for new residents as a result of the proposed General Plan. The relevant geographic context for the analysis of these impacts is the City of Newport Beach and its SOI.
The comment provides no evidence that the project would impact parks in neighboring cities, and the City of Newport Beach does not know how many of its residents use recreation facilities and programs in Costa Mesa. It is known that Costa Mesa residents currently make heavy use of Newport Beach recreation facilities and programs, with 593 Costa Mesa residents in recreation programs and an additional 1,647 Costa Mesa residents in Newport Beach adult sports leagues. In all, Costa Mesa residents constitute 13 percent of participants in Newport Beach recreation programs. In addition, 15 percent of teams in Newport Beach's adult softball league are from Irvine (many from IBC businesses), and 244 Irvine residents are registered in Newport Beach adult recreation programs. Newport Beach provides full recreation programs for youth, adults and seniors, and there is no evidence that the City would not 10-216 City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR
expand or adjust its programs as necessary to meet growing and changing needs and desires of its residents, consistent with past City policy and practice. The City's park dedication fee provides the resources for additional recreation facilities, and Policy R 1.10 establishes the City's priorities for developing new park and recreation facilities. In addition, Policy LU 6.5.2 provides for an active community park of up to 30 acres to be developed on the Banning Ranch property, in either the open space or residential village land use option. It should be noted that this location is near the Costa Mesa boundary. The park dedication fee and the noted policies in the proposed General Plan update will avoid a significant impact on parks in neighboring cities.
SA -134
As described on page 4.12-17, the EIR has identified that development of facilities could create aesthetic, biological or hydrology impacts; however, any of these new facility developments would be subject to the City's environmental review process which includes project -specific environmental review under CEQA.
Further, the EIR does not speculate on plans of the City of Costa Mesa for modifying its park services or initiating new sources of revenue generation.
SA-135
The City's experience over the past 20 years is that most multi -family developments include approval of a subdivision map that triggers the payment of park fees. This is done even if the project is not initially sold as condominiums and stays a rental property.
SA-136
The use of park fees to improve and upgrade parks could reduce monies available to acquire additional parkland. However, upgrading existing parks enhances their ability to serve more residents.
SA-137
Refer to response to comment SA-129.
SA-138
Refer to response to comment SA-10 and Master Response D regarding analysis beyond the City boundaries.
SA-139
As described in the General Plan Traffic Study report, the nearest intersection to the MacArthur Boulevard / I-405 Freeway interchange is MacArthur Boulevard at Campus Drive. The increase in ICU at this intersection during the PM peak hour (when traffic volumes are highest) due to through traffic on MacArthur Boulevard destined for the subject interchange is only .028 (.236 — .208). Given the intervening arterial intersections and dispersion of traffic, no impact is anticipated at the MacArthur Boulevard / I-405 Freeway interchange. In addition, the City of Irvine and Costa Mesa did not ask for this analysis in their IS/NOP comments. See Master Response D regarding analysis beyond the City boundaries.
City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 10-217
SA-140
See Master Response A regarding inclusion of 19'h Street Bridge in EIR analysis.
SA-141
See Master Response A regarding inclusion of 19"' Street Bridge in EIR analysis. The proposed General Plan Update is consistent with the adopted Master Plan of Arterial Highways (MPAH). The Santa Ana River Crossings Study (SARX) was an EIR that analyzed the impacts of amending the MPAH to delete the 19th Street and Gisler bridges. This EIR was never certified by the Orange County Transportation Agency (OCTA). The proposed General Plan Update would not preclude OCTA from amending the MPAH to provide alternate means of achieving acceptable levels of traffic flow. Because the SARX Draft EIR was released in June 2001 and the Draft Final EIR was completed in April 2002, such an amendment to the MPAH would likely require new environmental analysis, which might not identify the same alternatives. The responsibility for this analysis is OCTA's; it is not the function of Newport Beach's EIR on its proposed General Plan Update.
SA-142
Margin of error is an incorrect term. The margin of error expresses the amount of the random variation underlying a survey's results. This can be thought of as a measure of the variation one would see in reported percentages if the same poll were taken multiple times. The larger the margin of error, the less confidence one has that the poll's reported percentages are close to the "true" percentages, that is the percentages in the whole population.
Margin of error is only dependent on the sample size and should not be used to determine the accuracy of traffic data. In traffic data, the sample size can be irrelevant to proving how accurate counts are (as presented above). Furthermore, to determine if traffic count is accurate, the data should be compared to another set of traffic data on a different day with the same outside factors (e.g., weekends, holidays, peak hours). The comparison of the data on different days will indicate the variations of the traffic behavior since it compares "apples to apples" and bases evaluations on the size of the traffic count sample.
A more relevant question would be related to the natural variation in traffic patterns over the course of a week. Standard industry practice, which was followed in preparation of the Transportation Study, is to perform traffic count collections on a Tuesday, Wednesday, or Thursday to minimize the potential for unusual travel patterns associated with weekend getaways, alternate work schedules, etc. Even so, it is expected that traffic volumes can vary from 5 or 10 percent, up or down.
SA-143
For documentation of the forecasting tool, see Newport Beach Traffic Model (NBTM) 3.1 Technical Documentation Report (Revised) (Urban Crossroads, Inc., January 27, 2004). In summary, calibration of the NBTM with respect to traffic volume forecasts (model validation) are based on the criteria set forth in the document Highway Traffic Data for Urbanized Area Project Planning and Design. This document is also known as National Cooperative Highway Research Program Report 255 (NCHRP-255). This 10-218 City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR
7 6
60 50
40 z
a
P
a
a 30
2 w
u
a 20
10 n
Total Screenline Traffic (1000's)
5 25 45 65 - 85 105 125 145 165 185 200
PERCENT GEMMION - BASE YEAR ASSIGNMENT - BASE YEAR COUNT
BASE YEAR COUNT
15 25 35 45 55 65 75 85 9!
Base Year Count (1000's)
CITY of NEWPORT BEACH
GENERAL PLAN UPDATE EIR
NCHRP-255 EXHIBIT
City of Newport Beach
Sources: National Cooperative Highway Research Program Report 255 (NCHRP-255); Urban Crossroad, 2006,
Project No. 10579-03
EIP
report documents the difficulties associated with evaluating model performance. Variability in day-to-day traffic conditions is a well -established fact, and the criteria included in NCHRP-255 provide a reasonable basis for evaluating model traffic forecasts. NCHRP-255 presents graphs (reproduced in the traffic model documentation report) that represent the maximum desirable deviation from actual traffic counts that can be expected from a modeling tool such as the NBTM. The graphs are included here. The NBTM was certified by the Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA). The NCHRP-255 states that "the principal types of applications include systems planning, corridor or subarea studies, evaluation of alternative plans, traffic operations studies, highway design, and environmental studies".
Screenlines are a primary tool used to evaluate model performance. A screenline is an imaginary cordon drawn across a series of roadways that serve a common traffic flow. For example, the screenline that runs north of Coast Highway from Jamboree Road to Newport Coast Drive has traffic volumes that vary from the counted volume by approximately 3 percent.
SA-144
The comment cites one of multiple source studies reviewed to determine an appropriately conservative mixed use development trip rate. Every study reviewed indicated an internal capture rate equal to or in excess of from 10 percent and up to 50 percent, above the internal capture rate of 10 percent ultimately used in the analysis. As individual mixed -use projects are evaluated, internal capture rates can be specified with more detailed information available. Examples gathered to determine internal capture are described in 3-3 and 3-4 (Appendix V contains sample calculations). Based on the examples provided, and Urban Crossroads, Inc. professional expertise, for planning level analysis, a 10 percent internal capture rate is in fact a conservative and appropriate assumption.
SA-145
The data cited on high-rise apartments in the traffic study report was obtained from the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) publication Trip Generation Manual (7th edition). The ITE Trip Generation rates for high-rise apartments are approximately 37 to 43 percent less than the rate for apartment. Based on the judgment of the engineering staff of Urban Crossroads, Inc., a factor reducing apartment trip generation in the model to represent high-rise apartments is reasonable. A discussion of high-rise apartments is found on page 3-6 of the Transportation Study. High-rise apartments are represented as typical apartments in the model, with the reduction shown by creating a "surrogate quantity" of dwelling units that is 20 percent less than the actual unit count. The model structure could not be modified to include a special rate for high-rise apartments, as the Newport Beach Traffic Model update was already completed prior to beginning this General Plan analysis.
Data contained in the ITE Trip Generation Manual is typically collected in suburban areas. There is no indication that well developed mass transit is available at the ITE study sites. Sites surveyed in the ITE Trip Generation Manual are not located in mixed use settings, but reflect a single use characteristic as a prerequisite for inclusion in the database. Therefore none of the reduction could be attributed to mixed use reduction instead.
10-220 City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR
In addition to the relationship between the peak hour trip rates for typical apartments and high rise apartments, the relationship between the peak hour trip rates for typical apartments and high rise apartments and typical condominiums and high rise condominiums has also been investigated by Urban Crossroads, Inc. staff. In each comparison to typical apartments, the reduction in peak hour trip generation exceeds the conservative 20 percent reduction utilized in the Draft EIR.
SA-146
High rise apartments (five stories or higher) may occur in Newport Center and the Airport Area as a result of the proposed General Plan Update. As discussed on page 3-4 of the traffic study report (Appendix D to the Draft EIR), mixed use reductions are not taken when high-rise reductions are used in the Airport Area. The same is true for the Newport Center/Fashion Island subarea. The ITE Trip Generation rates for high-rise apartments are approximately 37 to 43 percent less than the rate for apartment. Based on the engineering judgment of Urban Crossroads, Inc. staff, a factor reducing apartment trip generation in the model to represent high-rise apartments is reasonable. A discussion of high-rise apartments is found on page 3-6 of the Transportation Study. High-rise apartments are represented as typical apartments in the model, with the reduction shown by creating a "surrogate quantity" of dwelling units that is 20 percent less than the actual unit count. The model structure could not be modified to include a special rate for high-rise apartments, as the Newport Beach Traffic Model update was already completed prior to beginning this General Plan analysis. As discussed in the previous section, the relationship between mid -rise apartments and typical apartments' trip rates in the ITE Trip Generation Manual would also justify application of the 20 percent (or even a greater) reduction.
Therefore, any apartment building exceeding three stories would be a reasonable candidate for application of the reduced trip rate.
SA-147
Model trip generation is different than traffic study trip generation. ITE trip generation rates reflect driveway level trips at single use projects. Model trip generation reflects how the uses interact with the surrounding system (including things like pass -by traffic, etc.). The overall number of trips generated by NBTM 3.1 does not exactly match ITE land use (driveway level) trip generation, but the overall differential is relatively small. The differences are generally greatest for nonresidential land use categories that are often part of a larger shopping center and/or are frequented by a relatively high percentage of pass -by trips (e.g., banks, gas stations, fast food restaurants, etc.).
The modeling has been performed with high density residential traffic included. Urban Crossroads, Inc. has applied the trip rates from the ITE Trip Generation Manual to determine the appropriate reduction to the typical apartment trip rates included in the traffic model. The ITE Trip Generation rates for high- rise apartments are approximately 37 to 43 percent less than the rate for apartment. Based on the engineering judgment of Urban Crossroads, Inc. staff, a factor reducing apartment trip generation in the model to represent high-rise apartments is reasonable. A discussion of high-rise apartments is found on page 3-6 of the Transportation Study. High-rise apartments are represented as typical apartments in the model, with the reduction shown by creating a "surrogate quantity" of dwelling units that is 20 percent less than the actual unit count. The model structure could not be modified to include a special rate for City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 10-221
high-rise apartments, as the Newport Beach Traffic Model update was already completed prior to beginning this General Plan analysis.
SA-148
Travel Demand Management (TDM) is encouraged in the Circulation Element, but no credit for TDM has been included in the analysis.
SA-149
As described in response to comment G2-8, this comment 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.
SA -150
Cost of improvements is not addressed in General Plan Transportation Studies. Funding of improvements is discussed in the General Plan Circulation Element. It is anticipated that funding would come from a variety of sources, including developer contributions. The City has not prepared cost estimates, as the projects have not been designed and estimates at this point would be speculative.
SA-151
The reader is referred to Tables 4-7 and 5-10 of the General Plan Transportation Study for discussion of locations where right of way acquisition may be necessary. No significant impacts to land use as a result of the potential right of way acquisition are anticipated, as the improvements generally consistent of localized intersection improvements that will require minimal right of way acquisition.
SA -152
The EIR identifies emergency response and emergency access in several places. Page 4.13-44 identifies emergency access requirements in the Municipal Code and Fire Code. In addition, proposed General Plan policies S 9.1, S 9.2, and S 9.4 are designed to ensure that congested streets are addressed through 10-222 City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR
the City's Emergency Management Plan, and that personnel are familiar with relevant response plans.
Refer also to response to comments SA-82, SA-125, EQ-46 and EQ-60 for a discussion of where emergency access is addressed in the EIR and what the conclusions are in the traffic section with respect to emergency access.
SA -153
Refer to responses to comments SA-138 through SA-152. No new analysis or new impacts have been identified.
