11 & 12 - Attachment A - Exhibit B - The 2006 General Plan Update EIR — Newport Beach City Council, April 9, 2024 (part 5 of 14)

June 5, 2006
AL
of Preparation ("NOP") for the proposed Project, Volume II, page 44, states that the City currently receives 64 percent from the Basin and 36 percent from MWDOC. The DEIR gives no information or indication as to how often the percentages change and why and what the current numbers are. The DEIR neglects to give any information regarding 77 what other cities get their water from the Groundwater Basin, how much, and how the cumulative growth of all the cities will affect the availability of water from the Groundwater Basin up and until the year 2030.

The DEIR neglects to give any numbers as to how MWDOC and the Orange County Groundwater Basin would be affected by dry years and out and out drought. 78 The final EIR should provide this analysis and recommend any necessary mitigation.

The DEIR informs the reader with Table 4.14-2 of the Water Supply Reliability, which shows drought and dry years. It goes on to say that during short-term periods (of drought and /or dry conditions) the City would implement its water shortage contingency 79 plan. The final EIR should provide a full discussion of the City of Newport Beach water shortage contingency plan.
41 The DEIR states that "(a)ccording to the City of Newport Beach's 2005 Urban Water Management Plan, water supplies can continue to meet the City's imported water needs until the year 2030." The final EIR should inform the reader what happens after 80 the year 2030, particularly with 31,000 additional residents at the proposed General Plan buildout.

The DEIR continues and states "(t)he Groundwater Replenishment System ("GRS"), a joint venture by OCWD and the Orange County Sanitation District ("OCSD"), will help to reduce Orange County and Newport Beach's reliance on imported surface water by taking treated wastewater and injecting it into the groundwater basin. GRS will be online by 2007, and will produce approximately 70,000 acre-feet of 81 water per year." The final EIR should inform the reader what percentage of the blended water will be wastewater and what percentage will be basin water, and whether or not there will be a time when it will be 100 percent treated wastewater.

The DEIR informs the reader with Table 4.14-2 of the Water Supply Reliability, which shows drought and dry years. It goes on to say that during short-term periods (of drought and /or dry conditions) the City would implement its water shortage contingency 82 plan. The final EIR should provide a full discussion of the City of Newport Beach water shortage contingency plan.
(b) Solid Waste
Solid Waste Haulers footnote 12' denotes that no trash is taken out of the County; however, some is going to the Burner/Incinerator in Long Beach, which is an alternative 83 that may need to be added to the list of sites for trash since this is a 20 year plan

EQAC
City of Newport Beach

Page 19 ends

June 5, 2006
The Refuse division of the City of Newport Beach picks up residential trash from single family homes with the exception of Newport Coast. Bonita Canyon and Santa Ana 84 He�hts need to be added to make the statement factual.
41 The DEIR neglects to mention and inform the reader that like the landfills, the California Integrated Waste Management Board, Title 14, and LEA regulate and permit Transfer Stations and the tonnages that each Transfer Station is allowed. The DEIR neglects to mention what the current tonnages are, what cities use them, the total daily 85 tonnage available, and what tonnage might be necessary to meet future waste tonnages.

The final EIR should provide this information, analyze any potential impacts and recommend any necessary mitigation.

The DEIR also neglects to inform the reader as to whether or not the Transfer Station owned and operated by the City of Newport Beach would need to have its tonnage increased and by how much. The final EIR should state whether the City of Newport Beach needs a new permit to meet the increasing tonnages of more growth. 86 The final EIR should inform the reader whether these facilities also have to be licensed and permitted, and whether or not they have limits as to how much material they can take.

The final EIR should identify the impacts of the surrounding cities on the few landfills and transfer stations that are available. Tonnages for places like Rancho Mission Viejo, Rancho Santa Margarita and IBC in Irvine, among others, should be included in 87 the final EIR so the reader can have a thorough understanding of total County tonnages.

C. Conclusion:

We appreciate the opportunity to comment on the DEIR for this important project.

We hope that these comments will assist the City in the final EIR and the proposed General Plan Update.

Response to Comment Letter EQ
Letter from Environmental Quality Affairs Citizens Advisory CommitteeNewport Beach, received June 5, 2006 EQ-1
Section 423 of the Newport Beach Charter, commonly known as "Measure S," is a publicly available document published in numerous locations, one of which being online at the following location:
http://municipalcodes.lexisnexis.com/codes/newportb/ . The public nature of this document allows interested individuals easy access to the document for review.

EQ-2
Comment acknowledged. Many of the guidelines identified in ARB's "Air Quality and Land Use Handbook: A Community Health Perspective" are reflected in the proposed General Plan Update. Refer to page 4.2-19 through 4.2-23 of the Draft EIR. It should also be noted that the EIR analyzes the proposed General Plan Update as stated. It is not the responsibility of the EIR to revise the goals and policies of the General Plan Update but to analyze them for their effectiveness in reducing the environmental impacts of development and growth within the City limits.

EQ-3
A formal traffic study was prepared as part of the Draft EIR and is included as Appendix D. This traffic study did assess the potential growth within the Balboa Peninsula area, including the development at Balboa Village, as well as the remainder of the City.

EQ-4
The commenter requests that the term "officially designated" be deleted from the Draft EIR. As provided in response to comment EQ-5, the section of the Pacific Coast Highway that passes through the City is "eligible" and is not "officially designated" as a scenic highway by the California Department of Transportation. The scenic highway designation provides "the goal of the California Scenic Highway Program is to preserve and enhance the natural beauty of California." After a highway has been identified as eligible for designation as scenic, the local jurisdiction, with support of its citizens, must adopt a program to protect the scenic corridor. The agency must also adopt ordinances to preserve the scenic quality of the corridor or document such regulations that already exist in various portions of local codes.

These ordinances make up the scenic corridor protection program.

EQ-5
Highway 1 (Pacific Coast Highway) is not designated as a scenic highway by the California Department of Transportation, and the City has not applied for such designation. No change to the EIR is necessary.

EQ-6
It is acknowledged that there are a number of lighting techniques that can be employed to minimize lighting impacts. However, these techniques are largely successful at reducing impacts to less than 10-100 City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR

significant in areas where some night lighting or moderate urbanization exists. In areas such as Banning Ranch that are largely undeveloped, these techniques minimize impacts, although the presence of night lighting in areas where none previously existed results in a substantial change.

EQ-7
A correction to Figure 4.1-3 (and to Figure NR3 in the Draft General Plan) to show MacArthur Boulevard from San Joaquin Hills Road to Coast Highway as a Coastal View Road, consistent with the lists on page 4.1-9 of the Draft EIR and page 10-36 of the Draft General Plan, is provided as a text change. This figure is reprinted in Chapter 9 (Text Changes) in the Final EIR.

EQ-8
Comment noted. All of the available information from the Costa Mesa monitoring station was summarized in Table 4.2-1. However, it should be noted that the environmental effects and project - specific details of development within the City have been analyzed in the EIR at a programmatic level, consistent with available information and CEQA requirements. See Master Response E. A more detailed analysis would be prepared for any proposed development within the City limits area consistent with CEQA once a specific design concept for a specific development has been articulated. During the project -specific review, a Health Risk Assessment (HRA), which will take into account such things as lead (Pb) particulates, would be prepared in accordance with state and federal requirements.

EQ-9
Comment noted. Refer to response to comment EQ-8 for an explanation of when an HRA will be performed for projects within the City limits.

EQ-10
Comment noted. Refer to response to comment EQ-8 for an explanation of when an HRA that would assess potential impacts related to lead and small diameter particulates will be performed for projects within the City limits. The URBEMIS model is a planning model used to assess increases in criteria air pollutants, which differ from toxic air contaminants. Criteria air pollutants are subject to different standards and thresholds of significance. Refer to pages 4.2-10 and 4.2-11 of the Draft EIR for a listing of SCAQMD's criteria air pollutant thresholds of significance during construction and operation of any project.

EQ-11
Comment noted. In order to accurately quantify the level of criteria air pollutants within the City limits, the number of daily trips was separated into several different categories, including home -based work, home -based school, and home -based other. Appendix B of the EIR has been amended to reflect which categories apply to which URBEMIS output sheets.

With respect to the difference between ROG and VOC, the two terms are often used interchangeably.

VOC was originally defined in the Federal Register by the USEPA. The California Air Resources Board defined the same category of compounds slightly differently as Reactive Organic Gases (ROG). Both City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 10-101

terms, ROG and VOC refer to compounds often used in painting, plastics, and paving. For further clarification the commenter is referred to the following ARB website which defines ROG and VOC ( http://www.arb.ca.gov/ei/speciate/ROG— DFN-9-04.pdfl.

EQ-12
Comment noted. Refer to responses to comments EQ-8 and EQ-10 for an explanation of when an HRA will be performed for projects within the City limits and the difference between a criteria air pollutant and a toxic air contaminant.

EQ-13
Comment noted. The Draft EIR did consider such an alternative that would not result in an exceedance of SCAG's projections. Refer to Alternative 1 in Chapter 5 (Alternatives). However, the currently proposed General Plan population projections would exceed SCAG projections and result in a significant and unavoidable impact with respect to Impact 4.2-1. Therefore, no additional response is required.

EQ-14
Comment noted. The ability to reduce construction emissions beyond the policies suggested in the Draft General Plan is limited to a project -specific analysis due to project -specific conditions and is at the discretion of the developer/City to take certain actions, such as extending the length of construction or reducing the number of pieces of construction equipment in operation on a given day. The inclusion of such mitigation is not feasible in a programmatic analysis, however during any development project's project -level analysis, such measures/design features will be taken into consideration by the City. Further, this comment addresses the goals and policies of the Draft General Plan and is not on the Draft EIR.

Therefore, no further response is required.

EQ-15
Comment acknowledged. While the discussion of Impact 4.2-3 may be encouraging, the discussion also acknowledges that, on a year -by -year basis, it is not possible to predict the level of development that will occur within the City under the proposed General Plan Update, as development will be directed by economic trends and market demand. As such, and to provide a conservative level of analysis that would allow for some variation of development under the proposed General Plan Update, it was determined that a potentially significant impact would occur.

EQ-16
Comment acknowledged. The first paragraph on page 4.3-2 has been modified, as noted below and as shown in Chapter 9 (Text Changes) in the Final EIR.

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. The _____ -__ ___.-_ _
Area afe disetissed in deta , 1_..low. 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 10-102 City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR

the Talbert and San Diego Creek watersheds. Section 4.7 (Hydrology and Water Quality) of this EIR contains detailed descriptions of these four watersheds.

EQ-17
With respect to Figure 4.3-1, duplication of the base map of the City resulted in State highways being shown in the same color as giant kelp beds. The same figure in the Draft General Plan (NR1) shows different shades for these two items. Nonetheless, Figure 4.3-1 on page 4.3-11 of the Draft EIR will be amended to clarify the location of the giant kelp beds. The legend in this figure also will be amended to indicate just "City Boundary" and not "County Boundary." This figure is reprinted in Chapter 9 (Text Changes) in the Final EIR.

EQ-18
The sentence in question on page 4.3-24 has been amended, as noted below and as shown in Chapter 9 (Text Changes) in the Final EIR.
sPolicy 6.4.11 would preclude most sites within Banning; Ranch containing riparian habitats from being developed under the proposed General Plan update.

EQ-19
Comment acknowledged. The last paragraph on page 4.3-30 has been modified, as noted below and as shown in Chapter 9 (Text Changes) in the Final EIR.

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. ' 1te 1 aheie. that foe . 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."
EQ-20
The Banning Ranch contains plant species and animal habitats that are not listed by state and/or federal agencies and do not warrant protection. The commenter suggests that "all" habitats should be protected and this is not legally required, nor practical. Policy NR 10.4 requires that "...a site specific survey and analysis prepared by a qualified biologist [be conducted] as a filing requirement for any development permit applications where development would occur within or contiguous to areas identified as an ESA." Banning Ranch is designated on Figure NR2 as an "ESA." Further, Policies NR 10.5, NR 10.6, NR 10.7, and NR 10.8 provide for protections of the resources that are considered by state and federal agencies as rare, endangered, or otherwise significant. These policies are supplemented by Land Use Element Policy LU 6.5.6 that requires coordination with state and federal agencies in the "...identification of wetlands and habitats to be preserved and/or restored and those on which development will be permitted," which would occur through the agencies' permitting processes, as well as LU 6.5.4 that establishes criteria for the location and design of development to protect the site's resources.

City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 10-103

EQ-21
Comment acknowledged. The Southern California Eelgrass Mitigation Policy, which was adopted by the City on July 31, 1991, was originally developed by the Federal and State resource agencies (National Marine Fisheries Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services, and the California Department of Fish and Game.)
EQ-22
Pages 4.4-5 and 4.4-6, Section 4.4 (Cultural Resources), describe the City's criteria for selecting potentially historic properties.

The proposed General Plan update does not propose any changes to the City's method or criteria for selecting potentially historic properties, and the existing criteria need not be analyzed in the EIR.

EQ-23
The commenter is correct that future building will be required to comply with all safety and earthquake standards, including those related to soil stability. The EIR relies on compliance with regulations associated with reducing environmental impacts.

EQ-24
Pages 4.7-2 through 4.7-8, Section 4.7 (Hydrology and Water Quality), describe the major drainage courses found Corona del Mar and Newport Coast, as this is the main environmental section evaluating hydrological impacts as well as water quality. Section 4.3 (Biological Resources) and Section 4.5 (Geology and Soils) include some portions of this discussion as necessary.

EQ-25
The analysis requested by the commenter is provided on page 4.7-20, Section 4.7 (Hydrology and Water Quality), and page 4.3-17, Section 4.3 (Biological Resources). These sections have thresholds that pertain to the Clean 1Vater Act, and, accordingly, contain the analysis of Act requirements with regard to the project. The Geology, Soils, and Mineral Resources section does not have a threshold that addresses the Clean Water Act requirements.

EQ-26
Impact 4.5-3 has been identified as less than significant, which means that the project would not result in significant impacts with respect to soil erosion and loss of topsoil. The standards that would be used are described on pages 4.5-10 and 4.5-11.

EQ-27
The commenter is correct that compliance with existing regulations and with proposed General Plan policies would reduce all identified potentially significant impacts, and that the document has been prepared as a program EIR. Pages 4.6-10 through 4.6-16 describe the major hazards and hazardous materials regulations and associated agencies/departments that would enforce the regulations. The 10-104 City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR

commenter's request for a timeline, response time, and checklist for enforcement of the regulations would usually be the components of a mitigation monitoring and reporting program (MMRP). For this project, as no mitigation is required (for less than significant impacts) or as no feasible mitigation has been identified (for significant unavoidable impacts), a MMRP would not be a part of the Final EIR and is not required for enforcement of hazards and hazardous materials regulations. However, if mitigation were required as the result of the environmental analysis conducted for future project -specific development projects, an MMRP would be prepared and adopted as part of that environmental document.

EQ-28
As described on pages 1-1 and 1-2, the General Plan Update is the only project evaluated in this EIR.

However, it should be noted that a more detailed analysis would be prepared for any proposed development within the City limits area consistent with CEQA once a specific design concept for a specific development has been articulated.

EQ-29
Refer to Master Response B for a description of the scope of the cumulative impact analysis for each resource area analyzed in the EIR.

EQ-30
The upgrades mentioned by the commenter are part of the City's Storm Drain Management Plan, which was approved pursuant to a separate planning process. Storm drain improvements are included in the City's Five -Year Capital Improvement Program and annual capital budget.

EQ-31
All of the cumulative impact analyses for water quality, groundwater, storm drainage, and flood hazards identify the laws, regulations, and/or ordinances that would be required to ensure that a less than significant impact occurs. Further, as laws, regulations, or ordinances, they are not discretionary requirements; rather, they must be implemented. With respect to implementation of the Storm Drain Management Plan, please refer to response to comment EQ-30.

EQ-32
As described on page 3-9, all land use regulations, capital improvements and other City actions pertaining to the physical development of the City must be consistent with the adopted General Plan. Therefore, in the same way that these General Plan policies reduce potential impacts related to land use incompatibilities, the physical development allowed under the General Plan would reduce potential impacts related to land use incompatibilities. Further, the General Plan Implementation Program (specifically, Implementation Program 2.1) requires that the City must amend the zoning code to achieve consistency with the General Plan Update, if adopted.

City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 10-105

EQ-33

Page 4 ends

distributed mixed use buildings that could effectively transition from commercial to residential uses.

Examples of these structures include, and are described in the first paragraph of page 4.8-9, vertical mixed use, with retail and other pedestrian -active uses on the ground floor, with the upper floors used for residential units; horizontally distributed mix of uses, which may include commercial, offices, visitor - serving and marine -related uses along with multi -family residential units; and commercial development on or near the bay to encourage coastal -related uses and allow for integrated development of residential uses. The following policies provide additional means of buffering uses: Policies LU 5.2.2, LU 5.3.1, N

1.3, N 1.6, and N 1.7.

EQ-34
Pages 4.8-8 through 4.8-16 describe potential impacts related to land use incompatibilities. As these conflicts have been described as less than significant, no further methods are required to address potential impacts. Refer also to response to comment EQ-32 for a discussion of the manner in which General Plan policies and implementation would reduce land use incompatibilities.

EQ-35
This comment pertains to the adequacy of the Draft General Plan policies in the Land Use Section, and not the analysis or findings of the Draft EIR. Potential impacts related to existing and future air quality, odors, noise, vibration, aesthetics, and other impacts of industrial uses on adjoining residential areas are mitigated by federal, state, and local laws. These regulations are identified in individual sections of the Draft EIR pertaining to aesthetics, air quality, noise, and hazards and hazardous materials. For example, chapters 10.26 and 10.28 of the City's Municipal Code regulates noise levels , and policies identified in the Air Quality section of the Draft EIR (e.g. NR 7.2 and 7.3) mitigate stationary air pollutants. The Aesthetics Section also addresses the visual quality and character of a site and its surroundings. Thus, the issues identified in this comment are sufficiently addressed through the combined policies and regulations found in the above -mentioned sections of the Draft EIR.

Further, the comment pertains to the Draft General Plan policy, not the analyses or findings of the Draft EIR. The air quality, odor, noise, vibration, and other impacts of industrial uses on adjoining residential areas are controlled by the City's Municipal Code; however, the following Policy 5.5.1 is added to prevent potential impacts:

LU 5.5.1 Site Planning and Building Design
Require that new and renovated industrial properties and structures be designed to be exhibit a high quality of design and maintenance characterized by the following:
■ Incorporation of extensive on -site landscaping
■ Incorporation of landscape, decorative walls, and other elements that visually screen areas used for outdoor storage, processing, and other industrial operations from public places
10-106 City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR

■ Architectural treatment of all building elevations
■ Consistent and well -designed signage
■ Control of on -site lighting, noise, odors, vibrations, toxic materials, truck access, and other elements that may impact adjoining non -industrial land uses (Imp 2.1, 12.1)
EQ-36
The commenter is correct that there are manufactured and mobile homes on the Lido Peninsula. There are also single-family and multi -family homes.

EQ-37
The commenter is correct that while John Wayne Airport is not shown on Figures 4.9-2, 4.9-4, 4.9-5, and

4.9-7, the legend contains the gray screen for John Wayne Airport.

EQ-38
Table 4.9-9, page 4.9-34, provides numerical noise levels for typical construction equipment. Impact 4.9- 4, pages 4.9-33 through 4.9-35, provides an analysis of the potential impact related to construction noise.

EQ-39
The reference to tables N2 and N3 on page 4.9-36 of the EIR is a reference to General Plan Update tables provided in the Noise Element. The General Plan Update was circulated separately from, and in advance of, the distribution of the EIR and was available at the same locations and during the same hours as the EIR.

EQ-40
The commenter's request for demographic information does not raise issues related to the adequacy of the EIR. Further, the EIR has overestimated the future population (and any resultant environmental impacts) in that a projection of 2.19 persons per unit was assumed for all units, and it is recognized that senior housing would likely have a lower person -to -unit ratio. No further information is necessary to respond to this comment.

EQ-41
The vacancy rate was used for informational purposes only and does not affect the environmental analysis or its conclusions. With respect to the accuracy of the vacancy rate, there is a consistent vacancy rate trend in the City of Newport Beach, according to the U.S. Census, which showed a vacancy rate of

10.1 percent in 1980, 11.5 percent in 1990, and 11.3 percent in 2000. The current vacancy rate cited by the Department of Finance, (and reflected in the EIR) is 10.9 percent, which is consistent with the U.S.

Census data.

City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 10-107

EQ-42
As stated on page 4.11-7, and as evaluated under Impact 4.11.1-1, pages 4.11-9 through 4.11-12, the NBFD service goals are based on accepted service levels which are not directly correlated to population increases, and are more a function of the geographic distribution of structures. Because the proposed GPU requires that adequate infrastructure be provided as new development occurs and because the NBFD has planned for future growth, potential impacts related to fire service are less than significant.

The provision of fire services in the IBC would likely be expanded because of the increase in the type of development (e.g., new residential uses and high-rise buildings) and not strictly because of the amount of development. Refer to the response above also for potential impacts to fire service. Impact 4.11.1-1, pages 4.11-9 through 4.11-12, evaluates the demand for fire protection services in Newport Beach as well as within the service area. As described on page 4.11-8, the NBFD is conducting an in-house operational research study using various programs to optimize station locations based upon growth in geographic areas.

EQ-43
Impact 4.11.1-1, page 4.11-9 through 4.11-12, evaluates the demand for fire protection services in Newport Beach as well as within the service area.

EQ-44
The commenter asked for an analysis of the environmental impacts resulting from construction of a new fire station; however, such analysis cannot be completed unless or until a new fire station is proposed. If a new fire station is required and proposed, a detailed project -specific environmental analysis would be completed, consistent with the requirements of CEQA.

With respect to the proposed project, as identified on page 4.11-10, compliance with applicable regulations and policies contained in the proposed General Plan Update would ensure that impacts remain less than significant. In addition, as described above in response to comment EQ-42, the NBFD has already planned for future growth to accommodate any necessary increases in service.

EQ-45
Impact 4.11.1-1, page 4.11-9 through 4.11-12, evaluates the demand for fire protection services in Newport Coast, as well as within the service area. However, worth noting, there is no new development planned under the General Plan Update compared to the existing General Plan for the Newport Coast area.

EQ-46
Emergency access is addressed in Section 4.13 (Transportation/Traffic), Impact 4.13-6, page 4.13-44, as well as in Section 4.6 (Hazards and Hazardous Materials), Impact 4.6-8 on page 4.6-29. 10-108 City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR

EQ-47
The comment is correct. Page 4.11-1 last partial paragraph, third sentence is revised, as noted below and as shown in Chapter 9 (Text Changes) in the Final EIR:

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 ffet-n�c w-served by the Orange County Fire Authority (OCFA), an agency whiehrthat 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.

EQ-48
The comment identifies a discrepancy. Page 4.11-13 last partial paragraph, second sentence is revised, as noted below and as shown in Chapter 9 (Text Changes) in the Final EIR:

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 241000 emergency calls is received per month, with an average answer time of just five seconds....

EQ-49
The commenter correctly notes that page 4.11-24 identifies the need for new schools due to projected growth in number of students as a result of the General Plan Update. However, the EIR also acknowledges that any impacts associated with school development would be addressed by a detailed project -specific environmental analysis, consistent with the requirements of CEQA.

EQ-50
The comment pertains to the Draft General Plan policy, not the analyses or findings of the Draft EIR.

Policy R 9.5 on page 4.12-23 of the Draft EIR is intended to protect coastal access for nonresidents, and is revised, as noted below and as shown in Chapter 9 (Text Changes) in the Final EIR:

R 9.5 Private/Gated Communities
Protect public access to coastal resources from encroachment from private/gated communities. (Imp 2.1, 12.3)
EQ-51
Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) is calculated based on all of the intersection volumes, taking into account the number of lanes. Each intersection is analyzed individually. In the case of these two intersections, volumes on Coast Highway between the intersections are generally consistent, but the minor street volumes are much higher on Marguerite Avenue than on Poppy Avenue. Marguerite Avenue is a longer street, providing more connectivity in the roadway system (by intersecting with San Joaquin Hills Road and Coast Highway). The additional traffic interacting with Marguerite Avenue across Coast Highway and to the west of this stretch of the Highway increases the ICU.

City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 10-109

EQ-52
For new development to occur, it will be required to satisfy the requirements of the parking code.

Therefore, new development is expected to provide adequate parking and no further impacts to parking conditions are anticipated in the Draft EIR.

EQ-53
The Traffic Phasing Ordinance (Chapter 15.40 of the Municipal Code) applies to individual development projects, not to a comprehensive General Plan update. Requirements of this ordinance must be met prior to the issuance of a building, grading or related permit. The General Plan does not authorize the issuance of any permits.

EQ-54
CEQA requires an environmental impact report to analyze the impacts of the project proposed. Other than the requirement to analyze feasible alternatives to the proposed project, the EIR is not required to speculate on a different project description. The commenter proposes different level of service standard than the City has ever considered, or is considering as part of the proposed project, and, therefore, it is not addressed in this EIR.

EQ-55
The Draft EIR includes traffic related to all potential land use allowed in the General Plan. There are many areas of the City (for instance, Corona Del Mar), where areas zoned as R-2 are allowed to construct single family detached housing units on a single lot. These same areas are generally developed with a mix of either one unit per lot or two units per lot, and the current trend is to maintain or even reduce the number of housing units. Therefore, it could be argued that the Draft EIR is overly conservative in assuming that all R-2 lots will be developed with 2 housing units.

Actual traffic count data is in fact considered in the Draft EIR, representing shoulder season conditions.

The fact that and reasons why shoulder season traffic is used in the Draft EIR is specifically discussed in the Draft EIR and supporting traffic study reports (see page 1-1 of the traffic study report).

EQ-56
Daily traffic volume comparisons as suggested in this comment are included in Tables 4-5, 5-6, and 5-7 of the traffic study report.

EQ-57
Existing conditions analysis is performed using actual count data.

EQ-58
The General Plan Transportation Study Section 2.10 (starting on page 2-35) discusses the Traffic Source Analysis (actual existing conditions). As stated on page 2-35, the data was obtained using car following 10-110 City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR

survey techniques of actual traffic entering the City at key points such as Coast Highway and MacArthur Boulevard.

EQ-59
On page 4.13-25, the discussion states that "The proposed General Plan Update itself would generate approximately 44 percent of the total increase in traffic or a 13 percent increase from existing (2002) traffic volumes". The 13 percent traffic increase is approximately 44 percent of the increase that would occur if the growth in the remainder of the region were included in this particular scenario. Another way to state these facts is "The proposed General Plan land uses would cause an increase in traffic of 13 percent over existing traffic volumes and represent 44 percent of the total anticipated growth when regional traffic growth is also included."
EQ-60
The topic of discussion in the Draft EIR is emergency access, not emergency evacuation. The Draft EIR analysis of the City's emergency management plan is on page 4.6-29, Section 4.6 Hazards and Hazardous Materials. Level of service calculations are used to evaluate peak hour conditions. In an evacuation, traffic flows would be traveling in one direction (away from the hazard) under emergency procedures that would be in place to allow traffic flows on both sides of the street. The proposed General Plan Update does not include plans to close or reduce in size any road that would be needed to evacuate the City. Refer to response to comment SA-82 for additional information.

EQ-61
All parking analysis has as its basis the requirements for on -site parking in the Newport Beach Municipal Code. The City augments these basic requirements with both area -wide studies (such as on the Balboa Peninsula) and project -specific studies at the time of the evaluation of a development proposal.

Recommendations are implemented as provided for in both the Municipal Code and implementation of specific projects. This results in a less than significant impact on parking supply.

The proposed General Plan Update also includes policies in the Circulation Element (CE 7.1.1 through CE 7.1.13, and CE 7.2.1 through CE 7.2.3) that specifically address providing adequate and convenient parking throughout the city. Policies include encouraging shared parking, developing parking management programs, and collecting/using in -lieu fees to develop additional parking. Also, as indicated in the Draft EIR discussion on Impact 4.13-7, all projects are required to comply with the parking requirements in the Municipal Code.

EQ-62
The General Plan provides the policy basis (CE 7.1.1 though 7.1.13) for future actions and implementing programs. Because the Draft EIR is a program -level analysis, it cannot anticipate the exact form of future proposals to implement these policies. Because of this, the specifics of the location, size or design of proposals to address parking supply problems cannot be included at this time, but would be subject subsequent environmental review at the time of implementation. Also, as indicated in the Draft EIR City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 10-111

discussion on Impact 4.13-7, all projects are required to comply with the parking requirements in the Municipal Code.
40MIC]
As identified in response to comment B-30, the last paragraph on page 4.13-21 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.

EQ-64
As identified in response to comment B-30 and EQ-63, the last paragraph on page 4.13-21 states:

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."
The threshold question deals with capacity, not volume. Although the Draft Circulation Element proposes LOS E at some locations, there is a reduction in LOS E intersections from the adopted plan (18 intersections), and from the existing conditions (six intersections). The existing plus project scenario results indicated that LOS D was achievable with feasible improvements at all intersections if the region outside the City of Newport Beach does not develop to planned levels. As this is impossible for the City to control, regional growth has been included in the analysis to provide improvements for the City of Newport Beach General Plan. With the regional growth, additional improvements are required to achieve LOS D, some of which are infeasible/undesirable and LOS E is the proposed standard at some study area locations. Compliance with the City of Newport Beach Transportation Phasing Ordinance will be required by future development projects. A change in the criteria to allow LOS E at certain locations is recommended in the General Plan Circulation Element. Also, the current General Plan language indicates that the City will "strive to maintain" LOS D. However, the analysis and recommended improvements in the currently adopted General Plan would result in 18 intersections that would operate 10-112 City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR

at LOS E or LOS F, while the proposed General Plan would only result in five intersections operating at LOS E and none operating at LOS F. It should be noted that, during public hearings on the General Plan, the City Council has added improvements, which were analyzed in the traffic study but not included in the Draft element, to two intersections: Coast Highway/Riverside and Campus /Bristol. With the addition of these improvements, the City Council also revised Policy 2.1.1 to set the City's level of service standard as D for all but five intersections.
400a&I

Page 4 ends

achieve acceptable operations could be substituted." The improvements are considered conceptual only in that detailed engineering plans have not been prepared, nor should they be prepared at this stage in the planning process. The statement on page 4.13-46 also acknowledges the fact that after a project has been approved, and while it is being developed or carried out, changes in conditions could occur that would render improvements impracticable, unworkable, or infeasible, and alternative improvements might be more appropriate. A substitution of improvement measures is entirely appropriate if it achieves the same performance standard, which, in the case of the traffic analysis, is achieving the identified level of service and if it does not cause any new or substantially more severe environmental impacts.

