to be used in each and every specific project EIR, for routinized tracking and application of the regulatory obligations and enforcement timelines/response-times (both for the applicants and the enforcement agencies) as they relate to all projects implicating hazards and hazardous waste impacts/risks.
40 Impact 4.6-1 states that implementation of the proposed General Plan Update could result in an increase in commercial development that could increase the overall routine transport, use, storage, and disposal of hazardous materials within the City. NO MITIGATION IS REQUIRED. LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT.
28 Impact 4.6-2 states that construction activities associated with implementation of the proposed General Plan Update could result in the release of hazardous materials to the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions. NO MITIGATION IS REQUIRED. LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT.

EQAC
City of Newport Beach

June 5, 2006
Impact 4.6-3 states that operation of future land uses that could be developed under the proposed Project could create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment. NO MITIGATION IS REQUIRED. LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT.

Impact 4.6-4 states that implementation of the Proposed General Plan Update could result in a safety hazard as a result of existing oil wells or methane gas areas within the City. NO MITIGATION IS REQUIRED. LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT.

Impact 4.6-5 states that implementation of the proposed General Plan Update could emit hazardous emissions or handle acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one -quarter mile of an existing or proposed school. NO MITIGATION IS REQUIRED. LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT.

Impact 4.6-6 states that the proposed General Plan Update includes sites, which are included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, could create a significant hazard to the public or the environment. NO MITIGATION IS REQUIRED. LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT.

Impact 4.6-7 states that implementation of the proposed General Plan Update could result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the Planning Area as a result of the proximity of a public airport. NO MITIGATION IS REQUIRED. LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT.

Impact 4.6-8 states that implementation of the proposed General Plan Update could result in interference with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. NO MITIGATION IS REQUIRED. LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT.

Impact 4.6-9 states that implementation of the proposed General Plan Update could result in development in urbanized areas adjacent to or intermixed with wildlands.

NO MITIGATION IS REQUIRED. LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT.

These potential impacts are remote and undefined. Each and every project under the proposed General Plan Update should be specifically evaluated as it becomes more defined, rather than allowing this DEIR and related conclusions to function and serve as the conclusive evaluation of environmental impacts.

Most importantly, there should be a system with which to track the cumulative impacts as each project is implemented under the proposed General Plan Update, which 29 should in turn serve as the threshold data for all specific -project EIR analyses.

EQAC
City of Newport Beach

June 5, 2006
VII. Hydrology and Water Quality
Section 4.7 analyzes the impacts of the proposed Project on hydrology and water quality within the City of Newport Beach.

Three types of upgrades are proposed for the City's storm drain system at a total estimated cost of $18.5 million. The final EIR should detail the mechanisms that will be put into place to ensure that these upgrades will be carried out despite potential budget 30 issues and any changes in City personnel.

All cumulative impacts for Water Quality, Groundwater, Storm Drainage and 40 Flood Hazards are rated as "less than significant" because each project within each area will meet City, County and State Regulations and Codes. Again, upgrades to existing facilities or the construction of new facilities would be required to meet the "less than 31 significant" standard. The final EIR should detail the mechanisms that will be put into place to ensure that these upgrades will be carried out despite potential budget issues.

VIII. Land Use and Plannin
The proposed General Plan Update will be the blueprint for future development within the City of Newport Beach for the next twenty years, and Section 4.8 analyzes the impacts of the proposed General Plan Update on the future land use and planning within the City that will guide that development.

The first threshold question asks whether the proposed development within any Planning Area would create incompatibilities with adjacent land uses. The DEIR states that the potential for conflict exists most where mixed use development occurs. The proposed General Plan Update would add mixed use in some planning areas, such as Mariners' Mile, West Newport Mesa, Balboa Peninsula, Banning Ranch (if it is not acquired for open space) and Newport Center, and would introduce mixed use in other areas, including the Airport Area. Proposed Land Use Policies are cited as reasons why 32 intensification of land use will not result in an incompatibility.

Overall, the policies encourage but do not mandate property owners to comply with the policies. In the absence of any incentive programs or mandatory requirements, the EIR may not actually mitigate land use incompatibilities to a less than significant level.