SA -154
The commenter is referring to the discussion of Current and Projected Water Supplies on pages 4.14-8 and 4.14-9. This information is from the City's December 2005 Urban Water Management Plan. The plan is required to project a 25-year buildout scenario, a buildout year of 2030, which is approximately 5 years beyond the projected buildout year of the proposed General Plan Update. The level of development assumed at that time is outlined within section 3.0 (Historical and Projected Water Use):
Water use and production records, combined with projections of population, employment, and urban development, provide the basis for estimating future water demands. This section presents information regarding regional demographics, customer based unit water use, total historical water use, and projections of future City water demands.
SA -155
As stated on page 4.18-8, "[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. Beyond that date, improvements associated with the State Water Project supply, additional local projects, conservation, and additional water transfers would be needed to adequately serve the City." While no single event is predicted to occur after 2030, the 2005 UWMP predicts that beyond it's buildout year, water demand will continue to grow. The 2005 UWMP addresses climate, water quality, and other agency demands as part of the larger water demand picture.
SA -156
The commenter is referring to Table 4.14-1, which identifies that approximately 68 percent of the City's water comes from OCWD. The commenter implies that groundwater supply is based purely on demand.
This is incorrect. For example, as stated on page 4.14-12, IRWD assumes new potable groundwater supplies will be developed as planned "to greatly reduce reliance on imported water under normal and dry year operating conditions." As described in response to comment SA-90, 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.
In February of 1991 through January 1993 the City of Newport Beach was required to reduce water use by 10 percent through mandatory water reduction. Strains on the area's water supply were caused by a City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 10-223
drought rather than overdrafts in each of the two above listed years. Since this time, there has not been a mandatory reduction in water use for the City of Newport Beach. No other known restrictions on groundwater pumping have occurred that have affected Newport Beach's water supply.
SA-157
Projected water consumption was calculated using generation rates established by the 2005 Urban Water Management Plan.
SA -158
Water consumption estimates associated with the proposed project were prepared by the three water providers to the Planning Area, the City of Newport Beach, Irvine Ranch Water District and Mesa Consolidated Water District. The estimates were based on the changes in land use proposed in the General Plan update, by acreage in various land use categories, and using the water providers' factors.
The "Sewer Generation Factors" in Table 4.14-12 of the Draft EIR, which were used to estimate wastewater generation, were taken from the City of Nmport Beach Master Plan of Sewers, which was published in August 1996. The generally intended use of these factors is to plan the size of sewer infrastructure rather than to estimate the amount of wastewater that will be generated and need to be treated. As a result, the use of these factors to project the amount of wastewater resulted in overly conservative projections.
The Orange County Sanitation District (OCSD) reports that approximately 12 million gallons per day (mgd) of wastewater flows through the Bitter Point pump station. This station receives wastewater from the majority of the area within Newport Beach, as well as a portion of Costa Mesa. In preliminary work to update Newport Beach's Master Plan of Sewers, AKM Consulting Engineers has estimated that the current amount of wastewater from Newport Beach is 8 to 10 mgd. The 2005 Urban Water management Plan for Newport Beach estimates wastewater at 11,200 acre feet per year, which equates to 10 mgd.
With the land use changes proposed in the General Plan update, it is overly conservative to expect that wastewater generation would increase by 4,123,173 mgd, or 33 to 50 percent above the current amount.
Typically, wastewater generation is estimated to be approximately 90 percent of water consumption. This number is conservative as the total portion of the municipal water supply that reaches the collection system as wastewater in semiarid regions of the southwestern United States has been estimated between 60 and 65 percent of the total supply (Metcalf and Eddy, Wastewater Engineering: Treatment Disposal and Reuse, 3rd ed., 1991), considering that some of the municipal water supply, including water used for manufacturing, landscape irrigation, fire fighting, and leakage from water mains and service pipes does not reach the sanitary sewer system. The 90 percent of water consumption methodology is based upon the City of Los Angeles Bureau of Sanitation methodology, which assumes that 90 percent of indoor water demand would become wastewater. Therefore, the increase in wastewater is more likely to be 60 to 90 percent of the increase in water consumption (1,184,322 gallons per day), or 710,593 to 1,065,890 gallons per day. The calculation in the Draft EIR represents a conservative analysis in that it evaluates a greater wastewater generation than will likely occur. Even with a conservative estimate of wastewater, the Draft EIR found that each of the two OCSD treatment plants to which Newport Beach wastewater is 10-224 City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR
sent could accommodate the increased amount resulting from implementation of the proposed General Plan update, and still operate at less than 60% of capacity.
SA-159
Impact 4.14.1-2, pages 4.14-18 through 4.14-20, addresses water supply and whether new or expanded entitlements are necessary to meet future demand. MWDOC, IRWD, and MCWD have all identified excess water entitlements to meet the proposed General Plan Update buildout. No further response is necessary.
SA-160
As identified in response to comment SA-159, the City's water suppliers are operating within their existing entitlements. Page 3.14-20 evaluates the cumulative impacts of increased water supply as a result of the proposed General Plan Update. The proposed General Plan Update would result in a less -than - significant cumulative impact. Each water purveyor has identified water conservation measures to reduce their reliance on imported water supplies, as identified in their respective urban water management plans.
SA-161
Mesa Consolidated Water District has affirmed to the City of Newport Beach that it has adequate supplies to serve projected buildout resulting from the proposed General Plan Update (Robert McVicker, MCWD, April 2006) based on information regarding land use changes resulting from the proposed General Plan update in the Mesa Consolidated service area.
SA-162
The sewer deficiencies mentioned on page 4.14-28 (if that is the reference of this commenter) are existing, and not the result of buildout of the proposed General Plan update. Therefore, the EIR need not discuss these deficiencies in detail. They are identified in the referenced Master Plan of Sewers, dated August 1996, which is the City's guide for improving its sewerage system.
SA-163
of the treatment plants is operating at 52 percent and 55 percent of design capacity, and as they would operate at 54 percent and 57 percent of capacity with the proposed General Plan Update, the project would not affect peak flows and impact the plants. No new impacts have been identified.
SA -164
The commenter is referring to the Michelson Water Reclamation Plant (MWRP) described on page 4.14-
31. The EIR analysis did not identify any other treatment plant operating below design capacity. This would be an unlikely or speculative event that the EIR would not address. Further, pages 4.14-31 and
4.14-32 describe the less -than -significant impact the proposed General Plan would have on sewage treatment plant capacity. No further response is necessary.
City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 10-225
SA-165
The commenter appears to be asking a general question about the operation of treatment plants that are beyond the scope of the EIR. The EIR has evaluated the design capacity of the existing treatment plants and compared that with the increment of wastewater generation resulting from implementation of the proposed project. Further, pages 4.14-31 and 4.14-32 describe the less -than -significant impact the proposed General Plan would have on sewage treatment plant capacity. No further response is necessary.
SA-166
As described on page 4.14-33 the design capacities of the wastewater treatment facilities are based on regional growth forecast adopted by SCAG, which in turn is based on cities' general plans and other forecasts of SCAG's member cities. Cumulative impacts analysis for this topic evaluates the projected growth against the design capacities. As the treatment plants are operating well below design capacity with the proposed project, no cumulative impact would occur. Further, the proposed General Plan Update would not represent a considerable contribution to any identified impact.
SA-167
The threshold question is whether the project would require the construction or expansion of wastewater treatment facilities or conveyance systems that could cause significant environmental effects. As indicated on pages 4.14-31 and 4.14-32 of the Draft EIR, each one of the Orange County Sanitation District (OCSD) treatment plants has the capacity to treat the full increase in sewage projected from the proposed General Plan Update. Therefore, the project does not require the construction of new facilities.
SA-168
The commenter appears to be looking in the utilities section for the analysis of water quality impacts due to increased wastewater generation. The EIR has evaluated the impact of increased wastewater from construction and operation of the proposed General Plan Update and its potential effects on the ocean on pages 4.7-27 through 4.7-32. During construction, these impacts would be addressed through Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plans (SWPPPs), Water Quality Management Plans (WQMPs), BMPs that are a part of SWPPPs and WQMPs, and City inspections. During operation, these impacts would be addressed through wastewater treatment, NPDES permits, BMPs identified in the DAMP, and General Plan policies. The EIR identifies a less -than -significant impact from increased wastewater generated by the proposed General Plan Update.
SA-169
The threshold question is whether the project would be served by a landfill with insufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs. 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 landfills is required.
10-226 City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR
SA-170
As discussed in Section 3.6 (Energy) of the TBR, "[e]lectricity is a "reactive" utility, meaning it is provided on an as -needed basis to customers within existing structures in the Planning Area." Pages
4.14-48 and 4.14-49 describe the no impact finding related to increased demand for energy as a result of the proposed General Plan Update. The proposed increase in energy demand is within SCE's 10-year load forecasts.
SA-171
The commenter is requesting information about the adequacy of local transmission facilities. Page 4.14- 49 of the Draft EIR discusses the adequacy of electrical facilities serving the City, and indicates that SCE plans for new distribution resources would be adequate to serve all existing and new customer loads throughout the next decade.
SA- 172
The threshold of significance is identified on page 4.14-48 and relates to the potential physical impacts attributed to construction or modification of existing infrastructure that serves new electrical demand. A significant impact with regard to electrical service would then relate to the physical impacts of planned improvements by SCE. This EIR does not identify any new potentially significant physical impacts related to SCE's provision of increased electricity.
SA- 173
The commenter is requesting information about the use of the AES plant to supply electricity. Page 4.14- 49 makes reference to this plant when it describes that two additional power plants were licensed by the CEC in 2001. As disclosed on http://www.energy.ca.gov/sitingcases/huntingtonbeach/index.html the CEC's facility certification process carefully examines public health and safety, environmental impacts and engineering aspects of proposed power plants and all related facilities such as electric transmission lines, natural gas pipelines, etc. The Energy Commission's responsibilities are similar to those of a lead agency under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Impacts related to the operation of the AES were addressed by the CEC in 2001.
SA- 174
As identified in Section 3.6 (Energy), as development occurs, SCG will continue to extend its service to accommodate development and supply the necessary gas lines. SGC does not base its service levels on the demands of the Planning Area; rather it makes periodic upgrades to provide service for particular projects and new development. Approximately two months before construction commences on a project, SGC requests that the developer contact them with detailed information about the project's natural gas requirements. If necessary, SGC customizes pipelines and mains to better serve newly constructed facilities. The cost for such service differs from project to project. SGC is continuously expanding its network of gas pipelines to meet the needs of new commercial and residential developments in Southern California. In addition, the EIR identified on page 4.14-50, a no impact finding related to increased demand for natural gas as a result of the proposed General Plan Update. This City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 10-227
EIR does not identify any new potentially significant physical impacts related to SCGC's provision of increased natural gas.
SA- 175
As described in response to comment SA-174, SGC does not base its service levels on the demands of the Planning Area; rather it makes periodic upgrades to provide service for particular projects and new development. The EIR on page 4.14-50 describes the no impact finding related to increased demand for natural gas as a result of the proposed General Plan Update. SCGC estimates that existing infrastructure is available to serve additional development generated by the proposed General Plan Update.
SA -176
As described on page 4.14-48 through 4.14-50, the proposed General Plan Update would not result in project or cumulative impacts with regard to energy production or transmission facilities. The use of a potential LNG terminal in Long Beach would be speculative and premature to discuss or analyze.
SA-177
Refer to Master Response A regarding inclusion of the 19``' Street bridge within this analysis. The Alternatives analysis provided on pages 5-1 through 5-29 provides analysis of four alternatives including the No Project/No Development, No Project/No Action (existing general plan), GPAC Recommendations, and Subarea Only Minimum. Alternative 4 (Subarea Only Minimum) was identified to show development guided by a General Plan consisting of land uses resulting in the lowest density of all the alternatives. This alternative would result in the least amount of new development, when considered against the other action alternatives. This alternative was identified as the environmentally superior alternative (page 5-30) and addresses concerns related to traffic flow and associated development levels. In addition, the Transportation Study evaluated the proposed General Plan Update without the 19`h Street bridge and determined that traffic impacts could only be addressed through the addition of through lanes on Coast Highway.
SA- 178
As described in response to comment SA-73, Section 4.3 (Biological Resources), Appendices Cl 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.
As described in response to comment 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 10-228 City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR
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.
As described in response to comment 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 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.
As described in response to comment 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 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 new development with existing plans, thereby resulting in a less -than -significant impact.
As described in response to comments SA-122 through SA-127, Section 4.11 (Public Services) of the EIR and Section 4.1 (Fire Protection), Section 4.2 (Police), Section 4.3 (Education), and Section 4.4 (Parks) of the TBR, demonstrate that there is substantial evidence to support the EIR's determination that effects related to provision of public services 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 public services is performed, thereby resulting in a less -than -significant impact.
As described in response to comments SA-128 through SA-137, Section 4.12 (Recreation and Open Space) of the EIR, and Section 4.4 (Parks) of the TBR, there is substantial evidence to support the EIR's determination that effects related to provision of recreation and open space resources 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 recreation and open space resources is performed, thereby resulting in a less -than - significant impact.