EQ-66
The purpose of the policy to amend the Traffic Phasing Ordinance is to maintain consistency between the General Plan and City ordinances.

EQ-67
Neither the proposed General Plan Update nor the Draft EIR state that the current Circulation Element requires LOS D or better. The proposed General Plan Update does not discuss the existing Circulation Element at all, because it is a comprehensive revision of the General Plan. Page 4.13-21 of the Draft EIR 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. Although LOS D is not a specific standard in the existing Circulation Element, intersections that operate at LOS E or F have been regarded as deficient" [emphasis added].

Policy CE 2.1.1 in the Draft Circulation Element does make it clear that LOS D is the City's standard, with the exception of five intersections in Newport Beach and five intersections in the Airport Area shared with the City of Irvine , for which LOS E is the standard. It should be noted that, during public hearings on the proposed General Plan Update, the City Council has added improvements, which were analyzed in the traffic study but not included in the Draft element, to two intersections: Coast Highway/Riverside and Campus /Bristol. With the addition of these improvements, the City Council also revised Policy 2.1.1 to set the City's level of service standard as D for all but three intersections in Newport Beach and five intersections in the Airport Area shared with the City of Irvine, for which LOS E is the standard.

City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 10-113

This is a comment on the Plan, not the EIR; the comment will be forwarded to the Planning Commission and City Council.

EQ-69
Policy CE 7.1.5 recognizes that the Avon Street parking lot is not located well to serve Mariners' Mile businesses, and directs the City to consider relocation that would better serve these uses. The policy does not suggest alternative sites, and it would be speculative for the EIR to do so. The Avon Street lot has 125 spaces, and the policy in question does not suggest reducing that number.

EQ- 70
The specific areas that would be affected by this policy cannot be identified without further study as to which areas have substantial walk-in business and public parking availability. Likewise, the specific revisions to parking requirements cannot be known without the areas identified and studies of the areas' characteristics completed. Implementation of this policy will require further environmental review when more information is available.

EQ- 71
Future project or proposals for these facilities are not known at this time, so it is not possible to identify locations for parking to serve them. However, marinas have specific parking requirements in the Municipal Code, which are considered adequate to provide for both marina users and persons servicing vessels in the marinas. Where specific supply issues are identified, solutions will be identified through the implementing actions of the General Plan policies regarding parking. Environmental analysis can only be conducted at the time a project is proposed.

EQ- 72
An update of parking requirements would result in amendments to the Newport Beach Municipal Code, which would then be applicable to all new development and the conversion of uses in existing building to uses with a higher parking requirement. Existing uses would then be considered as "legal, but non- conforming", a status which limits the amount of additions or renovations of the existing development.

This is how the Municipal Code works today, and no changes are proposed as part of the General Plan Update.

EQ- 73
The policy cited does not call for shared parking facilities, but for shared valet parking programs. It is possible that a program could include a shared facility for customers to drop off and pick up their cars, or to board a shuttle to a central parking facility (either existing or future). When a program is designed, environmental review will be required if there is the potential for environmental impacts. 10-114 City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR

EQ-74
The policy is referring to the City's responsibility to accommodate its "fair share" of regional housing needs allocation (RHNA) as defined by SCAG. Programs and policies to meet the City's RHNA allocation are fully discussed in the General Plan Housing Element. The City's 1998-2008 RHNA allocation (extended from June 30, 2005 by the State Department of Housing and Community Development) is 476 housing units with 945 units identified for the Newport Coast area annexed to the City in 2002.

EQ- 75
New streets connecting the proposed residential areas would be local streets and not arterial roadways.

The location of street crossings referenced by the commenter will be defined through the subsequent preparation of the regulatory plans required by Policy 6.15.14 for each Residential Village in the Airport Area. While potential locations are depicted on Figure LU23, these, as well as the location of the Residential Villages, are only conceptual. Precise locations of the pedestrian corridors and crossings of MacArthur Boulevard cannot be determined until the specific locations and configurations of the Villages have been ascertained. Any specific project coming forward for consideration would be required to explicitly confirm this finding as part of the required analysis.

EQ- 76
Comment noted. The comment repeats the EIR analysis.

EQ-77
The Draft EIR erroneously used the amounts identified in the 1999 Water Master Plan. Note that page

4.14-7 states that OCWD anticipates that there would be sufficient groundwater supplies to meet projected future demand requirements in Newport Beach.

Page 4 ends

in Chapter 9 (Text Changes) in the Final EIR:

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 2536 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.z
2 Newport Beach, City of. 4#W2QQ5. Water r&ster ni_.. an. Prebared v Bro2vn and Caldwell.

December.

EQ- 78
Detailed information regarding water supply during dry years is contained in the City of Newport Beach's 2005 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP), which was one of the primary reference documents used in this EIR. The UWMP states that water supplies can continue to meet the City's imported water needs until the year 2030. Further, pages 4.14-8 through 4.14-14 describe current and projected water supplies and water supply reliability for MWDOC and OCWD, and, specifically, Table 4.14-2 identifies water City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 10-115

supply during normal years, a single dry year, and multiple dry years. Impact 4.14.1-2, pages 4.14-18 through 4.14-22 also describe potential impacts related to water supply. No potentially significant impacts have been identified and, therefore, no mitigation has been identified.

EQ-79
This comment does not raise issues related to the adequacy of the EIR analysis. The water shortage contingency plan referenced in the comment is available in the City's 2005 Urban Water Management Plan.

EQ-80
The General Plan buildout year is 20 years from 2006, or about 2026, which is prior to the buildout year of 2030 for the City's 2005 Urban Water Management Plan. Therefore, all growth from the General Plan Update is included within the 2005 UWMP forecasts.

EQ-81
This comment does not raise issues related to the adequacy of the EIR analysis. When, and if, the groundwater basin were to become 10 percent treated wastewater would depend on the amount of recharge to the aquifer in any given year.

EQ-82
This comment does not raise issues related to the adequacy of the EIR analysis. The water shortage contingency plan referenced in the comment is available in the City's 2005 Urban Water Management Plan.

EQ-83
This comment does not raise issues related to the adequacy of the EIR analysis. Page 4.14-37 states that solid waste haulers are prohibited from transporting waste outside of County limits. The City does not send municipal waste to Long Beach SERFF. Waste Management, one of the commercial haulers that provides commercial waste disposal services to the City, sends some of their waste to Long Beach.

However, per the City's General Services Director, Mark Harmon, no residential solid waste collected by the City leaves the County.

EQ-84
This comment is correct, and the EIR is amended to add Bonita Canyon and Santa Ana Heights to the areas where the City does not collect trash from single family homes.

On page 4.14-37 of the Draft EIR, the following text has been added, as noted below and as shown in Chapter 9 (Text Changes) in the Final EIR.

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.126 ...
10-116 City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR

EQ-85
As discussed on page 4.14-44, landfill capacity available to the City is more than adequate to serve projected future demand. Therefore, no further analysis regarding the capacity of the City's transfer station is required or necessary
EQ-86
In order to provide more information regarding the current daily usage and maximum daily capacity at the transfer stations which serve the City, the following information regarding transfer station capacity has been added to page 4.14-38 of Section 4.14 (Utilities), as noted below and as shown in Chapter 9 (Text Changes) in the Final EIR:

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, andinelude the foHowing arc lit in Table 4.14-12a:
--Stafftefi Tfafis€er- aed Reeyelifig Getate ++4i-rr8 44232 rz- fietct A-veftee, ctantof CA 90 > Huntington Beaeh,
GA 92647
■.
\%/.TS9�1•I R!77�lT!!7�!f�tl�rlT!T.T7/�ISSl!7-1�t=9 T��IRTSR-a!!!lSSl7L!!!!!7�!fP.7 �� SIT.lTSTI��IJ:ISRT!\�/l•C��\RCS-J _ • . - , , • 1
Table 4.14-12a Transfer Station Capacity
Average Daily Load
Transfer Station Location
Maximum Da�1v
�r
Stanton Transfer and Recycling Center #8
11232 Knott Avenue, Stanton0680 , CA 9
25 26
No Maximum
it
Rainbow Recycling/Transfer Station
17121 Nichols Street, Huntington Beach, CA 92647
1 000
2 800
Consolidated Volume Trans op tiers
1131 Blue Gum Street, Anaheim, CA 92806
Vries (Typically does not hi
umholida
max capacity except for after
s
Sunset Environmental Inc. Transfer Station and Resource Vries (Typically does not hi
um
Recycling Facility 16122 Construction Circle West. Irvine. CA max capacity except for after
92606
holida s
Waste Management of Orange
2050 North Glassell, Orange, CA 92865
1�2 Q
15-0
City of Newport Beach Transfer Station
92 Superior Avenue. Newport Beach. CA 92663
10 300
City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 10-117

In addition, the following information has been added to the impact discussion for Impact 4.14.3-1 on page 4.14-43, as noted below and as shown in Chapter 9 (Text Changes) in the Final EIR:

Currently_; the City
of Newport Beach is serviced by six solid
waste
transfer stations onerat
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 Cit by
approximately 4.96
percent and will reduce the square feet
of office,
commercialand industrial space
by approximately 12.2 percent. This overall reduction in the land
use intensity within the city will
reduce the daily
demand on the transfer stations which serve
the
Citv. Each of the transfer stations
currently have sufficient
remaining capacity to handle the
solid waste
load from Newport Beach as
shown in Table

4.14-12a and these transfer stations are expected
to have sufficient future ca acity
after imnlementation of the General Plan Update and
all associated
growth based on this net
decrease in land use intensi
EQ-87
As discussed on page 4.14-44, landfill capacity available to the City is more than adequate to serve projected future demand. Therefore, no further analysis is required or necessary. 10-118 City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR

Ms. Patty Temple
Planning Director
City of Newport Beach
3300 Newport Blvd.

Newport Beach, CA 92663

GREENLIGHT
PO Box 3362
Newport Beach, CA 92659
(949) 721-1272
May 30, 2006
G1

VIA EMAIL AND HAND DELIVERY
Ref: City of Newport Beach Draft Environmental Impact Report, General Plan Update dated April 2006
Dear Ms. Temple:

This letter is a formal request for an extension of the cutoff date for comments on the referenced Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) being developed for the proposed City General Plan Update. We request that the current plan for a 45-day review ending June 8 be extended to July 23, 2006, the full review period of 90 days allowed under CEQA.

We have tried to work through these voluminous documents by this Memorial Day Weekend and because of their length and complexity and the unavailability of all the data over weekend and holiday periods have been unable to complete our analysis and comments on some major aspects of the DEIR.

The following three points are unusual circumstances under normal CEQA procedures and are our reasons for requesting this extension of the date for comments:

1. The complexity of the project that will affect the entire city for decades to come. It requires and deserves a comprehensive analysis unrestricted by an abbreviated time period.

2. The fact that, according to page 1-2 of the DEIR, the requirements of CEQA are intended to be satisfied by BOTH the DEIR document and the Technical Background Report (TBR) together. The TBR is not widely available. According to the DEIR, the TBR is available only at City Hall and the Central Library, during normal working hours and not on holidays or some evenings when we would have some free time to study it.

This very restricted availability of this key document has made it virtually impossible for us to conduct an adequate review in the short time frame of 45 days allocated by the city.

3. This is not a project for which speedy permitting would be an issue, since this does not address a specific development involving major financial commitments/risk. There is no reason to restrict the time available for the public to study and comment on the referenced DEIR.

Thanking you in advance for your recognition of the need to extend this unnecessarily restricted schedule and your service to the city,
(Original Signed) CC: Newport Beach City Council
Philip L. Arst Mrs. Robin Clauson, City Attorney
Greenlight

Response to Comment Letter G1
Letter from Greenlight, received May 30, 2006
GIA
The commenter requests an extension of the public review period for the Draft Environmental Impact Report (Draft EIR) prepared for the General Plan Update currently in public review. The commenter requested that the public review period be extended to July 23, 2006, allowing for a 90 day review period.

The City will not grant such an extension. The review period is established by the CEQA Guidelines at 45 days, as indicated in Section 15105(a) (attached). Additionally, Section 15105(c) states that the review period shall be that established by the State Clearinghouse which, for this Draft EIR, is 45 days (the standard review period) and is not a shortened time period. The State CEQA Guidelines, while indicating that a longer period of 60 days may be established, they also provide for the possibility of shorter review periods of 30 days. The City did not seek a shortened review period from the State Clearinghouse.

However, because the City Council held its final public hearing on the Draft EIR on June 13, 2006, the City extended the period for accepting written comments until that time.

The commenter indicated in the letter a rationale for extension of the review period based on the complexity of the General Plan Update, and the commenter's difficulties in reviewing the Technical Background Report (TBR). The TBR has been available for public review since June, 2004. This has given all interested parties two full years to review the information contained in it. Additionally, the TBR was clearly referenced in the NOP issued for the General Plan Update EIR on January 27, 2006, which was also a notice for interested parties to review the information contained in it. The Greenlight group was mailed a copy of the NOP directly when it was published. The State CEQA Guidelines also provide guidance to lead agencies on how to make copies of a Draft EIR available to the public. Section 15087(g) states:
"To make copies of EIRs available to the public, Lead Agencies should furnish copies of draft EIRs to public library systems serving the area involved. Copies should also be available in offices of the Lead Agency."
Also, Section 15087(c)(5) clearly states that documents should be available during the normal business hours of the lead agency. The City has fulfilled all its responsibilities in making copies of the Draft EIR and the Technical Background Report available for public review. 10-120 City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR

F
Greenlight
PO Box 3362
Newport Beach, CA 92659
[email protected]
June 13, 2006
G2
Gregg B. Ramirez
City of Newport Beach
(949) 644-3219
3300 Newport Boulevard
Newport Beach, CA 92685-8915
Subject: DEIR (SCH92006011119), CNB General Plan Update This is to confirm support of the comments on the referenced DEIR by Sandra Genis and Dr. Jan Vandersloot.

Of significant concern is the city's approach to the EIR that covers the environmental impacts of considerably larger density and traffic allowance for Newport Beach. While the full extent of the studied increases will not be implemented as a part of the referenced General Plan Update, it will paves the way for even greater growth in the future by having previously studied and ostensibly mitigated the impacts.

This approach would provide the city with a strong argument for using Negative Declarations in the future, thereby bypassing the important additional EIR cycle that would have fully informed the public.

A partial listing of major omissions of the DEIRJGPU as extracted from the Comments of Sandra Genis and Dr. Jan Vandersloot follow:
i. Failure to address other cumulative development outside Newport Beach, including GPAs in Costa Mesa, Irvine and Huntington Beach. The city was 2 well aware of these, since they commented on projects in Costa Mesa and Irvine, at least. Since they involved GPAs they are not included in OCTAM. z. Failure to address impacts outside the city limits, including but not limited to 3 impacts on traffic and park facilities

3. Failure to consult with all public agencies providing services within the planning area, including Santa Ana Unified School District and Mesa 4 Consolidated Water,

4. Failure to consider a reasonable alternative requested by adjacent communities and others, specifically deletion of the 19th Street Banning 5 Bridge from circulation plans. 11

5. Magic wand approach to project mitigation, e.g. we will somehow provide adequate parkland for future development by getting in lieu fees without 6

identifying adequate sites. 6
There are also lots of subtle changes, in addition to what the DEIR/GPU highlight for specific areas. These include:
i. Dropping the buildable acreage concept, so slopes are no longer eliminated when 7 calculating density.
a. Designating numerous intersections as acceptable at LOS E, and proposing 8 amendment of the TPO to allow more congestion.

3. Dropping flexible FARs that vary with the traffic generating characteristics of a 9 use and using a flat FAR max for all uses that generally reflects the maximum now allowed only for low generating uses.

4. Creating new, extremely dense, residential density categories. l 10 s. Dropping the prohibition on subdivisions that would create new dwelling units in 11 previously developed areas.

6. Allowing density bonuses, above the basic GP level, for at least a half a dozen different reasons, well beyond what would be required by state density bonus law. 12

7. Providing sites for development of over ten times the number of residential units 41 remaining to be provided under the Regional Housing Needs Assessment 13 (RHNA), thereby giving the lie to the argument that the increased units are necessary to meet the RHNA. 41

8. Renaming Environmentally Sensitive Areas (ESA) to Environmental Study Areas. While deceitfully retaining the same ESA designation, this approach renders invalid many, if no all of the current environmental protections that are the basis of the existence of Newport Beach as an environmentally protective beach/bay city protecting the high quality residential sector via accompanying environmentally sensitive areas.

Greenlight supports the conclusion in the Sandra Genis comments on the DEIR that as currently presented, the DEIR is thoroughly flawed in almost every facet imaginable and utterly fails to fulfill the purposes of CEQA. The document is so fundarnentall} and basically inadequate and conclusionary in nature that meaningful public review and comment were precluded and the document must be revised and recirculated in accordance with Section 15088.5(a)(4) of the CEQA Guidelines.

Yours truly,
Greenli t
4PhiL. Arst
14 ■ Response to Comment Letter G2
Letter from Greenlight, received June 13, 2006
G2-1
This comment is noted. The Draft EIR analyzes impacts based on the referenced General Plan, which density and traffic figures are considered for reduction by the City. However, locations for future growth and development in the City will be subject to the adopted General Plan land use designations and density allowances. Future development projects will also be separately reviewed under CEQA according to the thresholds determined by State law for all impact analysis, as is the case under the Draft EIR. State law contains thresholds by which projects are subject to CEQA, which will not change regardless of the level of analysis performed in the Draft EIR.

G2-2
Please note that as these comments are extracted from the letters of Ms. Genis and Mr. Vandersloot, full responses to these issues are provided with those comment letters.

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

G2-3
Refer to Master Response D and response to comment SA-133 regarding analysis of impacts beyond the City's boundaries.

G2-4

Page 4 ends

District on April 5, 2006. Also, as described in response to comment B-16 and B-19 (regulatory framework) although the SAUSD did not respond to telephone and other inquiries and the City was unable to obtain the current capacity of the SAUSD, 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.

G2-5
Refer to Master Response A regarding inclusion of the 19' Street bridge in the EIR analysis.

G2-6
As described in response to comment SA-21, proposed park and recreation facilities are illustrated on Figure 4.12-2, following page 4.12-4.

City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 10-123

G2-7
This comment does not raise a question with regard to the Draft EIR. Refer to response to comment SA-5 for a discussion of buildable acreage.

G2-8
This comment focuses on changes to the LOS standards for the City of Newport Beach and changes to the Traffic Phasing Ordinance, and does not raise a question with regard to the Draft EIR. The existing Circulation Element does not set a LOS standard; rather, Policies 1 and 2 refer to "service levels as close to level of service D as possible." The existing Element projects that some intersections, particularly in the Airport Area, will exceed LOS D because of regional traffic, and states that the "Element represents a conscious decision to accept [these] levels of service." Policy 2.1.1 in the proposed Circulation Element establishes level of service standards. For the vast majority of intersections, the standard is LOS D. The policy sets the standard of LOS E for five intersections in Newport Beach and five intersections in the Airport Area shared with the City of Irvine, whose standard in the area is LOS E. In public hearings on the General Plan, the City Council has directed that two improvements analyzed in the traffic study be added to the Circulation Element. With these improvements, the number of intersections in Newport Beach for which the standard would be LOS E is reduced to three. The purpose of the policy to amend the Traffic Phasing Ordinance is to maintain consistency between the General Plan and City ordinances.

The comment focuses on changes to the LOS standards for the City of Newport Beach and changes to the Transportation Phasing Ordinance. The TPO will need to be modified to allow LOS E at certain locations, consistent with the General Plan Circulation Element. These modifications are permissible and reflect the current needs of development within the City of Newport Beach.

G2-9
This comment does not raise a question with regard to the Draft EIR. Refer to response to comment SA-4.

G2-10
This comment does not raise a question with regard to the Draft EIR. The residential density categories in the proposed General Plan reflect the densities allowed by the existing General Plan and the densities of residential development currently existing. The one exception is the density of up to 50 units per acre for residential development proposed in the Airport Area. In public hearings on the General Plan, the City Council has directed that the Land Use Map, Figures LU 1 through 15, be revised to replace the land use system of density ranges with a system that designates the type of housing product (e.g., single unit attached, single unit detached, two unit, multiple unit), with either density or number of units reflecting the currently existing development indicated on the map for each residential area in the City. The City Council directed that in addition to this mapping system, a policy prohibiting additional residential subdivisions in developed areas, be added to the Land Use Element to prevent unintended increases in residential density.
10-124 City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR

G2-11
This comment does not raise a question with regard to the Draft EIR. As noted in the response to comment G2-10, in public hearings on the General Plan, the City Council has directed that this policy be added to the Land Use Element.

G2-12
This comment does not raise a question with regard to the Draft EIR. It is unknown where the proposed General Plan or Draft EIR make the statements referenced in this comment. The proposed Housing Element, like the existing one, provides for density bonuses or other incentives as required by State law, as follows:

Housing Program 3.1.2 When a residential developer agrees to construct housing for persons and families of low and moderate income above mandated requirements, the City shall either (1) grant a density bonus as required by state law, or (2) provide other incentives of equivalent financial value.

Housing Program 3.1.3 Review and consider in accordance with State law, the waiver of planning and park fees, and modification of development standards, (e.g., setbacks, lot coverage, etc.) at the discretion of City Council and Planning Commission for developments containing low- and moderate - income housing in proportion to the number of low- and moderate -income units in each entire project.

Refer to response to comment SA-6 for a discussion of density bonuses.

G2-13
This comment does not raise a question with regard to the Draft EIR. Neither the Draft EIR nor the proposed General Plan Update states that the only reason the proposed General Plan Update provides additional housing opportunities is to meet Newport Beach's RHNA goals. For example, Policy LU 3.2 states, in part, "Changes in use and/or density/intensity should be considered only in those areas that are economically underperforming, are necessary to accommodate Newport Beach's share of projected regional population growth, improve the relationship and reduce commuting distance between home and jobs ..." In addition, it should be noted that RHNA goals are established by the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) for five-year planning periods, whereas the proposed General Plan Update is a plan for a period of 20 to 25 years. If the current RHNA goals for Newport Beach are projected 25 years in the future, the number of new residential units to meet those goals could be as high as 7,105.

G2-14
This comment does not raise a question with regard to the Draft EIR. As described in JA-2, the current Recreation and Open Space Element states that "Environmentally Sensitive Areas are those passive open space areas possessing unique environmental value which may warrant some form of protection or preservation." Therefore, it is incorrect to state that some form of special protective status is afforded to areas identified as "" or "ESAs" in the current General Plan.

City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 10-125

All of the areas identified as "environmentally sensitive areas" or "ESAs" in the current General Plan are located within the geographic boundaries of the Environmental Study Areas listed in the proposed Natural Resources Element. The environmental study areas are relatively large, undeveloped areas that may support species and habitats that are sensitive and rare within the region or may function as a migration corridor for wildlife. Policy NR 10.4 requires a site -specific survey and analysis prepared by a qualified biologist as a filing requirement for any development permit applications where development would occur within or contiguous to areas identified as Environmental Study Areas. Policy NR 10.3 prohibits development in nature preserves, conservation areas, and designated open space areas in order to minimize urban impacts upon resources in identified Environmental Study Areas. These proposed policies provide greater protection to the sensitive habitats and species located within these areas than Recreation and Open Space Policy 9.1 in the current General Plan, discussed in response JA-3. 10-126 City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR

-H -O A G M E M D R. I A -L H -O 5 P I T. A L P- R E 5 B. Y T E R- I A N HOAGOne Hoag Drive PO Box
Newport Beach CA 92658-610-6100
9491764-HOAG (4624)
HOSPITAL www.hoaghospital.org
June 5, 2006
HO
Gregg Ramirez
Planning Department
City of Newport Beach
3300 Newport Boulevard
Newport Beach, CA 92658-8915
RE: City of Newport Beach General Plan Update
Dear Mr. Ramirez:

Peter M. Foulke
Executive Vice President
Corporate Services
949/764-8250
Fax:949/764-5746
I'IZ11C1 VCu U i
r'LANNING DEPARTMENT
,ITY QP NF-iA)PnRT BEACH
iUN 0 6 2006
AM PM
718, 9110111,12,11213141516
Hoag Hospital has reviewed the City's draft General Plan Update. As part of that review, two questions have arisen to which we would appreciate responses:

1. The January 2006 Notice of Preparation/Initial Study for the General Plan Update includes Table 3, "City of Newport Beach General Plan Update Existing and Proposed Land Use". For the West Newport Mesa, the special study subarea which contains Hoag Hospital, the land uses are identified as follows:

Existing 351 beds
Current GP 1,265 beds
Proposed 1,265 beds
Hoag Hospital currently has 417 available beds and 511 licensed beds. Although internal master planning efforts will identify the final bed count, at this time it is projected that there will be around 500 beds, based on build -out of its Master Plan that was approved by the City in August 1992. An EIR is currently being prepared by the City for a Master Plan update for Hoag Hospital. The draft traffic study in support of that Master Plan update EIR is based on square footage, not beds, and is as follows:

Existing 886,270 square feet
Current Master Plan 1,343,238 square feet
Proposed Master Plan 1,373,045 square feet
Please reconcile these numbers to ensure that Hoag Hospital is accurately reflected in the City's General Plan Update and EIR.

2. Figure LU13, Statistical Area Map J, of the draft Land Use Element, refers the reader to the "anomaly table". This table, defined as Table A2, "Anomaly Locations", in Appendix A to the 2 General Plan Update, identifies the following anomalies, which correspond to Hoag Hospital's Upper (anomaly # 62) and Lower Campuses (anomaly # 63) as follows:

A NOT -FOR -PROFIT COMMUNITY HOSPITAL ACCREDITED BY THE JOINT COMMISSION ON ACCREDITATION OF HEALTHCARE ORGANIZATIONS un.a1=

Gregg Ramirez
June 1, 2006
Anomaly #62 = 765,349 square feet
Anomaly # 63 = 577,889 square feet
These two anomalies reflect the total square footage currently entitled for Hoag's Upper and Lower Campuses (i.e., 1,343,238 square feet), but does not reflect the Hoag Master Plan Update EIR (i.e., 1,373,045 square feet) contained in the March 2005 Notice of Preparation of for the Hoag Master Plan Update.

Hoag requests, therefore, that the City's General Plan reflect the Hoag Master Plan Update by doing two things:

A. Include the square footage totals for build -out included in Hoag Hospital's Master Plan Update (the 1,373,045 square feet). It should be noted that the traffic study prepared by the City's environmental consultant for the Hoag Master Plan Update EIR does not identify significant traffic impacts associated with the 1,373,045 square feet of Hospital development.

B. Eliminate the artificial dividing line between Hoag Hospital's Upper and Lower Campuses, by pooling the total allowable square footage on the Hospital campus. The elimination of this artificial dividing line is consistent with the Hoag Master Plan Update. It will also allow Hoag Hospital to more readily respond to health care requirements of the community, thereby complying with Policy LU 6.1.5 of the draft Land Use Element, which states, in part "support Hoag Hospital in its mission to provide adequate facilities to meet the needs of area residents".

To ensure that additional environmental impacts would not be created on the adjoining residential development, Hoag Hospital recommends that as part of the elimination of the artificial dividing line between its Upper and Lower Campuses that the Land Use Element clearly state that Hoag Hospital could not exceed its existing entitlement on the Lower Campus, i.e., 557,889 square feet.

We appreciate your addressing these issues as part of the General Plan Update. If you have any questions on this letter, please contact me at (949) 764-8250.

Sincerely,
Peter Foulke
Executive Vice President
Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian
c. Patty Temple
K3

Page 2 ends

■ Response to Comment Letter HO
Letter from HOAG Hospital, received June 5, 2006
HO-1
The project description on the Notice of Preparation identified land use quantities which are represented in the Newport Beach Traffic Model (NBTM). Unusual land uses, such as hospitals, are identified based on trip generation categories (such as beds, in this case) which most accurately estimates current and future traffic generation. These are called "surrogate quantities." This does not alter the actual development limits in the General Plan, which are the square footage amounts reflected in the comment.

The anomaly table reflects these quantities, which will be contained within the updated General Plan.

HO-2
This comment asks that a General Plan Amendment currently being processed in association with the Hoag Master Plan amendment be incorporated into the General Plan Update. The decision to make this request was made many months ago to keep the hospital's project on a common track. If the General Plan Amendment request is approved as a part of the Master Plan consideration, the New General Plan will be changed to reflect it.

HO-3
It is true that currently pending amendments to the master plan for Hoag Hospital would, if approved, allow the transfer of development between the upper and lower campuses of Hoag Hospital, subject to certain limitations. However, the lower campus is wholly within the Coastal Zone, while the upper campus is completely outside the Coastal Zone. Connecting the two areas as single unit would then create the need to do likewise in the City's certified Coastal Land Use Plan, even though the upper campus does not impact coastal resources. For this reason, maintenance of this division within the Anomaly Table should be maintained.

City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 10-129

Able
�W

THE IRVINE COMPANY
T
,tune 12, 2006
JUN 1, 3 2005
AM
City of Newport BeachIII11j1 {',"
Attn: Gregg B. Ramirez
3300 Newport Boulevard
Newport Beach, CA 92685-8915
Re: City of Newport Beach General Plan Update Draft Environmental Impact Report Dear Mr. Ramirez,
The Irvine Company respectfully submits the following comments regarding the Newport Beach General Plan Update Draft Environmental Impact Report.