The DEIR Policy LU 5.2.2 "Buffering Residential Areas" suggests the use of landscape screening to accomplish buffers to residential areas. No mention is made of the potential to use specialized Mixed Use structures to transition from commercial to 33 residential. Examples of this would be single family type structures with a commercial use such as a bookkeeper or architect on the commercial side, and the proprietor's residence being located on the residential side.

EQAC
City of Newport Beach

June 5, 2006
41 The DEIR lists Policy LU 5.3.1 of the General Plan Update, which "provides guidance that would minimize conflicts among uses in mixed use facilities," and lists such items as design, building materials, building elevations, design of parking areas, and landscape to minimize conflicts. These items are physical measures to minimize conflicts. The policy does not include operational measures or discretionary review 34 procedures to provide the means to fully evaluate the range of mixed uses that would occupy the same site. The final EIR should discuss additional methods to reduce conflicts so that incompatible mixed uses proposed on the same site are modified or prohibited.

In the West Newport Mesa Area, Policy LU 6.6.5 is intended to increase 40 compatibility between residential and industrial uses through master plans for the new residential areas. However, this policy does not address problems generated by industrial 35 uses that do not respect master plan boundaries, such as diminished air quality, odors, noises and the attractive nuisance that industrial sites become when resident children are introduced into the area.

The commentary on the existing land use at Lido Peninsula within Section 4.8.2 (Existing Conditions/Residential Neighborhoods) incorrectly identifies the land use as single family attached (it is manufactured housing) and fails to identify Lido Peninsula as 36 manufactured housing in the list of manufactured and/or mobile home uses within the City.

IX. Noise
Figures 4.9 2, 4, 5, and 7 show the airport as being gray on the Legend, yet that area is not included on these figures. The figures should be revised in the final EIR to 37 delete that reference.
40 Paragraph 4.9-4 contains a statement that construction noise would be considered "less than significant" even though exempt from City Code. Construction noise should 38 be further analyzed in the final EIR, with supporting data based on numerical noise levels. 41
Pages 4.9-36 and 37 refer to Tables N2, N3; however, these tables do not appear 39 to be in the document.

X. Population and Housing
The housing/population section of the DEIR reflects EQAC's request for an analysis of the buildouts proposed as measured by both the number of dwelling units 40 proposed and related population increases. Using the figure of 2.19 persons per unit (2005) for projection purposes, the DEIR numbers are condensed as follows:

EQAC
City of Newport Beach

June 5, 2006
Dwelling Population
GP Existing 9549 20,912
GP Proposed 14,215 31,131
The population numbers on page 4.10.2 however, do not provide a breakdown under either scenario as to the demographics (ages) of the population. The final EIR should provide this information, which would provide the City with an additional planning tool with respect to where growth is more likely to occur. Different age groups need different housing options. For example, high rises for seniors that also meet affordable housing quotas are more likely over time to reduce the 2.19 figure per unit.

The paragraph entitled "Vacancy Rates" indicates that the City currently has a vacancy rate of 10.9%, substantially higher than that of the county at 3.7%. This intuitively seems incorrect and the use of 10.9% is likely under -representing the actual population levels. (Page 4.10-3)
In the third paragraph on page 4.10-5, this percentage is used to indicate that all allowed units would likely only be filled to the level of 89.1 %, thereby justifying a higher number of units.

This vacancy rate should be verified in the final EIR. It is likely being under- represented because of the protocol by which vacancy is being measured.

XI. Public Services
(a) Fire Protection
The DEIR states that the proposed Project is not found to have significant impacts on fire protection. However, this statement appears to contradict the remainder of the text in this subsection. Throughout the subsection, the need for new services is directly related to population growth, yet the DEIR states that the "NBFD does not use population projections to determine projected future needs." (Page 4.11-7) The DEIR further states that "(i)n the Airport Area, an increase in density by both infill and conversion of low rise properties to mid and high rise will necessitate the addition of a ladder truck company to the Santa Ana Heights Fire station." The DEIR also states that "(u)nder build out of the proposed General Plan Update, 4300 multi- family units would be constructed in this area. As a result of this development, demand for 24 hour residential medical service could increase." (Page 4.11-8 and 9) "Thus, fire staffing and facilities would be expanded commensurately to serve the needs of new development to maintain the current response time." (Page 4.11-10) The DEIR goes on to state that the "demand created by residents at the Irvine Business Complex would adversely affect fire demand in the Planning Area such that M
41 :1K