As described in response to comments SA-154 through SA-176, Section 4.14 (Utilities and Service Systems) of the EIR and Section 3.2 (Water System), Section 3.3 (Wastewater System), Section 3.4 (Storm Drain System), Section 3.5 (Solid Waste), and Section 3.6 (Energy), there is substantial evidence to support the EIR's determination that effects related to provision of utilities and service systems 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 utilities and service systems is performed, thereby resulting in a less - than -significant impact.
City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 10-229
SA-179
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-180
CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5(b) states that recirculation is not required where new information added to the EIR merely clarifies or amplifies or makes insignificant modifications in an adequate EIR. 10-230 City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR
R. A. Nichols Engineering
519 Iris Avenue, Corona del Mar, CA 92625
Tel. (949) 644-7735 o Fax (949) 640-7316
[email protected] o www.raneng.com
Ci1y Manager and Council R June 7, 2006
Newport Beach City Council PCHEquacLtr56
3300 Newport Blvd. bus. 949-644-3000
Newport Beach CA. 926588-8915 Fax. 949-644-3020
council(& city.newport-beach. ca.us
Re: General Plan EQAC Circulation Element Comments
The General Plan indicates all reasonable means should be considered to attain intersection traffic Level of Service "D" in all areas of the City. In particular we would like to consider the traffic on Pacific Coast Highway through old Corona Del Mar. We believe three traffic improvements could increase traffic capacity and should be considered:
The present Center medians were created in an effort to make PCH pedestrian friendly. o A traffic study was used as justification for this CdM Village median design. The study considered pedestrian and bicycles, along and across PCH. This study indicates there is almost as much bicycle as pedestrian traffic, and both are very small compared to vehicular traffic levels. o Secondly, the justification for the location of the present traffic island curbs is that they are located over the lane lines delineated previously by CalTrans. We would note that placing un-mountable curbs at the edge of substandard width traffic lanes is known to slow traffic markedly. The CA Highway Design Manual indicates 10' traffic lanes may lose more than 10% of their capacity. Additionally, no provision is made for bicycle traffic. The CA. Highway Design Manual guidelines indicates a separate path at least 4' wide should ideally be provided for bicycle traffic.
I. Present General Plan, Traffic studies show that traffic capacity may be improved from "E" to "D" by making PCH through CdM six lanes. This six lane suggestion was also suggested by the Irvine Co. in previous CdM PCH traffic studies. As pointed out in the attached letter, the six lane capacity could be restricted to rush hour, say Eastbound 5-7 PM and 7-9 AM Westbound. The present roadway through Old Corona Del Mar is a minimum of 75' wide. In many places, PCH is much wider The 75' would allow six 10'8" traffic lanes with a 10'8" center left turn lane at approaching crossing road intersections.
The wider curb traffic lane could remain striped for parking at 8' and would have a 2'8" buffer, to the adjacent traffic lane. While not an entirely satisfactorily buffer, 2' 8" allows for opening ones' parked Car door, a marginal bicycle lane and/or allows right turn traffic to pull entirely out of the traffic lane.
Buses too, can pull into this turn lane for unloading and loading rather than partially or fully blocking a through lane when they do not even try to pull over. Traffic studies indicate approximately 75% of parked car accidents occur on the few major arterials in cities allowing parking on same., Ref. Fundamentals of Traffic Engineering, UCB-ITS CN 96-1"C. Curb Parking Related Accidents". ". We understand that accidents on PCH in CdM and on Mariners Mile are considerably more frequent than in other areas Finally, PCH, when previously worked on by the state ,was worked on at night when traffic volume was lower and taking a lane away was acceptable. Now with the City owning the road, the Road is repaired during the day. Traffic rapidly becomes bottlenecked and nothing moves. With a six lane design, parking could be restricted and the curb lane used as a through lane. If only one lane is set aside for work, still two through lanes are useable and the highway remains useable. 41 II. Newport Coast Road was originally aligned from PCH south of CdM through to MacArthur Boulevard and Route 73. The part of that road from MacArthur to Newport Coast was confiscated before it was ever used and incorporated into part of the San Jaoquin Toll Corridor, Route 73. A study has been 2 done looking into this confiscation and whether this first leg of from the toll road could be decommissioned to a public road and used as a bypass for PCH through Corona Del Mar, CA.
R.A. Nichols
Chris Trapp Engineering
Environmental Affairs Committee
May 30,2006, Page 2
III. Finally as part of the water quality project proposed for Corona del Mar, Buck Gully is to receive a series of water flood control dams. The one in the 5th Avenue area of buck Gully is to be a two- story dam. It is possible by realigning this dam slightly it could serve as the basis of a two lane 3 continuation of 5 th Avenue around Corona Highlands and Cameo Shores parallel to PCH. Although this might only remove 6-8 K cars/day from the highway, the road could also prove to be valuable as an emergency bypass to PCH.
Very truly Yours,
Richard A. Nichols, PE, PhD ChE
CC:Sharon Wood, swood(&city.newport-beach.ca.us
ctrapp(kpacbell.net
Response to Comment Letter R
Letter from R.A. Nichols Engineering, received June 7, 2006 R-1
This comment suggests creating a third through traffic lane on East Coast Highway in the direction of peak traffic flow during the AM and PM peak periods in Corona del Mar. This would be accomplished through a narrowing of the travel lanes below the current width, and prohibiting the use of on -street parking in the peak hour direction to provide the third through lane. This suggestion was not submitted in response to the NOP and therefore presents a new alternative circulation system "improvement" not studied as a part of the alternative analysis in the Draft EIR.
Section 15126.6 of the CEQA Guidelines sets forth the requirement to consider and discuss a reasonable range of alternatives to the proposed project. The alternatives to be discussed must be both reasonable and feasible. This proposal suggests the reduction in travel lane width on East Coast Highway through Corona del Mar, a roadway section which already is at substandard widths. This further reduction would be required in order to have a third lane against the curb at a width that would be operational. While this is not preferred from a traffic engineering perspective due to safety considerations and the ability of the road to adequately serve traffic volumes, it would provide for a slightly wider parking lane during off- peak periods because it would have to be widened to allow travel in it during peak traffic hours. The proposal has been studied, and while it may be beneficial to cyclists, other implications of the proposal would be to reduce the size of the landscaped center median in some places, the loss of on -street parking that serves the commercial properties in Corona del Mar during peak traffic periods and additional travel lanes for pedestrians to cross during peak traffic periods. Additionally, the confusion that is likely to result from a change in roadway configuration and flow during short periods during the day could also create unsafe traffic conditions. All of these consequences, when considered together, make this proposal infeasible.
R-2
The comment suggests that a change in the existing San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor to be a "public road" between Newport Coast Drive and MacArthur Boulevard would increase its use as a bypass to Coast Highway through Corona del Mar. This, too, would be a change in the circulation system from that proposed in the Circulation Element and, therefore, would be considered a project alternative for the purpose of compliance with CEQA. Again, as set forth the Section 15126.6 of the CEQA Guidelines, alternatives should be considered and discussed if they are found reasonable and feasible.
Removal of the tolls associated with the Transportation Corridor segment from Newport Coast Drive to MacArthur Boulevard would effectively make it a freeway. It is likely that the elimination of tolls in this area could increase the use of Newport Coast Drive as a bypass from Coast Highway in Corona del Mar.
City staff investigated the feasibility of the City replacing the revenue received by the Transportation Corridor Agencies from the toll collection points during the development of the General Plan Update project description. It was determined that the lost toll revenue would be $6.24 million annually, based on 2005 revenues. This revenue would need to be replaced, because the tolls are pledged as revenue to City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 10-233
support payment of and eventual retirement of the toll road bonds. The City Council has determined that this amount is not feasible for the City pay for the modest benefit a free facility for this segment would produce.
R-3
This comment suggests that a water retention facility being studied by the City be used to extend 5`h Avenue in Corona del Mar across Buck Gully to an eventual connection with Coast Highway to the south. This proposal would be similar to the "5`h Avenue Bypass," which was considered before the establishment of the alignment of State Route 73 (SR-73).
Buck Gully is a natural canyon/drainage course in Corona del Mar. In the area of 5th Avenue, the grade differential between the street and the gully bottom is approximately 80 feet. Thus, the proposed retention dam being studied is about 60 feet lower in elevation than would be necessary to connect to 5`h Avenue with a straight alignment. Because of this, connecting 5`h Avenue across the gully could only be accomplished with a bridge including supporting structures approximately 80 feet in height in some areas, and the bridge would be an estimated 400 feet long. If a bridge of lesser height is considered, the new road would have grades beyond those normally considered acceptable. Additionally, there are difficulties in obtaining easements or right of way to pass around Corona Highlands and Cameo Highlands. In the Corona Highlands area, land would have to be acquired from the individual homeowners or the Pelican Hill Golf Course. Beyond that neighborhood, a road could connect into Surrey Drive and Cameo Highland Drive to Coast Highway, or would have to further encroach on the golf course around Cameo Highlands to Coast Highway. For these reasons, the proposal is considered infeasible.
10-234 City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR
L
Larry Porter
1501 W estcliff Dr #201
Newport Beach California 92660
Voice and Fax 949 722 9166
Email: DubbietubC&aol.com
June 13, 2006
Mr. Greg Ramirez
City of Newport Beach
3300 Newport Blvd
Newport Beach, CA 92685
PLAiVN1��:i.E .
iTY �.y�����i i
C:AGP
M
JUN Z, 3 2006
;I N
DEIR , CNB , SCH # 2006011119, April 2006, General Plan 2006 Update I am responding to and questioning : 4.7 Hydrology and Water Quality -and- 4.14 Utilities and Service Systems. Not necessarily in the above orders.
Please go to: pg 4.14-17 > "Thresholds of Significance" > "bullet" #2 . "Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from (emphasis added) EXISTING ENTITLEMENTS and resources, or are new or expanded ENTILTLEMENTS NEEDED.
And/al so: pg 4.14-18 > The "Rectangle" at the top of the page with the word Threshold followed by the words: "Would the project have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources , or are new or expanded entitlements needed?
It then follows that there are questions that must be truthfully answered: (A) What is MWD entitled to from its sources : 1) the state water project and 2) the Colorado river. 1 And what is the OCWD entitled to from the Santa Ana River? MWD
Discuss the reliability of the MWD state project water given that water from the Sacramento and San Joaquin Rivers (the supply) traverse thru the Delta that is made up of a maze of levees that are peat/unstable? and that the islands formed are sinking ! 2 Would not a plausible earthquake liquify the levees? Would not a large flood event overwhelm the levees? I did not notice your discussion of water absent from the State Water Project. Please include.
In the event of a Delta failure that water would be contaminated , no? And. Discuss the Colorado River Water. Is the river over allocated? Have there been 3 draughts the likes of which have not been seen since the River was allocated? What about
a ten year, a 20 year? Have the tree rings shown this to have happened? You did not 3 mention the absence of water from the Colorado River. Please do so.
And. Please include a discussion of MWD seniority of its entitlements to each of these 4 sources. And what rights, seniority do the City of Newport Beach enjoy to MWD water? OCWD
Now , "Pumpers" can pump a percentage of their demand from the basin. That percentage has been recently reduced. Please talk about the eventuality of further reductions — given- further demand by others (which you do not discuss, but, please talk about the ability of the basin to supply all the the demands knowing that the hydrology I supply can reasonably questioned? And if the basin were to be quantified (as are other basins) - what then? How do you anticipate the "Pie" will be split? The answers to the "OCWD" situation constrain : Newport , Costa Mesa , and IRWD , no?
How can the OCWD ground water basin continued to act as an adequate filter if contaminates continue to be injected, percolated into it? Is it special and never needs cleaning? Can it be cleaned? How?
Global Warming
Precipitation
How could global warming affect the 1) State Water Project and 2) Colorado River Watershed? Might too much precipitation come as rain and not snow and test the adequacy of the reservoirs? Would water now captured be lost to the sea? You didn't mention this. Why not? And please.
Global Warming
Hurricanes
How much of an onslaught could Prado and Seven Oaks take before being overwhelmed? If Prado fails , then what? Is there more of chance now. Katrina — would an ounce of prevention been worth a pound of cure? Why put people in a flood plain? Who benefits? No one I know.
Tsunamis
Why chance it? Who benefits? What happens if the low lying areas are not residentiaiized? Potential harm is reduced? Better,no?
Energy
Oil
5 0
Where is the oil that will provide for this growth? And the cumulative surrounding g growth? Is not "Peak Oil' a fact?
Energy
Natural Gas
41 Where is the natural gas that will provide for this growth? And cumulative surrounding growth? Is not the supply of natural gas a concern? 10
41 I await your reply,
Happy Trails
1SI Larry Porter n W
Larry Porter
Response to Comment Letter L
Letter from Larry Porter, received June 13, 2006
L-1
Pages 4.14-18 through 4.14-20 describes that the city's water suppliers are operating within their existing entitlements. No further response is necessary.