Relative to the discussion of "Other Land Use Changes" discussed on Page 2-3, it seems this discussion should also include a brief discussion of two other categories of "land use changes" that arose during the public hearing process: A) the areas where reductions in allowed land use levels were proposed within the Mac Arthur Corridor and B) the other areas in town outside of the initially identified 12 Sub -Areas where reductions to the ultimate build -out projections were identified.

2. The discussion of "existing conditions" is stated to be based on conditions from 2002.

Several changes have occurred since 2002, primarily in the down -coast portion of the City annexed since 2002. Because much discussion has focused on the projected traffic growth from "existing conditions", it seems important that the growth that has already occurred be discounted from statements of future growth. This issue has been partially addressed through an assessment of the trip generation, but it seems important to also specifically discuss what has been found in the recent actual traffic counts and how these findings in conjunction with the updated trip generation information combine to impact the findings associated with the remaining increment of growth anticipated in the City.

3. The Congestion Management discussion on Page 4.13-19 does not clearly identify the specific intersections within the City that are to be monitored. Neither does it clarify that these facilities are judged against a different capacity criteria by the CMP program (Level of Service E) and what that means relative to the City's policy for these facilities.

4. The methodology utilized for the freeway ramp capacity analysis discussed on Pages

4.13-24, 4.13-32 and 4.13-40-42 is different than that utilized by other cities within the county. The methodology currently reflected in the study tends to result in identifying capacity deficiencies for ramps. The methodology used by other lead 2 550 Newport Center Drive, Newport Beach, California 92660-7011 • (949) 720-2000

Mr. Gregg B. Ramirez
June 5, 2006

Page 2 ends

agencies would interpret the same data and instead identify mainline freeway AL capacity as the deficiency. It would seem that the methodology commonly used 4 throughout the County should be applied.
40 If you have any questions regarding our comments, please contact Steve Letterly at (949) 720-2860.
g raff
President,
Entitlement and Environmental Affairs
2 Response to Comment Letter T
Letter from The Irvine Company, received June 12, 2006
T-1
The land use changes referenced in this comment in fact arose during the public hearings on the proposed General Plan and after publication of the Draft EIR. The project described in the Draft EIR is the draft General Plan dated March 27, 2005, and does not include these land use changes. The Draft EIR analyzes a worst case scenario, with development levels greater than the City Council has directed to include in the final General Plan, including the changes referenced in this comment.

T-2
Refer to Master Response C regarding use of 2002 baseline. Table ES-1 in Appendix D of the Draft EIR includes information on the number of trips generated by development in the City, including Newport Coast, as of 2005. The 2005 data is presented as additional information for the public and decision makers, but the traffic analysis was based on 2002 data.

T-3
A map and brief description of the Congestion Management Program (CMP) will be inserted at the end of Chapter 1. The Orange County CMP requires level of service E at CMP intersections. The City of Newport Beach standard meets or exceeds this requirement, so no further analysis is necessary. There are three CMP intersections in Newport Beach: MacArthur Boulevard (NS) at Jamboree Road (NS), Coast Highway (EW) and Coast Highway (E\V) at Newport Boulevard (NS). CMP roadway segments include SR-73 Freeway, SR-55 Freeway, Jamboree Road, MacArthur Boulevard, Newport Boulevard, and Coast Highway.

Page 4 ends

(Text Changes) in the Final EIR:

Orange County Congestion Management Plan
The Congestion Management Plan (CMP) requires that a traffic impact analysis be conducted for any project generating 2,400 or more daily trips, or 1,600 or more daily trips for projects that directly access the CMP Highway System (HS). Per the CMP guidelines, this number is based on the desire to analyze any impacts that will be three percent or more of the existing CMP highway system facilities' capacity. The CMPHS includes specific roadways, which include State Highways and Super Streets, which are now known as Smart Streets, and CMP arterial monitoring locations/intersections.

Therefore, the CMP traffic impact analysis (TIA) requirements relate to the potential impacts only on the specified CMPHS. The CMP system consists of the following:
■MacArthur Boulevard Qamboree Road to Coast Highway)
■Jamboree Road (between city limit and MacArthur Boulevard) ■Coast Highway (throughout)
■Newport Blvd (from north city limit to Coast Highway)
There are three CMP intersections in Ne=ort Beach:
■MacArthur Boulevard (NS) at Jamboree Road INSI
10-132 City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR

■MacArthur Boulevard (NS) at Coast Highway XWl
■Coast Highway (EEM at Newport Boulevard
T-4
The freeway analysis is consistent with Caltrans standards.

City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 10-133

Newport Banning Ranch LLC
June 2, 2006 N
Gregg Ramirez, Senior Planner
City of Newport Beach Planning Department
P. O. Box 1768
Newport Beach, CA 92658-8915
.,GVr-; :, tb d �
-CANNING DEPARTMENT
:ITV nF- N1PAIPnRT E3EACH
JUN 0 6 2006
AM P
78,9110 Ei 1,1211� 12114)5]6
Re: Comments of Newport Banning Ranch LLC on the Draft Environmental Impact Report for the General Plan 2006 Update
Dear Mr. Ramirez:

On behalf of the owners of the Banning Ranch property, we wish to submit the following comments on the City's Draft Environmental Impact Report ("DEIR") on the General Plan 2006 Update.

1. Project Description.

Two options for the future use and development of Banning Ranch are described in the DEIR based upon the goals and policies in the City's proposed General Plan Update. One is a development option that proposes the development of 1,375 market rate residential units; 75,000 square feet of commercial; and a 75 room hotel (the "Reduced Entitlement"). The second option, which is identified as being prioritized under the General Plan, is the acquisition of Banning Ranch so that it can be retained in perpetuity through a deed restriction or conservation easement as open space.

In order to more clearly define the relationship between these two options and the processing of development entitlements for the Banning Ranch property, we suggest the following clarifications be incorporated into the DEIR's Project Description at DEIR page 3-15.

Similar changes should also be made to the City's Draft General Plan. We do not believe that these requested revisions would substantially change the proposed project or result in any new or different impacts frrom the project described in the DEIR, but are simply clarifications that more accurately reflect the City's goals and objectives with respect to the Banning Ranch property.

First, we would suggest that the term "retention" in the first line of the Banning Ranch 40 paragraph be replaced by the word, "acquisition." This would clarify that any permanent 2 retention of open space on Banning Ranch would be as a result of a public agency or independent third party, such as a land conservancy, purchasing the site from the current owners.

Second, the DEIR implies that the two options would occur sequentially, not 41 concurrently. The second sentence of the Banning Ranch paragraph implies that if the property is not acquired, only then would the possible development of the site for residential and S commercial uses be entertained. We believe the Project Description should clarify that the MP615302- 1
Newport Banning Ranch LLC, 3030 Saturn St., Suite 10t, Brea, CA 92821

landowners may process development entitlements consistent with the proposed General Plan concurrently with efforts undertaken by others to acquire the property, and that the open space acquisition option would be subject to termination following notice and opportunity to close the purchase if. (i) the City, through initiative or otherwise, adopts or approves any law requiring further electoral approval prior to development of Banning Ranch in accordance with the Reduced Entitlement; (ii) Newport Banning Ranch LLC determines that it is unlikely that it will 3 be able to negotiate and have timely finalized (a) with the City a satisfactory pre -annexation and development agreement ("PADA"'), or (b) with the California Coastal Commission and other relevant government agencies requisite permits for the development of Banning Ranch for the Reduced Entitlement; or (ill) Newport Banning Ranch LLC secures all requisite entitlements and permits for development of the Reduced Entitlements or otherwise (the "Option Term").

Third, the Project Description should indicate that the majority of the Banning Ranch property is within the jurisdiction of the County of Orange, not the City of Newport Beach, and that any entitlement of the property through the City must also include the annexation process 4 which is subject to approval by the Local Agency Formation Commission. The DEIR should also address how the proposed General Plan affects the City's Sphere of Influence.

Finally, as a comment on the City's proposed General Plan, we would suggest that General Plan Policy LU 3.4 be revised to clarify that the landowner may process entitlements for a residential village consisting of 1,375 market rate residential units while acquisition of the site is being pursued, and that if acquisition is not completed prior to expiration of the Option Term as defined above, the option to retain the entirety of Banning Ranch as open space would terminate. We would further suggest that General Plan Goal 6.4, which provides for development of the Banning Ranch property if "acquisition for open space is not successful," should also be revised consistent with the suggestion gescribed above for General Plan Policy LU 3.4_ Additionally, both General Plan Policy LU 4 and General Plan Goal 6.4 should be revised to reflect the provisions of the Memorandum of Understanding that is being contemplated between the City and Newport Banning Ranch LLC that specifies the terms and conditions of the two development options_ So that the Project Description in the DEIR accurately reflect the proposed project, i.e., the City's draft General Plan, all references in the DEIR to General Plan Policy LU 3.4 and General Plan Goal 6.4 should be revised to reflect the changes suggested above.

2. Aesthetics.

We note that DEIR concludes that the development of Banning Ranch would introduce new sources of nighttime lighting, and that the increased light effects would be significant and unavoidable. This impact would, in fact, be the only significant and unavoidable aesthetic impact identified in the DEIR. We disagree with this finding. Policy LU 6.5.5 requires that development be located and designed to prevent residences on the property from dominating public views of the bluff faces from Coast Highway, the ocean, wetlands and surrounding open spaces. By virtue of concentrating development in areas that are less visible from these public areas, lighting impacts will be minimized. Moreover, there are a number of different lighting techniques such as shielding street lights, directing lights from sensitive resource areas, and minimizing outdoor lighting in residential areas (e.g., regulating ` uplighting" of landscaping) MP6153D2 - 2
5 Newport Banning Ranch LLC, 3030 Saturn St., Suite 101, Brea, CA 92321

that can be imposed when more specific development plans are available to mitigate light AL impacts to less than significant. Lighting plans for coastal projects such as Marblehead and Balsa Chica have been found to be less than significant by local jurisdictions and the California Coastal Commission and to fully mitigate potential night lighting impacts on sensitive habitat 6 and wildlife as well as adjacent residential uses. We relieve that implementation of these and other similar measures can reduce the impact of night lighting from Banning Ranch to less than significant_
We request that the General Plan policies regarding Banning Ranch be modified to require the development of a detailed lighting plan when development plans are submitted to the City which would minimize night lighting impacts by incorporating the light minimization techniques listed above as well as other design measures. There are several policies in the General Plan that address these issues and could be modified to reflect this concept. We suggest the following modifications:

Policy LU 6.4.11 which addresses Comprehensive Site Planning and Design for Banning Ranch should be modified by adding the following sentence at the end of the policy. The master development or specific plan shall include a lighting -plan and a landscape plan that includes light minimization measures including, but not limited to, incorporating landscaping to soften views of the project site visible from publicly owned areas and public viewpoints, and requiring exterior lighting to be designed and located to minimize light trespass.

Policy LU 6.5.4 which addresses the Relationship of Development to Environmental Resources should be modified by adding the following sentence at the end of the policy:
.Development shall be implemented pursuant to a master development or specific playa that sets forth design standards which address urban/open space interface, including standards to minimize light trespass from developed areas onto the bluffs, riparian habitat arroyos, and lowland habitat areas.

As modified, the proposed General Plan would reduce potential nighttime lighting impacts to less than significant. Absent a footprint of development showing setbacks, and a landscape and lighting plan that incorporates light minimization measures, we believe that it is entirely premature for the City's DEIR to reach a conclusion that lighting cannot be mitigated.

3. Cultural Resources.
7 The Cultural Resources impact analysis on page 4.4-18 presumes that excavation during construction activities on Banning Ranch has the potential to disturb Native American burials. A Phase I cultural resource survey was previously prepared for Banning Ranch which identifies relatively few recorded cultural resource sites. There is nothing to suggest from the prior cultural resource evaluations of the site that Banning Ranch is considered a potential burial site. We 8 would suggest that the first paragraph in Impact 4.4-4 be revised to indicate that the potential for undiscovered human burials exist anywhere there is a site that has not been subject to substantial development or substantial subsurface excavation work. There are many areas of the City that have not been subjected to substantial, excavation — even if developed —and more extensive subsurface excavations have the potential to yield undiscovered human remains. This is true for MP615302 - 3
Newport Banning Ranch LLC, 3030 Saturn St., Suite 101, Brea, CA 92821

many areas of the City, not just Banning Ranch. Further, before presuming that human burials AL may occur at Banning Ranch, we would suggest that the City's consultants review the archaeological reports prepared for Banning Ranch and which are on file at the Regional 8 Information Center, and reiterate the finding of those reports in the DEIR that there is nothing to indicate that the cultural resource deposits at the site would yield human remains.

In this regard, we would request that General Plan Policy HR 2.1 and Policy NR 18.1 be revised to clarify that where permanent protection and preservation is not feasible, landowners and developers can mitigate potential impacts to cultural resources through data recovery_ Although this finding is somewhat implicit in the statement of this Policy, the Policy speaks primarily to preservation and avoidance which, in many cases, is not feasible given competing requirements to avoid and minimize impacts to sensitive resources, and limit development in certain areas of the property, e.g., adjacent to bluff faces. Our suggested revision is as follows.

NR 18.1 New Development
Through planning policies and permit conditions, ensure the preservation and protection of significant archaeological and paleontological resources where feasible and require that the impact caused by any development be mitigated in accordance with CEQA_ .Preservation and protection of cultural resources can be accomplished by a variety of techniques including in situ preservation, capping, data recovery excavations and curation.
4_ Biological Resources.

Clarification needs to be provided in the City's DEIR with respect to the mapping of ESAs. We question the mapping of ESAs on Banning Ranch depicted in Figure 4.3-2. We note that the majority of the Banning Ranch property is designated as ESA — without regard to the fact that extensive areas of the property are currently developed for oil operations and do not support any habitat or environmentally sensitive plant communities. At a minimum, those areas of the site which are developed with existing oil extraction facilities, including cleared roads and pads, should not be depicted or designated ESA. It is also important for the DEIR and General Plan to note that there are many areas between the roads and pads that are traversed by subsurface pipelines and other oil production infrastructure which will require remediation and removal in the future to clean up the site.

Second, we are concerned with the very broad interpretation that could be applied to General Plan Policies NR 10.3 and NR 10.6 because of the lack of clarity between an ESA and an ESHA. Our suggested changes would help clarify the significant differences between these two designations — one of which represents an area requiring further study and the other represents an area subject to specific regulation under the Coastal Act. As the City is aware, the Banning Ranch property is currently an operating oil production facility. Much of the undeveloped areas of the site has been disturbed from past oil activities and much of the site is degraded. The fact that the Banning Ranch ESA is disturbed and degraded is not reflected in the policies as drafted. We suggest the following modifications to better clarify the relationship between the ESA and ESHA designations, and to distinguish between the actual resources that may be present in an ESA from areas that have been disturbed or developed.

MP615302 - 4
9 10
11 Newport Banning Ranch LLC, 3030 Saturn St., Suite 101, Brea, CA 92821

Policy NR 10.3 Development in Environmental Study Areas Protect, and prohibit development in nature preserves, conservation areas, and designated open space areas in order to minimize urban impacts upon resources in identified Environmental Study Areas (ESAs). For all properties designated ESA, require that prior to development a biological assessment be prepared that delineates sensitive and rare habitat and wildlife corridors so that development is sited to minimize impacts upon these delineated habitat areas, and where impacts cannot be avoided require on- or off - site habitat mitigation.

Policy NR 10.6 Development in Areas Containing Significant or Rare Biological Resources
Limit uses within an area designated as ESHA under the Coastal Act to only those uses 11 that are dependent on such resources except where application of such a limitation would result in a taking of private property....

Policy NR 10.10 Development on Banning Ranch
Protect the sensitive and rare resources that occur on Banning Ranch. Require that prior to development, a biological assessment be prepared that delineates sensitive and rare habitat, coastal bluffs and wildlife corridors so that development is sited to minimize impacts upon these delineated habitat areas, and structures are designed to not be intrusive on the surrounding landscape. Require the r-estafatie mitigation (either on- or off -site) of any sensitive or rare habitat areas that are impacted by future development.

S. Parkland Development.

Throughout the document, the DEIR contains references to the potential for development of an active park on Banning Ranch that may utilize nighttime lighting (see, e.g., DEIR at 4.8- 12). an page 4.12-10, the DEIR. states that "an active community park (possibly lighted) is planned in Banning Ranch, regardless of the ultimate development of the site, to accommodate 12 the service area and Citywide needs for active sports fields." First, because nighttime lighting was identified as a potentially significant impact which may be unmitigable, we would suggest that if any active parks are developed on Banning Ranch that no night lighting be permitted to mitigate potential nighttime lighting impacts. Second, the DEIR should also note that under 13 either option, the development, improvement, and maintenance of such an active community park will be the obligation of the City, not the private developer. Third, General Plan Policy LU

6.5.2 (see DEIR at page 4.8-29) should be revised to reflect the Memorandum of Understanding 14 currently being considered by the City and Newport Banning Ranch LLC.

Given the number of residential units proposed under the Reduced Entitlement, we believe the DEIR should reflect the actual impact development of the Banning Ranch property would have on recreation. The DEIR repeatedly references the potential for 30 acres of active park on Banning Ranch. This statement implies that the proposed development triggers the need 15 for 30 acres of park in order to mitigate its recreation impacts. In fact, 30 acres of parkland on Banning Ranch far exceed the amount of park acreage that would be required under the Quimby Act and proposed General Plan Policies Rl.l and R1.2 for a development of this size. Although MP615302 - 5
Newport Banning Ranch LLC, 3030 Saturn St., Suite 101, Brea, CA 92821

the environmental impacts of the Reduced Entitlement will be subject to separate environmental Ak review, it is possible at this point in time, to estimate the park and recreation impacts of the Reduced Entitlement. Using the Quimby Act measure of 5 acres of park per 1,000 persons, the Reduced Entitlement proposal would require approximately 14-15 acres of park, and therefore, 15 the allocation of 30 acres of the property to active park uses is greatly in excess of the Reduced Entitlement's actual impacts on recreation. The DEIR should distinguish between the Reduced Entitlement's recreation impacts and the City's park goals.

Moreover, it is highly likely that the Reduced Entitlement development would include trails and other recreation areas — all of which should be taken into consideration in terms of the project's contribution to park and recreational facilities. It is also important for the City to note 16 that any unit reductions that may occur as more specific development plans are prepared would also reduce the project's park obligations.

We also request that Policy LU 6.5.2 be modified to provide flexibility in the event environmental or other constraints substantially reduce the developable areas on the Banning Ranch property. As drafted, the policy requires a minimum of 30 acres be developed on Banning Ranch. If the developable acreage on Banning Ranch is substantially reduced, a minimum 30 acre park may no longer be feasible. Therefore, we suggest that Policy LU 6.5.2 be revised to read:

Policy LU 6.5.2 Active Community Park
Accommodate a community park of no more than are aggregate of 30 acres that contains active playfields that may be lighted and is of sufficient acreage to serve adjoining neighborhoods and, if developed, residents of Banning Ranch.

6. Analysis of Recreation and Open Space Issues.

We note that although the DEIR includes an extensive analysis of recreation issues, Section 4.12 does not include any discussion about the open space potential offered in the event that the entirety of Banning Ranch is not purchased for open space purposes, namely that Newport Banning Ranch LLC ("NBX) has expressed a willingness as an element of its development (i) to cause the preservation of up to 51 % of Banning Ranch, through, at NBR's option, either dedicating such land, including the areas that have the highest habitat value as open space, or to create an Open space mitigation bank, in either case, at NBR's option, by deed restrictions or conservation easements; and (ii) in full satisfaction of NBR's obligation to provide land and/or funding for public facilities, as part of and included within such open space, to dedicate one or more sites of no more than an aggregate of 30 acres for park(s). The potential for augmenting the City's open space areas under both options should be discussed and the environmental impacts and benefits of both of those options should be taken into consideration.

7. Transportation/Traffic Impacts.

Finally, we note that the DEIR's Transportation/Traffic section concludes that, "With improvements included in the proposed Circulation Element, build out of the proposed General Plan Update alone, without growth in the region, would not cause any intersection to fail to meet the City's standard LDS D." We believe that this statement should be corrected to reflect the LDS E standard that the DEIR's traffic study would allow for certain designated intersections. It is our reading of the DEIR traffic study -- and request City confirmation -- that the City will MP615302 - 6
17 IN
19 Newport Banning Ranch L.LC, 3030 Saturn 5t., Suite 101, Brea, CA 92821

r
determine and find that certain intersections will be allowed to operate at LCS E without a finding of a significant unmitigable impact, and that as future projects are submitted for 19 consideration, they will be permitted to analyze traffic against a standard of LGS E for those designated intersections.

Clarification is also requested in the Final EIR regarding which intersection improvements are technically and legally feasible. We are specifically concerned regarding the proposed improvements to the University/Irvine intersection. Although a series of long range improvements are identified (see Tables G and 5-10 in the Traffic Study), the DEIR does not discuss the feasibility of the various improvements. Many intersections have multiple alternatives, each of which seems to be ruled out. For these reasons, we believe that the traffic study and the DEIR's traffic analysis do not accurately reflect traffic conditions that are expected to occur in the future and do not accurately describe conditions that support a finding that all intersections will operate at LOS D or better. We suggest that the DEIR be revised to clearly identify which long range improvements have been determined by the City to be physically and legally feasible and therefore incorporated into the proposed Circulation Element and which of the improvements have been re, ected because of environmental, right-of-way, or community issues.

8. Conclusion.

In conclusion, we would request that our suggested modifications to the General Plan policies be incorporated into the revised General Plan by the City. Alone of the recommended modifications would result in either substantial changes to the project or the identification of new significant impacts. In fact, our suggested revision would help reduce lighting and aesthetic impacts to a level of less than significant, and clarify the recreational impacts that could arise from development of Banning Ranch. If you have any questions regarding these comments, please contact me.

GLB:rnep
MPG 15302 - 7
Very truly yours,

NEWPORT BANNING RANCH LLC
By: e(
Georg . Basye
Manager
20 Newport Banning Ranch LLC, 3030 Saturn St., Suite 101, Brea, CA 92821

Response to Comment Letter N
Letter from Newport Banning Ranch LLC, received June 6, 2006 N-1
This comment is noted. No response is required.

N-2

Page 3 ends

Final EIR. The same change will be made to the proposed General Plan:

The updated General Plan prioritizes the --e`e .n—acquisition 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....

Strategy LU 6.3.2 in the Land Use Element of the General Plan supports acquisition as a means to achieve the retention of Banning Ranch as open space, but leaves open the means for achieving this goal.

The General Plan is a policy document that provides guidance for future action within the City and is intended to be flexible in its implementation.

N-3
The paragraph regarding Banning Ranch on page 3-15 does not indicate whether the two options would occur sequentially or concurrently. For clarity, Policy 6.4.1 will be revised to read:

LU 6.4.1 Alternative Use
If not acquired for open space within a time period and pursuant to terms agreed to by the City and VroVeM owner, the site may be developed as a residential village, containing a mix of housing types, limited supporting retail, visitor accommodations, school, and active community parklands, with a majority of the property preserved as open space. The property ow�y pursue entitlement and permits for a residential village during the time allowed for acquisition as open sace. (Imp 2.1, 12.1) Because the General Plan does not include the detail regarding open space acquisition and development entitlements contained in this comment, it is not appropriate for the EIR to discuss such detail.

N-4
As stated on page 3-1 of the project description:

Approximately 53 acres of the area known as Banning Ranch is within the City boundaries, with another 361 acres of this property in the City's SOI, subject to Orange County jurisdiction.

Per State statute, the General 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 initiated by the property owner and processed City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 10-141

according to ILAFCO requirements. The proposed General Plan has no effect on the Sphere of Influence, except on development guidelines should the annexation occur.

N-5
Refer to response to comment N-3. It is not appropriate for the Draft EIR to discuss details of any agreement that is "being contemplated" and is not part of the proposed General Plan Update that is the project analyzed in the Draft EIR.

N-6
Evaluation of impacts to aesthetics is often subjective. As indicated by this comment, Policy LU 6.5.5 would minimize lighting impacts by concentrating development on the Banning Ranch property.

However, as indicated in the analysis of Impact 4.1-3, Banning Ranch is currently underdeveloped, and the increase in lighting would be substantial. Further, Banning Ranch is the only location considered by the GPU that currently exists as a vast 414-acre primarily undeveloped area. Existing sources of night lighting from the site are limited to those associated with remnant oil production facilities, and are extremely minimal. No habitable structures are presently located on the site. Further, the site is visible from adjacent residential areas as well as nearby roadways. As such, while Policy LU 6.5.5 would serve to minimize the effect of light, the change in the lighting characteristic of the site as an undeveloped and dark area to one with clustered development with lighting from 1,375 residential exteriors as well as access roadways would be a new source of substantial light in the area. It should also be noted that for clarification purposes, two General Plan policies have been amended for clarification purposes.

On page 4.1-31, Policy LU 6.5.4 has been amended, as noted below and as shown in Chapter 9 (Text Changes) in the Final EIR.

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 lighting shall be located and designed to minimize light ass from developed areas onto the bluffs- riparian habitat- arroyos; and lowland habitat areas.

On page 4.5-33, Policy LU 6.4.11 has been clarified, as noted below and as shown in Chapter 9 (Text Changes) in the Final EIR.

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 streetscape improvements, 10-142 City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR

development regulations, architectural design and landscape guidelines, exterior liphting wiidedines processes for oil operations consolidation, habitat preservation and restoration plan, sustainability practices plan, financial implementation, and other appropriate elements.

It is acknowledged that there are a number of lighting techniques that can be employed to minimize lighting impacts. However, these techniques are largely successful at reducing impacts to less than significant in areas where some night lighting or moderate urbanization exists. In areas such as Banning Ranch that are largely undeveloped, these techniques minimize impacts, although the presence of night lighting in areas where none previously existed results in a substantial change. A comparison to lighting plans in other jurisdictions is not appropriate here, as each location presents unique environmental factors for consideration.

N-7
This comment suggests including the requirement of a lighting plan and landscaping plan to mitigate potential impacts due to new sources of light and glare that would be created in the Banning Ranch subarea by new developments under the proposed General Plan. This would include the development of an active community park, which if developed with night lights, as stated as a potential option, could have potentially significant impacts. While the Draft EIR states that no feasible mitigation measures are available for implementation under the General Plan, state and local regulations are in place that would require environmental analysis of future development plans for Banning Ranch that would address potential night lighting impacts, light trespass, and obstruction of views from developed areas onto public viewpoints (e.g. natural resources). Planning for development of Banning Ranch pursuant to Policy LU 6.4.11 will require a separate project -level environmental impact analysis, which would address the impacts of nighttime lighting, light trespass, and impacts to views. It is not the intent of the General Plan to mitigate for all potential project -level impacts resulting from potential future development projects, as these will be addressed at the time development plans are submitted. But the Draft EIR must also not overlook the potential that environmental analysis of development in the future could find views As such, the language currently contained in the General Plan is sufficient to ensure, by requirement of a master development or specific plan for any development of Banning Ranch, full environmental impact analysis of any development of the property. This impact analysis would address potential impacts of light and glare that could be created by new development in the Banning Ranch subarea.

N-8
Impact 4.4-4 does not presume that Native American burials are present on the Banning Ranch property.

Rather, the impact analysis indicates that human burials have been discovered in the City in the past, and those areas with the highest potential for discovery of these materials are primarily undeveloped areas, such as the Banning Ranch property. Banning Ranch is the largest and most notable underdeveloped parcel of land within the City, and therefore relevant to cite as an example of an area where the potential for discovery of Native American remains exists. The text acknowledges that this is not the only location for the potential discovery of human remains within the City or SOI. It is understood that surface survey has not provided indication that Native American burials exist on the property. However, it is often the City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 10-143

case that these burials are discovered in areas where there is no surface indication of their presence, as by definition, burials are located below ground.

N-9
The language in Policy NR 18.1, as presented in the draft General Plan, "preservation and protection," includes the techniques that the comment suggests be added to the policy.

N-10
With respect to Figure 4.3-2, there are numerous areas within Area 14 (Banning Ranch) that are not designated as an Environmental Study Area (ESA). The blank/white portions of the Banning Ranch area correspond to the currently developed land that is used for various uses, including oil operations. The designation of the area was based on biological surveys performed of the Banning Ranch area and reflects the biological conditions on the surface. The need for subsurface remediation will be evaluated as necessary and any disturbance of undeveloped land within an ESA will be required to undergo a more detailed biological assessment.

N-11
Proposed Natural Resources Element NR 10.4 requires a site -specific survey and analysis prepared by a qualified biologist as a filing requirement for any development permit applications where development would occur within or contiguous to areas identified as an ESA. Therefore, the suggested modification to NR 10.3 is not necessary. However, to provide additional specificity and policy guidance to assist the decisionmakers to ensure that development would be designed to preserve coastal bluffs, Policy NR

10.10 has been added to the proposed General Plan and EIR. Refer to response to comment SA-45 for additional clarification, as well as the language for Policy NR 10.10.

N-12
This comment is noted. The City is aware that the introduction of residential and commercial development (including an active park with nighttime lighting) would present potentially significant impacts to the Banning Ranch area. The area is currently underdeveloped and adjacent to sensitive residential uses, and any new development would contribute a significant increase in lighting. The City's proposed policy, as expressed in the draft General Plan, is to maintain the possibility of an active park with nighttime lighting. As such, the potential for significant impacts remains and no further mitigation measures are considered feasible at this time.

N-13
As noted in this comment, development, improvement, and maintenance of an active community park dedicated to the City would be the responsibility of the City. This would be consistent with the City's responsibility to maintain all land dedicated to the City. The EIR makes no assertion otherwise. 10-144 City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR

N-14
It is not appropriate for the Draft EIR to discuss details of any agreement that is "being considered" and is not part of the draft General Plan that is the project analyzed in the Draft EIR.