EQAC
City of Newport Beach

June 5, 2006
new facilities would be required, and thus the cumulative impact would less than significant."
In addition, the DEIR states that the City of Costa Mesa is anticipating an increased need for their services as a result of build out. "Given the large number of firefighters that are required to respond to high risk, high consequence fire, fire 42 departments increasingly rely on automatic and mutual aid agreements to address the fire suppression needs of the DEIR community." (Page 4.11-7) The final EIR should fully analyze the impacts noted above, as well as the potential addition of 31,131 residents as projected in the proposed Project. In addition, the final EIR should indicate where additional fire stations would be located and list the criteria that would be used to site additional stations.

By adding 31,000 people at build out, our ability to respond inside the City will be stretched, which will necessitate reducing our ability to respond outside the City. The 43 final EIR should analyze the impact that this will have on the City's Mutual Aid Agreements with the surrounding cities.

The DEIR states that "(t)he Insurance Service Office recommends that a second company be put in service in a fire station if that station receives more than 2,500 (medical emergency) calls per year." At the current rate of 2,011 calls per ambulance, the City is perilously close to that level already. As the population increases, the City 44 will quickly reach the level where another station is needed, since most of the City's stations cannot accommodate another company. This will have extensive environmental effects. The final EIR should fully analyze this situation and propose any necessary mitigation measures. (Page 4.11.5)
Further, the DEIR goes on to state that "(i)f an engine company provides support to the paramedic ambulance by responding to medical aid calls and this impacts the station's response to structure fire calls, it ... can result in a company being unavailable to respond to a structure fire ... it can result in a larger fire before assistance arrives." This 45 would be especially applicable to fires within the Newport Coast area, which is built over a large area and surrounded by natural vegetation that has already proved to be a fire hazard. The final EIR should fully analyze this situation and propose any necessary mitigation measures.

The DEIR discusses the problems associated with structural fires in the older 40 portions of the City, which are especially susceptible to this hazard; areas such as Balboa Peninsula, Balboa Island and Corona del Mar. The density of construction and the narrow streets in these areas can affect emergency access. Although the DEIR recognizes 46 these problems, it offers nothing in the way of providing additional fire protection for the thousands of new residents projected for these areas. The final EIR should fully analyze this situation and propose any necessary mitigation measures.

EQAC
City of Newport Beach

June 5, 2006
There is a likely typographical error on page 4.11.1, last paragraph, third line.

The sentence now reads: "Most of the Banning Ranch is not served....." and it should read "Most of the Banning Ranch is now served....."
(b) Police Protection
There appears to be an error in the number of calls that are received by the Dispatch Center. In one instance the DEIR states that there is an average of 24,000 calls received by the Police Dispatch Center and in the next paragraph, the DEIR states that the Dispatch Center receives 200,000 calls a year. This information should be corrected in the final EIR because it will determine the accurate impact of the proposed Project on the police protection services.
(c) Schools
The DEIR states that with the total increase of approximately 6,230 students within the City (after buildout of the General Plan), it is assumed that approximately 4,347 students could attend schools within the Newport Mesa Unified School District ("NMUSD"), which could potentially exceed the capacity of the District." However, the DEIR goes on to state that "adherence to the policies contained in the proposed General Plan Update, would ensure that impacts related to the provision of new educational facilities is less than significant." (Page. 4.11-24)
These two statements appear to be contradictory. The final EIR should clarify this inconsistency, fully analyze the impacts to the schools at full buildout of the proposed General Plan Update and recommend any necessary mitigation measures.