L-2
As described on page 4.14-20, although all water providers are required to prepare plans to ensure that adequate water supplies exist for future growth, there is ongoing controversy surrounding the State's water supply and distribution efforts. MWDOC, the City's provider of imported water, IRWD, and Mesa have each indicated they can accommodate the additional demand from the proposed General Plan Update in addition to future growth assumed in the respective UWMPs.
L-3
As described in response to comment L-2, the City must rely on water provider's assessments of their capabilities for the analysis of water supply. The EIR has identified a less -than -significant impact related to water supply as the City, MWDOC, IRWD and Mesa have affirmed that they can serve the project.
L-4
The EIR has identified a less -than -significant impact related to water supply as the City, MWDOC, IRWD and Mesa have affirmed that they can serve the project. No further analysis is necessary.
L-5
basin. This project, the Groundwater Replenishment System, would be subject to its own environmental review, and thus is not the focus of this EIR.
As identified in response to comment 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.
According to the City's 2005 Urban Water Management Plan, as discussed in Section 4.14.1 (Water System) of the Draft EIR, OCWD (which provides the groundwater supply to the City) projects that there would be sufficient groundwater supplies to meet any future demand requirements in Newport Beach, including sufficient supply for multiple dry -precipitation years through 2030. The OCWD Basin Pumping Percentages (BPB) are assessed and adjusted annually, if necessary, based on the total demand to be produced from the basin during the year. These adjustments ensure that supply is regulated and that OCWD can continue to meet the total potable water demand. Because no significant impacts have been identified with respect to future water demand, OCWD has not identified anticipated reductions in the BPB.
10-238 City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR
In response to the second part of this comment, the ground water basins are cleaned periodically to unclog the accumulated sediment on the bottom and sides of the basins which inhibit percolation.
Currently, the basins are dewatered and cleaned using bulldozers to restore the percolation rate, however a new basin cleaning device (the Basin Cleaning Vehicle) is being tested which would allow the basins to be cleaned while they still contain water. The BCV stirs up the clogging layer at the bottom of the lake and pumps the clay and silt ashore. This will allow the basins to continue to capture and store future water supplies in the process of being cleaned, thereby increasing local water supplies and decreasing the need to purchase more expensive imported supplies.
L-6
As described in response to comment L-2, the City must rely on water provider's assessments of their capabilities for the analysis of water resources. The EIR has identified a less -than -significant impact related to water supply as the City, MWDOC, IRWD and Mesa have affirmed that they can serve the project.
L-7
Pages 4.7-38 through 4.7-40 discuss the less -than -significant impacts related to placing housing or structures within a 100-year flood hazard area, and exposing people to flooding.
L-8
Impact 4.7-10, page 4.7-41, addresses the less -than -significant risks related to tsunamis.
L-9
implementation of the proposed General Plan Update including energy resources.
L-10
As discussed in SA-174, page 4.14-50 describes the no impact finding related to increased demand for natural gas as a result of the proposed General Plan Update. Further, SCGC is a "reactive" utility that provides natural gas as demand increases. This EIR does not identify any new potentially significant physical impacts related to SCGC's provision of increased natural gas.
City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 10-239
6/23/2006 11:44 AM FROM: Fax TO: 644-3229 PAGE: 001 OF 003 JAN A VANDERSL44T, M.D.
2221 East 166 Street Home Phone (949) 548-6326
Newport Beach, CA 92663 Office FAX (714) 848-6643
June 12, 2006
Mr. Greg Ramirez, Senior Planner
Planning Department
City of Newport Beach
3300 Newport Blvd.
P.O. Box 1768
Newport Beach, CA 92658-8915
City of Newport Beach
General Plan Update
Draft Environmental Impact Report
April 2006
By Fax: 949.644.3229
Dear Mr. Ramirez,
JA
r.%.ITY WENT
JUN 13 2006
7181911011,111 i1121 141 16
Thank you for the opportunity to cornrnent on the Draft EIR for the General Plan Update.
In addition to the questions that I raised in my letter to the NOP of February 27, 2006, which have not been adequately addressed in the Draft EIR, I have the following comments that are also not adequately addressed in the EIR. Please include my letter to the NOP of February 27, 2006 in the Draft EIR and provide responses in the Response to Comments document
Section 4.3 Biological Resources, page 4.3-10. This section brings up a whole new category called "Environmental Study Areas", which include all the natural habitats in Newport Beach. "Environmental Study Areas are defined as "Undeveloped areas supporting natural habitats that may be capable of supporting sensitive biological resources within the city". (page 4.3-10). The Draft EIR calls these Environmental Study Areas "ESAs" and goes on to identify 28 areas within the city.
However, these ESAs (study areas) are not protected as Environmentally Sensitive Areas (also called ESAs in the current General Plan), because they are only subject to study to determine their environmental value. They are not protected as they are in the current General Plan, which protects the ESAs because they are already determined to be environmentally sensitive areas.
The Draft EIR does not analyze how much of the currently protected ESA's (Environmentally Sensitive Areas) will be lost because they are changed to Environmental Study Areas (also called ESA's), where they will only be studied, not protected. Please include an analysis in the Draft EIR as to how the change from ESA (Environmentally Sensitive Area) to ESA (Environmental Study Area) affects the amount 2 6/13/2006 11:44 AM FROM: Fax TO: 644-3229 PAGE: 002 OF 003 JAN A VANDERSLOOT, M.D.
2221 Bast I e Street Home Phone (949) 548-6326
Newport Beach, CA 92663 Office FAX (714) 848-6643
of acreage in each area that will be protected under the policies that govern 2 environmentally sensitive areas in the City.
Areas that are currently designated ESA's (Environmentally Sensitive Areas) in the current General Plan include those areas identified on page 3-17 of the City of Newport Beach Recreation and Open Space Element, General Plan Amendment 94-2(E), Resolution 98-49 Adopted June 22, 1998. This is Policy 9.1- Preservation of Sensitive Areas: which serves to "Preserve and enhance the City's Enviromnentally Sensitive Areas (ESA's) on page 3-17. This Policy prohibits the location of structures in environmentally sensitive areas as identified in the Recreation and Open Space Plan Map:
Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Areas, Coastal Bluffs, Bluff top set back areas, Riparian areas, Geologic hazard areas, Residential development impacted by noise levels of 65 CNEL or greater, Floodplain areas, and Natural slope areas steeper than 2:1 and greater than 25 feet in height, subject to Planning Cormnission determination.
The Recreation and Open Space Element then goes onto specifically locate ESA (Environmentally Sensitive Area) in the different service areas of the City. ESA can be found in Service Area 1, 3, 4, 7, 9, 10, 11, and 12. All of these Environmentally Sensitive Areas (ESA's) will potentially be impacted by the change to Environmentally Study Areas (ESA's), which will merely subject the areas to study, not subject the area to actual protection. 3
In addition, the Land Use Element of the current General Plan also specifies that environmentally sensitive areas shall be preserved and protected. See page 10 of the Land Use Element of the City of Nzwp-(rt Beach, Adopted by the Newport Beach City Council, October 24, 1988, Resolution No. 88-100, Incorporating General Plan Amendments Approved through January 2000. Page 10, paragraph 2)a. states: "The following envirolunentally sensitive areas shall be preserved and protected, and no structures or landform alteration shall be permitted within these areas, except as provided in Section d below:
1) Areas supporting species which are rare, endangered, of limited distribution, or otherwise sensitive
2) Natural riparian areas
3) Freshwater marshes
4) Saltwater marshes
5) Intertidal areas
6) Other wetlands
7) Unique or unusually diverse vegetative communities
The City of Newport Beach commissioned documents entitled "Identification of Biological Habitats and Communities within the City of Newport Beach Environmental Sensitive Habitat Areas and Environmental Policies" prepared by Chambers Group, Inc, 4 December 2002, and the document "City of Newport Beach General Plan Update New3port Beach Biological Resources" prepared by Coastal Resources Management and
6/13/2006 11:44 AM F120M: Fax T0: 644-3229 PAGE: 003 OF 003 JAN A VANDERSLQUT, M.D.
2221 East 10h Street Home Phone (949) 548-6326
Newport Beach, CA 92663 Office FAX (714) 848-6643
Chambers Group, Inc., January 2003. These documents were presented to the General Plan Advisory Committee (GPAC,) of which I am a member, in July 2003. These documents listed a number of Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Areas (ESHA) in the City, all of which have now been degraded to Environmental Study Areas in the new General Plan Update. The documents should be included in the new EIR, acreage calculated for how much ESHA is actually in the City, and how much has been reduced by downgrading the ESHA's to Environmental Study Areas (ESA).
It is noted on page 2-3 of the December 2002 report by Chambers Group "Identification of Biological Habitats and Communities in Newport Beach" that "The majority of ESHAs discussed in this report were previously documented and described (City of Newport Beach 1990). This 1990 document should also be included in the new General Plan EIR.
The list of former ESHA's in the December 2002 Chambers report include Semeniuk Slough, North Star Beach, West Bay, Upper Newport Bay Ecological Reserve, San Diego Creek, Eastbluff Remnant, Mouth of Big Canyon, Newporter North, Buck Gully, Morning Canyon, Newport Beach Marine Life Refuge, Castaways, Banning Ranch, Muddy Canyon, Los Trancos, Pelican Hill, Ridge Park, Irvine Coast Marine Life Refuge Crystal Cove State Park (Underwater Park), Newport Harbor Entrance Channel Kelp Beds. All of these ESHAs are being downgraded to Environmental Study Areas in the new General Plan and the impact of these changes should be analyzed in the DREIR.
The 2002 Chambers Report also states on page 2-3 that "Tire boundaries of most ESHAs have not changed since 1973. However, others were expanded..." This provides more evidence that these areas should be protected by policies in the new General Plan and should not be shrunken by artificial redesignation as Environmental Study Areas (ESAs) as opposed to the protective designation of Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Areas (ESHAs).
Sincerely,
,fan (D. Vand-ersfoot, MD
Jan D. Vandersloot, MD
El
CITY �OF NEWPORT BEACH
RECREATION AND OPEN
SPACE ELEMENT
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 94-2 (E)
RESOLUTION 98--49
ADOPTED JUNE 22, I998
City of Newport Reach
Newport Beach, California
Prepared By:
Lawrenee Associates
San Juan Capistrano, California'
RECREATION AND OPEN SPACE ELEMENT L INTO ODUCT10N
Sharing of Recreation FacrJiti�s
Public schools within the City administered by the Newport -Mesa Unified School District contain a number of important recreation facilities, including playAelds, swimming pools, gymnasiums, and other facilities. Policies to foster cooperation with the School District to maximize after - school recreational use of these facilities are contained in this Element (see Chapter 3, Objective No. 3).
ESA's. Environmentally, &nsitive Areas
The City's Local Coastal Program (LCP) identifies a number of environmentally sensitive areas.
These are mostly water -associated habitats such as marine i.-itertidal, riparian, or marsh areas. They include all or portions of the following areas. Santa Ana River Mouth/Oxbow Loop, North Star Beach, Westbay, Tapper Newport Bay Ecological Reserve, San, Diego Creels, Eastbluff Remnant, Mouth of Big Canyon, Newporter North, Buck Gully, Morning Canyon, Corona del Mar Marine Life Refuge, and: Castaway&.3hese environmentally sensitive areas are described in detail in the Local Coastal Program;. The Recreation and Open Space Element contains policies designed to enhance recreational and open space qualities, consistent with their sensitivity and their overriding . need for preservation as expressed in the LCP.
Beach And Harbor Facilities
The recreation needs survey conducted for the preparation of this Element identified additional recreation facilities desired by residents of the City. A significant percentage of the survey respondents expressed a desire for additional public moat launching and sailing facilities within the City. This need is addressed in the chapter on Objectives and. Policies.
Im
RECREATION AND OPEN SPACE ELEMENT 1. INTRODUCTION '
Bikewaus
Backbone bikeways are major throughway trails that connect to regional trails. They are primarily on major roads and serve the functional and recreational cyclist. Secondary Bikeways connect to backbone trails and serve cyclists and children riding to and from school.
Environmentally .Sensitive Areas
Environmentally Sensitive Areas are those passive open space areas possessing unique environmental value which may warrant some form of protection or preservation. Such areas include, but are not limited to:
• Areas supporting species which are rare, endangered, of limited distribution or otherwise sensitive.
• Riparian areas
■ Freshwater marshes d. Saltwater marshes
■ Intertidal areas
• Other wetlands
• Unique or unusually diverse vegetative communities.
Greenbelt
Greenbelts in public or private ownership are included in this category. They may include areas with some recreational facilities, although the primary function of the area is passive open space. fogging Frail
These trails are routes commonly used for community wide running events sponsored by the City.
Harine Lie Re u e
The Marine Life Refuge is located in tidelands off the coast of Corona del Mar. It is managed by the state Department of fish and Game and exists for the purpose of protecting marine and intertidal life.