N-15
This EIR is a Program EIR that discusses impacts from implementation of the General Plan Update as a whole. As such, where certain parcels in the City provide noteworthy examples of how or where impacts could occur, these are identified. However, the purpose of this EIR is not to provide a project specific analysis of the any proposal currently under consideration for the Banning Ranch property, such as that referred to as the Reduced Entitlement Alternative. After the receipt and processing of a development application for the Banning Ranch property, project -specific analysis would be conducted to determine the precise demands and contributions that a development project on the Banning Ranch property would have.

The reference to provision of 30 acres of parkland on the Banning Ranch site appears twice in the EIR, both within proposed General Plan policies.

Policy LU 6.5.2, identified on page 4.8-29 of the Draft EIR states: "Accommodate a community park of a minimum of 30 acres that contains active playfields that may be lighted and is of sufficient acreage to serve adjoining neighborhoods and, if developed, residents of Banning Ranch." Policy R.1.10, identified on page 4.12-20 of the Draft EIR states: "...In the Banning ranch area develop an active community park of 20 to 30 acres with consideration of night lighting" Neither policy states nor references that provision of this park is related to Quimby Act requirements for a development project on the site.

N-16
Refer to response to comment N-15. The EIR does not prescribe an amount of parkland that would be required as a result of development on Banning Ranch in order to offset demands on recreation, as that would be considered during project -specific analysis. It is anticipated that the specific parkland requirements resulting from any development on Banning Ranch would be met by dedication of parkland on -site. Specific requirements for parkland dedication (i.e., active parkland or open space with trails) would be determined at the time a specific development application for the property is developed, and would be consistent with City requirements for new development.

N-17
In the General Plan Update, Policy LU 6.5.2 has been changed to be consistent with Policy R 1.10, and reads as follows:

LU 6.5.2 Active Community Park
"*Accommodate a community park of _ :�:_ -__ �f- t 30 acres that contains active playfields that may be lighted and is of sufficient acreage to City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 10-145

serve adjoining neighborhoods and, if , residents of Banning Ranch,, if developed.

N-18
Regardless of the development outcome on Banning Ranch, the property would contribute open space/parkland to the City if it is annexed. NBRL's willingness to preserve and/or fund open space and parkland, in addition to Quimby Act requirements, is not analyzed in EIR, because no specific proposals for development of the property have been presented or analyzed.

N-19
LOS E has been deemed acceptable in the context of cumulative development (including regional growth) at some study area locations. It is the intent and recommendation of the Transportation Study and Draft EIR that LOS E will be the adopted standard at specified intersections only.

N-20

Page 3 ends

Every intersection improvement recommended in either Exhibit CE-3 of the General Plan Circulation Element or Table ES-9 of the General Plan Transportation Study has been reviewed by the project team, including the City Traffic Engineer, and been deemed most feasible of the evaluated improvements.

Infeasible improvements have been discussed and removed from further consideration, resulting in the revised LOS standard (LOS E) at certain City intersections. It is also recognized, however, that future conditions may vary from the projections in the traffic study. Therefore, the recommended Circulation Element policies specifically allow for alternate improvements, as long as the resulting LOS conforms to the recommended City standards.
10-146 City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR

I�
From: Bettencourt, Philip by L Meadows [ mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Thursday, June 08, 2006 5:22 PM
To: Ramirez, Gregg
Cc: Temple, Patty; Woodie Tescher; Wood, Sharon; Selich, Edward Subject: City of Newport Beach: Draft EIR SCH #200601119 Gregg, I am writing in response to the invitation to the public to provide comments and raise questions regarding the subject DEIR as it relates to the General Plan 2006 Update:
• Table 3.3. The DEIR contemplates a mix of 687 MFR units and 688 SFR (A) units and ancillary structures at the Banning Ranch.

What are the implications from a General Plan consistency standpoint if the ultimate zoning document and Local Coastal Plan determine that a different mix is appropriate?
• Table 3.3. The DEIR contemplates 4,300 MFR units for the Airport Area, but the City Council has already provisionally selected a lesser number for the final land use document. Could it be that some mitigation measures and some public facility areas, such as parks, are now excessive given the reduction of permitted intensity?
• Table 3.3. The Table contemplates a growth of commercial square footage in the Airport Area from 871,500 to 888,620 square feet. The Industrial entitlement of 551,930, however, is slashed to zero. What happens to holders of existing unutilized Commercial and/or Industrial entitlement who are not yet ready to switch to the mixed -use opportunity?
• Figure 4.1-1. Please cite the statutory reference for the Shoreline Zone.
• Figure 4.1-1. The text defines a "coastal view road" for much of Mariner's Mile, but none of the other beach street end vistas. Is that an environmental issue? Why don't the nondesignated vistas also qualify? 11
• Figure 4.1-13. The text suggests the adoption of a coast view roads standard, but does not discuss the standards for eligibility. • Figure 4.1-33. The text discusses the number and size of 41 residential villages and a mandate for four (4) mixed -use villages and a minimum neighborhood size of ten acres. Is this policy still relevant with the recent slashing of opportunities in the Airport 3 rd
5 0
7 Area? Wouldn't it be possible to still create a cohesive, mixed -use neighborhood and achieve desired community planning objectives on 7 a smaller parcel? 41
• Finally, why do the aesthetics and visual quality of the neighborhood mandate a minimum parcel size in the Airport Area, 8 but not on the West Newport Mesa, for instance?
• Figure 4.1-37. Open space dedication or preservation. Please discuss further the environmental values of safe public access to g coastal bluffs, particularly if such bluffs include environmentally sensitive habitat areas where access is discouraged.
• Figure 4.8-28. Relocation and clustering of oil operations is suggested if acquisition for open space is not successful. Can one then assume that relocation and clustering is not necessary or 1 desirable if the public acquires the area, and plans active parks and trails?
• Figure 4.1-29. What are the environmental impacts and objective standard for the selection of a community park of a minimum of 30 acres? Even assuming full build out at the residential density now 11 under study, such a park would be twice as large as required by the City's existing Park exaction standard applicable to all other properties.

Thank you for your courtesy and for your attention.

B. Stouffer for
Philip Bettencourt
Bettencourt and Associates
110 Newport Center Drive, Suite 150
Newport Beach, Ca 92660
949-720-0970
Fax 949-721-9921
www.bettencourtplans.com

Response to Comment Letter P
Letter from Philip Bettencourt, received June 8, 2006
P-1
The Draft General Plan establishes a maximum limit of 1,375 residential units on Banning Ranch (Table LU1) and does not disaggregate these into single and multi -family units. Policy LU 6.4.2 requires that the development of housing on the property would "... consist of a mix of single-family detached, attached, and multi -family units to provide a range of choices and prices for residents" and does not quantify the number of units within each category. The housing types specified by the Draft EIR represent an assumed mix and is not regulatory. Thus, deviations from this mix by subsequent zoning and/or Local Coastal Plan designations would not affect their consistency with the adopted General Plan. However, it is likely that additional CEQA analysis would be required.

P-2
As the proposed General Plan Update is undergoing refinement through a series of Planning Commission and City Council public hearings, the City Council has directed that the maximum number of residential units in the Airport Area be reduced to 2,200. In concert with this change, all the proposed policies governing residential development in the Airport Area will be revised to be consistent with the reduced number. These revisions may reduce impacts below those identified in the Draft EIR. The project evaluated in the EIR represents an umbrella, or worst -case scenario, of potential impacts that could be identified with implementation of the proposed General Plan Update. It should be noted that the Draft EIR does not include any mitigation measures.

P-3
The Mixed Use B2 land use category allows commercial office and industrial use, as well as residential. It does not force property owners to change to the residential use that is also allowed.

Draft EIR Table 3.3 indicates the maximum amount of change that could occur if the Project Description land uses are fully implemented. It should be noted, that the Draft General Plan permits the area to be fully developed according to the existing General Plan land use designations and conversion of industrial or other uses for housing or other uses is defined as a permissive policy option for development applicants. Thus, entitlements for industrial uses could still be processed in accordance with the existing General Plan and zoning requirements.

P-4
The Shoreline Height Limitation Zone is established in Ordinance 92-3, and is referenced in Section

20.56.040 of the Zoning Code.

P-5
While not all of the City's many coastal viewpoints are identified and called out in the text, the City's most prominent coastal viewing locations are identified and protected by policies in the General Plan and City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 10-149

in the City's Local Coastal Program. Figures 4.1-1 through 4.1-3 and page 4.1-9 of the Draft EIR identify the City's significant public coastal view points and view roads, and the City's Coastal Land Use Plan Policies 4.4.1-1 through 10 protect highly scenic areas. Impact 4.1-1 on page 4.1-16 of the Draft EIR also lists other regulations and protective policies in the General Plan to ensure that new development does not significantly impact public viewpoints or scenic vistas.

P-6
This comment refers to Figure 4.1-13 in the Draft EIR, which does not exist; it is assumed that the commenter is referring to Figures 4.1-1 through 3. The legend on this figure refers to the Coastal View Roads that are identified on the map; it does not suggest the adoption of standards.

P-7
Figure 4.1-33 does not appear in the Draft EIR, and the figure to which this comment is referring is unclear. However, it is assumed that this is a comment on Figure LU 23 and the policies related to residential development in the Airport Area. As the proposed General Plan Update is undergoing refinement through a series of Planning Commission and City Council public hearings, the City Council has directed that the maximum number of residential units in the Airport Area be reduced to 2,200. In concert with this change, all the proposed policies governing residential development in the Airport Area will be revised to be consistent with the reduced number.

P-8
This is a comment on the Draft General Plan, rather than on the Draft EIR.

P-9
Figure 4.1-37 does not appear in the Draft EIR, and the figure to which this comment is referring is unclear. It is not possible to respond to this comment.

P-10
Figure 4.8-28 does not appear in the Draft EIR, and the figure to which this comment is referring is unclear. However, Land Use Policy 6.5.1, which states, "Relocate and cluster oil operations," pertains to both land use options (Draft General Plan page 3-72).

P-11
Figure 4.1-29 does not appear in the Draft EIR, and the figure to which this comment is referring is unclear. However, with respect to parkland dedication on Banning Ranch, the EIR does not prescribe an amount of parkland that would be required in order to offset demands on recreation, as that would be considered during project -specific analysis. It is anticipated that the specific parkland requirements resulting from any development on Banning Ranch would be met by dedication of parkland on -site.

Specific requirements for parkland dedication (i.e., active parkland or open space with trails) would be determined at the time a specific development application for the property is developed, and would be consistent with City requirements for new development.
10-150 City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR

SANDRA GENIS, PLANNING RESOURCES
1586 MYRTLEWOOD COSTA MESA, CA. 92626 PHONE/FAX (714) 754-0814 June 13, 2006
Gregg B. Ramirez
City of Newport Beach
(949) 644-3219
3300 Newport Boulevard
NewportBeach, CA 92685-8915
PL 01~ ' `iw 0 �,
SA C1T�f�l'11�xx.� ;_;:.;_�z_,3
k.. .`i�9 �-.. �'11`^.��h�.—.._.rye
BEACH
All July 2006 M.

Z10191101111121112, ' s e
Subject: DEIR (SCH#2006011119), CNB General Plan Update Dear Mr. Ramirez,
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the City of Newport Beach General Plan 2006 Update in Orange County, Ca. (SCH#2006011119) These comments are submitted on behalf of Stop Polluting Our Newport, Greenlight, and myself
We appreciate the five day extension of time granted by the City for commenting on the DEIR, but note that some members of the public had difficulty accessing the Technical Background Reports at realistic times for working people. We note further that appendices to the DEIR Traffic Study were not posted on-line at nbvision2025.com as the DEIR stated they were, nor 1 were they in the Newport Beach public library, but were made available only after repeated requests. Likewise, numerous other documents referenced in the DEIR as providing important information, such as stormwater plans, were not readily available. We therefore find it reasonable for the City to continue to take comments on the DEIR beyond today's deadline.

The City is reminded that:

The EIR is also intended to demonstrate to an apprehensive citizenry that the agency has, in fact, analyzed and considered the ecological implications of its action. Since the EIR must be certified or rejected by public officials, it is a document of accountability. If CEQA is scrupulously followed, the public will know the basis on which its responsible officials either approve or reject environmentally significant action, and the public, being duly informed, can respond accordingly to action with which it disagrees. The EIR process protects not only the environment but also informed self- government. County ofAmador v. El Dorado County Water Agency (76 Cal.AppAth 933)

Page 1 of 26 ends

The DEIR
The DEIR is a program ETR intended to address the effects of the major amendment/update of the Newport Beach General Plan. In conjunction with the Technical Background Report, the DEIR document is intended to fulfill the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) for the project.

The amendment includes changes in land use designations for specific areas as well as changes in citywide policies. However, the DEIR identifies only the new land use designations, providing no map or description of existing designations. Likewise, citywide policy changes are not identified. A strikeout/underline presentation of new and deleted land use designations and mapping as well as new policies, deleted policies and altered policies is essential if decision makers are to make a complete and meaningful assessment of the proposed project. In order to prevent the document from becoming too unwieldy, this could be provided in an appendix.

As presented, members of the general public must ferret out many of the changes on their own.

This is contrary to the purposes of CEQA (Environmental Planning & Information Council v.

County of El Dorado (1982) 131 Cal.App.3d 350, 357 [182 Ca1.Rptr. 317]; Planning and Conservation League v. Department of Water Resources and Central Coast Water Authority, 84 Cal.App.4th 315A, [100 Cal.Rptr.2d 173]). While each section of the analysis presents a list of relevant policies, the DEIR does not indicate if the policies are new policies, old policies, or new versions of old policies.
2 Even the DEIR itself falls prey to the difficulty presented by the lack of a clear identification of policy changes. For example, the DEIR indicates that policies in the Natural Resources Element will provide new protections not previously provided for resources outside the Coastal Zone. 3 However, the policies in question echo those that have been part of the Land Use Element and Recreation and Open Space Element for decades.

The DEIR must provide a stable complete, and accurate project description.

A stable, complete, and accurate project description is the most basic and important factor in preparing a lawful EIR. It is the denominator of the document and, thus, of the public's and decision -maker's review. It is critical that the project description be as clear and complete as possible so that the issuing agency and other responsible agencies may make informed decisions regarding a proposed project. Without a clear definition of the activities to be undertaken, the EIR becomes useless.

As noted above, citywide policy changes are not identified. The Project Description (DEIR Section 3) merely provides general, one -size -fits -all descriptions of the function of each general plan element.

Some of the policy changes proposed for the General Plan Update could have major consequences for future development. For example, the proposed general plan would abandon the concept of flexible floor area ratios, (FARs) linking allowable floor area to traffic generation by a use. This allowed coordination of land use and circulation planning. Where the proposed Cl

Page 2 of 27 ends

general plan specifies a range of allowable FARs, as stated in Policy LU 4.1:

The densities/Intensities of development are intended to convey maximum and, in some cases, minimums that may be permitted on any parcel within the designation...

The policy makes no reference traffic generation related to allowable floor area, but applies the same maximum FAR in a given area across the board. In most cases, the maximums in the update reflect the maximum FAR that would have been permitted for only low traffic generating uses under the adopted general plan. The DEIR fails to identify this change. 0 The existing general plan prohibits subdivision of individual lots such that additional units would be provided for numerous areas of the city, including but not limited to Newport Heights, Cliff Haven, Eastbluff, Cameo Shores, Harbor View Hills, Spyglass Hill, and others. Based on the density levels proposed for such areas, some of the largest individual lots in these areas could be subdivided to provide new units or two adjacent, large lots could be combined to allow three 5 units. The DEIR fails to identify this change or identify any additional units to be provided.

This change is of particular concern because the proposed general plan abandons the concept of "buildable acreage" which excluded steep slopes from density calculations, another change the DEIR fails to identify.

The general plan update provides for density bonuses for affordable housing, construction of green buildings, consolidation of small lots, provision of marine support services, relocation of marine uses, and provision of usable open space accessible to the public. In addition, state law provides for density bonuses for senior housing and transit oriented development.

The DEIR fails to address, or even identify, the additional development that would be provided 41 through density bonus. It is noted that the draft housing element fails to quantify how many dwelling units at what affordability levels will be provided through density bonuses, also. The draft general plan indicates that density bonuses would only be provided for developments exceeding a basic twenty percent inclusionary standard. However, as stated in Section 65915 of 6 the California Government Code, a density bonus of twenty to thirty-five percent or equivalent concessions or incentives is to be provided. Is the City prepared to offer concessions and incentives in -lieu of the required density bonus? If so, these must be identified and discussed in the DEIR.

While the DEIR calls out nine areas for specific discussion, the DEIR also indicates that "other areas" may be subject to land use changes, but changes in these areas are not quantified. Further, although a table is presented which quantifies changes for the nine specific areas, the sum of the parts adds up to more development than the total presented in the DEIR. For example, Table 3-3 indicates that multi -family residential will increase from 30,159 units citywide under the existing general plan to 33,992 units citywide under the proposed plan, an increase of 3,833 units. Yet, when increases in each of the nine individual areas are added together, the total increase in multi- family units would be 5,796, not including any changes in allowable units elsewhere in the city.

Similarly, Table 3-3 shows that allowable office development city wide will decrease by 1.7 7

Page 3 of 27 ends

million square feet, dropping from 14,576, 930 square feet to 12,867,500 square feet. This is important because the DEIR indicates elsewhere that some impacts created by the increase in residential development would be offset by decreases in office use. However, when the changes in office development presented for each of the nine areas are added together, the decrease in office use totals only 1.4 million square feet.

Further, the numbers in Table 3-3 do not fully reflect the changes in land use designations. For example, the existing general plan allows office uses in the Hoag Hospital area to develop at a base FAR of .5 with a FAR of .75 allowed for low traffic generating uses. The proposed update would allow a FAR of 1.25, more than double the base FAR and two thirds greater than the allowable FAR for low traffic generating uses, yet the DEIR projects only about a thirty percent increase in square footage beyond that shown to be permitted under the exiting general plan..

As stated in McQueen v. Board of Directors of the Mid -Peninsula Regional Open Space District (202 Cal.App.3d 1136, 1143; 249 Cal.Rptr. 439), "An accurate project description is necessary for an intelligent evaluation of potential environmental effects of a proposed activity". In setting aside the approval of an EM by the City of Los Angeles for water development facilities in Inyo County, the court stated: "An accurate, stable and finite project description is the most basic and important factor in preparing a lawful EIR" (County of Inyo v. City of Los Angeles (71 Cal.App. 3d 193) [139 Cal.Rptr. 401]).

A vague or ambiguous project description will render all further analyses and determinations ineffectual. Thus, the EIR must be revised to reflect a stable, accurate and complete description of the proposed project with analyses reworked accordingly and recirculated.

The DKER must use a stable baseline.

Section 15125 (a) of the Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) provides that:
(a) An EIR must include a description of the physical environmental conditions in the vicinity of the project, as they exist at the time the notice of preparation is published, or if no notice of preparation is published, at the time environmental analysis is commenced, from both a local and regional perspective. This environmental setting will normally constitute the baseline physical conditions by which a lead agency determines whether an impact is significant...

Use of the term "normally" may be considered to provide discretion for the lead agency.

Although the Notice of Preparation for the DEIR was issued January 2006, in this case the city has chosen to utilize a baseline of 2002 to represent the existing setting. However, the use of the baseline is not entirely consistent. The discussion of police services, for example, considers a 2005 staffing baseline. Parkland needs are based on 2005 figures.

Use of the 2002 retrospective baseline has created some degree of confusion for the preparers, complicated by the annexation of the Newport Coast area in 2002. An example would be Section 4.10, Population and Housing, which uses a housing baseline consisting of all housing existing in the planning area in 2002, whether or not the units were within the incorporated city at the time, but uses a population baseline of only those persons residing within the city boundary.
7 0
9

Page 4 of 27 ends

To calculate the population increase at general plan buildout, the DEIR multiplied the increase in housing units times persons per households. The increase in units is quite reasonably based on the 40,179 units existing in the entire planning area in 2002, although, as reported in State Department of Finance (DOF) Table E-5, Population and Housing Estimates, only 38,009 of these units were then located within the city limits. At that time, DOF estimated that 72,622 persons resided in the 38,009 units within the city.

The remainder of the 40,179 units existing in the planning area in 2002 (2,170 units) were within the unincorporated Newport Coast. This area was annexed in 2002. Accordingly, Table E-5 shows dwelling units within the city increasing substantially, to 41,590 with population increasing to 81,433.

Unfortunately, to calculate total future population, the DEIR does not consider the population residing in the 2,170 dwelling units existing in Newport Coast in 2002. Instead, the DEIR adds the population which would reside in the increase in housing units above the 40,179 existing within the 2002 city boundaries and Newport Coast to the 2002 population residing within the 2002 city boundaries alone. This eliminates the people residing in Newport Coast in 2002 from the population total for the planning area, now and in the future. Based on the 2.19 persons per unit figure used in the DEIR, this equates to approximately 4,750 people. This population underestimate affects other areas of analysis in the DEIR, particularly public services and utility use.

The DEIR must examine impacts outside the Newport Beach city boundary.

The DEIR presents only analyses of impacts within the City of Newport Beach. Although the Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) at Hospital Road and Newport Boulevard would increase by .29 and .26 in the am and pm peak hours respectively, no analysis is presented for intersections to the north along Newport Boulevard, including the highly congested intersection of Newport Boulevard and Seventeenth Street. Although the proposed plan calls for the construction of a bridge over the Santa Ana River at Nineteenth Street, the DEIR fails to even mention impacts on the cities of Costa Mesa or Huntington Beach, where the bridge and approaches would be located. Consideration of air pollution hot spots stops at the city border.

Although the draft general plan document identifies a shortage of parkland in Newport Beach, a shortage which would be exacerbated by the large increase in population contemplated by the plan, no consideration is given to impacts on recreational facilities in other communities.

The city is reminded that "Effects of environmental abuse are not contained by political lines" (Bozung v. Local Agency Formation Com. (1975) 13 Cal.3d 263, 118 Cal.Rptr. 249, 529 P.2d 1017). As stated in Environmental Defense Fund, Inc. v. C7oastside County Water Dist., 27 Cal.App.3d 695, 704--705, 104 C'al.Rpir. 197 :
'The preparation of the EIR demands thoughtful consideration of public interests transcending such necessary elements as always have been present... Those who prepare the EIR may not limit their vision by the boundaries of the district...

The DEIR must be revised to address impacts on the communities of Costa Mesa, Huntington Beach, and Irvine due to traffic, noise, air emissions, public service demand and other issues that may affect those communities,
9 10

Page 5 of 27 ends

The DEIR must consider cumulative erowth outside the city boundary.

As stated in Section 15130 (b) in the Guidelines for the Implementation of CEQA:

The following elements are necessary to an adequate discussion of significant cumulative impacts:
(1)Either:
(A) A list of past, present, and probable future projects producing related or cumulative impacts, including, if necessary, those projects outside the control of the agency, or
(B) A summary of projections contained in an adopted general plan or related planning document, or in a prior environmental document which has been adopted or certified, which described or evaluated regional or areawide conditions contributing to the cumulative impact. Any such planning document shall be referenced and made available to the public at a location specified by the lead agency.

The DEIR indicates that it relied on adopted areawide plans for assessment of cumulative impacts where such is provided. However, since the 2002 baseline, surrounding communities have approved development beyond that contained in planning programs in place in 2002. These include the Westside Revitalization Plan and 1901 Newport Boulevard projects in Costa Mesa, Pacific City in Huntington Beach, and increased development in the Irvine Business Complex.

The City of Newport Beach was aware of and commented on several of these. In any case, very little information is provided regarding regional or areawide conditions nor is a location for review of relevant documents identified.

The DEIR improperly takes a comparative/ratio approach rather than a combined/com pound approach to cumulative impacts.

In some cases the DEIR limits consideration of cumulative impacts to only the planning area, but in others, the DEIR considers the county as a whole or even the entire Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) region. The DEIR 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 total population growth." However, this comparative/ratio approach is clearly not consistent with either the letter or the spirit of Section 21083 (b), which states:
a project may have a "significant effect on the environment" if any of the following conditions exist...
(2) The possible effects of a project are individually limited but cumulatively considerable. As used in this paragraph, "cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of an individual project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.
11 12

Page 6 of 27 ends

As stated in Section 15355(b) of the Guidelines for the Implementation of CEQA, cumulative impacts can result from individually minor but collectively significant projects taking place over a period of time.

The rationale for considering cumulative impacts in combination is well summed up in Kings County Farm Bureau v. City of Hanford (1990) 221 Cal, App.3d 692, In Kings County:

The EIR's analysis uses the magnitude of the current ozone problem in the air basin in order to trivialize the project's impact. In simple terms, the EIR reasons the air is already bad, so even though emissions from the project will make it worse, the impact is insignificant.

The point is not that, in terms of ozone levels, the proposed Hanford project will result in the ultimate collapse of the environment into which it is to be placed. The significance of an activity depends upon the setting. (Guidelines, § 15064, subd. (b).) The relevant question to be addressed in the EIR is not the relative amount of precursors emitted by the project when compared with preexisting emissions, but whether any additional amount of precursor emissions should be considered significant in light of the serious nature of the ozone problems in this air basin...

Appellants... contend in assessing significance the EIR focuses upon the ratio between the project's impacts and the overall problem, contrary to the intent of CEQA. [emphasis added]
The court then quoted Selmi's Judicial Development of CEQA as follows:
"One of the most important environmental lessons evident from past experience is that environmental damage often occurs incrementally from a variety of small sources. These sources appear insignificant, assuming threatening dimensions only when considered in light of the other sources with which they interact... This judicial concern often is reinforced by the results of cumulative environmental analysis; the outcome may appear startling once the nature of the cumulative impact problem has been grasped." (&Imi, Judicial Development of CEQA (1984) 18 U.C. Davis L.Rev. 197, 244, fn. omitted.)
The court continued:

We agree with the foregoing assessment of a cumulative impacts analysis. We find the analysis used in the EIR and urged by GWF avoids analyzing the severity of the problem... Under GWF's "ratio" theory, the greater the overall problem, the less significance a project has in a cumulative impacts analysis. We conclude the standard for a cumulative impacts analysis is defined by the use of the term "collectively significant" in Guidelines section 15355 and the analysis must assess the collective or combined effect of ... development.

Likewise in Los Angeles Unified &pool Dist. v. City of Los Angeles (1997) 58 Cal.AppAth 1019 the court stated:
12

Page 7 of 27 ends

... the relevant issue to be addressed... is not the relative amount of traffic noise resulting from the project when compared to existing traffic noise, but whether any additional amount of traffic noise should be considered significant in light of the serious nature of the traffic noise problem already existing It is not enough that impacts are minimized in an individual project or plan. Even if the impacts of a project or plan have been mitigated to a level of insignificance, a significant cumulative effect may still occur. To assume otherwise is "at odds with the concept of cumulative effect", as stated in Environmental Protection Information Center, Inc. v. Johnson (1985) 170 Cal.App.3d 604:

CDF ... stated that... operations in general had to substantially lessen significant adverse impacts on the environment, and closed with this comment: `To address the cumulative effect issue the Department has taken the tact [sic] that if the adverse effects are minimized to the maximum on each individual operation, then the total effect in the surrounding area will also be minimized to an acceptable level.'
This statement is at odds with the concept of cumulative effect, which assesses cumulative damage as a whole greater than the sum of its parts... Such impacts may be of past, present or future existence. (Ibid.)
The DEIR imp ro erl concludes that future impacts will be fully miti ated due to future environmental documentation.

The DEIR asserts in many cases that no impacts will occur do to future development allowed or necessitated by the proposed plan because future environmental review would be required pursuant to CEQA. Examples are potentially significant impacts due to housing development and public service facilities. However, the City and preparers well know that preparation of an EIR provides not guarantee that all impacts will be avoided or mitigated to a level of insignificance. Page 1-7 of the DEIR acknowledges as much and explains the process for adoption of a Statement of Overriding Considerations in order to allow approval of a project which would create significant impacts.

In addition, there is no guarantee that additional environmental review would ever occur. In many circumstances, CEQA (Pubic Resources Code 21159.24) exempts infill residential projects from further environmental review if CEQA review was previously completed for a community - level plan.

Specific Flaws in the DEIR
In addition to the essential systemic flaws discussed above, we have the comments and questions below on how specific information in the DEIR is presented. Each of these items are themselves, though, so basic that each must be addressed in order for the DEIR to be considered legally adequate and to provide decision makers and the public with the information needed to evaluate the proposed project and its impacts
12 13

Page 8 of 27 ends

Proiect Description and Summary

1. Page 2-2 and 3-17 indicate that development outside the nine subareas would retain the "basic land use character" of existing uses" and remain "relatively unchanged". "Relative" to what? The DEIR must identify all changes in land use provided under the proposed 14 general plan update, including acreage affected, square footage involved, and maps showing proposed land uses.

2. What land use intensification would result "throughout the city" per Page 2-3? Where? How 15 much?

3. How many units would be eliminated or added at the 15`i' street/ Irvine site? How many 16 acres would be affected?

4. How much office space would be eliminated at the old Mariners Medical/Dover Drive site? 17 How many dwelling units would be provided? How many acres would be affected?

5. How many acres is the Caltrans remnant at SR73 and MacArthur? How many square feet of 18 commercial development would be accommodated? Can safe access be easily taken to this site?

6. How many dwelling units would be provided at the former child care site at San Miguel? S 19

7. How many additional units, if any, would be provided at the senior housing/church site at • Pacific View? 20

8. Table 2-1 indicates that an additional 120 acres of parks will be provided. Where will these 21 be located? Where are they mapped?

9. How will the proposed general plan update, which allows massive new construction, provide effective means of complying with Charter Section 423, Protection from Traffic and 22 Density?

10. What changes in state law is the update intended to address? Specifically where and how in 23 the draft document are the changes addressed?