XII. Recreation and Open Space
Policy R9.5 (regarding private communities) is unclear. The final EIR should clarify whether the policy is recommending that coastal access be protected for the residents of these communities, or that private developments not be allowed to inhibit coastal access for non-residents. (Page 4.12-24)
XIII. Transportation/Traffic
The discussions of traffic in Corona Del Mar do not show what happened to all the traffic on Coast Highway between Marguerite and Poppy in both A.M. and P.M. The numbers do not add up when the cars on Marguerite, Poppy and Coast Highway are calculated to get to the ICU of 0.99, 0.69, 0.83, 0.82, and 0.61 and 0.65. There is a discrepancy with Marguerite at .83 and .82 and Poppy at .61 and .65 for A.M. and P.M. (Page 4.13-11)
47 48
50 51
The DEIR discusses some "suggested" ideas for parking. In addition, it discusses some programs but does not identify any "problems" that may be made worse than they 52

EQAC
City of Newport Beach

June 5, 2006
already are if the additional square footage is allowed for development of homes and 52 businesses. The final EIR should discuss specific proposals for parking. (Page 4.13-17) The Thresholds of Significance outlines some CEQA guidelines on "adverse 40 impacts." Because of the Newport Beach Traffic Phasing Ordinance ("TPO"), the final EIR 53 should analyze the "adverse impacts" from traffic not only as CEQA requires, but also as the TPO requires. (Page 4.13-21) 40
The DEIR states that "LOS D is the threshold for intersection performance" in the City of Newport Beach. Considering the adverse effects of LOS "D," the policy makers and decision -makers may want to know what would be required to bring this "threshold" to 54 some better or more comfortable driving LOS, for example LOS "C." The final EIR should include such an analysis. (Page 4.13-21 and 22)
It is unclear whether items are or are not considered that have not been built and may never be built are included in the statistics developed by the model. It is also unclear whether actual existing traffic is considered in the model. It appears as if certain traffic that exists is not considered. (SHOULDER SYSTEM - We don't consider and omit heavy traffic use in summer and instead use spring and fall traffic counts discussed in multiple locations, but by example see General Plan Public Draft - Chapter 7 - Circulation Element - page 7-3 continued on page 7-4 and Appendix D to DEIR - paragraph 2.7 at page 2-25 and DEIR - Chapter 4 - Daily Traffic Volumes - page 4.13-24.) This should be made much clearer in the final EIR so the decision -makers are not confused as to what is and what is not included so that they can make decisions on the value or lack thereof of this model's estimates or predictions. (Page 4.13-23)
Project Impacts, page 4.13-25, states under Impact 4.13-1 that "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." Following this statement, the DEIR states that the alternatives analyzed using the roadway system incorporate the "constrained roadway network" explained in Section 4.13.5. However, here it indicates that the highest daily traffic volume counted in 2002 occurred on certain roadways. The roads mentioned where this would occur are Campus Drive, Irvine Avenue, Coast Highway, Jamboree Road, MacArthur Boulevard, Newport Boulevard, and Newport Coast Drive. The DEIR further indicates that "this proposed General Plan Update itself would generate approximately 44 percent of the total increase in traffic ..."
While some additional information in the final EIR might make the analysis even more cumbersome than this DEIR, it does seem that the decision -makers might want available to them, in a format that they can easily utilize, a very clear statement of the name of a roadway, the segment of that roadway involved, and the actual traffic as it exists today in that segment, the estimated traffic for that segment that would be generated without any change in the current General Plan, and the anticipated amount of traffic on that segment of the road if this proposed General Plan Update is approved. 55 56

EQAC
City of Newport Beach

June 5, 2006
It would seem that with this relatively simple to prepare document, the decision - makers would have clear examples in front of them of the current traffic and increased traffic that might result from changes currently in effect or changes that might go into effect with the proposed General Plan Update. That information may be of assistance to them in 56 making decisions on whether the proposed General Plan Update or even the current General Plan should or might be modified. (Page 4.13-25)
Pages 4.13-25 and 28 list certain roadway segments that are currently operating at volume/capacity ("V/C") ratios greater than 0.90. It is unclear whether this list was prepared from actual traffic counts or based on calculations using a traffic model. This 57 should be clarified in the final EIR.

Throughout the segment of this chapter dealing with daily traffic, the issue of traffic generated within the City that obviously utilizes City streets and discussions of traffic that commences outside of the City and then comes into the City and utilizes City roads is 58 discussed in great detail. It would be beneficial to provide the information in the final EIR on the sources for that information as it is utilized in this DEIR.