Open Spnce
Open space includes passive and active open space areas which do not function as public parks but do provide open space: relief. Such areas may or may not be accessible to the general public. -Pedestrian Trail
Pedestrian trails include, improved or unimproved walkways or sidewalks located within park, beach, greenbelt, or open space areas_
REGIONAL
Unner Newport Ba
The Upper Newport Bay, often referred to as the "back bay", is a major environmental recreational 'resource for the City and the surrounding region. There are a number environmentally sensitive lands abutting the bay which are part of its ecosystem.
Although the Upper Bay is located in the City and is an open space amenity for City residents, primarily a regional resource. Therefore, direct responsibility for the .preservation of the J1 Bay rests with county and state agencies.:Preservation or partial preservation of parcels adjacer the Bay would meet regional open space, passive recreational (viewing, walking) and resoi protection needs as well as some citywide recreational and open space needs. This Element c for City cooperation with other public agencies to preserve the sensitive etiological resource the Upper Bay.
Bike Trails
Bike trails and other bikeways are provided for in the Circulation Element because of t importance as transportation routes. However, because they are also recreational resources, l trails are referred to in this Recreation and Open Space Element as well. (The terra "bikewf refers to all bicycle circulation routes: on -road bike routes and bike lanes plus off -road bikew "Bike trails" refers primarily to off -road bikeways.)
Several regional bicycle trails pass through the City of Newport Beach. These trails pro, alternate circulation routes and access to areas of regional interest and constitute an impor component -of the local recreation system. The Circulation Element identifies routes of existin, appropriate future trails. The City should, continue to work closely with other local governrraent implement connections from regional to local trails and to popular destinations Iocated in the C 2-8
OBJECTIVE 9 - E IRl�1i����1��'�L RESOURCES
Maintain and enhance the City's environmental resources.
POLICY 9.1 - PRESERVATION OF SENSITIVE AREAS: Preserve and enhance the City's Environmentally Sensitive Areas. (ESXS)S) - coastal bluffs and bluff tops and wetland areas, and minimize risks in geologically hazardous areas, floodplains, and' bS Community Noise Equivalent Level (CAIEL) contour areas through development regulation.
IMPLEMENTATION.
Action - Adopt Recreation and Open Space Element and Plan. Prohibit the location of F structures, except as provided below, in the following environmentally sensitive areas as identified in the Recreation and Open Space Plan Map:.
+ Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Areas
• Coastal bluffs
• Bluff top set back areas
o Riparian areas
• Geologic hazard areas
• Residential development impacted by noise levels of 55 CNEL or greater + Floodplain areas.
• Natural slope areas steeper than 2:1 and greater than 25 feet in height Note - These mcayures are not intended to prevent public agencies and private property owners from providing public infrastructure, maintaining drainage courses and facilities, sedimentation basins, and other related facilities where need can be demonstrated and minimal environmental impacts will occur.
Responsible Department - Community Services, planning.
Schedule - Ongoing.
POLICY 9.2 - HISTORICALlCYJL-TI]RAL RESOURCES: Encourage the preservation and enhancement of the City's archeological, paleontological, historical and cultural resources through development regulation.
IMPLEMENTATION.
MENTATION.
Action - Continue enforcement of and adherence to the following City Council. policies: Places of Historical and Architectural Signcance, Archaeological Guidelines, Paleontological Guidelines and Implementation Procedures for the California Environmental Quality Act.
Responsible Department - Planning.
Schedule - Ongoing.
3-17
Key Map
SERVICE AREA I
WEST NEWPORT
O4 �
�G.r7x��f
Newport Beach
Recreation &
Open Space Plan
IRRECRWON
FuN
AQrl Puk
NaWrWrhood Park
Communny Park
VP
View Park
SC
W004r
CC
LommuNty [enter
OPEN -SPACE
ESA
EaAmnmerualtysensim Area
OS
Open swe
G8
Greenbelt
PUBLIC BEACH
EXISTING
PROPOSER
y • • • • •
SERVICE AREA BOUNDARY
• •
MY BOUNDARY
0 Key Map
SERVLCE AREA 3
NEWPORT HEIGHTS - UPPER BAY
*0--4
Newport Beach
Recreation &
]pen Space Plan
RECREATION
AAP
Mim nark
NP
Helg b0ft od p k
CY
C0mmun4rpjfk
VP
Vaew Park
5C
5dbob
cc
Common#yCq,
OPEN SPACE
ESA
Ernlmnmento,SI UeArea
o5
opm swo
G9
Greenheil
PUEILIC BE"
UJS7SNG
0 PROPOSES]
m ■ a ■ r - r
SERVICE AREA BOUNDARY
a • •
CITY 6oUNDARY
SERVICE AREA 4,
SANTA ANA HEIGHTS
Newport Beach
Recreation &
-Open Space Plan
RECREATION
MP
MIN Puk
NP
t4ei&&xbm4 Pwk
CP
comflumlty?"
VP
vmw Faik
sc
sdmls
ar
MVonA mk
M
OP&4 SPACE
ESA
EmftwrmertW1y S*FWIWc Area
0s
omnsim-
Go
Ofeeribelt
PUBLIC 8FAQi
EXISTING
0 PROPOSED
aussagi
SERVICE AREA BOUNDARY
CITY BOUNDARY
SERVICE AREA 7
FASTBLUFF - NEWPORT NORTH
Gtr�Qr~w�
Newport Beach
Recreation &
Open Space Plan
RECREA7iON
ARP
NUM Park
NP
Nelgt=bvttnad Puk
CP
COMMUNty Pak
VP
New PsA
SC
SchooLs
LC
Ccr9urrna fy Cenler
OPEN SPACE
ESA
E.maronmen4aity Senmez Area
0s3
Otxn wCe
OB;
Greenbelt
tad
PUBLIC 6FACH
Elf ONG
0 PROPOSED
i • ■ ■ ■ . k
SERIACE AREA BOUNDARY
••••• ■ •
CITY BOUNDARY
�Ylew Park 6 Dpaei
SERVICE AREA 9
NEWPORT CENTER
Newport Beach
Recreation
Open Space Plan
RECREAVON
hip
hunt Park
NP
r4a0b0ncQud Park
_ CP
Communo Perk
VP
Vie' Parts
SC
SdWQ6
RP
ReQlMmd F"
j
OPEN SPACE
ESk
WrontaentaRV Sett imm Ate&
QS
Open space
GB
GreenbO
PUBIC BEACH
EXISTING
©
PROPOSED
• ■ • ■ • • r
SERVICE AREA BOUNDARY
•• • •
CITY 00UNCIA RtY
cr&g
a
OD Feat
SERVICE AREA 10
CORONA DEL MAR
Newport Beach
Recreation &
Open Space Plan
RECREATION
MP
MiM Ps k
NP
Nelph4whood Pak
CP
[ammur4 Put
- VP
View Pads
SC
Sdwals
RP
4--giar w Paris
OPEN 5PAa
ESA
Emtunnw ally SenWve Area
m
Marino Ref Qt
GB
Greenbelt
®
PUBLIC BEACH
tp
EXISTING
0 PROPOSED
s .....
SERVICE AREA BOUNDARY
..r • =
CITY BOUNDARY
SERVICE AREA 11
HAR60R VIEW
�S
�crroxK�r
Newport Beach
Recreation &
Open Space Plan
RECREATION
mmi FAA
NP
Nelghoadwod Park
CP
[amrnunlly Park
VP
Ncw Puk
SC
S:hoah
ie
CwnrnuNly Cenief
OPEN SPACE
ES4
erm4onrnc wir Senskthee Area
a5
Open Space
G8
meenbeh
' RA
Kzmaed Rues
ER
Ecological Reserve
PUBLIC BEACH
Elf ONG
0 PROPOSED
. ■ . ■ ■, r
5kMCEAREA BOUNDARY
•iw • •
CITY BOUNDARY
.•..... . •
BON[CA CANYON 5UBAR EAS
yi` .�ye.vie..
Lmo
rxrt
r
•
•
i
L■• nnCO. ■
6�
irk
�x
■
•
•
■
4+
4 �9
r
." Nate: Parks within this Service
`�•� Area are privately owned
SERVICE AREA 12
NEWPORT COAST
Newport Beach
Recreation &
Open- Space Plan
m
RECREATION
MP
Min! Palk
NP
tr'elpht:othood Auk
CP
cmununity Auk
VP
ML%V 4uk
SC
Sdhoals
CC
Cotnmunny center
OPEN SPACE
ETA
ErMmnmentally Saamom Ama
05 openspacC
GB
Gte belt
RA
Resmed AcC�s�
ER
Ecato¢ical R 54rve
PUBLIC BEACH
EXiS M,
0 PROPOSED
■ ......
NEWPORT BEACH
SPHERE OF INFLUENCE
■ •
CITY BOUNDARY
RECREA T'ION 4NTD OPEN SPACE ELEMENT TECHNICAL APPENDIX CIOSAAaREEMENT
,..
The following table shows the properties dedicated by the Irvine Company for recreation and open space uses under the Circulation Improvement and Open Space agreement (CIOSA) between the f City and the Irvine Company:
,
o
0�a—n
Diego Creek South
2.43 ; Diego Greek No T�
-
i}
T
NIR
- 3
!JamboreelMacArthur
'
4.7. f
4 Upper Castaways
i
3116
2 5
st3av Vow Landing
'B ,Newporter North _
47.2 2
_
id1A
a
'•CorporateePlaza West
...-L...--...
i
.- ...�..�__i
iV1A -
..... ........
9 il=ree.-...._ way Res..e_rva#ion
17.3 2
10 - ' Newporter Knoll-
1 Zia
1 11
iNewporter Resori�-0
NIA _
-12
:Newport Vllage
'�
12.8 4_.___
TOTAL,
i
138.1 acres
DEDICATION 'nMING-.
(1) Open Space to be dedicated upon Effective Date of Agreement. (2) Open Space to be dedicated upon issuance of first building permit. (3) Open Space shall be'offered for dedication upon issuance of last building permit of all projects contained in CIOSA agreement. The Irvine Company may elect to waive this condition. (4) Open space area to be dedicated upon issuance of first building permits for both Upper Castaways and Newporter North -
The City contains approximately six miles of sandy ocean beach, plus small beaches along the bay. The width of +he ocean beaches vary from area to area along the coast. The beaches at Little Corona and the Nfarine Life Refuge are very narrow and rocky. The Balboa Pentinsula has small beaches on the bay side, such as 10'� and 15'h Streets, and a broad ocean beach, averaging over 400 feet in width. In west Newport, by contrast, the beach is seldom more than 200 feet wide.
Public parking lots are located at Corona del Max State Beach, Balboa Pier, Newport Pier, and City Half. Restroom facilities are concentrated in relatively few areas adjacent to piers and some street ends. There are long stretches of beaches that do not have conveniently located public restrooms. The availability of public restrooms is also a problem for people on boats not equipped with restrootn facilities and for visitors to Upper Newport Bay.
A-3
# ■
I
turf a-_ rea; ncttes•Lay phone
slue _.be—_....� ._...... ..
_
and Park -Active: Recreation center; %a - l yes
:curt; t bench; play»area; t drlfountaiin
ve
beach play, boating (active recreation . _.
i nearest water, approximately t acre
itally Sensitive Area: Hiking trails; view of _ no�
-.......... ------- -....
Park: Rec. center, 1 lighted soccer field; 2 no
ds (t lighted);'h basketball court; restrms;
iicnic area; B p.Lc
Park: Turf area; f ball diamond; t athletic yes
rea; 3 picnic tables; 2 8130's; beaches;
drlfoentains (+.S ac. free parking) (Park
rtion used by Boys/Girfs Club, with gym,
!er, communitv room and classrooms
live + 47.7 ac. passive _
1; field sports; tennis; volleyball
divingwatgr
turf area; benches: view ofARfL _bad+. es
lie
odod_ Fork: Turf area; play area; benches-^- � no
»d�__. Park Turf area; 2 play areas; » __.... no -
2 picnic tables; benches; drinking
:w of
ahborhood Perk; Hiking trails
turf area; benches-, view of ocean_
iborhood Park: Turf area; play area; t » s❑uth'
curt; 2 small playiields; 2 tennis courts; • Aanlcn
picnic tables; 2 barbecues; drlfountains; only
ocean; restrooms
Land Use Element
of the
City Of Newport Beach
Adopted by the
Newport Beach City Council
October 24, 1988
Resolution No. 88-100
Incorporates General Plan Amendments
Approved through January 2000
aboard vessels assigned to moorings installed over City tidelands. The City shall also consider the adoption of ordinances regulating or restricting the number of commercial activities conducted on the. waters of Newport Bay if and when problems associated with such activity, such as parking, marine sanitation and noise adversely affect the quality of the marine environment.
Policy
D. The siting of new buildings and structures shall be controlled and regTalated to insure, to the extent practical, the preservation of public views, the preservation of unique natural resources, and to minimize the alteration of natural10nd forms along bluffs and cliffs
DISCUSSION
Newport Beach has developed around and along extremely unique and valuable land forms and resource areas. The City's charm and character, as well as the value of residential and commercialpi'operty, are all tied to preserving, protecting, and enhancing Upper and sower Newport Bay, the oceanfront beaches, and other ,valuable resources within the City. The City's commitment to preservation and enhancement of these areas is demonstrated by its role in the Upper Newport Bay restoration project. The City was the lead agency in both the development and administration of this project.