11. How are "underperforming" properties defined? I 24

12. Table 3-2 presents citywide acreage of existing land uses. What will be the citywide acreage • of uses under the adopted and proposed general plans? 25

13. As noted above, the numbers in Table 3-3 contain certain anomalies. All numbers in Table t 26 3-3 must be verified and corrected or clarified. 1

14. Will changes in development outside the nine specific areas balance apparent anomalies? If so, the changes must be identified both as to specific location and square footage of use. 27

15. Increased development in other areas of the city, outside the nine areas discussed at length must be identified, by use, square footage and area. 28

16. How will the plan address properties rendered nonconforming by the proposed update? 29

Page 9 of 27 ends

17. As stated in Policy LU 4.1:

The densities/Intensities of development are intended to convey maximum and, in some cases, minimums that may be permitted on any parcel within the designation... 30
Does this mean that some property owners will be required to expand development which is under the minimum? Would permits be denied for buildings that are too small? How many additional square feet of mandatory minimum development would occur on properties that are not currently built to the minimum?
Aesthetics and Visual Ouality

1. The maps of coastal views do not include the Newport Coast area. Views from this area 31 must be mapped along with those for the rest of the City.

2. The following viewpoints have been included in previous City documents as important viewpoints, but are not identified in the DEIR as viewpoints:
• Constellation near Santiago
• N Street/channel Road
• Eastbluff Park
+ Promontory Point East
+ 10th Street beach
32 • 19th Street beach
+ Promontory Bay at Harbor Island Drive
• Promontory Bay at Bayside Drive
• Entrance to Balboa Island
• Beach and bay street ends
Are these areas no longer considered scenic? Have views degraded?

3. Thresholds of significance should include shade and shadowing of surrounding areas. As increased building intensity and height is contemplated this issue is of increasing concern and 33 must be addressed in the DEIR.

4. How can Policy NR 22.1 be said to protect views of the water when it specifically suggests amending the Shoreline Height Limitation Zone to allow increased height? 34 S. How would increased building height adjacent to the bluffs affect views of the bluffs? s 35

6. How will the bluffs themselves be affected? Will they be modified? At what locations? 136

Page 10 of 27 ends

7. What part of Policy LU 6.19.9 requires that views be unobstructed? On the contrary, it appears to allow obstruction of major portions of views so long as "view corridors" are 37 maintained. This is a significant impact that must be addressed.

8. What will be the minimum width for view corridors? On average, what percent of a lot 38 would be maintained as a view corridor? How much view obstruction would be permitted?

9. The proposed land use intensities would most likely require the construction of parking structures in many areas. Unlike parking structures, surface parking often includes landscaped edges and interior tree wells/landscaping and can offer open space relief or 39 opportunities for views across unoccupied spaces to scenic areas beyond. This is a potentially significant impact that must be addressed.

10. Is it the intention to replace "underperforming" residential development with McMansions? 40

Page 4 ends

11. It appears that proposed policies for West Coast Highway would likely result in higher commercial intensities, construction of parking structures, placement of buildings away from the highway and closer to residences. Impacts on the residents must be addressed, including 41 increased shade and shadow.

12. The DEIR must address the impact of increased numbers of structures along Newport Center Drive. How will a "walled off' feeling be avoided for those driving on the roadway? Will 42 there be more parking structures at Newport Center?

13. The impact of increased building height in the Hoag Hospital area must be addressed, including scale, views, light, glare, and shadowing.
43 14. Will existing Iandscape setbacks and other open areas in the airport area be maintained or will they be converted to residential development or parking structures? How can open space in the area be maintained if development proceeds at the intensities proposed and with the 44 provision of adequate parking? What building heights are contemplated?

15. Is the city committed to saving all the bluffs and landforms discussed in the DEIR? If not, 45 the impacts of altering these landforms must be addressed.

16. What bluff setback will be required at Banning Ranch, if development eventually proceeds? S 46

17. Policy 5.5.2 does not prohibit use of reflective surface materials as stated in the DEIR, only • materials which would raise local temperatures or affect wind patterns. If the policy is not revised to prohibit use of reflective glass, then reflected glare could create a significant 47 impact which must be addressed. This would include impacts on drivers on local roadways and impacts on avifauna in addition to purely aesthetic impacts.

18. While the DEIR indicates that certain policies will ensure a visually pleasing environment, the policies are, to a large extent, statements of aspiration as opposed to mandates for future action. The City of Newport Beach has no design review board. How will the City 48 "encourage" the desired end stated in policies regarding visual character?

Page 11 of 27 ends

19. The visual affect of night lighting higher structures must be addressed both in terms of light spillage and overall aesthetic character of an area. Of particular concern would impacts in areas which do not now have streetlights and which have actively resisted installation of 49 streetlights such as Newport Heights which could be negatively affected by night lighting in the Hag Hospital area as well as Mariners Mile.

20. The DEIR repeatedly notes the unique character and visual scale of Newport Beach, which is one of the things that makes the city highly desirable as a place to live and for tourists to visit as opposed to, say, Marina del Rey. How can the proposed intensification of uses in the 50 beach and harbor areas at locations such as Mariners Mile and Cannery Village proceed without destroying that unique character?
Air Quality

1. The DEIR must address potential impacts outside the City of Newport Beach, particularly along major traffic corridors. The potential for carbon monoxide hot spots at locations along such corridors as Newport Boulevard in Costa Mesa and Campus Drive, Jamboree, and 51 Macarthur in Irvine must be examined both in terms of the proposed project alone and its contribution to cumulative impacts in these areas. 46

2. Although air quality in Orange County is generally fairly good, air quality is somewhat degraded along some of the major data regional transportation corridors. Data maintained by the South Coast Air Quality Management District indicate that excess cancer risk due to air pollution is in the 1,250 to 1,500 range per one million population for the area where the 52 Newport Freeway, San Diego Freeway, and San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor meet.

The DEIR must examine how project generated traffic may contribute to the total, either on a project or cumulative basis with growth in other communities. 46

3. What other growth in the area not accounted for in AQMP projections would contribute to the cumulative impacts on air quality. 53
Biological Resources

1. Dune habitat is an important habitat that should be discussed as part of the environmental setting. In addition to dune habitat at Peninsula Point, the DEIR should identify dune habitat 54 to be restored in West Newport under order of the California Coastal Commission.

2. The DEIR section on Cultural Resources (4.4) provides a listing of relevant Local Coastal Program policies as part of the local regulatory framework. Such a listing would be helpful 55 in DEIR Section 4.3, Biological Resources,

3. It should be noted that the Local Coastal Program indicates that ESAs provide "preliminary mapping of areas containing potential ESHAs". This does not exclude from consideration and review other, previously overlooked, areas that may contain sensitive resources. The impacts of using an alternate definition in the proposed general plan should be examined, 56 specifically the implication that no investigation of potential resources would be pursued in other areas, even if evidence were submitted or a fair argument were made that resources might exist on a development site elsewhere. 11

Page 12 of 27 ends

4. Inasmuch as policy NR 10.3 protects resources only in "identified ESAs", how would other, previously overlooked resources be protected and impacts mitigated? The general plan must 57 not close the door to preservation of other potentially valuable resources. 41

5. The DEIR must address potential affects on other biological resources of potential value 40 including but not limited to Cliff Drive Park west side (Avon Street Wetlands), Castaways Park wetlands along Dover Drive, Castaways Park CSS established as part of park 58 restoration, Bayview Landing (now Back Bay View Park), Jamboree/MacArthur Intersection, Bonita Creek, and Newport Center Park.

6. Policies in the proposed general plan update would allow additional docks and other 41 structures over open coastal waters (NR 14.5). The policy requires only that visual effects be 59 addressed, not impacts on the marine environment. The DEIR must examine the impact of the additional docks and loss of open water, with special attention to loss of light. 40

7. The DEIR must examine the effect of even minor night lighting biological resources, including pelagic species. The preparers are referred to Ecological Consequences of 60 Artrficial Night Lighting by Travis Longeore and Catherine Rich.

8. Policies in the Safety Element would allow additional seawalls and protective devices. The DEIR must examine the impacts of the proposed structures as well as alternatives such as increased setbacks. It is suggested that policies limit shoreline protective devices to those 61 needed to protect development existing at the effective date of the proposed Safety Element, should it be adopted.

9. The proposed general plan update would allow the placement of public buildings in public open space under certain conditions (NR 17.2). The impact of any such construction must be 62 examined.

10. The DEIR indicates that development would be precluded on "most" sites containing riparian 63 resources. Where would it not be precluded? With what impact?

11. It should be noted that resource protection policies are also contained in the adopted Land Use Element and Recreation and Open Space Element. Thus, noncoastal resources are not 64 unprotected, as represented in the DEIR.

12. The threshold to be discussed Section 4.3-2 addresses riparian and "other sensitive communities". However, the DEIR addresses only riparian communities. Potential impacts 65 on other sensitive communities must be addressed.

13. Impacts on wetlands may occur due to sedimentation and polluted runoff. This must be 66 addressed in the DEIR.

14. As noted in the DEIR: 67
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

Page 13 of 27 ends

proiects within the County_would not _prohibit development within areas that contain sensitive natural communities [emphasis .,. added]
On this basis, how can it be concluded that no significant impacts to resources would occur?

15. The Technical Background Report discusses many aspects of habitat value, but then appears 40 to assign habitat ranking purely on the basis of whether or not a permit would be required from resource agencies. The DEIR must discuss implications for species and habitat which 68 has high value but no official status, possibly even because of the large backlog of species not yet reviewed.

16. As noted in the DEIR, wildlife species make considerable use of non-native grasslands for forage, due to the loss of most native grasslands. These areas are not protected under the 69 proposed general plan update. Impacts of loss of grassland on wildlife must be addressed in the DEIR. 41

17. The DEIR must address impacts on biological resources in the area of the Nineteenth Street Bridge which the proposed general plan policies actively support. Resources include the wetlands restoration area adjacent to the Santa Ana River, Salicornza marsh/Belding's 70 savannah sparrow habitat existing in the proposed roadway alignment, willow habitat in the roadway area. The DEIR must also address the reduction in habitat value due to loss of connectivity between habitat areas north and south of the proposed roadway.

18. Under what criteria was it determined whether or not the project would make a 71 "considerable" contribution to countywide impacts on biological resources?

19. The discussion of cumulative impacts makes vague reference to development in other areas 172
of Orange County. What areas and what development does this address?

20. Based on the above, evidence does not exist to support a conclusion that no significant impacts to biological resources would occur.
73 Cultural Resources
The DEIR considers impacts on archaeological and paleontological resources to be less than significant with implementation of proposed general plan policy. However, unless proper 74 curation and storage of artifacts is required, impacts may occur. This has proven to be a problem in Orange County.

Geolom Soils, and Mineral Resources

1. It would be helpful if the discussion of local faulting and ground rupture in the Hazards Assessment Study included in the Technical Background Report, were summarized in the 75 text of Section 4.5.

2. The DEIR states that no impacts would occur under the following threshold:
41 41
Would the project expose people of structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving rupture of a known 76 earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake

Page 14 of 27 ends

Fault Zoning Map issues by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault?
The DEIR limits its discussion only to formal Alquist-Priolo special studies areas, ignoring other substantial evidence in its own Technical Background Report. As stated in the Hazards Assessment Study:

Converse Consultants (1994) found a small fault, the West Mesa fault, near the western terminus of West 16th Street... The West Mesa fault trends between 5 and 30 degrees west of north, and is interpreted to have moved in the last 11,000 years, making it active.... Earth Consultants International (1997) did find another small active fault about 600 feet to the south of the Converse study ... Further, in reviewing previous work in the Newport Mesa area, Earth Consultants International (1997) concluded that a narrow fault zone mapped by The Earth Technology Corporation (1986) was not conclusively shown to be inactive... several inches of ground offset could cause severe damage to overlying structures...

The DEIR must discuss the above threshold in the light of the above material. 76 3. The TBR goes on to recommend the following policy:

It is herein recommended that a "fault disclosure zone" be placed along the area between the mapped alignments of the North and South branches of the 77 Newport -Inglewood fault, in the area where recent studies suggest that the recently active traces of the fault are located. The purpose of this fault disclosure zone is to make the public aware of the potential hazard, Why was this policy not included in the Safety Element of the proposed general plan? The DEIR must address this proposal and implications of ignoring this recommendation.

4. The Hazards Assessment Study in the TBR recommends that the City conduct an inventory of potentially hazardous structures, such as concrete tilt -ups, pre 197 1 -reinforced masonry, 78 soft -story buildings, and pre-1952 wood -frame buildings. As stated in the study:
40 Most damage in the City is expected to be to wood -frame residential structures, which amount to more than 57 percent of the building stock in the City. Two of the earthquake scenarios modeled for this study suggest that as much as 65 percent of the residential buildings in the City will experience at least some damage.

While the earthquake hazard mitigation improvements associated with the 1997 UBC address new construction, the retrofit and strengthening of existing structures requires the adoption of ordinances. The City of Newport Beach has adopted an ordinance aimed at retrofitting unreinforced masonry buildings (URMs). Similar ordinances can be adopted for the voluntary or mandatory strengthening of wood -frame residential buildings, pre -cast concrete buildings, and soft -story structures, among others. Although retrofitted

Page 15 of 27 ends

buildings may still incur severe damage during an earthquake, their mitigation results in a substantial reduction of casualties by preventing collapse.

In light of the above information, and the absence of the above recommendations in the proposed Safety Element or anywhere else in the proposed general plan, how can it be stated in the DEIR that people or structures would not be exposed to adverse effects involving strong seismic ground shaking?

5. On what basis can the DEIR make the statement that "Compliance with Policies S 4.4 and S

4.6 would ensure that development is not located on unstable soils or geologic units", when 79 Policies S 4.4 and S 4.6 apply only to essential facilities and no other development? 41 6. In light of the liquefaction hazards identified in the DEIR for the lowland areas adjacent to the Santa Ana River and the potential for ground rupture identified in the DEIR for the west part of the mesa, is construction of a bridge at Nineteenth Street a practical option? The 80 DEIR must examine how construction of the proposed roadway could increase people's exposure to geologic hazards.

7. Based on the above, evidence does not exist to support a conclusion that no significant impacts related to geology and soils would occur. 81
Hazards and Hazardous Material
The DEIR must address how increased traffic congestion, including additional intersection functioning at level of service E or worse, would affect emergency response. This would be of 82 particular concern for areas with limited access, such as the Peninsula. Absent this information, evidence does not exist to support a conclusion that no significant impacts to biological resources would occur.

Hydrology and Water Ouality

1. The DEIR indicates that deficiencies in the City's storm drain facilities exist. These must be 83 identified and mapped.

2. As stated in the Hazard Assessment: •
Sea level rise due to climate warming is expected to amplify coastal hazards such as storm surges, beach erosion, loss of wetlands, and degradation of fresh water quality due to seawater intrusion. A sea level rise of as little as 15 cm (6 inches) could negatively impact the Newport Beach area by flooding and eroding the narrow beaches south of the jetty area, which would result in increased erosion of the bluffs... Based on the historical records from the two gauges closest to Newport Beach, in Los Angeles and San Diego, a 15-cm rise in sea level in the Newport Beach area may take anywhere between 70 and 180 years, assuming that global warming does not accelerate in the next few decades... sea level rise would lead to the permanent inundation of low-lying areas, with potentially significant changes in land use, so it is not too soon to develop longer -term strategies that can be implemented to cope with these changes .... To better constrain the trend in relative sea level change and

Page 16 of 27 ends

predict sea level rise in the Newport Beach area, long-term sea -level gauges AL should be installed and operated on a continuous basis. These measuring devices should also measure tide variations, storm surges and other temporary changes in sea level that occur in response to weather conditions. All data 84 recorded with these gauges should be archived in a format that can be easily retrieved for studies and monitoring of sea -level rise, and to evaluate the impact from storm surge and other coast flooding events, Better predictions of local sea Ievel rise should be developed as these data are obtained.

The DEIR must examine hazards due to rising sea level. Further, the DEIR must address the absence of the above recommendation or other means of addressing rising sea levels in the proposed Safety Element and elsewhere in the proposed general plan.

2. The DEIR must examine how development under the proposed plan would affect the ability of the City to comply with adopted TMDLs. Issues to be examined include current pollution 85 loads and sources and any increases.

3. Because Upper Newport Bay has been identified as an impaired water body, any increase in criteria pollutants would be considered significant. The DEIR lists a number of measures that can be taken as Best Management Practices (BMPs). However, none of the measures 86 listed are one hundred percent effective in removing all pollutants. How, then, can theDEIR conclude that no impact will occur?

4. Mitigation must be required through the application of Best Available Technologies rather than BMPs. BATs are also less than one hundred percent effective, but are more effective 87 than BMPs.

5. How will fertilizers and pesticides from development or parks at Banning Ranch be kept out of Semeniuk Slough? 88

6. The Orange County Groundwater Basin is subject to saltwater intrusion due to groundwater overdraft. How, then, can the DEIR state that groundwater supplies will meet projected demand? If county water users are already consuming more water than can be replaced, 89 how can additional, water -consuming growth continue without impacts?

7. What level of continued annual groundwater pumping is sustainable for the basin over the 90 long term?

8. How much groundwater is pumped annually in the basin? 91

9. How much will the demand for groundwater increase as a result of implementation of the proposed general plan? I 92

10. Increased land use intensities could lead to greater lot coverage and less on -site open space. 41 •
New impervious surfaces will be created by the construction of buildings, parking structures, and, in the airport area, new streets. The DEIR must examine how this could affect drainage 93 and flooding,

Page 17 of 27 ends

11. The DEIR must quantify anticipated increases in storm drainage and examine the ability of 94 drains and pumps to handle any increased runoff.

12. The DEIR must identify any need for expanded storm drainage facilities that would occur as a result of the proposed project alone or cumulatively with other development in the 95 watershed.

13. To ensure that drainage impacts do not occur, it is suggested that the City adopt a maximum 96 lot coverage standard for impervious surfaces.

14. Would additional water storage facilities be required in the city to serve new development? 97 What hazard would such facilities present?

15. The discussion under Impact 4.7-9 appears intended to address the following threshold: 40 Would the proposed project expose people or structures to a significant risk or loss, injury, or death involving flooding, including [but not limited to] flooding as a result of a levee or 98 dam? DEIR limits discussion to levee or dam failure. The DEIR must examine impacts associated with other potential flooding identified in the TBR, including storm surges.

16. It is noted that, while maintaining storm drains is important, storm drains are of limited effectiveness in preventing flooding in low lying areas due to ocean related flood incidents such as storm surges or tsunamis. Storm drains flow to the ocean, so if flood hazards relate to rising water in the ocean, water in the storm drains will rise with the ocean. For this 99 reason the storm drains are equipped with tidal gates. If they did not close, water would come up through the storm drains in addition to coming over sea walls and dunes. AL

17. What other new development is anticipated to occur in the watershed which would 100 contribute to impacts on water quality?

18. The DEIR indicates that degradation of water quality would be minimized but not completely prevented. This being the case, and in light of the sensitive and already impaired 101 nature of the bay, how can it be stated that no significant cumulative impact will occur?

19. What is the effectiveness, in percent of pollutants/contaminants removed, for the control measures cited? What concentration of pollutants/contaminants will remain? What is the cumulative load anticipated over the watershed? What quantified level of pollutant/ 102 contaminant is not significant? Will the measures cited result in pollution/contamination below that level?

20. The Orange County Water District has been pursuing a groundwater recharge program since the 1970s. This has included use of retention basins upstream for infiltration to groundwater and injection of treated wastewater into the water table. Yet, saltwater intrusion has increased over the years. On what basis is it then assumed that the GRS will be adequate to 103 compensate for increased use of groundwater by the increased development permitted under the proposed plan? The DEIR must discuss and map saltwater intrusion levels over time, identify and quantify groundwater overdraft, and quantify any increased pumping by the proposed project and by other cumulative growth.

Page 18 of 27 ends

21. The DEIR must identify the capacity of regional/county storm drains serving the planning area; identify, quantify, and map any deficiencies; and quantify any increased contribution to 104 runoff from development under the proposed general plan. Absent such an analysis, it is impossible to make any conclusions regarding significance of impacts.

22. The appropriate geographic areas for examining impacts on storm drainage would be the watershed/drainage basin, many of which are fairly small, not the entire county. 105

23. Based on the above, evidence does not exist to support a conclusion that no significant impacts related to hydrology and water quality would occur. 106 Land Use and Planning

1. Why is consolidation of commercial development in West Newport and Balboa encouraged in order to minimize conflicts while new areas of mixed use are encouraged elsewhere under 107 the proposed plan?

2. The DEIR indicates that certain areas will be designated for single family residential uses, but the March 27 draft of the general plan currently out for review contains no such 108 designation. This must be resolved.

3. In accordance with Section 15125(d) of the CEQA Guidelines: 1109 The EIR shall discuss any inconsistencies between the proposed project and applicable general plans and regional plans.

This section does not require that an EIR discuss consistencies or evaluate whether a project "generally", on balance, is consistent with many, or even most, of the policies in a plan. The section mandates that inconsistencies be discussed. In that light, it must be found that an inconsistency exists between the proposed plan and the SCAG Regional Comprehensive Plan.

4. Without any investigation, the DEIR assumes that other communities will comply with all regional planning efforts, and therefore no cumulative impacts would occur. The city of Newport Beach intends to amend its general plan to significantly exceed growth anticipated in both the SCAG Regional Comprehensive Plan and SCAQMD planning. Why does it assume that other cities will not do the same?

5. Based on the above, evidence does not exist to support a conclusion that no significant impacts to land use would occur.

Noise
I. Do noise contours reflect any cumulative affects of traffic noise and aircraft noise combined?
112

2. The DEIR indicates that construction noise may reach levels over 100 dBA for an individual 40 piece of construction equipment, but concludes that this level of noise would create no 113 significant impact simply because construction noise is not regulated deuring normal construction hours. This is not rational. Noise levels of 90 and 100 dBA are clearly

Page 19 of 27 ends

disturbing and may even cause physical discomfort for some. Simply because levels of construction noise are not illegal, it does not mean that the noise will not result in very real and significant impacts on persons living and working nearby. The DEIR must address significance in terms of actual disturbance/discomfort for people living and working in the area. 113
The City of Newport Beach has gone to considerable trouble and expense to limit aircraft noise at John Wayne Airport, noise which is legally occurring. Does the City now maintain that any level of noise is acceptable if it is declared "legal". If noise levels of 150 dBA were declared legal would that make it less than significant?

3. Will dwelling units in the airport area have outdoor patios and/or balconies? The DEIR must discuss noise levels in outdoor living spaces. 114

4. The DEIR must examine increased noise on roadways outside the city which would sustain increased traffic from development under the proposed general plan. 115

5. Do noise levels on Dover Drive reflect any increase in traffic due to through trips to the proposed Nineteenth Street bridge via Dover to Mariners Drive/Seventeenth Street? 116

6. The DEIR must address impacts due to increased traffic on Nineteenth Street if the proposed bridge were to be built. 117
Population and Housing
I. As noted previously, the calculations of total future population fail to include persons 118 residing in Newport Coast prior to annexation.

2. How will the proposed plan affect jobs housing balance both in terms of existing conditions 119 and the adopted general plan?

3. The DEIR and general plan have emphasized the provision of mixed use to provide 41 opportunities to reside close to employment. In that light, the DEIR must examine 120 anticipated employment and income Ievels versus anticipated costs of the housing to be provided. 40

4. It is noted that future office development would be reduced from that anticipated under the existing general plan while retail commercial would increase. The DEIR must examine 121 how that will affect work force demographics and income.

Public Services 41
The use of the thresholds listed in Appendix G to the CEQA Guidelines is by no means mandatory. In fact, the Office of Planning and Research (OPR) encourages the development of local thresholds reflecting local conditions and values. Be that as it may, 122 the city has chosen to utilize the thresholds and standards provided as an example in Appendix G to the CEQA Guidelines. Among these is XIII a); Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need

Page 20 of 27 ends

for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services:

Listed services include police protection, fire protection, and schools. The DEIR indicates that additional facilities will be needed.

The DEIR then disingenuously states that the new facilities will have no significant impacts because they would be subject to CEQA, even though Page 1-7 of the DEIR explains the process for adoption of a Statement of Overriding Considerations and for approval of a project which would create significant impacts. Thus, absent further analysis, it cannot be stated that impacts associated with provision of adequate fire, police and school services would be less than significant.

2. As stated in the DEIR, NBFD's ability to support the needs of future growth is dependent 40 on its ability to secure sites for construction and equipment for new fire stations in a timely manner. The DEIR then blithely concludes that there will be no problem in that regard because of general plan policies requiring coordination of growth and infrastructure. No 123 sites for fire stations are identified, nor are criteria for a new site identified. We are simply assured that a site will be available. This is unacceptable. Absent a more specific identification of potential new fire services or a cap on development until such can be provided, impacts on fire services could be significant.

3. The DEIR indicates a need for additional police officers, creating a need for expanded police facilities. The DEIR then concludes that this is not a significant impact, even though it is not even known if the needed facilities can be accommodated on the existing police 124 station site. Absent further analysis, it cannot be stated that impacts would be less than significant.

4. The DEIR must address how the proposed project would affect emergency response times, 125 both in terms of increased demand and increased congestion.

5. The DEIR indicates that residential development in the Airport area would generate students in the Santa Ana Unified School District service area. The DEIR then states that "the enrollment capacity and operating conditions of SAUSD are unknown". Wasn't 126 SAUSD contacted for this study? If there was no response to initial contacts what sort of follow up was made?

6. The DEIR indicates that new students generated to the Newport Mesa Unified School 41 District could potentially exceed capacity and that capacity at SAUSD in unknown. The DEIR then nonchalantly concludes, without any further analysis, that no significant impacts to schools will occur because general plan policies will accommodate and allow new schools, although the city has identified no means by which any needed facilities would 127 actually be provided nor has the DEIR even quantified potential deficiencies. Absent further analysis, there is no basis for a conclusion that impacts would be less than significant.

Page 21 of 27 ends

Recreation and Open Since
The DEIR states that the City's park dedication ordinance requires dedication of parkland or payment of in -lieu fees in conjunction with the approval of new residential development.

This misstates the ordinance, which is part of the City's Subdivision Code. As currently posted on the Newport Beach web site, Section 19.52.020(a) indicates that it is applicable to residential subdivisions. Residential development which does not involve a subdivision, such as construction of apartments on a previously subdivided lot, would not be subject to park dedication requirements.

2. The DEIR notes an existing deficiency of 38.8 acres of parkland in the City if a five acres per thousand population standard is to be maintained. The existing ratio of parkland to population is thus less than five acres per thousand. In accordance with Section 66477(a)(2):
...the dedication of land, or the payment of fees, or both, shall not exceed the proportionate amount necessary to provide three acres of park area per 1,000 persons residing within a subdivision subject to this section, unless the amount of existing neighborhood and community park area, as calculated pursuant to this subdivision, exceeds that limit, in which case the legislative body may adopt the calculated amount as a higher standard...

Thus, if the park dedication requirement exceeds three acres of parkland per thousand population, a city may not require establish a higher standard for land dedication than is already being provided within that city. How then, does the City of Newport Beach propose to require dedication of five acres of parkland per thousand population when that is not currently provided?

2. The DEIR and proposed general plan update identify three sites for acquisition of additional parkland. The combined total appears to be barely adequate to meet existing deficiencies.

The DEIR projects that population will increase by approximately 31,000 upon buildout of the proposed plan, generating a need for 155 acres of parkland, based on the five acre per thousand standard in the DEIR and general plan. Where will this be provided? Except for Banning Ranch, which has been identified as a potential site for a thirty acre park, the City of Newport Beach does not have 155 vacant acres. The park dedication ordinance does not require land dedication for development on smaller sites, so where will the land come from?

3. The DEIR indicates that new students to be generated to NMUSD could exceed capacity.

Many school sites in NMUSD already contain portable buildings. The DEIR must examine the potential that additional portable classrooms will be needed, thereby reducing land available for recreation on school grounds.

4. The DEIR must examine how policies allowing park dedication credit for private open space would reduce the ratio of public park land to population and thereby reduce the allowable park dedication requirement in accordance with Government Code Section 66477.

5. Youth sports teams dominated by Newport Beach residents currently make heavy use of fields in Costa Mesa. The DEIR must examine how parks in neighboring cities will be affected by the large increase in population provided under the proposed plan. 128
129
130
131
132
133

Page 22 of 27 ends

6. The DEIR must address increased pressure to establish ball fields in existing nature oriented parks dedicated to passive recreation, such as Fairview Park in Costa Mesa.

7. The DEIR must address what proportion of new residential development will involve resubdivision, thereby generating park land dedication or fees versus the proportion of residential growth which will not involve subdivisions and generate no dedication or fees.

8. The DEIR indicates that park dedication fees can be used to upgrade existing parks in response to increased demand. How will this use of fees affect the City's ability to pay for more parkland?

9. The DEIR indicates that no significant impacts to parks will occur due to the requirement for dedication of land or payment of fees. However, the DEIR fails to identify the proportion of new residential development that will actually be required to pay the fee or identify even a small portion of the land that would be needed to serve over thirty thousand residents.

Without this information, it is impossible to conclude that no significant impacts on parks would occur.

Transportation/Traffic
134
135
136
137
The DEIR fails to examine traffic impacts outside the city Iimits, despite large increased in 40 Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) at intersections of streets leading to the city boundary. This is unacceptable. The DEIR must examine impacts on all affected 138 intersections, whether or not they are located within the City.

2. The DEIR must examine impacts on potentially affected freeway ramps, whether or not they are located within the City. This would include ramps to access the 1405 at MacArthur. 139

3. Considering the presence of sensitive biological resources, geotechnical constraints, huge cost, engineering constraints due to the short distance between the high top of the levee and Brookhurst Street, opposition of neighboring cities holding the right of way, and the need to gain approval of numerous public agencies, including the Army Corps of Engineers which 140
owns the river channel, how can construction of a bridge at Nineteenth Street not be deemed uncertain?