The DEIR states "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." The DEIR goes on to state that "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."
It is unclear whether these statements contrast with the statement earlier in this Section wherein the DEIR indicated "the proposed General Plan Update itself would generate approximately 44 percent of the total increase in traffic." This inconsistency should be corrected in the final EIR: how an increase in traffic volume of 13 percent from the proposed General Plan Update contrasts with the statement that the "General Plan Update itself would generate approximately 44 percent of the total increase in traffic." (Page

4.13-32)
The DEIR asks the threshold question: "Would the proposed project (General Plan Update) result in inadequate emergency access?" The finding stated is that any potential impacts would be "less than significant." The final EIR should include a much more detailed analysis of emergency evacuation from the area. It appears that if you have a number of roadways, the main thoroughfares in the City, operating at LOS E during periods of time of heavy traffic, and it is anticipated that there would be very heavy traffic in any attempt to evacuate the area in the event of an emergency, that the statement that approval of this proposed General Plan Update would result in "a less than significant" impact on emergency evacuation may be an unfair statement or an inaccurate statement for the decision -makers to rely upon in reviewing this proposed General Plan Update. (Page 4.13- 44)
59 EQAC
City of Newport Beach

June 5, 2006
The DEIR also asks the following threshold question: "Would the proposed project (the General Plan Update) result in inadequate parking capacity?" The finding is that the impact on parking by the proposed General Plan Update would be "less than significant," which was based on parking surveys/studies and recommendations. Relying on 61 "recommendations" which have not been implemented and upon surveys/studies in an analysis, and then making the statement that there is no parking problem or that it is "less than significant" is not an appropriate conclusion based upon the information provided.

The final EIR should include a much more detailed analysis of the parking issue with proposals that shall be implemented and with studies indicating that those requirements are practical and cost effective and can be implemented by the City. This analysis must be 62 completed before a finding of "less than significant" can be made. (Page 4.13-45) In the Cumulative Impacts discussion, the DEIR indicates that traffic volumes anticipated by the proposed General Plan Update would increase 30.9 percent over 2002 counts and 23.9 percent over 2005 levels. The DEIR then goes on to indicate that with 63 proposed improvements, the number of intersections operating at LOS E or worse would decrease. Again, the City's existing General Plan circulation element, and other documents in the City state that LOS D is the "threshold" on which the City of Newport Beach acts.

The DEIR then concludes that the traffic volumes in the proposed General Plan Update would be "less than significant." The DEIR goes on to state that the proposed Project's contribution to this impact would be cumulatively considerable and "significant and unavoidable." The final EIR should clearly state why the DEIR has discussed 64 throughout the traffic analysis a seeming approval of LOS E when the City's existing General Plan circulation element, and other documents in the City, identify LOS D or better as being acceptable. The General Plan circulation element specifically indicates that LOS E is considered unacceptable. (Page 4.13-46)
41 In several locations in the Transportation/Traffic Section, the DEIR places an emphasis on completing the improvements set forth in Table 4.13-10 in order to achieve or continue to allow a reasonable level of traffic movement. After placing significant emphasis 65 on these modifications, the DEIR then indicates on page 4.13-46 that "these are conceptual improvements, and alternative improvements that would achieve acceptable operations could be substituted."
The section entitled Roadway System indicates at Policy CE 2.1.2 of the Traffic Phasing Ordinance "update the Traffic Phasing Ordinance to maintain consistency with the General Plan Circulation Element level of service standards." Obviously, there is some plan to update the TPO, but there is no suggestion as to how it should be updated or the language that should be utilized. Considering the significance of the TPO and its effect upon the City 66 of Newport Beach, it seems reasonable that the final EIR should point out the changes necessary in the TPO so that the people reviewing the final EIR and the decision -makers are aware of the modifications or changes that are necessary in this very important ordinance to ensure its compliance with this new General Plan Circulation Element. (Page 4.13-49)