The natural resources within the City should be enjoyed by residents and visitors alike.
Given the value of ocean or bay -front properly, there is constant pressure -to develop property in and around the bay and beaches. While the City remains committed to protect private property rights, it is also 'committed to regulate the placement of buildings and structures in areas adjacent to valuable natural resources or environmentally sensitive habitats.
IMPLEMENTATION
Location of Structures
1. Development of Coastal Bluff Sites. Natural coastal bluffs represent a significant scenic and environmental resource_ As used in this Section, „coastal bluff' is any natural laudform having an average slope of 26.6 degrees (50%) or greater, with a vertical rise of 25 feet or greater. Where there is some question as to the applicability of this section to a specific landforrn, a determination as to whether or not the specific landforrn constitutes a coastal bluff shall be made by the .Planning Commission, consistent with the purposes of this regulation.
2. In order to preserve these unique landforms, developments proposed Cor coastal bluff areas shall be subject to the following regulations:
.Land Use Element Page 8
a. The following regulations apply to all building sites on existing subdivided tots, and residential subdivisions containing less than four units:
1) Grading. Permitted development shall be designed to minimize the alteration of natural landforms along bluffs and cliffs_ in areas of geologic hazard, the City shall not issue a building or grading permit until the applicant has signed a waiver of all claim against the public for future liability or damage resulting from permission to build. All such waivers shall be recorded with the County Recorders Office.
2) Geologic Repori. To promote public safety, a geologic study shall be performed for each site to determine areas of potential instability. The bluff areas of potential hazard or instability shall be indicated on maps as a part of any development plan. 3) Shoreline Prolective Devices. In the event of an impending or existing natural disaster or other emergency, a property owner, upon the approval of a building and/or grading permit by the City Grading Engineer and Building Official, may install temporary shoreline protective devices, material, or other suitable construction to protect a coastal bluff. Prior to the approval of a building and or grading permit for the construction or installation of the emergency protective device or material, the City Attorney shall approve as to form and content a document signed by the properly owner stipulating that said material or devices will be removed im- mediately upon the termination of the threat to the property. In addition, said agreement will also provide for the waiver of all claims and indemnify the City against liability for any damage resulting from approval to install said emergency protective material or devices. The property owner may elect to apply for the appropriate local and state permits to retain the protective material oT devices after the threat to the property no longer exists, in which case the agreement shall be modified to state that upon exhaustion of all local and state administrative procedures to retain said material or devices, said material or devices will be removed in the event that the appropriate applications are denied.
b. In addition to the regulations set forth above, the following regulations apply to all new tracts and subdivisions. Ifthe development is residential in nature, these regulations will apply to all new subdivisions containing four or more units.
1) Setback Requirement. A bluff setback adequate to provide safe public access, taking into account bluff retreat and erosion, shall be Land Use Element Page 9
provided in all new development. As a general guideline, property lines shall be set back from the edge of the Muff no closer to the edge of the bluff than the point at which the top of the bluff is intefsected by a line drawn from the solid toe of the bluff at an anop of 26.6 degrees to the horizontal. A greater setback distance shag be required where warranted by geological or groundwater conditions, but in no case shall a property line be closer than 40 feetito the edge of the bluff
In addition, there shall be a building setback of 20 feet froze the bluftside property line. This required building setback may be increased or decreased by the Planning Commission in the review of ar proposed site plan consistentwith the purposes of this section. 2) Em�ironmentally Sensitive Habitats and Riparian Areas. There are may areas within the City of Newport Beach that. are
en onmen#a? ly sensitive in nature. For the most part, these are waT;er-associated habitats such as marine intertidal, riparian, or marsh areas.
a. The fbHo'mg environmentally sensitive areas shall be preserved and protected., and no structures or landform alteration shall be permitted within these areas, except as provided. in Section d. below:
I} Ar*as supporting species which are rare, endangered, of limited distribution, or otherwise sensitive
2) Natural riparian areas
3) FrQshwater marshes
r
4) Saltwater marshes
5) Int�rtidal areas
6) Other wetlands
i
7) UT ique or unusually diverse vegetative communities
b. Where there is some question as to the applicability of this section to a specific area, a determination as to whether or not the specific area constituted an environmentally sensitive area small be made by the Planning commission, consistent with the purposes of this .regulation.
C. These policies are not intended to prevent public agencies and private Land Use Element Page 10
r
i
1 property owners from maintaining drainage courses and facilities, sedimentation basins, public infrastructure, and other related facilities in a safe and effective condition with minimal impact on the environment. d. When the environmental process demonstrates that adverse impacts can be mitigated to an acceptable level, or that the benefits outweigh the adverse impacts, the Planning Connmission may approve a developrnentplan in an environmentally sensitive habitat or riparian area.
3. Geologic HazardAreas. There are areas within the City of Newport Beach that the natural geological processes can pose a threat to the public health, safety, and welfare. These areas contain earthquake faults, existing or potential landslides, areas with expansive or collapsible soil, excessive settlement and subsidence, and areas subject to potential erosion and siltation. The fallowing policies shall apply to all areas of potential geologic hazard:
a. No structures shall be permitted in areas of potential geologic hazard, except as provided in Section b. below.
b_ When the environmental process demonstrates that adverse impacts can be acceptable p mitigated to an table level or that the benefits outweigh the adverse impacts, the Planning Commission may approve a development plan in an area of potential geologic hazard.
4. Residential Areas Impacted by Norse Levels Greater than 55 CNEL. Due to noise sources such as roadways and aircraft overflights, certain residential areas are impacted by exterior noise levels in excess of 65 CNEL. The following policies shall apply to residential subdivisions of four or more units where the existing or future exterior noise levels are greater than 65 CNEL:
a. No new residential development shall be permitted within any area where the noise levels are greater than 65 CNEL, unless the environmental process identifies specific mitigation measures that result in exterior areas of any residence, such as patios and other public and private recreation areas, being mitigated to less than 65 CNEL.
b. In addition to mitigating exterior noise levels to less than 65 CNEL, all interior portions of a residence shall not exceed 45 CNEL.
Land Use Element page I 1
ESTIMATED GROWTH FOR STATISTICAL AREA F4
Residential (in
du's)
Commercial (in sq. ft.)
Existing
Gen. Plan
Projected
Existing Gen. PIan Projected
I11I37
Projection
Growth
111137 Projection Growth
1. CdM North 1,276
1,530
254
-p- .0_
TOTAL 1,276.
1,530
254
-0- -0- -0-
Population 2,526
3,029
503
Corona Highlands (StatisticalAr'ea F5)
l . Buck Gully. This area is a natural canyon between, Corona Highlands and old Corona del Mar. It is designated for Recreational and Environmental Open Space. In order to provide an adequate buffer for the environmentally sensitive areas within Buck Gully, all construction including but not limited to fences, retaining walls, pools of any size or depth, or tennis courts or other activity areas are expressly prohibited within 25 feet of the property lines of all properties adjacent to Buck Gully. In addition, prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the Grading Engineer shall determine that there will be no grading activities including the alteration of the existing landform or removal or deposition of material within the 25 foot buffer area from the rear property line. 1 Villa del Este. This site is located on East Coast Highway at Seaward Road. The site is designated for Multi -Family Residential, with one unit allowed for each 1,900 sq.ft. of buildable lot area. The site is allocated 19 dwelling units.[GPA 89-1 (Q)
3. Shorecresi Lane. This multi -family area is bounded by East Coast Highway, Seaward Road and Morning Canyon Road. The area is allocated 77 dwelling units, and is designated for Multi -Family Residential land use. One unit is allowed for each 1,900 sq.R. of buildable lot area.
4. Corona Highlands This area is allocated 235 dwelling units, and is shown for either Two Fancily Residential or Single Family Detached land use. A minimum of 3,000 sq.fL of buildable lot area is required for each dwelling unit in Two Family Residential areas. In single family areas, no subdivision which will result in additional dwelling units is allowed.
5. 1forning Carryon This area is a natural canyon. between Corona Highlands and Cameo Highlands. It is designated. for Recreational and Environxental Open Space. In order to Land Use Element Page 30
provide: an adequate buffer for the environmentally sensitive areas within Morning Canyon, all construction including -but not limited to fences, retaining walls, pools of any size or depth, or tennis courts or other activity areas are expressly prohibited within 25 feet of the property lines of all properties adjacent to Morning Canyon- In addztion; prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the Grading Engineer shall determine that there will be no grading activities, including the alteration of the existing landform or removal or y deposition of material, within the 25 foot buffer area from the rear property line.
6. Morning Canyon SFA. This project is located on Morning Canyon Road at East Coast Highway- The site is designated for Single Family Attached land use and is allocated 14 dwelling units, which reflects the existing land use.
ESTIMATED GROWTH FOR STATISTICAL AREA F5
Residential (in du's)
Commercial (in sq. ft.)
Existing
Gen. Plan
Projected
Existing
. Gen. Plan
Projected
111187
Projection
Growth
111/97
Projection
Growth
1. Buck Gully
-0-
-0-
-0-
-0-
-0-
-0-
2. Villa del Este
-0-
18 18
9,552
-0-
(9,552)
3. Shorecrest Lane
72 77
5 -0-
-0-
-0-
4. Corona Highlands
204
235
31 -0-
-0-
-0-
5. Morning Canyon
-0-
-0-
-0-
-0-
-0-
-0-
S.
Morning Canyon SFA 14
14 -0-
-0-
-0-
-0-
TOTAL
290
344
54 9,552
-0-
(9.552)
Population
574
681
107
Cameo Highlands (Statistical Area 1F6)
1. Cameo Highlands. This area is northerly of East Coast Highway between Morning Canyon and the City Boundary.'l;he area is allocated 142 dwelling units and is designated for Single Family Detached land use. No subdivision which will result in additional dwelling units is allowed in this area.
Land Use Element Page 51
ESTIMATED GROWTH FOR STATYS CAL AREA, FS
Residential (in du's)
Commercial (in sq. ft.)
Existing
Gen. Plan Projected
Existing Gen. Plan Projected
111187
Projection Growth
1J1187 Projection Growth
1. Cameo Highlands 142
142 '-0-
-a-- -0- -0-
7OrAL 142
142 -0-
-0- -0- -0-
Population 281
281 -a-
,Shore Cliffs (StatisticalArea M
Shore Cliffs. This area is located .southerly of East Coast Highway between Buck Gully and Morning Canyon. The area is allocated 144 dwelling units, and is designated for Single Family Detached land use. No subdivision of this area which will result in additional dwelling units is allowed.
2. Buck Gully. This area is a natural canyon between Shore Cliffs and old Corona del Mar- It is designated for Recreational and Environmental Open Space. In order to provide an adequate buffer for the environmentally sensitive areas within Buck Gully, all construction including but not limited to fences, retaining wails, pools of any size or depth; or tennis courts or other activity areas are expressly prohibited within 25 feet of the property lines of all properties adjacent to Buck Gully. In addition, prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the Grading Engineer shall determine that there will be no grading activities, including the alteration of the existing landform or removal or deposition of material, within the 25 foot buffer area from the rear property line.
3. Morning Canyon. This area is a natural canyon between Shore Cliffs and Cameo Shores.
It is designated for Recreational and Environmental Open Space. In order to provide an adequate buffer for the environmentally sensitive areas within Morning Canyon, all construction including but not limited to fcnce�, retaining walls, pools of any size or depth, or tennis courts or other activity areas are expressly prohibited within 25 feet of the property lines of all properties adjacent to Morning Canyon. In addition, prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the Grading Engineer shall determine that there will be no grading activities, including the alteration of the existing landformn or removal or deposition of material, within the 25 foot buffer area from the rear property line. ,Lund Use Element Page 52
ESTMIATED GROWTH FOR STATISTICAL AREA 1F7
Residential (in du's)
Commercial (in sq. ft.)
Existing
Gen. Plan
Projected
Existing
Gen. Platt
Projected
111187
Projection
Growth
111187
Projection
Growth
1. Shore Cliffs
144
144
-0-
-0-
-0-
-0-
2•. Buck Gully
-0-
-0-
-a-
-0-
-0-
-0-
' 3. Morning Canyon
-0-
-0-
-0-
-0-
-0-
TO TAL
144
144
-0-
-0-
-0-
-0-
Population
285
285
-0-
Cameo Shores (Statistical Area FS)
1. Cameo Shores This area is southerly of East Coast Highway between Morning Canyon and the City Boundary. The area is allocated 176 dwelling units and is designated for Single Family Detached land use. No subdivision which will result in additional dwelling units is allowed in this area.
2. Morning Canyon. This area is a natural canyon between Shore Cliffs and Cameo Shores.
It is designated for recreational and Environmental Open Space. In order to provide an adequate buffer for the environmentally sensitive areas within Morning Canyon, all construction including but not limited to fences, retaining walls, pools of any size or depth, or tennis courts or other activity areas are expressly prohibited within 25 feet of the property lines of all properties adjacent to Morning Canyon. In addition, prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the Grading Engineer shall determine that there will be no grading activities, including the alteration of the existing landforrn or removal or deposition of material, within the 25 foot buffer area from the rear property line.