4. Alternate means of providing acceptable levels of traffic flow have been identified as part of the Santa Ana River Crossings Study (SARX). How would adoption of the proposed plan 141
affect the ability to implement this alternate strategy in an effective manner?

5. What is the margin of error of field studies conducted? 1142

6. What is the margin of error for traffic analysis and modeling. 1143

7. The text of DEIR Section 4.13 presents optimistic conclusions regarding reduction of traffic 41 generation due to mixed use. However, Appendix U to the Traffic Study contained in Appendix D to the DEM, titled Mixed Use Trip Generation Information, an Institute of 144
Traffic Engineers (ITE) study which examined a number of mixed use developments, states the following:

Page 23 of 27 ends

Internal or captured trips can be a significant factor in the travel patterns at multi -use developments; however, very few studies have been conducted to quantify this phenomenon. Because of the very limited data base, it is not reasonable to draw conclusions regarding the specific value of capture rates or allowable reductions in trips to account for internal trips.

The document, an ITE study, states further:

Use of existing ITE trip rates or equations to calculate the base on which to derive capture rates is inherently incorrect. The assumption is made that the individual land uses within the site being studied are "average," and thus the ITE rates of equations accurately calculate the individual land use trips. The correct way to develop a capture rate is to actually count the individual land use trips and compare them with a count of external trips at the site.

Based on the above, the mixed use "capture" rates utilized in traffic modeling for the DEIR appear not conservative, as represented in the DEIR, but possibly reckless. The DEIR must present results of traffic modeling without trip reductions assumed for mixed use facilities.

8. The DEIR also indicates that reduced trip rates were utilized for "high rise" residential, 40 based on projects elsewhere. Where were these projects located? Was well developed mass 145 transit available? Were these projects in mixed use developments where some of the reduction could be attributed to mixed use instead?

9. Where was the reduced "high rise" residential trip generation rate applied? How high would the future high rises be? Have any areas "double dipped" in reductions of trip generation 146 rates for mixed use and high rise construction?

10. The DEIR must present results of traffic modeling with trip generation rates typically used and verified for high density residential uses in the area.

11. Did modeling in the DEIR assume any trip reduction due to implementation of TDMs? Where? Were TDMs included in existing conditions?

12. The DEIR indicates that although growth will result in failure of numerous intersections, impacts are insignificant, because roadways can be expanded to accommodate the additional traffic. Why, then, is it suggested that the Traffic Phasing Ordinance be amended to allow development to cause intersections to function at less than Level of Service D?

13. What is the anticipated cost of the listed circulation improvements needed? How will it be financed?

14. Would additional rights of way be required to implement any of the listed improvements? With what impacts on land use?

15. The DEIR concludes that increased traffic will not impede emergency access because the city has an emergency management plan and it will pass out information about emergency planning. How does this mitigate an identified LOS of .96 at Hospital Road and Newport Boulevard, a primary access to Hoag Hospital? How does this mitigate an identified LOS of 147
148
149
150
151
152

Page 24 of 27 ends

.91 at Newport Boulevard and 32nd Street for people attempting to leave the Peninsula and 152
reach medical services up the hill at Hoag?

16. Based on the above, evidence does not exist to support a conclusion that no significant impacts related to traffic and circulation would occur. 153
Utilities and Services

1. The DEIR indicates that water supplies can meet the City's water through the year 2030. 154
What level of development is assumed at that time?

2. The DEIR seems to imply that whatever water is needed can be provided until 2030, regardless of how much. What will happen in 2030 to reduce available water? Will other 155
agencies be using a greater portion of their water entitlements?

3. Approximately two thirds of water from the different purveyors would come from groundwater. The amount to be provided appears to be based purely on demand, not supply. 156
Has a moratorium or reduction in groundwater pumping ever been required in order to deal with groundwater overdrafts?

4. What water consumption rates were used to calculate anticipated water use? 1157

5. The DEIR indicates that additional water consumption would total 1,326.6 acre feet per year 41 (998 AFY City, 270 AFY RIWD and 58.6 AFY Mesa). This equates to approximately 1,184,322 gallons per day. Wastewater generation, based on generation factors in the City 's 158
Master Plan of Sewers is calculated at 4,123,173 gallons per day. How is this possible?

6. Are city water suppliers utilizing their full entitlements to water? If not what portion of the 159
entitlements remains?
i

7. Are any city water suppliers utilizing more water than their entitlements? Are any suppliers at risk of facing water reductions as other water users make greater use of their entitlements? 160

8. What is the basis of the conclusion by Mesa Consolidated Water and the DEIR that supplies are adequate to serve the additional development contemplated in its service area? 161

9. Where are the identified sewer deficiencies located? s 162

10. What are peak flows at the affected sewage treatment plants? s 163

11. The DEIR indicated that one of the sewage treatment plants would be returning to full capacity upon addition of a clarifier. How often is functional capacity reduced below 164
design capacity and, typically, by how much?

12. Do peak flows ever approach or exceed functional capacity? Design capacity? 1 165
•

13. The DEIR must quantify cumulative flows in light of actual functional capacity of the wastewater treatment plants.
166

14. How would increased wastewater generated by the proposed plan affect the ability of Orange County Sanitation District to achieve full secondary treatment? 167

Page 25 of 27 ends

15. How would the increased wastewater generated by the proposed plan and ultimately released 168 into the ocean affect local water quality?

16. Would the waste generated by growth under the proposed plan shorten the useful life span of 169 any sanitary landfill on an individual or cumulative basis? By how much?

17. What is the anticipated peak and annual electricity consumption by growth under the S 170 proposed plan? •

18. Are local elements of the grid adequate to supply the demand? 1171

19. The DEIR states that electricity demands by the new development proposed would be met "most of the year" and that constraints "could be addressed through rolling blackouts". Yet 172
the DEER concludes that no significant impacts would occur. What would be a significant impact?

20. The DEIR must address how increased electricity usage could create demand to extend the life of the antiquated AES plant in nearby Huntington Beach, including affects on water 173
quality due to the once through cooling process utilized by AES.

21. What is the anticipated peak and annual natural gas consumption by growth permitted under the proposed plan?
174

22. Are local facilities adequate to transport that volume of natural gas? s 175

23. How will growth under the proposed plan increase demand for an LNG terminal at Long Beach or other location in the region on an individual and cumulative basis? 176
Alternatives
The DEIR should include a transportation alternative deleting the Nineteenth Street bridge in favor of alternate improvements identified under SARK This may require a reduction in 177
planned intensities, closer to the existing general plan, in order for traffic to flow adequately. 40 Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts
The DEIR failed to demonstrate that no significant unavoidable impacts would occur in relation to biological resources, geology and soils, hydrology and water quality, land use and planning, 178 public services, recreation and open space, and utilities.

Population Growth 40
As noted previously, buildout population fails to include residents in units existing in Newport 179 Coast prior to annexation.

Page 26 of 27 ends

Conclusion
As currently presented, the DEIR is thoroughly flawed in almost every facet imaginable and utterly fails to fulfill the purposes of CEQA. The document is so fundamentally and basically inadequate and conclusory in nature that meaningful public review and comment were precluded and the document must be revised and recirculated in accordance with Section 15088.5(a)(4) of the CEQA Guidelines.

We look forward to reviewing additional documentation as it becomes available. Thank you for the opportunity to comment.

Yours Truly,
Sandra L. Genis

Page 27 of 27 ends

Response to Comment Letter SA
Letter from Sandra Genis, received June 13, 2006
SA-1
All of the documents used to prepare the Draft EIR have been available to any interested parties as they were completed, and many have been posted on the City's special website for the General Plan update, which is linked to the City's normal website. The Technical Background Report has been available in the Newport Beach Planning Department and the Newport Beach Central Library since June of 2004. Since it has been available at the Central Library, it has been available in a location with both night and weekend hours. The Draft EIR's reference to the availability of the Technical Appendices of the Traffic Study was in error. However, they were available in the Newport Beach Planning Department during the whole review period. All other background reports were available on request.

SA-2
The provisions of CEQA require that the impacts of a proposed project be compared to baseline on -the - ground conditions that exist at the time the NOP is published, or at the time the analysis is commenced (CEQA Guidelines, Section 15125(a)). As required, the EIR analyzes impacts of the Proposed Project relative to existing, on -ground conditions. That is, the proposed project (the newly updated General Plan EIR) is compared to baseline conditions, not the future buildout that would occur under the currently adopted General Plan. Therefore, the EIR provides information on the Existing General Plan for information purposes for reference where appropriate, such as Table 3-3 potential development scenario.

However, in keeping with the intent of CEQA Guidelines 15142 and 15140, an EIR should not be unwieldy in length and should be user-friendly. Thus, the relevant information is the baseline condition of actual development, not the existing General Plan, and current on -the -ground conditions are the focus of the information presented for the environmental baseline.

SA-3
Existing General Plan policies regarding resource protection are vague and incomplete. The Recreation and Open Space Element has only one policy regarding the alteration of natural landforms, which is to be regulated through changes to the City's Zoning Code. General Plan Policy D, however, does not preclude development in any area if it would eliminate development on a site. The existing Land Use Element also has one policy in this area that covers a wide variety of potentially sensitive areas, but allows the Planning Commission to determine if the area is environmentally sensitive, without a biological study. This policy also states that development in sensitive areas can occur if the project's benefits outweigh the loss of a sensitive or riparian area, or the impacts can be mitigated. The proposed General Plan has a far more comprehensive set of policies specific to each resource, including water supply, water quality, air quality, open space resources, cultural resources, mineral resources, visual resources and energy conservation. These policies reflect the current standards for resource protection and impact analysis and mitigation strategies, with specific references to relevant local, regional, state and federal law. A more complete discussion of the existing Recreation and Open Space and Land Use Elements is contained in the response to comment JV-3.
10-178 City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR

SA-4
The proposed General Plan Update provides the whole of the action considered in this EIR. It would be ineffective and wasteful to reprint the entire General Plan Update as the project description as Chapter 3 of the EIR; instead, the General Plan Update document is intended as a companion to the EIR. In order to provide a synopsis of the General Plan most clearly, Chapter 3 identifies and describes the most relevant changes to the General Plan Update. In particular, Table 3-3 of the Draft EIR summarizes total buildout that could occur under the General Plan Update. Individual policies are provided with the discussion of each resource area where those policies are relevant. In this manner, the policies are identified along with the resources they affect and can be reviewed in this context. The total buildout by type of land use and subarea and the General Plan policies provide the foundational elements of the proposed project.

While the City is not proposing the concept of flexible floor area ratios in this General Plan Update, the environmental document is adequate in that it evaluates the maximum intensity that could be developed under the General Plan Update and, as such, it provides a worst -case analysis of potential environmental impacts.

SA-5
This comment notes the omission of a policy similar to the existing plan regarding the prohibition of subdivisions in certain areas of the City. This was noted by the City as well, and a similar policy will be proposed for inclusion in the updated Land Use Element prior to its adoption. With the reinstatement of the prohibition of subdivisions, combined with the fact that there are few areas with slopes or submerged lands, the "buildable acreage" concept is not necessary. Those areas where it might have been applicable, such as Banning Ranch, will have dwelling unit caps as opposed to an identification of dwelling units per acre.

It is speculative to quantify how many future residential projects would qualify for density bonuses or other incentives required by state law, and it would be speculative to estimate the number of dwelling units that might be developed as a result of density bonuses. It would be even more speculative to determine the potential locations of such units and, therefore, estimate their potential impacts, especially on traffic. No bonus density dwelling units have been entitled or constructed in the City during the past five years.

Section 65915 of the Government Code requires local governments to provide density bonuses or incentives of equivalent financial value, when a developer agrees to provide housing that is affordable to lower income households. When affordable housing is provided to meet a requirement in the city's housing element, the density bonus or other incentives are not required. The City's policies, as stated in Housing Programs 3.1.1 and 3.1.2, are to comply with state law by granting either a density bonus or other incentives of equivalent financial value. Whether other incentives would be granted, and what those incentives would be, cannot be known without a specific project proposal, and their impacts cannot be evaluated in a program EIR.

City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 10-179

SA-7
The increase in multi -family dwelling units in subareas, shown in Table 3-3, is higher than the increase citywide due to reductions in the number of dwelling units allowed outside the subareas in the proposed General Plan Update. The largest component of this difference is the correction of a coding error, which overstated the multi -family residential potential in the Newport North area by over 1,300 units for the existing General Plan. Reductions also occur because the proposed General Plan Update reflects the actual number of units developed at One Ford Road and Sailhouse, nearly 250 fewer than allowed in the existing General Plan. Finally, there are reductions in the number of units allowed on Lido Isle and at Bayside Village in the proposed General Plan Update. The difference of 300,000 square feet in office development between the subarea and citywide numbers is accounted for by the proposed land use change from Administrative, Professional and Financial to Mixed Use for the area along Dover Drive described on page 3-17 of the Draft EIR. Table 3-3 has been revised to include a column showing land use changes for the remainder of the City, which reflects the changes proposed in the "other land use areas" described on page 3-17. Table 3-3 is reprinted here. 10-180 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 10-181

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
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
10-182 City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR

MV:1
The Medical Commercial Office land use category, which applies to the Hoag Hospital area, provides for a range of floor area ratios (FAR) from 0.35 FAR to 1.25 FAR, with a resulting overall increase in medical commercial office uses of approximately 241,585 square feet. The range in FAR reflects the fact that certain existing medical commercial office uses with lower FARs could remain, and new development at higher FARs could be developed. However, the City Council has directed that the maximum FAR be reduced to 0.75, in order to achieve daily trip neutrality in this subarea.

SA-9
A discussion of the rationale for the use of 2002 as the baseline year is provided in Master Response C.

The calculations of total future population for the City in 2030, as shown in Table 4.10-2 on page 4.10-2 of the Draft EIR, were based on population and household forecasts prepared by SCAG in 2004, which include persons residing in Newport Coast, which was annexed in 2002.

SA-10
Refer to Master Response D for a discussion of the geographic context of the project -related impact analysis, and refer to Master Response A for a discussion of the inclusion of the 19`h Street bridge over the Santa Ana River in the traffic analysis.

With regard to the consideration of noise impacts outside of the City, the noise analysis relies upon the data provided in the traffic analysis; therefore, the geographic scope of the traffic analysis is the same as the noise analysis. Please refer to the immediately preceding discussion regarding the geographic scope of the traffic analysis.

With regard to consideration of air pollution hot spots, impact 4.2-4 indicates that impacts on CO concentrations within the study area would be less than significant. Therefore, it is reasonable to conclude at locations further from the study area, where project traffic would become more dispersed, the project contribution to potential CO hotspots would be even less, and would remain less than significant.

It is anticipated that users of recreational facilities commonly use those facilities located closest to them, which are primarily located within their own City. The EIR does not analyze impacts to recreational facilities within the City that would result from individuals residing in other jurisdictions because it considers this effect to be negligible. Similarly, the EIR considers impacts on recreational facilities outside of the City boundaries to be negligible. Also refer to response to comment SA-133.

With regard to potential public service impacts to areas outside of the City, all of the City's public services are provided entirely within the City, and, as such, there are no impacts outside of the City. For example, the Newport Beach Police Department and the Newport Beach Fire Department provides police and fire protection services associated with calls that occur within the City's boundaries. The City does not rely on outside police departments or fire departments for routine calls and the Departments' response to the City's calls has no affect on surrounding jurisdictions. Similarly, with schools, students City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 10-183

that reside in the City attend public schools within the Newport -Mesa or Santa Ana Unified School Districts, which are the districts that are intended to serve the City of Newport Beach. There is no impact on other school districts.

SA-11
The scope of the cumulative impact analysis is dictated by the resource under consideration. For instance, for Hydrology impacts, it is relevant to consider the surrounding watershed as a whole.

Conversely, for Noise impacts, it is relevant to consider those projects that would be located in proximity to the proposed project, where noise impacts could accumulate. Therefore, the geographic context of the cumulative impact analysis varies according to resource, and the context is clearly stated in each cumulative impact section. Refer also to Master Response B for a discussion of the cumulative impact analysis methodology.

SA -12
Refer to Master Response B for a discussion of the cumulative impact analysis methodology.

SA-13
It is unclear what impact is referred to in this comment where it states "...impacts due to housing development." The population and housing section of the EIR makes no mention of future CEQA review. As such, this response addresses the comment as it relates to the references to future CEQA review cited in the public services section. The response here is illustrative of the concepts used in the EIR analysis and is also applicable to other resource sections where future CEQA review is discussed.

The analysis of public services impacts on page 4.11-10 and 4.11-16 identifies that future CEQA review would occur. However, the conclusion of a less than significant impact to public services does not rely solely upon the assumption that future CEQA review would mitigate impacts. Rather, the fact that future review would occur is cited as one means to enforce the mechanisms in place —primarily General Plan policies —that would reduce impacts to less than significant. A more careful reading of Impacts 4.11.1-1 and 4.11.2-1 indicates that it is the implementation of these General Plan policies and compliance with the regulatory environment, not future CEQA review, that would ensure impacts would be less than significant.

It is expected that in instances where CEQA exempts infill projects from environmental review, environmental impacts would be determined to be less than significant. As stated in CEQA Section 21084 and 15300, the Guidelines are required "to include a list of classes of projects which have been determined not to have a significant effect on the environment" and which shall, therefore, be exempt from the provisions of CEQA. Further, the Secretary of the Resources Agency makes a finding that the listed classes of projects, including infill development projects identified in Guidelines Section 15332, do not have a significant effect on the environment. Thus, where no additional environmental review would occur, this results from a finding of less than significant impacts. 10-184 City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR

SA-14
Comments on the Project Description and Summary included as items 1 though 17 and coded as comments SA-14 through SA-30 identify specific questions related to the Project Description. Many of these questions are answered in the General Plan document itself. As indicated in response to comment SA-4, Chapter 3 identifies and describes the most relevant changes to the General Plan Update, such that not each and every specific change is listed in Chapter 3 of the EIR.

The referenced sections of the Summary and Project Description explain that significant land use changes were considered and proposed only for the nine subareas (districts and corridors) listed on page 2-3. For the remainder of the City, no change or relatively little change (relative to the greater changes or greater areas of change in the subareas) is proposed. The section entitled "Other Land Use Changes" on page 3-17 describes the changes proposed in these other, smaller areas of the City. The quantities of these land uses (dwelling units and square feet of non-residential development potential) are included in the Citywide column in Table 3-3 and in all the quantitative analyses in the Draft EIR.

Refer also to response to comment SA-7 for a discussion of how previous development in other areas in the City affect the numbers presented in Table 3-3.

SA-15
The land use intensification that would occur throughout the City is the difference between the "Existing" and "Proposed" rows in Table 3-3. For the majority of the City not included in the subareas studied in detail in the General Plan update, the amount of development is what is allowed by the existing General Plan.

SA-76
Build -out of the proposed General Plan update in the Irvine Avenue multi -family area would result in 189 residential units. Because the existing development exceeds both the existing and proposed General Plan density, this would be a reduction of 16 units from the existing development.

SA-17
As noted in the response to comment SA-7, the proposed change from Administrative, Professional and Financial to Mixed Use for the area on Dover Drive reduces the potential office development in that area by approximately 300,000 square feet and adds the potential for 212 dwelling units. The acreage shown for mixed use is 7.95 acres.

SA-18
This Caltrans remnant site is approximately 5.3 acres. At the proposed FAR of 0.5, this site would have the potential for 115,434 sf of commercial development. Site access cannot be studied in detail without a specific development proposal, but preliminary analysis by the City Public Works Department concluded that safe access from MacArthur Boulevard at Fairchild Drive is possible.

City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 10-185

SA-19
Up to fifteen dwelling units would be allowed at the former child care site at San Miguel Drive at the proposed density of twenty dwelling units per acre.

SA-20
No additional units would be allowed at the senior housing/church site at Pacific View Drive.

SA-21
Proposed Park and Recreation Facilities are illustrated on Figure 4.12-2, following page 4.12-4.

SA-22
Charter Section 423 requires that amendments to the General Plan that exceed one of three thresholds be approved by the voters. The proposed Land Use Element provides detail on the quantities of development that would be allowed, and is structured in a way that will enable the City to determine whether the proposed General Plan update, as well as any future amendments to the General Plan, would require a vote. Examples include Figures LU1 through LU15, and Tables LU1, Al, and A2.

SA-23
The General Plan Update is intended to make the City's General Plan elements (and all policies contained therein) consistent with all state law that has changed or been enacted since 1988, which is the date of adoption of the existing General Plan. As an example, the existing Safety Element does not meet State requirements for wildland and urban fire, peak -load water supply requirements, and minimum road widths and clearances around structures, as those items relate to fire and geologic hazards. Additionally, while the element does include the required mapping of soil conditions and geologic hazards, the information is based on technical reports prepared in 1974, which may not meet current standards for such reports. These changes are reflected in the proposed Safety Element.

The Conservation of Natural Resources Element does not include references to today's standards for resource protection and mitigation standards; nor does it reflect regional habitat protection strategies such as the Natural Communities Conservation Plan (NCCP). The existing Land Use Element has vague and overbroad land use categories that provide little guidance for decision makers in the discretionary review of projects. The improvements contained in the existing Circulation Element could not take advantage of state-of-the-art engineering practice, modeling techniques or new technologies, which provide for improved intersection performance.

SA-24
Underperforming commercial areas were identified in the Retail Commercial Market Analysis prepared by Applied Development Economics in December 2002. Commercial areas that generate sales per square foot below national retail averages are considered underperforming. 10-186 City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR

SA-25
Table 3-3 on pages 3.3-13 through 3.3-14 compares citywide existing land uses and future land uses under the proposed General Plan Update. As the EIR is an evaluation of potential impacts resulting from implementation of the proposed General Plan Update, information on the existing General Plan acreage distribution is not needed.

SA-26
As described in response to comment SA-7, the land use changes in the areas referenced by the Project Description were incorporated into the calculation of citywide land use changes. Because these addressed very small geographic areas, they were not considered of significance for separate discussion by the Draft EIR. However, this did result in differences between the citywide totals and the subarea totals.

Essentially, one column is not identified, the remainder of the City (exclusive of the subareas and "other land use changes" areas). Refer to Revised Table 3-3 of the Draft EIR, and as shown in Chapter 9 (Text Changes) of the Final EIR.

SA-27
Refer to response to comment SA-26.

SA-28
Refer to response to comment SA-26.

SA-29
This comment does not raise a question related to the Draft EIR. Typically, uses that are legal when established become legal non -conforming uses and are grandfathered. Non -conforming uses are governed by Chapter 20.62 of the City's Zoning Code, which establishes procedures for the continuance or abatement of existing structures and uses that do not conform to the provisions of the Zoning code and the goals and policies of the General Plan.

SA-30
As stated in response to comment G2-10, this comment does not raise a question with regard to the Draft EIR. The residential density categories in the proposed General Plan reflect the densities allowed by the existing General Plan and the densities of residential development currently existing. The one exception is the density of up to 50 units per acre for residential development proposed in the Airport Area. In public hearings on the General Plan, the City Council has directed that the Land Use Map, Figures LU 1 through 15, be revised to replace the land use system of density ranges with a system that designates the type of housing product (e.g., single unit attached, single unit detached, two unit, multiple unit), with either density or number of units reflecting the currently existing development indicated on the map for each residential area in the City. The City Council directed that in addition to this mapping system, a policy prohibiting additional residential subdivisions in developed areas, be added to the Land Use Element to prevent unintended increases in residential density.

City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 10-187

SA-31
Immediately following Figure 4.1-3 on page 4.1-7 of the Draft EIR, Figure 4.1-4 has been added to include the Newport Coast area and is in the Final Plan and Final EIR via text changes to Draft EIR figures, as shown in Chapter 9 (Text Changes).

SA-32
This specific list is from the previous 1990 Local Coastal Program and was not a part of the existing General Plan. The proposed General Plan Update adds a broad policy regarding protection of public views.

SA-33
Shade and shadow analyses are performed for site -specific projects, and are not commonly analyzed in a program EIR. The thresholds of significance identified in Section 4.1.4 do not include effects from shade/shadow. A shade and shadow diagram depicts shade cast by a specific development onto surrounding areas. Building height and massing must be known in order to accurately depict shade and shadows cast by the new structures. These elements have not been defined for all new development.

Further, development could occur in many locations as a result of General Plan Update implementation, and depiction of even a representative sample of shade/shadow effects would result in more detail than needed for a Program EIR. Thus, due to the project -specific nature of shade/shadow analysis, this would be performed during site specific review.

SA-34
The second sentence of Policy NR 22.1 states, "Consider amending the boundary of this Zone where public views would not be impacted."
SA-35
The proposed General Plan update does not allow increased building heights; it merely states that the City should consider such a change in its regulations. The manner in which greater building height might be allowed would have to be defined in an amendment to the Zoning Code and Local Coastal Program, as noted in General Plan Implementation Measures 2.1 and 5.1. The aesthetic impacts of such a change can be analyzed better when the provisions are known. And if the provisions include discretionary review for individual development projects, more detailed analysis would be possible as project details become known.

SA-36
The proposed General Plan update does not include any policies that provide for modification of bluffs.

SA-37
Policy LU 6.19.9 provides the basis for the City to require visual and physical access to the bay on all proposed development fronting the harbor in Mariners' Mile. The policy provides nine specific principles that must be observed by development in this area to provide public views and access, and requires site- 10-188 City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR

specific analysis subject to approval in the Development Plan review process. This policy provides much more guidance for the preservation of public views than the existing General Plan Land Use Element.

Policy D says, "The siting of new buildings and structures shall be controlled and regulated to insure, to the extent practical, the preservation of public views..." Current City ordinance provides for these evaluations and requires view corridors only when a proposed structure exceeds basic height limits.

Therefore, the proposed plan improves the City's ability to preserve views, or create new views. As to the potential for significant impacts, it is speculative as to whether significant environmental impacts would result from implementation of the policy, because this can only be determined at the time there are specific proposals for new development, at which time an environmental analysis would be conducted pursuant to CEQA in order to determine potential impacts and recommend mitigation measures, if necessary. See Master Response E regarding level of analysis Nonetheless, the text on page 4.1-16 has been revised for clarification purposes as noted below and as shown in Chapter 9 (Text Changes) in the Final EIR. This amendment does not qualify as a substantial change to the EIR.

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

SA-38
The minimum width for corridor views will vary, depending on the location, type of development, and visual resource under consideration. Policy LU 6.19.9 provides standards to determine view corridor width. Further, individual plan review will determine widths for view corridors as appropriate for each development project, in order to balance the needs of development against environmental protection.

Wmyj
The precise need for the number, location, and scale of parking structures would be determined as development progresses and parking needs are identified. General Plan policies would guide the design of parking facilities, and these include Policies LU 5.1.9, LU 5.2.1, LU 5.3.1, NR 3.18, and LU 6.2.5.

SA-40
Policy LU 3.2 is intended to discourage if not prohibit development of houses that are out -of -scale with surrounding development.

SA-41
The proposed General Plan policies for West Newport Highway area are intended to maintain existing development intensities. Further, development in the West Newport Highway area would be required to be constructed to current standards, which limit commercial building heights to two stories and 21 feet, with no setbacks from property lines, except from alleys, where setbacks would be required. Commercial and parking structure heights would be equivalent to those permitted on adjoining residential lots, which would eliminate shade and shadow impacts on public open spaces or other useable outdoor living spaces.

City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 10-189

SA-42
The placement of buildings along Newport Center Drive will improve the pedestrian -oriented corridor.

The permitted increment of additional commercial density is insufficient to create a continuous mid or high rise "walled" corridor. It will result in low-rise, 2 to 3 story, structures that are intermittently spaced along the street. These will be much lower in height that the existing buildings located along the north side. From an urban form perspective, their placement and scale will not visually create a continuous "wall" of buildings.

The provision of code -required parking to support expanded uses in Newport Center may require the development of additional parking structures. Visual impacts can be mitigated through location and the use of architectural design elements that ensure a high quality of development and character.

SA-43
Policy LU 6.18.4 requires that buildings be located and designed to orient to the Old Newport Boulevard frontage, while the rear of parcels on its west side shall incorporate landscape and design elements that are attractive when viewed from Newport Boulevard. Should development be proposed within these areas that would impact the resources identified in this comment, the project -specific environmental review would identify any potential impacts that may occur as a result of development. Policy 6.6.3 in the public review draft dated March 27, 2006 included a consideration of increases to height limits for medical uses in the West Newport Mesa sub area. The City Council directed that this policy be eliminated during their consideration of the land use policies. Additionally, the General Plan EIR is a programmatic environmental document. Any future development proposed within the City limits will undergo its own project -level environmental review that will analyze the potential environmental impacts of the project -specific details, including, but not limited to, building massing, construction schedules, and site access. 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 (project -level) information is not warranted for inclusion and cannot be reasonably determined based on currently available information.

SA -44
The proposed General Plan Update includes substantial new policies regarding the relationship of new development to streets and open space areas. The policies for the Airport Area do not suggest that any changes to the landscape standards contained in existing zoning are modified. Further, landscape street standards apply only to the major arterials of MacArthur Boulevard, Jamboree Road, Campus Drive, Birch Street, and Bristol Street North.

Building heights in the City's Airport Area are regulated by Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Regulations Part 77 (Objects Affecting Navigable Airspace), which is the standard identified in the Orange County Airport Environs Land Use Plan (AELUP) for John Wayne Airport. The allowable height of buildings varies according to the elevation, height, and slope in relation to individual airports.

In response to comments from the Airport Land Use Commission, the City Council has directed that 10-190 City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR

policies regarding heights in the AELUP Planning Area, and providing for review by the Airport Land Use Commission, be added to the proposed General Plan.

SA-45
Bluffs would be preserved through proposed General Plan Update Policies LU 6.5.4 and NR 10.10.