EQAC
City of Newport Beach

June 5, 2006
Under Policy CE 2.1.5 (Roadway Improvements), the DEIR states that "(p)ursuant to construction of intersection improvements shown in Figure CE 3 are alternate improvements that achieve an acceptable level of service." Throughout the proposed General Plan Update and this DEIR, it is stated that the current City's circulation element 67 requires LOS "D" or better. The language in Policy CE 2.1.1 agrees with this with six exceptions. Policy CE 2.1.5 should also make it clear that the "acceptable level of service" is LOS "D" so there is no confusion between the different policies set forth on these two pages. (Page 4.13-50)
Policy CE 2.2.2 (Up -to -Date Standards) states: "Periodically review and update street standards to current capacity and safety practices." While "standards" are important, considering the fact that this document outlines a number of "street standards" and indicates in many circumstances the "current capacity" is arguably lower than what the "street 68 standards" should be. It is suggested that an example be set forth under this policy as to what this particular policy means as a practical matter by giving a practical example that would meet this particular policy so that the decision -makers would know on voting on this particular policy what they were voting for. (Page 4.13-50) Policy CE 7.1.5 (Avon Street Municipal Parking Lot relocation) states: "Consider relocation of the Avon Street Municipal Lot to better serve commercial uses in Mariner's Mile." The final EIR should include a discussion of some practical suggestions for where 69 this municipal lot might be relocated. Also, the number of parking spaces currently available in that lot and how that might be replaced with a lot or lots of equal size should be detailed in the final EIR. (Page 4.13-56)
Policy CE 7.1.9 (Parking Requirements for Pedestrian - Oriented and Local- Serving Uses) states: "Consider revising 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." The final EIR should include a 70 discussion of the specific areas that are under consideration when this policy was developed, as well as the proposed "revised parking requirements" for these specific areas. (Page 4.13- 57)
Policy CE 7.1.10 (Parking for Marine Recreational Users) states: "Provide adequate parking as necessary in the vicinity of visitors serving marine uses, including marinas, water transportation terminals, boat ramps, as well as parking suitable for service vehicles in commercial marinas and berthing areas." The final EIR should indicate the names and 71 descriptions of these areas and proposals for how to provide this "adequate parking." (Page

4.13-57)
Policy CE 7.1.13 (Up -to -Date Parking Requirements) states: "Periodically review and update off-street parking requirements to insure that new development provides off- street parking sufficient to serve approved uses." If this is merely a recommendation to 72 review the requirements but not to impose them on existing businesses, then this would seem to be appropriate. However, if any review and update, under this policy, would be

EQAC
City of Newport Beach

June 5, 2006
read by anyone as imposing upon existing buildings or developments "updated off-street parking requirements" then this should be made very clear in the final EIR so that it could be commented upon by the business community. (Page 4.13-57) Policy CE 7.2.3 (Shared Valet Service) states: "Explore the feasibility of shared valet parking programs in areas with high parking demand and less conveniently located parking facilities, such as Mariner's Mile and McFadden Square." The final EIR should indicate where these shared parking facilities would be located. (Page 4.13-57) Policy LU 3.2 (Growth and Change). This particular policy states that there is a necessity to "accommodate Newport Beach's share of projected regional population growth." It is not clear that the DEIR indicates what the number of people concerned is or the number of families or the number of units that would be the "share" of Newport Beach.

The final EIR should indicate the number of this "share" based on some recognized standard or requirement. (Page 4.13-60)
Policy LU 6.15.20 (Connected Streets). This policy proposes to connect new and existing streets across MacArthur Boulevard, along with crosswalks and pedestrian refuges in the median. The final EIR should indicate where these connections across MacArthur Boulevard are intended or contemplated to occur. The reason that this is significant is because of the V/C figures for MacArthur Boulevard discussed in this transportation/traffic element. It would appear that additional street crossings or signals might create additional delays on the roadway that might affect even more than currently the V/C ratio. (Page 4.13- 61)
XIV. Utilities and Service Systems
(a) Water System
The DEIR states that the City currently supplies water to 75,600 people and various land uses. The sources are water that is imported from the Municipal Water District of Orange County ("MWDOC"), groundwater that is pumped from the Orange County Groundwater Basin and reclaimed water. Also, there are areas of the City that get water from Irvine Ranch Water District ("IRWD") and Mesa Consolidated Water District ("MCWD").

The DEIR states that MWDOC can meet 100 percent of the City's imported water needs until the year 2030. The DEIR further states that the implication 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. This impact would be less than significant since the City LU2.8 directs the City to accommodate any infrastructure or conveyance necessary to meet the water needs.

The DEIR states that currently the City only receives 25 percent of its water from MWDOC and 75 percent from Orange County Groundwater Basin. However the Notice �%
73 74
75 76
77 EQAC
City of Newport Beach