ESTIMATED GROWTH FOR STATISTICAL AREA F8
Residential (in du's)
Commercial (in sq. ft.)
Existing
Gen. Plan
Projected
Existing Gen_ Plan
Projected
111/87
Projection
Growth
111187 Projection
Growth-
1. Cameo Shores
114
176
2 _0- -0-
-0-
2. Morning Canyon
-0-
-0-
-0-
-0-
TOTAL
174
176
2 Population
345
348
3 Land Use Element
Response to Comment Letter JA
Letter from Jan A Vandersloot, received June 12, 2006
JA-I
The comment is acknowledged. The commenter's letter to the NOP of February 27, 2006 has been attached as part of this comment letter and the comments therein are addressed as JA2-1 through JA2-
10. 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 "ESAs" in the current General Plan.
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 9.1in the current General Plan, discussed in response JA-3. For these reasons, no significant impact is foreseen.
JA-3
The comment that Policy 9.1 of the current Recreation and Open Space Element prohibits the location of structures in environmentally sensitive areas identified in the Recreation and Open Space Map is incorrect. The implementing action for Policy 9.1 calls for the adoption of a Recreation and Open Space Element Plan and prohibiting structures in specific types of environmentally sensitive areas (i.e., environmentally sensitive habitat areas, coastal bluffs, bluff top set back areas, riparian areas, geologic hazard areas, etc.) However, this does not prohibit development within Environmentally Sensitive Areas (ESA's) as a whole. Furthermore, the prohibition called for in the implementing action is limited to those areas identified in the Recreation and Open Space Plan Map and these specific types of environmentally sensitive areas were not identified on the map.
The comment suggests that the proposed Natural Resources Element only requires the study of environmentally sensitive areas. However this ignores the numerous policies within the element that provide for the protection of these areas once they are identified on a site -specific basis. These include City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 10-267
Policies NR 10.1 through NR 10.14, NR 11.1 through NR 11.3, NR 12.1 to NR 12.3, NR 13.1, NR 13.2, and NR 14.4.
The comment that the current Land Use Element prohibits structures and landform alteration in environmentally sensitive areas is inaccurate. Policy D of the current Land Use Element states:
The siting of new buildings and structures shall be controlled and regulated to insure, to the extent practical, the preservation of public views, the preservation of unique natural resources, and to minimize the alteration of natural land forms along bluffs and cliffs.
The Policy D implementation measures establish a number of development regulations for "all new tracts and subdivisions," including new residential subdivisions of four or more units. One of these regulations establishes that "no structures or landform alteration shall be permitted" in the following "environmentally sensitive areas:"
1) Areas supporting species which are rare, endangered, of limited distribution, or otherwise sensitive 2) Natural riparian areas
3) Freshwater marshes
4) Saltwater marshes
5) Intertidal areas
6) Other wetlands
7) Unique or unusually diverse vegetative communities
However, this regulation also provides that if there is some question as to the applicability of this regulation to a specific area, the Planning Commission shall make a determination as to whether or not the specific area constitutes an environmentally sensitive area. This regulation further provides that:
When the environmental process demonstrates that adverse impacts can be mitigated to an acceptable level, or that the benefits outweigh the adverse impacts, the Planning Commission may approve a development plan in an environmentally sensitive habitat or riparian area. [emphasis added]
The current General Plan contains no criteria or procedure under which the Planning Commission would make these determinations. The policies of the proposed General Plan provide greater protection to the sensitive habitats and species located within these areas than the ambiguous policy in the current General Plan and broad caveats in the implementing measures. For these reasons, no significant impact is foreseen.
JA -4
When the City of Newport Beach drafted the first Local Coastal Program (LCP) Land Use Plan in the 1980s, the term "environmentally sensitive habitat area" was used to identify riparian areas, wetlands, intertidal areas, and other habitats that are considered to be environmentally sensitive. These environmentally sensitive habitat areas were described as being located on all or portions of twelve large areas. In 2002, a biological assessment study was conducted for use in updating the biological resource sections of the LCP Land Use Plan and the General Plan. This biological assessment study carried over the term "environmentally sensitive habitat area" or "ESHA" to describe twenty-eight areas, including the twelve areas described in the existing LCP Land Use Plan. 10-268 City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR
The California Coastal Commission staff advised City staff that describing areas as ESHAs should be given careful consideration given the limitations on development within these areas as set forth in Section 30240(a) of the Coastal Act. Section 30240(a) requires the protection of environmentally sensitive habitat areas against any significant disruption of habitat values and limits uses to only those that are dependent on those resources. Consequently, the LCP Coastal Land Use Plan approved by the California Coastal Commission on October 13, 2003 identifies these areas as "environmental study areas" (ESAs) to distinguish their geographic identification from the ESHAs located within them. To avoid further confusion, an addendum to the 2002 biological assessment study has been prepared to more correctly identify the twenty-eight areas (nineteen in the coastal zone and nine outside of the coastal zone) as "environmental study areas." This is the reason for the change in terminology and there is no change in the ESHA protection policies of the Coastal Act, the Coastal Land Use Plan, or the proposed General Plan. For these reasons, no significant impact is foreseen.
The biological assessments referenced in the comment was superseded Neport Beach Biological Resources Addendum prepared by EIP Associates in October 2003. The addendum was presented to General Plan Advisory Committee on November 10, 2003, which the commentator was present as a member. The addendum was prepared to more correctly identify the twenty-eight areas as "environmental study areas" for the reasons identified above. The change in terminology does not result in a change in the ESHA protection policies of the Coastal Act, the Coastal Land Use Plan, or the proposed General Plan. For these reasons, no significant impact is foreseen.
City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 10-269
02/27/2006 13:57 7148486643 HBDERM PAGE 01
JAN 1). VA.NDERSLOOT, M.D.
2221 East I Street Home Phone (949) 548-6326
Newport Beach, CA. 92663 Office FAX (714) 848-6643
February 27, 2006
Mr. Greg Ramirez, Senior Flamer
Planning Department
City of Newport Beach
3300 Newport Blvd.
P.O. Box 1768
Newport Beach, CA 9265E-5915
City of Newport Beach
General Plan Update
Notice of Preparation/Initial Study
January 2006
By Fax- 949.644.3229
Dear Mr. Ramirez,
JA2
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the NOP for the General Plan Update. I have the following questions that should be addressed in the EIR:
1. Table 3. City of New -port Beach General Plan Update Existing and Proposed Land Use. Can you provide a total of how many residential units (du) will be added to the existing dwelling units under the Existing, Current GP and Proposed GP, and what the incremental changes are? For example, l now have to add the Existing NIpR and SFR to get 39,369 du, I have to add 29,504 NTR to 19,570 SFR to get 49,074 du under the Current GP, and l have to add Proposed MkR 34,303 plus 20,402 SFR to get 54,705 du under the Proposed General Plan.. Thus, the Proposed General Plan will have 15,336 more du than existing, and 5,631 du more titan, the Current GP, and the Current GP over existing is 5,63 1, This is important for people to know how much the City will grow under the different sGenarlos.
2_ What is the growth in population who will occupy the dwelling units, and what is the per cent growth compared to the existing?
3. What is the number of people per household under the different categories of Existing, Current GP, and Proposed GP?
4. What percent growth in population will occur under the Current GP and the Proposed GP?
5. What is the number of park acreage required under the Quimby Act and will the proposed GP meet these requirements?
2 0
n
5 02/27/2006 13:57 7148486643 HBDERM PAGE 02
JAN D. VANDERSLOOT, M.D.
2221 East 16' Street Home Phone (949) 548-6326
Newport Beach, CA 92663 Office FAX (714) 848-6643
6, Table 4, Transportation Improvements under Proposed General Plan Update.
There are 13 additional intersection improvements with project proposed. The EIR should identify what actions need to be taken at each of these locations. Will lard need to be acquired to improve the intersections? If so, from whom and at what cost? If land is not acquired, how will the improvements be accomplished?
7. Will parking need to be removed from the sides of streets to accomplish widening of highways such as Coast Highway in Mariners Mile?
S. Will land need to be acquired to widen streets? From whore? At what cost?
9. The EIR should examine eliminating alternatives that are not feasible, such as the 19a' Street/Banning Bridge over the Santa Ana River. Both the cities of Huntington Beach and Costa Mesa are actively working to eliminate this bridge from the County Master flan of Arterial Highways. What will happen to Newport Beach traffic circulation if this bridge is not built? The traffic alternatives should include this very possible scenario in the EIR. For example, the city of Costa Mesa has proposed a series of alternatives to mitigate for loss of the bridge. These alternatives can be obtained from the City Manager of Costa Mesa and should be included in the MR.
10. How will the recently announced decision of the city of Irvine to add an overlay of 10,000 dwelling units near John Wayne Airport and Jamboree affect the circulation of Newport Beach and its capacity to handle the traffic from the development? See attached article from the Daily Pilot February 13, 2006 entitled: Housing Flans worry Newport".
Thanks again for the opportunity to comment on the NOR Please put me on the mailing list for the EIR notices.
Sincerely,
Jan D. Vandersloot, MD
Attachment:
Daily Pilot Article February 13, 2006, "Housing plans worry Newport" Ifi
7 0
0 10
■ Response to Comment Letter JA2
Letter from Jan D. Vandersloot, received February 27, 2006 in the NOP response period JA2-1
The comment is noted. This item was addressed in the Draft EIR. Refer to Table 2-1 on page 2-4 of the Draft EIR.
JA2-2
The comment is noted. This item was addressed in the Draft EIR. Refer to Impact 4.10-1 on pages 4.10- 5 through 4.10-6 of the Draft EIR.
JA2-3
A static persons per household (pph) ratio of 2.19 (as stated on page 4.10-5) was used to determine the level of impact of the proposed General Plan Update versus existing conditions and the existing General Plan.
JA2-4
The comment is noted. This item was addressed in the Draft EIR. Refer to Impact 4.10-1 on pages 4.10- 5 through 4.10-6 of the Draft EIR.
JA2-5
The comment is noted. This item was addressed in the Draft EIR. Quimby Act requirements are discussed on page 4.12-12. As noted on page 4.12-12, "[t]he Act requires the provision of three acres of park area per 1,000 persons residing within a subdivision, unless the amount of existing neighborhood and community park area exceeds that limit, in which case the City may adopt a higher standard not to exceed five acres per 1,000 residents."
JA2-6
The comment is acknowledged. The environmental effects and project -specific details of several potential transportation improvements have been analyzed in the EIR at a programmatic level, consistent with available information and CEQA requirements. A more detailed analysis would be prepared consistent with CEQA once a specific design concept for a particular improvement has been articulated and the project is proposed as an individual construction project subject to review and consideration by the City.
JA2-7
The comment is acknowledged. Refer to response to comment JA2-6 for a response to this comment regarding specific details concerning the removal of on -street parking. 10-272 City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR
JA2-8
The comment is acknowledged. Refer to response to comment JA2-6 for a response to this comment regarding specific details relating to improvement of the transportation infrastructure within the City.
JA2-9
The comment is acknowledged. The City is not pursuing nor does it consider the removal of the 19t' Street bridge as a reasonable alternative to the proposed General Plan Update at this time. As such, the analysis of such an alternative was not included within the EIR. However, the commenter is referred to Appendix D of the EIR, which briefly discusses the potential transportation implications should the 19`' Street bridge be removed.
JA2-10
The comment is acknowledged. The City's analysis of future traffic conditions utilized the Newport Beach Transportation Model (NBTM) and accounted for current regional growth projections. The development of 10,000 dwelling units in the City of Irvine may fall within current regional growth projections. However, from a programmatic perspective, the use of regional growth projections when assessing cumulative traffic/transportation conditions is the most appropriate and effective method of analyzing the potential impacts of the proposed General Plan Update.
City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 10-273
W+: STATE OF CALIFORNIA 4 c
x Governor's Office of Planning and Research
a,po State Clearinghouse and Planning Unit fhOSCA�+q°��`P.
Arnold Schwarzenegger Sean Walsh
Governor
Director
June 12, 2006 PR rtt:uciUED 8',
PLANNING DEPARTMEN l
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
Gregg B. Ramirez JUN 19 2006
City of Newport Beach PU
3300 Newport Boulevard AM
g ��
Newport Beach, CA 92685-8915 71819110111112,11213141516 ,Subject: City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR SCH#: 2006011119
Dear Gregg B. Ramirez:
The State Clearinghouse submitted the above named Draft EIR to selected state agencies for review. The review period closed on June 8, 2006, and no state agencies submitted comments by that date. This letter acknowledges that you have complied with the State Clearinghouse review requirements for draft 1 environmental documents, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act.
Please call the State Clearinghouse at (916) 445-0613 if you have any questions regarding the environmental review process. If you have a question about the above -named project, please refer to the ten -digit State Clearinghouse number when contacting this office.