These measures contain more specificity that would ensure that development would be designed to protect coastal bluffs. These policies provide more specificity and policy guidance to assist the decisionmakers to ensure that development would be designed to preserve coastal bluffs. While Policy LU 6.5.4 is identified on page 4.1-31, Policy NR 10.10 is added to the EIR discussion on page 4.1-26, after the second paragraph as noted below and as shown in Chapter 9 (Text Changes) in the Final EIR.

Note that the policy has been revised since publication of the Draft EIR, and those changes are also identified here:

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 design structures i n to not be intrusive on the surrounding landscape. Require the restoration or mitigation of any sensitive or rare habitat areas that are affected by future development. (Imp 2.1, 19.7, 19.11, 19.12)
SA-46
Policies 6.5.4 and 6.5.5 would guide bluff protection on Banning Ranch by requiring buffers (or setbacks), along with development plan review by the City. Policy LU 6.5.4 states that "[d]evelopment should be located and designed to preserve and/or mitigate for the loss of wetlands and drainage course habitat... 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. Policy LU 6.5.5 states that "[d]evelopment shall be located and designed to prevent residences on the property from dominating public views of the bluff faces from Coast Highway, the ocean, wetlands, and surrounding open spaces.

While no numeric standards (i.e., stated in linear feet from the bluff) have been established for buffers (as the buffer requirements will differ according to the development plan proposed and the proximity to sensitive resources), the City's master development or specific plan review process will ensure that all General Plan policies are properly implemented.

SA-47
In theory, reflective materials used in buildings including glass windows and surface materials could create glare that impacts adjoining properties, motorists, public places, and natural environments. The commenter's issue has been addressed by revision of Policy 5.6.2 (formerly 5.5.2). Page 4.1-30 of the Draft EIR has been amended, as noted below and as shown in Chapter 9 (Text Changes) in the Final EIR:

City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 10-191

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 a rut changes in scale, building form, architectural style, and the use of surface materials that raise local temperatures, result in glare and excessive illumination of adjoining properties and open syaces. or adversely modify wind patterns.

For this reason, land use changes and expansion of currently permitted land uses is proposed in discrete areas within the City. There are numerous Land Use Policies designed to protect the visual character of the City. As referenced in the aesthetics section, these policies include but are not limited to: LU 1.1, LU 5.3.1, NR 22.2, and LU 6.19.6. All of these policies contain elements designed to protect and enhance the visual quality of the City.

SA -48
General Plan policies are more than "statements of aspiration." They are City policies adopted by resolution of the City Council, and State law requires that development projects are consistent with the General Plan. As noted in General Plan Implementation Measure 2.1, the City will need to amend the Zoning Code to implement the updated General Plan. Sections "1" and "m" of that Implementation Measure call for establishing standards to carry out policy intentions for design characteristics and establishing site development and design standards.

SA-49

Page 4 ends

5.1.1, LU 6.1.3, and LU 6.2.5 address spillover lighting, compatibility with adjacent uses, and integration of uses including considering lighting effects. See Master Response E regarding level of analysis.

SA-50
The proposed General Plan Update does allow for some intensification in some areas, including Mariner's Mile. However, this is proposed within a policy framework designed to preserve the unique character of the area. Policies LU 6.19.6, 6.19.7, 6.19.8, 6.19.9, 6.19.11, 6.19.12, and 6.19.13 will require new development maintain the identify and quality of the district through architecture, site planning, provision of bay views and access, pedestrian orientation, maintenance of the visual quality of bluff faces and maintenance of existing height limits. Where residential uses are added, a commensurate amount of commercial use will be eliminated, thus preserving the character of the area. In Cannery Village, the proposed General Plan Update will reduce the intensification of the area by allowing some commercial properties to be used for residential uses. The overall size and height of structures in Cannery Village will not change since the existing General Plan allows mixed use development at similar floor area ratios to those proposed (Policies LU 6.10.1, LU 6.10.2, and LU 6.10.3) SA-51
Refer to response to comment SA-10, which addresses the potential for CO hotspots to occur outside of the City.
10-192 City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR

SA-52
The comment suggests that the City should complete an analysis to determine how the project -generated traffic combined with growth in other communities will impact the excess cancer risks in the vicinity where the Newport Freeway, the San Diego Freeway, and the San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor meet. The comment references existing SCAQMD data regarding those risks. Though the comment does not mention the source of the information, the City assumes the commenter is referring to MATES -II, the Multiple Air Toxic Exposure Study prepared by SCAQMD. Readers interested in finding out more about the MATES -II are directed to www.agmd.gov . In its Guidance Document for Addressing Air Quality Issues in General Plans and Local Planning, the SCAQMD identified the types of projects for which the SCAQMD recommends the preparation of a health risk assessment to quantify the potential cancer risks. The types of projects are those involving diesel -powered mobile sources. These include truck stops, warehouses, distribution centers, and transit centers. No such uses are proposed in connection with this project. Updating a City-wide General Plan is not among the types of projects which trigger the preparation of Health Risk Assessments. Therefore, no analysis of Toxic Air Contaminants is required.

SA-53
The intent of this comment is unclear. By "other growth", the City assumes the commenter is referring to growth outside of the City that would cause the SCAG-projected population estimates to be exceeded.

As discussed on page 4.2-13, the City has identified that the estimated population at build out of the proposed General Plan Update would exceed SCAG's projection for the City by approximately 10 percent. It is not possible for the City to ascertain the potential that other cities or counties in SCAG's six counties might exceed the population projection's issued by SCAG and accounted for in the AQMP.

As stated on page 4.2-9, "The future air quality levels projected in the 2003 AQMP are based on several assumptions. For example, the SCAQMD assumes that general new development within the Basin will occur in accordance with population growth and transportation projections identified by SCAG in its most current version of the RCPG, which was adopted in March 1996. The AQMP also assumes that general development projects will include strategies (mitigation measures) to reduce emissions generated during construction and operation."
The SCAQMD has established methodology to determine the significance of cumulative impacts in accordance with 14 Cal Code Regs Section 15065(a)(3). In such instances, the significance of potential cumulative impacts would be determined by the significance of the project -specific impacts. In fact, according to the SCAQMD, "The SCAQMD's approach is to determine whether or not there are related projects in the vicinity of the project under consideration, within approximately one mile. If not, and the project -specific impacts are less than the applicable significance thresholds, then the lead agency can make a case that impacts are not cumulatively considerable as defined in CEQA Guidelines §15065(a)(3), that is, the project is not expected to generate significant cumulative impacts ... If there are related projects within the vicinity of the proposed project, e.g., that are part of an ongoing regulatory program or are contemplated in a program EIR, then additive effects of the related projects should be considered."
City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 10-193

It is not possible for the City ascertain the potential that other cities or counties in SCAG's six counties might exceed the population projection's issued by SCAG and accounted for in the AQMP. As stated on page 4.2-17, "Cumulative development, including the proposed General Plan Update would result in a potentially significant impact in terms of conflicting with, or obstructing implementation of, the 2003 AQMP as development would result in population levels above those used in preparation of the AQMP... Consequently, if growth in the Basin is not within the projections for growth identified in the Growth Management Chapter of the RCPG, implementation of the AQMP would be obstructed by such growth. As growth in the Basin would exceed these projections, at least in the Planning Area, this is considered to be a significant cumulative impact. Since growth under the proposed General Plan Update is inconsistent with growth under the RCPG, the impact of the proposed General Plan Update is cumulatively considerable. This is considered a significant impact." As such, any contribution of air quality impacts of the proposed project that other projects contribute to would be cumulatively significant. The conclusion reached in the EIR correctly considered the potential that growth in the region could occur that was not accounted for by either SCAG or the AQMP; however, any attempt to quantify unaccounted for growth would be speculative in nature and not based on any factual representation.

SA-54
The comment is acknowledged. Text has been added to provide further clarification of habitat types within the City limits under the heading "Habitat Types" on page 4.3-3, as noted below and as shown in Chapter 9 (Text Changes) in the Final EIR. This amendment does not qualify as a substantial change to the EIR.

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, VelZetation is often covered with sand particles due to coastal winds. Several species are typical of coastal dunes. including California saltbush (Atriblex californicaL beach saltbush (Atriilex eucobhvllal, croton (Croton cahforn&Y4, and American dune brass (Levmns md& SA-55
The comment is acknowledged. One of the primary areas of protection within the Coastal Land Use Plan (CLUP) is the area of biological resources. More than 75 policies within the CLUP are applicable to biological resources. The listing of all of these policies within the biological resource section was determined to be overwhelming to readers of the EIR. Reference to the CLUP with mention of where and when CLUP policies are applicable to the proposed General Plan Update was deemed appropriate as the CLUP is available on-line at htt:// www.ciiy.newport-beach.ca.us/Pln/LCP/LCP.htm . It should be noted that listing of the CLUP policies applicable to cultural resources was possible and appropriate due to their relatively limited number.
10-194 City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR

Mwi
All of the areas identified as "environmentally sensitive areas" or "ESAs" in the current General Plan are located within the geographic boundaries of the Environmental Study Areas listed in the proposed Natural Resources Element. The environmental study areas are relatively large, undeveloped areas that may support species and habitats that are sensitive and rare within the region or may function as a migration corridor for wildlife. Policy NR 10.4 requires a site -specific survey and analysis prepared by a qualified biologist as a filing requirement for any development permit applications where development would occur within or contiguous to areas identified as Environmental Study Areas. Policy NR 10.3 prohibits development in nature preserves, conservation areas, and designated open space areas in order to minimize urban impacts upon resources in identified Environmental Study Areas. These proposed policies provide greater protection to the sensitive habitats and species located within these areas than Recreation and Open Space Policy Min the current General Plan, discussed in response JA-3. For these reasons, no significant impact is foreseen.

The designation of ESAs within the City does not exempt other non -designated portions of the City from biological review under CEQA and other applicable regulations dealing with biological resources.

During any development's project -level environmental review, a biological survey of the site as well as review of on -site habitats would be conducted to determine the potential habitat sensitivity of a particular site. The commenter is mistaken in her assumption that no biological review will be conducted for areas outside the ESAs. Under CEQA, further biological review of any development within the City limits is required, regardless of its location outside or within an ESA from the General Plan Update.

SA-57
The comment is acknowledged. Refer to response to comment SA-56 regarding further biological review of any development within the City limits, as required by CEQA. While Policy NR 10.3 does reference ESAs, other policies expressly protect areas outside the ESAs. For example, Policy NR 10.4 protects areas contiguous to areas within ESAs. Policy NR 10.5 requires that development — whether it be within or outside an ESA, protect sensitive or rare resources against any significant impact. Policies NR 10.6,

10.7 and 10.8 apply to all areas with sensitive biological resources, whether or not those areas are within an ESA. Also refer to the other policies listed on pages 4.3-31 to 4.3-36.

SA-58
The land use designations on the identified park properties would not change as a result of the proposed General Plan Update. However, if any development (such as bathrooms or other park -related improvements) is proposed within the park areas identified in this comment, project -specific environmental review would identify any potential impacts that may occur as a result of development.

However, from a programmatic perspective, the goals and policies of the proposed General Plan, in addition to federal, state, and local requirements, will ensure that less -than -significant impacts as a result of the proposed General Plan Update.

City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 10-195

SA-59
The proposed Natural Resources Element includes more policies for resource protection than the existing General Plan. All of these policies, not just NR 14.5, would apply to the construction of docks and other structures over water. For example, policies under goals NR3 and NR4 address water quality, and policies under Goal NR11 protect eelgrass. Also see Master Response E regarding level of analysis.

SA-60
The commenter requests analysis of pelagic (of or relating to the open ocean or sea) species and refers to a recent publication on night lighting. While pelagic species are not specifically identified in the EIR analysis, the Draft EIR specifically addressed night lighting within this impact and determined that, from a programmatic assessment perspective, night lighting impacts would be reduced to less -than -significant levels with implementation of Policies NR 10.5, NR 10.7, and NR 10.8. These policies would prevent disruption, and ensure protection of sensitive habitat though siting and design requirements, along with sufficient buffer sizes and shielding from direct exterior lighting. This analysis and finding is consistent with Section 15204(a) of the CEQA Guidelines, which states that, "the adequacy of an EIR is determined in terms of what is reasonably feasible in light of factors such as the geographic scope of the project, the magnitude of the project, and the severity of the likely environmental impacts." And, as further expressed in Section 15151 of the CEQA Guidelines, "An evaluation of the environmental effects of a proposed project need not be exhaustive, but the sufficiency of an EIR is to be reviewed in the light of what is reasonably feasible." In addition, impacts to wildlife movement, including the effects of night lighting, were analyzed within Impact 4.3-3 of the Draft EIR using the identified Standards of Significance for impacts to Biological Resources. The Draft EIR determined that implementation of applicable General Plan policies would ensure that substantial impacts to native, resident, or migratory wildlife species or corridors would not occur in areas of infill and redevelopment. The programmatic analysis identified and assessed potential impacts using specific Standards of Significance and, in light of what is reasonably feasible in a programmatic analysis, determined that the specific improvements identified (in the form of General Plan Policies) was sufficient to reduce potential impacts of night lighting. Therefore the Draft EIR is sufficient in the scope of its analysis and no further analysis is required.

SA-61
The commenter suggests the incorporation of policies in the Safety Element that would limit shoreline protective devices to those needed to protect existing development. Policies S3.5 through S3.9 provide that protection (see S3.5: Protection of Coastal -Dependent Uses, S3.6: Siting of Shoreline Protective Devices, S3.7: Shoreline Protective Devices on Public Land, S3.8: Shoreline Protective Device Use, and S3.9: Shoreline Protection for New Development). Refer also to response to comment SA-58 regarding the assessment of project -level impacts.

SA-62
The existing General Plan contains no articulated limitations regarding conversion of open space for public uses. Policy NR 17.2 adds criteria that limit the circumstances under which conversions could occur. The policies identified in the biological resources section and the applicable regulatory 10-196 City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR

environment would guide site -specific assessment of biological effects from new development, including those projects located in public open spaces, to assure that biological impacts, if they exist, are properly identified and mitigated. Also see Master Response E regarding level of analysis.

SA-63
It cannot be assured that all riparian habitat has been mapped and delineated City-wide, and such an undertaking is not required as part of the General Plan Update and its accompanying CEQA analysis. As such, riparian habitat may exist in areas where development is permitted by the General Plan Update. As stated on page 4.3-26 of the EIR, should certain development proposed under the General Plan be located within or adjacent to such wetland areas, state and federal laws and regulations would be implemented to protect resources from development through the Corps Section 404 permitting process, which is a discretionary rather than negotiated process, and the California Wetlands Conservation Policy, which is intended to ensure that no net loss of wetlands would occur within the state. As explained on pages 4.3-24 to 4.3-25, the CDFG, under Section 1600 of the Fish and Game Code of California, is empowered to regulate streams and associated streamside vegetation. The CDFG presumes that most drainage areas are streambeds. CDFG has the authority to negotiate alterations of streambeds pursuant to Section 1600 of the Fish and Game Code. Thus, development that encompasses alteration of riparian areas could be authorized by CDFG in circumstances where CDFG determined it was appropriate. In circumstances where CDFG authorizes the alteration, the impact would be the loss of the riparian resources, consistent with the policies and regulations of CDFG.

SA-64
The comment misinterprets page 4.3-21 which states that "The City's certified Coastal Land Use Plan (CLUP) contains extensive policy language addressing biological, habitat and resource protection. CLUP policies are applicable only in the Coastal Zone, which covers only a portion of the Planning Area." The Draft EIR does not assert that inland resources are unprotected. Rather, throughout the biological resources section, numerous analyses and citations of Policy are provided that address inland environments. This includes but is not limited to the discussion under Impact 4.3-1, 4.3-2 and 4.3-3. As described in response to comment JA-2, the current Recreation and Open Space Element states that "Environmentally Sensitive Areas are those passive open space areas possessing unique environmental value which may warrant some form of protection or preservation." While the existing Open Space and Recreation Element describes resources, they do not identify any protections.

SA-65
The threshold of significance identified on the top of page 4.3-24 of the Draft EIR states in part: "Would development allowed under the Proposed General Plan Update have a substantial adverse effect on ... other sensitive natural communities identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations, or by the CDFG or USFWS?" [emphasis added] The comment focuses on a portion of the emphasized language.

The discussion under Impact 4.30-2 includes lakes, streams [which includes drainage areas], streamside vegetation, lakeside vegetation, the riparian canopy, wetlands, terrestrial and marine resources, resources within ESAs, habitats containing candidate or special status plants or wildlife. In addition, pursuant to Policy NR 10.2, all development must comply with the Orange County Natural Resource Communities City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 10-197

Conservation Plan. The comment does not identify any other "sensitive natural community" that has been "identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations, or by the CDFG or USFWS" that should have been included in the discussion under this or any other impact heading.

SA-66
The comment is acknowledged. Refer to response to comment SA-58 regarding the assessment of project -level impacts. Further, Goal NR 13 and its policies identify the need to protect local wetlands from the effects of further development within the City, which would include potential sedimentation and runoff impacts. In addition, the potential impacts of sedimentation, erosion, and polluted run off were analyzed in the Draft EIR under Impact 4.7-3 (p. 4.7-33 to 4.7-34) and under Impact 4.7-4 (p. 4.7- 35 to 4.7-36. The City's Natural Resources, Safety, and Harbor and Bay Elements are also designed to reduce sedimentation, erosion and polluted runoff. Refer to Draft EIR pages 4.7-44 to 4.7-54.

SA-67
The comment refers to the second paragraph under the cumulative impacts discussion on page 4.3-29, which includes a typographical error. Page 4.3-29, third paragraph, first sentence is revised as noted below and as shown in Chapter 9 (Text Changes) in the Final EIR:

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 ftet—prohibit development within areas that contain sensitive natural communities....

Therefore, cumulative impacts due to the threshold discussed under Impact 4.3-2 (i.e., riparian habitats and other sensitive natural communities identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations, or by the CDFG or USFWS) would be less than significant.

SA-68
The City has utilized the state -issued thresholds of significance for biological impacts. These are contained in Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines. The threshold of significance does not reference species which have a "high value." The use of this term in the TBR is for purposes of prioritizing resources within the City. In terms of determining whether the proposed General Plan Update will have a significant effect on protected species, the criteria is whether the species has been "identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special -status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations or the CDFG or USFWS." While the TBR has information on other species, the Draft EIR is not required to analyze species not covered by the threshold.

SA-69
If the commenter is referring to the loss of Nonnative annual grasslands, the loss of this resource in certain areas due to development would be of little consequence due to its abundance elsewhere and its lack of status as a sensitive community (page 4.3-7). If the commenter is referring to the loss of native grasslands, as identified on page 4.3-23, proposed General Plan Update policies providing protection to habitats containing candidate, and special status plant and wildlife species are additions to the City's General Plan, in light of the fact that there are currently no such policies contained in the existing 10-198 City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR

Conservation of Natural Resources Element. Therefore, the proposed General Plan Update would increase the level of protection of these plant and wildlife species within the City's regulatory framework.

Further, the City has utilized the state -issued thresholds of significance for biological impacts. These are contained in Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines. The threshold of significance does not reference Nonnative grasslands. In terms of determining whether the General Plan Update will have a significant effect on a resource, the test is whether the resource has been "identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special -status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations or the CDFG or USFWS." The Draft EIR is not required to analyze species not covered by the threshold.

SA- 70
Refer to the Master Response A regarding inclusion of the 19' Street bridge in the EIR analysis.

SA-71
The cumulative biological impact was determined based in part on the CEQA Guidelines Appendix G discussion of biological resource questions within the context of the Orange County Central and Coastal NCCP area. To partially address the cumulative impacts on biological resources within the County, the City has committed in Policy NR 10.2 to comply with the NCCP. In addition, as explained in the last full paragraph on page 4.3-29, the General Plan Update provides protection for sensitive communities which are not already protected by federal or state regulations or by the NCCP. As the Draft EIR states in this context: "However, the policies and goals outlined under the proposed General Plan Update, specifically those identified in Impact 4.3-3, recognize the importance and value of these areas and are aimed at protecting these resources." Based upon these policies, the Draft EIR concluded: "Because of this, the project's contribution to the cumulatively adverse effect on these communities would not be considerable. Therefore, because the proposed General Plan Update does not contribute considerably to the decline of sensitive natural communities, the proposed General Plan Update's contribution to this impact would not be cumulatively considerable, and would result in a less -than -significant impact." On pages 4.3-30, the Draft EIR explained the basis for similar conclusions for riparian habitats, wetlands, and the movement of native residents or migratory wildlife species. The criteria that the City applied in making this determination include those contained in the CEQA Guidelines, Sections 15065(a)(3) and 15130, and Appendix G, Section IV. Biological Resources. The former defines "cumulatively considerable" to mean: "that the incremental effects of an individual project are significant when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects." It was under this definition that the Draft EIR reached its conclusion. Its discussion is pursuant to the criteria established in the CEQA Guidelines, Section 15130.

SA-72
The Draft EIR on pages 4.3-29 to 4.3-30 makes reference to potential future development outside of the City within the County. This is referring to development within the Orange County Central and Coastal NCCP area but outside of the City limits. The development referred to is the general growth and development that would occur within the Orange County Central and Coastal NCCP area between 2005 and 2030; no specific development projects were considered in this analysis as this is a programmatic EIR. As stated in page 4.3-29, the analysis assumes buildout of both the General Plan Update area as well City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 10-199

as the non -City portions of the NCCP area. The NCCP is formulated to account for the buildout condition.

SA - 73
Section 4.3 (Biological Resources), Appendices C1 and C2, Section 5.1 (Biological Resources Addendum) of the TBR, and the responses to comments SA-54 through SA-72 demonstrate that there is substantial evidence to support the EIR's determination that no significant effects on biological resources would occur with implementation of the proposed General Plan Update. The goals and policies of the proposed General Plan Update will guide development within the City and ensure that adequate analysis and protection of biological resources is performed, thereby resulting in a less -than -significant impact.

SA - 74
Impacts 4.4-2 and 4.4.-3, pages 4.14-15 through 4.4-17, identify a less -than -significant impact with regard to directly or indirectly destroying archaeological and/or paleontological resources by ensuring that resources are protected and preserved in responsible public or private institutions. The proposed General Plan Update policies do not require that artifacts be donated to an institution in Orange County, although that is the preference. The commenter is directed to Policies HR 2.4 and NR 18.2 and 18.4 in particular, which are designed to ensure property retention and preservation of resources.

SA-75
The information contained in the Hazards Assessment Study is included in the TBR, as noted in this comment. This document is a companion to the EIR, and its conclusions were used to form the analysis presented in the EIR. Therefore, the relevant portions of this study have been incorporated into the EIR; the study itself provides additional detail, most of which is too technical for inclusion in the EIR.

Consistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15147, an EIR shall include "...relevant information sufficient to permit full assessment of significant environmental impacts, and placement of highly technical ... data in the body of an EIR should be avoided." SA - 76
The discussion under the first threshold on page 4.5-13 is revised as noted below and as shown in Chapter 9 (Text Changes) in the Final EIR:

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.

In turn, Policies S 4.4 and S 4.5 would regulate the location of facilities affected by seismic activity in accordance with state law. These policies, coupled with compliance with CBC Chapter 33 for the construction of new buildings and/or structures and local City requirements would ensure that new development is not significantly affected by seismic activity. Page 4.5-14, first partial paragraph, is revised to add "and local City requirements" as a text change in Impact 4.5-1 as noted below and as shown in Chapter 9 (Text Changes) in the Final EIR.
10-200 City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR

... 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.

The information contained in the Hazards Assessment Study is included in the TBR, which is a companion to the EIR, and its conclusions were used to form the analysis presented in the EIR.

Therefore, the relevant portions of this study have been incorporated into the EIR; the study itself provides additional detail, most of which is too technical for inclusion in the EIR. Consistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15147, an EIR shall include "...relevant information sufficient to permit full assessment of significant environmental impacts, and placement of highly technical ... data in the body of an EIR should be avoided."
No changes to the analysis under this impact on page 4.5-13 of the EIR are required. Further, the addition of this policy does not alter the conclusions of Impact 4.5-1. As discussed above, any proposed development that results in identification of potentially active faults would be subject to the same requirements as other development affected by seismic activity. These requirements would ensure that impacts would be less than significant.

SA-77
Figure S2 will be amended in the Safety Element of the General Plan Update to identify a "fault disclosure zone" consistent with the TBR recommendation.

SA - 78
A wholesale review of structural safety in the City and the adoption of mandatory retrofit requirements is beyond the scope of the General Plan Update. The proposed project primarily addresses future new development and redevelopment in the City, and does not include policies or other project components that would change the structural integrity of existing development in the City. Therefore, the existence of structures that would be more susceptible to earthquake damage than other structures is an existing condition, and is not an impact of the proposed project. The threshold of significance is framed to ask whether the project (i.e., the General Plan Update) will expose people or structures to seismic and related risks. The threshold does not address whether people or existing structures are already exposed to seismic and related risks.

SA - 79
General Plan policies S 4.4 and S 4.6 address the siting of new and the upgrading and maintenance of existing essential public facilities. The sentence prior to the one referenced by the commenter states:
"Adherence to the City's codes and policies contained in the General Plan Update would ensure the maximum practical protection available for users of buildings and infrastructure and associated trenches, slopes, and foundations." By way of example, Policy S 4.1 addresses the codes regulating all structures.

Contained within the Building Codes and the Building Code Policies of the Building Department are requirements that all structures meet minimum standards for seismic safety design. In terms of location City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 10-201

on unstable soil or geologic units, the Building Department implements Building Code Policy NBMC

15.10, which requires soils reports for all new construction (including demolition and reconstruction), and any addition which increases the site coverage by more than 1,000 square feet. An addition of more than 400 square feet up to 1,000 square feet requires a soils engineer to inspect and certify subgrade compaction and footing bearing pressure, and a small addition up to 400 square feet requires the building inspector to inspect the subgrade and foundation trenches. In addition, Policy S 4.7 (New Development) has been added to the proposed General Plan Update and states: "conduct further seismic studies for new development in areas where potentially active faults may occur (Imp 2.1 and 37.1)." The policies referenced in the EIR result in an acceptable level of protection for people and structures in the case of a seismic event.
4M.-rc,
If the Santa Ana River Crossing at 19`" Street is developed, then project -specific study would be completed by OCTA, the lead agency for that project to investigate the potential for ground rupture at the location of the bridge. It is speculative to assume that engineering techniques could not be used to design the bridge to withstand the Maximum Credible Earthquake for the area, as is commonly completed for new roadway projects.

Refer to Master Response A regarding inclusion of the 19`h Street bridge in the EIR analysis.

SA-81
Section 4.5 (Geology, Soils, and Mineral Resources), Section 6.2 (Seismic Hazards) and Section 6.3 (Geologic Hazards) of the TBR, and the responses to comments SA-75 through SA-80 demonstrate that there is substantial evidence to support the EIR's determination that effects on geology and soils would remain less than significant with implementation of the proposed General Plan Update. The goals and policies of the proposed General Plan Update will guide development within the City and ensure that adequate analysis and protection of geologic and soils resources is performed, thereby resulting in a less - than -significant impact.

SA-82
According to the questions regarding traffic/transportation in CEQA Guideline Appendix G, which is incorporated into the Draft EIR, the relevant threshold of significance is whether the addition of project - generated vehicular traffic impairs implementation of or physically interferes with the City's Emergency Management Plan. That Plan, as described on page 4.6-29 of the Draft EIR, provides guidance for the City's response to extraordinary emergency situations associated with natural disasters, technological incidents and nuclear defense operations. The Plan is not applicable to day-to-day emergencies or the established departmental procedures to deal with such emergencies.

The comment does not specify in what manner traffic congestion would interfere with the implementation of the Plan. It appears what the comment is focused on is the ability for emergency vehicles to navigate on congested roads and intersections and how that might affect emergency response time. While this inquiry is not directly relevant to the EIR's conclusion regarding the City's Emergency Plan, the City provides the following information. The commenter is directed to Subchapter 4.13 for a 10-202 City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR

discussion of how roadway segments and intersections are anticipated to operate at buildout of the General Plan Update. (Also refer to Appendices D and E.) Even without implementation of the identified improvement measures, most of the impacted intersections would operate at Level of Service D or E, and traffic conditions would continue to operate at levels that are below the theoretical design capacity of the roadways. On these road segments, emergency vehicles will be able to traverse these roadways and intersections. By law, drivers in California must yield the right of way to any police car, fire engine, ambulance, or any other emergency vehicle with flashing lights. In addition, drivers must remain at least 300 feet behind an emergency vehicle which is responding to a call. In Newport Beach and other jurisdictions where traffic conditions are severely congested, emergency vehicles can, and do, traverse such roadways, generally by requiring vehicles to move over in order for the emergency vehicles to pass through. On some limited occasions, because of extended congestion, emergency vehicles may be required cross to opposing traffic lanes (e.g., to travel westbound in eastbound traffic lanes), use the median, or a bicycle lane, to get around congested road segments or intersections. Thus, emergency vehicles are not anticipated to experience any substantial delays as a result of the significant traffic impacts that could occur at some intersections as a result of implementation of the proposed project.

Please note that intersections operating or projected to operate at LOS E do not include intersections on the Peninsula. Further, the Fire Department (Sutherland 2006)3 has confirmed that there is no evidence to suggest that emergency vehicle access is impeded on the Peninsula. Emergency vehicles are able to get through traffic. Access is only an issue on the 4th of July and that is not related to, or would be affected by, implementation of the General Plan Update as the project does not propose to close any roads, redirect traffic, or otherwise impede the existing circulation system.

The commenter states that "[a]bsent this information, evidence does not exist to support a conclusion that no significant impacts to biological resources will occur." The City fails to see any connection between the ability of emergency vehicles to respond to calls and biological resources. Assuming that the comment refers to the City's ability to implement its emergency response plan, substantial evidence supports the EIR's conclusion that the proposed General Plan Update would not impair or physically interfere with the City's adopted emergency response plan.

SA-83
The City's Storm Drain Master Plan, completed in 2000, evaluated the deficiencies in the City's existing storm drain system and proposed upgrades. Additional details regarding the location and type of deficiencies in the existing storm drain system can be found in that document which can be viewed at Newport Beach City Hall during normal business hours. That document is referenced on page 4.7-12 of the EIR and also included within the list of references on page 4.7-55.

The information is summarized on pages 4.7-12 through 4.7-15. The comment fails to demonstrate that additional information should be included in the EIR.
3 Ron Sutherland, Battalion Chief, Newport Beach Fire Department, conversation with EIP Associates, June 27, 2006.

City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 10-203

SA-84
Any potential, future changes in sea level would be the result of atmospheric conditions, and not a result of the proposed project. The commenter does not identify which of the Hydrology/Water Quality Impacts she believes are implicated by changes in sea level. The City assumes that the commenter wishes the City to address the issue of whether the implementation of the General Plan Update would expose people or structures to significant risk of loss, injury, or death due to flooding that might occur as a result of the potential for the rise of sea levels. With respect to impacts on future daytime or permanent residents, impacts associated with potential flooding due to future change in sea level would be monitored by Policy 3.1, which states that the City will prepare and periodically update comprehensive studies of seasonal and long-term shoreline change, episodic and chronic bluff retreat, flooding, and local changes in sea levels, and other coastal hazard conditions, all of which are aimed at continually monitoring and assessing risk associated with any climactic changes. See Master Response E regarding level of analysis.

SA-85
With respect to compliance with existing TMDLs, the City of Newport Beach, the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board, the California Department of Fish and Game, the 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 TMDLs.

Generally, all of the TMDLs established by the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board require 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 TMDL standards. This goal is implemented by Policy NR 4.1, which requires that TMDLs established by the RWQCB, Santa Ana Region, and guided by the Newport Bay Watershed Executive Committee, are implemented. This goal and policy ensures that compliance with any future TMDLs is also achieved. The proposed project would not alter this process nor in any way affect the ability of the City to comply with existing or future TMDLs.

SA-86
Under Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act, jurisdictions are required to develop Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) for impaired waterbodies. Generally, a TMDL specifies the maximum amount of a pollutant that a water body can receive and still meet water quality standards. Newport Bay is designated as "water quality -limited" or identified as impaired for sediments, nutrients, fecal coliform, and toxic pollutants. The State Water Resources Control Board (State Board) and the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) have developed TMDLs for these constituents. TMDLs are designed to bring the listed water bodies into compliance with water quality standards. It is presumed that future discharges resulting from the proposed General Plan Update will be required to comply with all applicable water quality regulations, including applicable TMDLs. TMDLs do not prevent any increase in a listed pollutant, but rather allow specified daily loads of the subject pollutant to the impacted water body. As 10-204 City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR

outlined in response to comment SA-85, the City has a process to monitor and ensure its compliance with existing and future TMDLs.

SA-87
There is no requirement to apply Best Available Technologies in combination with, or in place of, Best Management Practices. EPA and the State Water Resources Control Board have both recognized that for storm water and urban runoff, it is appropriate to utilize Best Management Practices (BMPs) to meet applicable water quality requirements.

SA-88
Impacts related to the use of pesticides and fertilizers, and other non -point source pollutants, are addressed through implementation of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System program, which is fully discussed in Impact 4.7-1. Impact 4.7-1 concludes that a less -than -significant impact would occur with implementation of the proposed project.

SA-89
Modern pumping has caused water levels to drop below sea level inland of the Newport -Inglewood fault zone, which encourages sea water to migrate inland, contaminating the groundwater supply. Strategic lines of wells in the Alamitos and Talbert Gaps, which are located in Fountain Valley, inject imported and reclaimed water to create a mound of water to protect the Basin from seawater intrusion. As such, the injection of water in the Alamitos and Talbert Gaps prevent saltwater intrusion into the upper region of the aquifer, where most of the pumping occurs. As stated in Impact 4.7-6, pages 4.7-37 and 4.7-39, because operation of the proposed General Plan Update would not substantially increase groundwater pumping, the project would not adversely impact groundwater quality due to saltwater intrusion.

SA-90
Implementation of the proposed General Plan Update would not substantially increase groundwater pumping, and, therefore, it would not have a notable impact on the sustainability of the groundwater basin over the long term and additional detail regarding the Orange County Water District's long-term groundwater management strategy is not necessary in the cumulative analysis for the proposed project.

Refer to response to comment SA-102 for information on the degree of specificity required in the cumulative analysis.

However, the most recent Groundwater Management Plan prepared by OCWD, which was finalized and adopted in 2004, provides the information requested by this commenter. In summary, and as stated on page 9-1 of the Groundwater Management Plan, "OCWD utilizes a supply side management approach to achieve long-term sustainable yield from the Basin. On a regular basis, the amount of water that the Basin can supply is determined, and the District modifies the basin production percentage and related management tools so that the amount of actual pumping corresponds to the amount of water the Basin can supply." Refer also to response to comment SA-91 for an estimate of future groundwater pumping levels.

City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 10-205

SA-91
According to the OCWD 2004 Groundwater Management Plan, groundwater production from the Basin totaled approximately 350,000 AF in 2001 /02 and has steadily increased since 1954. This is the last year of production stated in the report. However, according to OCWD's website (accessed on June 30, 2006), at the present time about 270,000 acre-feet of this water is pumped for use each year. That quantity grows steadily, and projections indicate the demand may reach 450,000 acre-feet a year in the next quarter century.

SA-92
As analyzed in Section 4.14 (Utilities and Service Systems) under Impact 4.14.1-2, the amount of projected development within the City would place more demand on the local water supply. The amount of increased demand is quantified in the Draft EIR under Impact 4.14.1-2. The three agencies that provide water to the City will decide which source of water to use based on future economic conditions, climate, and hydrogeological factors. OCWD, the entity that provides the groundwater supply to the City, projects that there would be sufficient groundwater supplies to meet the future demand requirements in Newport Beach. (Also refer to the discussion of Impact 4.7-2 on pages 4.7-32 to 4.7-33.) SA-93
Impact 4.7-4 addresses the potential for increased downstream flooding and exceedance of stormwater drainage systems. As discussed under that impact, new development would primarily occur as infill, in areas previously developed with impervious surfaces, with the exception of Banning Ranch. Compliance with General Plan Update Policies and the City Municipal Code would ensure that new development would not significantly increase downstream flooding or exceed the capacity of stormwater drainage systems, and impacts would be less than significant.

SA-94
The anticipated increase in stormwater runoff cannot be reasonably calculated at this point in time, and therefore quantification of the increase would be based upon speculation and is inappropriate for inclusion in a program -level EIR. 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. As discussed under response to SA-93, most new development is infill development. Increased runoff from infill projects would be minor, and would largely depend on various components such as open space areas and on -site detention —components which are unknown and cannot be determined for specific projects that have yet to be proposed —of each new development project. In addition, the single largest potential change to drainage patterns could occur on Banning Ranch if that site is developed. The exact acreage and footprint of development on Banning Ranch is unknown, and, as such, specific runoff quantities cannot be specified. The commenter is directed to the discussion of Impacts 4.7-3, -4 and -5 for further information on this topic. 10-206 City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR

SA-95
As discussed under Impact 4.7-4, the City's SDMP identified upgrades necessary in most of the subareas.

The progression of how development actually proceeds will be a factor for determining which upgrades are appropriate and when they should be implemented. The discussion under Impact 4.7-5 provides further information regarding storm drain infrastructure. Refer to response to comment SA-94 for additional information.

SA-96
As discussed in response to SA-93, most new development would be infill development. Policy 3.21 requires new development and public improvements to minimize the creation of, and increases in, impervious surfaces. Further, the amount of runoff from a site is not only affected by lot coverage, but also through the design of the on -site storm drain system. That is, a site with less lot coverage and no on - site detention could result in more runoff (in cubic feet per second) than a site of similar acreage with more lot coverage and an effective on -site detention system. Further, because impacts to the storm drain system would not be significant, no mitigation, such as a lot coverage standard, would be required.

SA-97
As discussed under Impacts 4.14.1-1 and 4.14.1-2, existing water supply and water supply infrastructure exists to serve the proposed General Plan Update. As such, no additional water storage facilities would be required.

SA-98
Other areas of the Draft EIR address the issues of flooding from sources other than levee breaches. For example, in the discussion of Impact 4.7-7, there is a discussion of the existing development in the coastal area that is already subject to flooding in the 100-year storm event according to FEMA mapping. (Also refer to the discussion of Impact 4.7-8.) In addition, the discussion of Impact 4.7-10 addresses the impact associated with tsunami, and also provides a discussion of prevention measures that would reduce impacts from storm surge. The effects of storm surge are largely similar to tsunami and would affect a similar area. Therefore, information presented on tsunamis is also relevant to storm surge. No new measures or policies beyond those identified in the EIR are necessary to ensure adequate shoreline protection.

SA-99
Impacts related to flood risks such as storm surges and tsunamis are addressed by more than Policy S2.6 relating to maintenance of storm drains. Policies S2.1 through S2.5 and S2.7 also address impacts with shoreline management plans, using sand dunes, raising floor elevations, and prohibiting construction of hard devices.

SA-100
As discussed in the description of the watersheds on pages 4.7-2 to 4.7-3, the Planning Area is part of four watersheds which consist of 158 acres of land. The EIR contains a discussion regarding the City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 10-207

cumulative impacts of development within the watersheds on water quality on page 4.7-42. In addition, Section 5.2 (Hydrology and Water Quality) of the TBR provide more information regarding the watersheds. The discussion is qualitative rather than quantitative by necessity. It would be unreasonable to quantify and describe all other new development anticipated in the 158 acres of watershed, given the number of jurisdictions and the geographic scope of the watershed. New development would include urban infill and new development typical of Orange County, with residential, commercial, and various other projects. Also note that Page 4.7-45 of the Draft EIR, Policy NR 3.6 (formerly NR 3.7) has been revised to indicate:

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 rewAatory agencies ate stream 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) While specific detail is not included in this EIR, given the types of projects anticipated and the types of impacts that could occur, an accurate assessment of cumulative impacts is provided.

SA- 101
As discussed under response to SA-85 and SA-86, a water quality impact occurs with an increase over an established TMDL, not with any increase in criteria pollutants, and the City has a process to monitor and ensure compliance with existing and future TMDLs. This would ensure that the incremental contribution of the Proposed General Plan update to the cumulative conditions within Newport Bay would be less than significant.

SA -102
The commenter is questioning the pollutant loads that would result with implementation of the proposed project and whether these loads would be considered significant. Pollutant loads are primarily regulated on a watershed basis through the application of Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) for waters that are considered "impaired." Generally, a TMDL specifies the maximum amount of a pollutant that a water body can receive and still meet water quality standards, and requires a jurisdiction to allocate pollutant loadings among point and nonpoint pollutant sources to achieve that amount. In layman's terms, a TMDL sets a limit for the total loading of a particular pollutant, such that the pollutant loads from all sources will not impair the beneficial uses designated for the waterbody. The limit identified by a TMDL is allocated among different point sources (wasteload allocations) and nonpoint sources (load allocations). TMDL targets also incorporate a margin of safety to account for uncertainty. The timeframe for compliance with TMDL targets varies, but may take many years. Therefore the TMDL will often include a compliance schedule, identifying interim and final targets.

As stated on page 4.7-8 of the Draft EIR, Newport Bay is designated as "water quality -limited" for four impairments under the federal Clean Wlater Acf s Section 303(d) List, meaning that it is "not reasonably expected to attain or maintain water quality standards" due to these impairments without additional 10-208 City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR

regulation. Under Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act, states, territories, and authorized tribes are required to develop lists of impaired waters and establish priority rankings for waters on the lists and develop TMDLs for these waters. The Santa Ana Region Water Quality Control Board (SARWQCB) and the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) have developed TMDLs for the sediment, nutrients, fecal coliform, and toxic pollutants in Newport Bay (Newport Beach 2005). A complete list of the interim and final numeric targets for TMDLs in Newport Bay can be found on the County of Orange Watershed and Coastal Resources Division website ( http://www.ocwatersheds.com/watersheds/ newport_tmdls.asp). Essentially, the TMDL is the "cumulative load" of the watershed as measured on an interim and final basis.

The effectiveness of individual control measures varies, and the concentration of pollutants that will remain as a result of the effectiveness of each individual control measure cannot be reasonably quantified. However, all projects would be required to comply with the Orange County Drainage Area Management Plan, which provides the specifications necessary in order to ensure that water quality pollutants are minimized to the Maximum Extent Practicable. As stated under the analysis of Impact 4.7-1 and referenced under the cumulative impact analysis, operation of new development or redevelopment projects are required comply with provisions set forth in the DAMP, including the implementation of appropriate BMPs identified in the DAMP, to control stormwater runoff so as to prevent any deterioration of water quality that would impair subsequent or competing beneficial uses of the water, while allowing the established TMDL targets to be achieved.

Further, the Newport Bay Watershed Executive Committee, which is advised by the Watershed Management Committee (WMC), has been assigned with the responsibility to implement the TMDLs.

The WMC typically meets quarterly to discuss compliance with the TMDLs established by the SARWQCB. Generally, all the TMDLs established by the SARWQCB require that watershed -based solutions be developed by the watershed stakeholders, followed by joint funding for the implementation of these projects throughout the watershed. Through this process of monitoring, the effectiveness of all of the water quality programs occurring within the watershed are determined, and, where necessary, additional guidelines, rules, or requirements may be established to achieve the TMDL targets and/or increase the effectiveness of individual control measures or BMPs.

As stated in Impact 4.7-1, compliance with all of the water quality regulations would minimize the risk of water degradation within the City from construction and operational activities, which would result in a less -than -significant impact.

SA -103
As described in response to comment SA-89, modern pumping has caused water levels to drop below sea level inland of the Newport -Inglewood Fault zone, which encourages sea water to migrate inland, contaminating the groundwater supply. Strategic lines of wells in the Alamitos and Talbert Gaps, which are located in Fountain Valley, inject imported and reclaimed water to create a mound of water to protect the Basin from seawater intrusion. As such, the injection of water in the Alamitos and Talbert Gaps prevent saltwater intrusion into the upper region of the aquifer, where most of the pumping occurs. As stated in Impact 4.7-6, because operation of the proposed General Plan Update would not substantially City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 10-209

increase groundwater pumping, the project would not adversely impact groundwater quality due to saltwater intrusion.

As described in SA-92, as analyzed in Section 4.14 (Utilities and Service Systems) under Impact 4.14.1-1 and Impact 4.14.1-2, adequate water supply would exist to meet demands associated with the General Plan Update. (Also refer to the discussion of Impact 4.7-2 on pages 4.7-32 to 4.7-33.) The year 2030 projected availability of imported water supply exceeds the 2030 projected region -wide demand for imported water supply by at least 155,000 AF. Therefore, MWDOC has indicated that there is adequate existing and planned imported water supply to accommodate the increased demand associated with the proposed General Plan Update. The City could in the future elect to extract more water from the local groundwater supply to avoid the purchase of additional imported water. However, the City's future decisions on its water sources will depend on the many factors that affect management of the water supply, including future economic, climate, and hydrogeological factors which are currently unknown. As such, the precise future demands on groundwater cannot be quantified and may vary from year to year.

The Orange County Groundwater Basin is subject to management through OCWD and its Groundwater Master Plan, and long term administration of its groundwater resources would occur separate from the proposed General Plan Update. Refer also to responses to comments SA-90 and SA-91 for a discussion of other groundwater management strategies.

SA -104
Refer to Master Response B and responses to comments SA-100 and SA-102 for information on the degree of specificity required in the cumulative analysis. The analysis states that upgrades within the City would be required to the City's storm drain systems. The implementation of these upgrades will be dictated by how development proceeds within the area, which is currently speculative. It is beyond the scope of this EIR to identify storm drain improvements needed outside of the City. Nonetheless, the City is able to assess the significance of the impact created by its incremental contribution to the impacts.

SA -105
As discussed response to comment SA-100, the Planning Area is part of four watersheds which consist of 158 acres of land. The Draft EIR contains a discussion regarding the cumulative impacts of development within the watersheds on water quality on page 4.7-42. Section 5.2 Hydrology and Water Quality of the TBR provides more information regarding the watersheds. The discussion is qualitative rather than quantitative by necessity. It would be unreasonable to quantify and describe all other new development anticipated in the 158 acres of watershed, given the number of jurisdictions and the geographic scope of the watershed. New development would include urban infill and new development typical of Orange County, with residential, commercial, and various other projects. While specific detail is not included in this EIR, given the types of projects anticipated and the types of impacts that could occur, an accurate assessment of cumulative impacts is provided.

SA-106
Section 4.7 (Hydrology and Water Quality), Section 5.2 (Hydrology and Water Quality of the TBR), and the responses to comments SA-83 through SA-105 demonstrate that there is substantial evidence to support the EIR's determination that effects on hydrology and water quality would remain less than 10-210 City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR

significant with implementation of the proposed General Plan Update. The goals and policies of the proposed General Plan Update will guide development within the City and ensure that adequate analysis and protection of hydrologic features and water quality is performed, thereby resulting in a less -than - significant impact.

SA-107
The proposals for "consolidation" of commercial uses in West Newport Highway and Balboa Village do not relate to land use compatibility. Rather, the intent is to address these underperforming commercial areas by concentrating commercial uses to improve their performance, and the quality of development in both the commercial and surrounding residential areas. The EIR only refers to "consolidation" when discussing the existing oil and gas operations on Banning Ranch.

SA-108
In public hearings on the General Plan, the City Council has directed that the land use category table and maps be revised to show single family and two family and multi -family land use designation.

SA-109
The introduction to Table 4.8-2 states that the proposed General Plan Update is generally consistent with the SCAG regional plan, with the exception of SCAG Policy 4.02. The discussion of SCAG Policy 4.02 (on page 4.8-20) suggests that certain traffic impacts relevant to SCAG Policy 4.02 would not be mitigated. Also, page 4.10-5 states that the increase in residential units and the associated increase in population would exceed SCAG projections. Nonetheless, in SCAG's comment letter on the Draft EIR, SCAG states that "SCAG staff has evaluated your submission for consistency with the Regional Comprehensive Plan and Guide, Regional Transportation Plan, and Compass Growth Vision. The Draft EIR addresses SCAG's policies and forecasts appropriately and has provided sufficient explanation of how the plan helps meet and support regional goals. Based on the information provided in the EIR we have no further comments."
MI AW11,
As stated in Chapter 4, Section 4.8 (Land Use and Planning) on page 4.8-24, any future regional growth and development would be required to be reviewed for consistency with adopted land use plans and policies by the County, City of Newport Beach, or other incorporated cities with jurisdiction over a project. In addition, future development must comply with the requirements of CEQA, the California Zoning and Planning Law, and the state Subdivision Map Act. To the extent allowed by law, and as approved by a jurisdiction's decision -making body, as well as any other public agency with discretionary authority over all or a part of an action, any General Plan can be amended to provide for more or less development, and it would be speculative to analyze what other jurisdictions may do as part of future planning efforts.

SA-111
Section 4.8 (Land Use and Planning), Section 2.1 (Land Use and Planning) of the TBR, and the responses to comments SA-107 through SA-110 demonstrate that there is substantial evidence to City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 10-211

support the EIR's determination that effects related to land use and planning consistency would remain less than significant with implementation of the proposed General Plan Update. The goals and policies of the proposed General Plan Update will guide development within the City and minimize conflicts and ensure consistency of development with existing plans, thereby resulting in a less -than -significant impact.

SA-112
Traffic noise contours are based upon roadway noise levels calculated pursuant to Federal Highway Administration Highway Noise Prediction Model (FHWA-RD-77-108). The model calculates the average noise level at specific locations based on traffic volumes, average speeds, roadway geometry, and site environmental conditions. Site environmental conditions are determined by taking actual noise measurements, which takes into account existing background noise levels. To the extent that airplane noise contributes to the background noise levels, that source of noise is considered in the noise contour.

SA-113
The Draft EIR contains a general description of the noise impacts associated with construction at pages

4.9-33 to 4.9-35 of the Draft EIR. As explained therein, construction activities are limited to certain days and certain hours. The noise levels at 50 feet from the source of the noise are identified in Table 4.9.9.

As noted in the Table, if equipment has noise reducing design features, the noise levels would be lower.

Given the temporary nature of construction noise, the requirement that it not occur on weekends or evening hours, and its dissipation with distance, and its compliance with City Codes, the Draft EIR concludes that at this programmatic level, the increase in ambient noise level will not be "substantial." As individual projects are reviewed under CEQA, special circumstances (e.g., proximity to sensitive receptors, length of construction) may result in the City reaching the conclusion that temporary construction noise will substantially increase the ambient noise levels. Specific construction activities that may introduce temporary increases in ambient noise levels would be subject to further environmental review, as this Draft EIR is a programmatic document and does not identify any specific projects. Any project carried out under the proposed General Plan Update would be subject to its own environmental review under CEQA, including the identification of feasible mitigation measure to reduce the exempted impacts of construction noise. Any description of future construction related impacts in this Draft EIR would be speculative in nature, and therefore, can not be analyzed in more detail than was set forth in the Draft EIR. See Master Response E regarding level of analysis.

Additionally, as construction activities are exempt from the City Noise Ordinance and the Municipal Code, and construction activities are restricted to limited hours and days of the week, and consistent with General Plan Update Policy N 4.6 calls for strict enforcement of noise limits and hours of construction, and will further help to reduce events of random noise associated with construction at the times that are most likely to annoy residents.

SA-114
While plans for proposed residences in the Airport Area have not been developed enough to identify whether they would have outside balconies, the EIR discloses exterior noise level impacts related to residential uses in the Airport Area. As the EIR identifies that residences could be developed within the 65 dBA CNEL noise contour, exterior noise would exceed allowable noise levels for residential areas. 10-212 City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR

This would occur only if, consistent with Policy LU 6.15.24, the City makes appropriate findings for an override to allow residential development within the 65 dBA CNEL. In these areas, impacts on exterior noise levels at new land uses in the vicinity of the airport would be significant. However, in public hearings on the General Plan, the City Council has directed that proposed residential uses within the 65 dBA CNEL contour of the Airport Area be removed. General Plan Policies LU 6.15.3 on page 3-64 of the proposed General Plan, and Policies N 3.1, 3.2, and 3.3 on page 12-30 of the proposed General Plan have been added or revised to indicate this. See Master Response E regarding level of analysis.

SA-115
Refer to response to comment SA-10 and Master Response D regarding an analysis of noise impacts beyond the City's boundaries.

SA-176
Implementation of the Banning Avenue/19th Street bridge, while included in the MPAH, is not currently a programmed improvement. However, it is identified as a long-range improvement, and, therefore, it is included in the General Plan buildout scenario for traffic analysis. Because the noise analysis relies on the traffic analysis, the noise levels on Dover Drive reflects any traffic increases attributable to the Banning Avenue/19th Street bridge. Refer to Master Response A regarding inclusion of the 19th Street bridge in the EIR analysis.

SA-117
The 19th Street bridge is considered part of future conditions, as it is included in regional plans. It will remain on the regional plans unless an agreement can be reached by the four affected Cities. Therefore, impacts of including the bridge are not analyzed —impacts of removing it are analyzed. The City of Newport Beach General Plan Traffic Study Preliminary Alternatives Analysis (Urban Crossroads, Inc., May 3, 2005) included evaluation without the 19th Street bridge. Discussion of the impacts of excluding the 19th Street bridge is included on pages ES-21 and 6-1. Page ES-21 will be revised, as the last 2 lines of text are missing, to finish the paragraph, including "additional through lane in each direction. Therefore it is recommended that Newport Beach continue to be a strong advocate for this bridge." Refer to response to comment SA-116 for a discussion regarding traffic related noise impacts as a result of the proposed 19th Street bridge. See Master Response A regarding inclusion of the 19th Street Bridge in the EIR analysis.

SA-118
The calculations of total future population for the City in 2030, as shown in Table 4.10-2 on page 4.10-2 of the Draft EIR, were based on population and household forecasts prepared by SCAG in 2004, which include persons residing in Newport Coast, which was annexed in 2002.

SA-119
Newport Beach is a jobs -rich community. As described in Section 4.10 (Population and Housing), with implementation of the proposed General Plan Update, residential units would increase by an additional City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 10-213

4,666 compared to future growth under the existing General Plan. Inasmuch as the proposed General Plan Update will provide for more residential units, and will replace office uses with residential uses in the Airport Area, the implementation of the proposed General Plan Update will improve the jobs/housing balance.

SA-120
The Draft EIR is not required to examine anticipated employment and income levels versus anticipated costs of the housing to be provided. This issue area is not a required threshold of significance, pursuant to Section 15131 of the 2005 CEQA Guidelines which states that economic or social effects of a project shall not be treated as significant effects on the environment. However, in formulating land use alternatives for the proposed General Plan, the City evaluated the market potential (in addition to traffic, fiscal, and environmental impacts) for specific land uses at certain locations, to help define appropriate land uses. Mixed -use development was identified as a feasible land use in the areas designated in the proposed General Plan. By clustering residential and non-residential land uses, greater opportunities exist for residents to reside closer to their places of employment, as opposed to segregated land uses.

SA-121
The Draft EIR is not required to examine how changes in land use will affect work force demographics and income. This issue area is not a required threshold of significance, pursuant to Section 15131 of the 2005 CEQA Guidelines, which states that economic or social effects of a project shall not be treated as significant effects on the environment.

SA -122
Impacts related to provision of fire (pages 4.11-9 through 4.11-12), police (pages 4.11-15 through 4.11- 18), and school services (pages 4.11-22 through 4.11-26) are identified in the EIR as less -than -significant.

However, the City will likely require further CEQA environmental review of specific proposals to expand facilities in order to provide fire, police and school services. These new proposals could identify potentially significant impacts. Each proposal would be required to identify mitigation to address each potentially significant impact. However, the City also has the authority (CEQA Guidelines Section 15043) to approve a project despite significant impacts.

SA-123
As stated in response to comment EQ-42, on page 4.11-7, and on pages 4.11-9 through 4.11-12, the EIR identifies NBFD service goals as based on accepted service levels which are not directly correlated to population increases, and are more a function of the geographic distribution of structures. Because the proposed GPU requires that adequate infrastructure be provided as new development occurs and because the NBFD has planned for future growth, potential impacts related to fire service are less than significant. In addition, as described on page 4.11-8, the NBFD is conducting an in-house operational research study using various programs to optimize station locations based upon growth in geographic areas. It would be premature to identify fire station locations at this time. 10-214 City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR

SA -124
As identified on page 4.11-16, the addition of 84 police personnel would require the construction of new facilities. However, the EIR also acknowledges that not all police personnel would be required at one time. Because the proposed General Plan Update buildout would occur as market forces dictate, the City would likely bring on additional police personnel as needed. Each increment of new development would require a different response from NBPD planning services to accommodate changes in number of police personnel. The EIR, page 4.11-16, provides the flexibility to address these changes with future environmental review.

SA-125
As described in EQ-46, SA-82, and SA-152, emergency access is addressed in Section 4.13 (Transportation/Traffic), Impact 4.13-6, page 4.13-44, as well as in Section 4.6 (Hazards and Hazardous Materials), Impact 4.6-8 on page 4.6-29.

SA-126
As described in response to comment B-24, the City of Irvine has proposed a Negative Declaration for their IBC residential zoning overlay, which states that the SAUSD has indicated they have sufficient capacity to accommodate additional population from the IBC, with the required payment of impact fees.

While no information is provided about capacity of SAUSD, the EIR presents a conservative analysis and describes potential capacity constraints at SAUSD and that the school district would likely have to build new facilities. However, the EIR, page 4.11-22, also states that impacts related to construction of new schools would be less than significant.

SA-127
The mitigation of impacts related to provision of schools is limited to payment of school impact fees.

The EIR, thus, identifies potential deficiencies in school capacity as capacity constraints lead to the need for new facilities.

SA-128
The commenter is correct. Page 4.12-13 incorrectly describes Municipal Code Chapter 19.52 as applying to all residential development. Page 4.12-13 is revised as noted below and as shown in Chapter 9 (Text Changes) in the Final EIR:

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....

SA-129
The City's Park Dedication Ordinance was adopted in the 1970s, at which time the City did provide at least 5 acres of parkland per 1,000 persons residing in the community. The discrepancy noted is the result City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 10-215

of annexing the Newport Coast and Newport Ridge areas in 2000, which is due to the fact that the park sites in those areas are largely privately owned by homeowners associations. Therefore, the City continues to have the ability to require parkland dedication at the ratio of 5 acres per 1,000 population.

SA-130
The 155 acres of park that the commenter refers to would likely represent a mix of new park sites, as well as private park sites, as well as improvements to existing park sites. See Recreation Element Policy R1.10 which identifies the priorities for development of parkland; Policy LU 6.15.15 requires dedication of parks for residential development in the Airport Area; and Policy R1.3 requires on -site recreational amenities for residential development in the Airport Area and Newport Center.

SA-137
As stated on page 4.11-21, NMUSD does not currently identify any projected needs for new facilities. In addition, as stated on page 4.11-22, NMUSD staff have indicated that campus size is near or above the minimum standards for elementary schools and below the standard for middle schools. No new recreation impacts have been identified related to NMUSD schools.

SA-132
Refer to response to comment SA-129. Policies regarding park credits do not change the fact that the City had at least 5 acres per 1,000 residents at the time the Park Dedication Ordinance was adopted. The proposed General Plan allows consideration of park credits only in high density residential neighborhoods and only if the private parks provided the same benefit and/or reduced demand for public park space and are accessible during daylight hours to the general public (R 1.3). The Proposed Land Use Element has a policy to require the maintenance of private open space and recreations facilities, but there is no credit proposed as part of the policy (LU 6.2.9). Other than the credits provided for in Recreation Element R 1.3, satisfaction of the park dedication requirements is expected through the dedication of land or the payment of in -lieu park fees.

SA-133

Page 4 ends

Newport Beach City CouncilApril 9, 2024

Newport Beach City Council
April 9, 2024