Sincerely,
p
Terry Roberts
Director, State Clearinghouse
1400 TENTH STREET P.O. BOX 3044 SACRAM)u"'NTO, CALIFORNIA 95812-3044 TEL (916) 445-0613 FAX (916) 323-3018 www.opx.ca.gov
Document Details Report
State Clearinghouse Data Base
SCH# 2006011119
Project Title City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR Lead Agency Newport Beach, City of
Type EIR Draft EIR
Description Implementation of the proposed General Plan Update would result in new development within the Planning Area, which consists of two geographical areas; the City's corporate limits, and its Sphere of Influence (SOI) represents those areas likely to be served by and potentially annexed to the City. The SOI includes the existing City boundaries as well as an additional 361 acres of land in the Banning Ranch subarea. Land use designations under the proposed General Plan include residential, commercial, office, industrial, parks/open space, visitor -serving, and institutional. Generally, development in accordance with the General Plan would result in appropriate infill of vacant lands in the City and redevelopment of existing sites, effective reuse of obsolete sites, and incremental growth in specific areas within the City. Implementation of the updated General Plan at its fullest intensity for all vacant lands would result in the development of the land use types listed above.
Lead Agency Contact
Name Gregg B. Ramirez
Agency City of Newport Beach
Phone (949) 644-3219 Fax
email
Address 3300 Newport Boulevard
City Newport Beach State CA Zip 92685-8915
Project Location
County Orange
City Newport Beach
Region
Cross Streets
Parcel No.
Township Range Section Base
Proximity to:
Highways SR 55, SR 39, Hwy. 1
Airports John Wayne Airport
Railways
Waterways Upper Newport Bay
Schools Newport Mesa, Santa Ana, and Laguna USD
Land Use The existing General Plan for the City of Newport Beach currently designates land use.
Project Issues AestheticNisual; Air Quality; Archaeologic -Historic; Biological Resources; Coastal Zone; Cumulative Effects; Drainage/Absorption; Flood Plain/Flooding;.Forest Land/Fire Hazard; Geologic/Seismic; Growth Inducing; Landuse; Minerals; Noise; Population/Housing Balance; Public Services; Schools/Universities; Sewer Capacity; Soil Erosion/Compaction/Grading; Solid Waste; Toxic/Hazardous, Traffic/Circulation; Vegetation; Water Quality; Water Supply; Wetland/Riparian; Wildlife
Reviewing Resources Agency; Regional Water Quality Control Board, Region 9; Department of Parks and Agencies Recreation; Native American Heritage Commission; Department of Housing and Community Development; Office of Historic Preservation; Department of Fish and Game, Region 5; California Coastal Commission; California Highway Patrol; Caltrans, District 12; Caltrans, Division of Aeronautics, - Department of Toxic Substances Control; Office of Emergency Services; Department of Health Services
Note: Blanks in data fields result from insufficient information provided by lead agency.
Document Details Report
State Clearinghouse Data Base
Date Received 04/21/2006 Start of Review 04/21/2006 End of Review 06/08/2006 Note: Blanks in data fields result from insufficient information provided by lead agency.
Response to Comment Letter PR
Letter from the Governor's Office of Planning and Research, received June 19, 2006 PR-1
Comment noted. This comment contains information regarding the State Clearinghouse's actions in submitting the Draft EIR to various state agencies for review and the closing date of the review period.
No further response is required.
City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 10-277
Name I Issue Area/Role
LEAD AGENCY
City of Newport Beach
Sharon Wood Assistant City Manager
Patricia Temple Planning Director
Gregg Ramirez Senior Planner
EIR CONSULTANT TEAM
EIP Associates
Kim Avila Project Director
Terri S. Vitar Project Management Team
Christopher Mundhenk Project Management Team
Jessie Barkley
Technical Analysis
Neill Brower
Technical Analysis
Julian F. Capata
Technical Analysis
Demian Ebert
Technical Analysis
Erin Efner
Technical Analysis
Natalie Irwin
Technical Analysis
Daniel Kenny
Technical Analysis
Shannon Kimball
Technical Analysis
Sheldon Nylander
Technical Analysis
John Spranza
Technical Analysis
TJ Weule
Technical Analysis
Joel Miller Word Processing
Ron Arzaga Word Processing
James Songco Graphics
Urban Crossroads
Carleton Waters, P.E. Principal
Marlie Whiteman, P.E. Senior Engineer
City of Newport Beach Final EIR 11-1
,.
O april 2006
City
04 �cA
Zrsp?,ott
Draft Environmental Impact Report Appendices
General Plan 2006 Update
* SCH No. 2006011119
Volume II
- .. t' -.-
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
GENERAL PLAN 2006 UPDATE
Volume II
Draft Environmental Impact Report Appendices
SCH No. 2006011119
Prepared for
City of Newport Beach
3300 Newport Boulevard
Newport Beach, California 92658-8915
Prepared by
EIP Associates
12301 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 430
Los Angeles, California 90025
April 21, 2006
Volume II —Draft EIR Appendices
Appendix A
Initial Study/Notice of Preparation and Comment Letters Appendix B
Air Quality Data
Appendix C1
Biological Resources Addendum
Appendix C2
Special -Status Species Table
Appendix D
Traffic Study
Appendix E
Supplement to the General Plan Traffic Study
Existing With Pr ject Evaluation Letter
Current (2006) Existing Conditions Count Data
City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
GENERAL PLAN UPDATE
Notice of Preparation/Initial Study
Prepared for
City of Newport Beach
Planning Department
3300 Newport Boulevard
Newport Beach, California 92658-8915
Prepared by
EIP Associates
12301 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 430
Los Angeles, California 90025
January 2006
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
P.O. BOX 1768, NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92658-8915
DATE: January 27, 2006
TO: Agencies, Organizations, and Interested Parties (see distribution list) FROM: City of Newport Beach, Planning Department
SUBJECT: Notice of Preparation of a Draft Environmental Impact Report The City of Newport Beach will be the Lead Agency under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and will prepare a Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Newport Beach General Plan Update (proposed project). The City has prepared an Initial Study and will prepare a comprehensive environmental document evaluating the potential environmental effects of the General Plan Update.
Agencies: The City requests your agency's views on the scope and content of the environmental information relevant to your agency's statutory responsibilities in connection with the proposed project, in accordance with California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Section 15082(b). Your agency will need to use the EIR when considering any permit or other approval that your agency must issue for the project.
Organizations and Interested Parties: The City requests your comments regarding the environmental issues that should be addressed in the EIR.
Project Location and Description: A detailed Project Description is attached. The entire Planning Area includes the existing City of Newport Beach boundaries (totaling 13,062 acres, excluding waterways) and its sphere of influence. The General Plan Update defines comprehensive land use, noise, housing, circulation and infrastructure, public service, resource conservation, and public safety policies for the entire City. While policies regarding future land use and growth are addressed from a citywide perspective, the majority of land use changes are limited to nine primary study areas. Accordingly, the EIR will comprehensively address the impacts of all policies throughout the City and, additionally, focus on those areas in which the most significant land use changes could occur. Refer to the attached Project Description for more information.
Environmental Impact Report: By its nature, the General Plan Update requires a program -level EIR. According to Title 12, Section 15168 of the California Code of Regulations, a program EIR may be prepared on a series of actions that can be characterized as one large project and are related geographically; as logical parts in the chain of contemplated actions; in connection with the issuance of rules, regulations, plans, or other general criteria to govern the conduct of a continuing program; or as individual activities carried out under the same authorizing statutory or regulatory authority and having generally similar environmental effects which can be mitigated in similar ways. A program -level EIR can provide an occasion for a more exhaustive consideration of effects and alternatives than would be practical in an EIR or on an individual action, ensure consideration of cumulative impacts that might be slighted in a case -by -case analysis, and to allow the lead agency to consider broad policy alternatives and program - wide mitigation measures at an early time when the agency has greater flexibility to deal with basic problems or cumulative impacts.
A program -level EIR differs from the more common type of EIR which evaluates environmental effects at the project level. A project -level EIR examines the environmental impacts of a specific development project. A project - level EIR focuses primarily on the changes in the environment that would result from a development project and
examines all phases of the project including planning, construction, and operation. Generally, the analysis contained in a program -level EIR is not as detailed as the analysis in a project -level EIR.
Potential Environmental Effects: The City has prepared an Initial Study that describes the potential environmental effects of the proposed project. An EIR will be prepared to evaluate the project's potential impacts on the environment and analyze alternatives. As identified in the Initial Study, the environmental issues listed below will be addressed in the EIR. With the exception of Agricultural Resources, the EIR will include all of the environmental issue areas contained in the CEQA Guidelines. ■ Aesthetics and Visual Resources
■ Biological Resources
• Air. Quality
■ Cultural and Historic Resources
■ Geology and Soils
■ Hazards and Hazardous Materials
■ Hydrology and Water Quality
■ Land Use and Planning
■ Mineral Resources
■ Noise
■ Population and Housing
■ Public Services, including
> Fire Protection
> Police Protection
> Schools
> Parks
> Other public facilities
■ Recreation
■ Transportation/Traffic
■ Utilities and Service Systems, including
> Sewer
> Water System and Storm Drainage
> Solid Waste
Document Availability: The Notice of Preparation, Initial Study, and Project Description are available for review at the following locations:
City of Newport Beach, Planning Department Newport Beach Public Library 3300 Newport Boulevard 1000 Avocado Avenue
Newport Beach, CA 92658-8915 Newport Beach, CA 92660
Telephone: 949.644.3225 Telephone: 949.717.3800
Responses and Comments: If you would like to submit written comments on the Notice of Preparation, please send them to the City of Newport Beach at the address shown below. Please be specific in your statements describing your environmental concerns. Due to the time limits mandated by state law, your written response must be sent at the earliest possible date, but not la ter than February27, 2006, which is 30 days from the date of this notice.
Project Title: Newport Beach General Plan Update
Project Applicant: City of Newport Beach
Send Responses to: Gregg B. Ramirez, Senior Planner
Planning Department, Community and Economic Development City of Newport Beach
3300 Newport Boulevard
P.O. Box 1768
Newport Beach, CA 92658-8915
Telephone: 949.644.3219
Facsimile: 949.644.3229
The City Newport Beach
CONTENTS
ProjectDescription...........................................................................................................................1 Environmental Setting and Location.................................................................................................................1 Statementof Objectives...................................................................................................................................... 2 ProjectCharacteristics......................................................................................................................................... 9 Environmental Factors Potentially Affected.................................................................................. 21 Determination (to be completed by the Lead Agency).................................................................. 21 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts...........................................................................................22 I.
Aesthetics............................................................................................................................................... 22 II.
Agriculture Resources..........................................................................................................................23 III.
Air Quality............................................................................................................................................. 24 IV.
Biological Resources.............................................................................................................................25 V.
Cultural Resources................................................................................................................................ 27 VI.
Geology and Soils.................................................................................................................................28 VII.
Hazards and Hazardous Materials......................................................................................................30 VIII.
Hydrology and Water Quality.............................................................................................................33 IX.
Land Use and Planning........................................................................................................................36 X.
Mineral Resources.................................................................................................................................37 X1.
Noise.......................................................................................................................................................37 XII.
Population and Housing......................................................................................................................39 XIII.
Public Services.......................................................................................................................................39 XI V.
Recreation.............................................................................................................................................. 41 XV.
Transportation/Traffic........................................................................................................................41 XVI.
Utilities and Service Systems...............................................................................................................43 XVII.
Mandatory Findings of Significance...................................................................................................45 Figures
Figure1 Regional Location...........................................................................................................................3 Figure2 Planning Area.................................................................................................................................. 5 Figure3 Subareas...........................................................................................................................................7 Tables
Table 1 Current Elements of the General Plan........................................................................................2 Table2 Existing Land Use........................................................................................................................11 Table 3 City of Newport Beach General Plan Update Existing and Proposed Land Use...............12 Table 4 Transportation Improvements under Proposed General Plan Update................................17 Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR Initial Study
The City Newport Beach
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING AND LOCATION
Located in the Southern California region, Newport Beach is at the western edge of Orange County, adjacent to the Pacific Ocean, as shown in Figure 1. Generally, Newport Beach is bordered by Costa Mesa to the northwest, Huntington Beach to the west, Irvine to the northeast, and unincorporated portions of Orange County to the southeast.
Regional access to the City is provided by several freeways. The 405 Freeway runs north to south within Southern California, and intersects both State Routes 73 and 55. State Route 55 extends south from State Route 91 and terminates in the City of Newport Beach. State Route 73 extends along the northern boundary of the City, connecting the 55 and 405 Freeways with Interstate 5. Highway 1 (Coast Highway) runs along the California coast and all the way through Newport Beach.
The entire Planning Area includes the existing City boundaries and its sphere of influence (SOI). The current City boundaries total 13,062 acres, excluding waterways. 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. The entire property is surrounded by a one -foot strip within the City's jurisdiction. The Planning Area is illustrated in Figure 2. The City of Newport Beach General Plan Technical Background Report (TBR) provides existing data for the entire Planning Area.
The TBR was published June 2004 and is available for review at the Planning Department and Central Library.
The General Plan Update provides comprehensive land use, housing, circulation and infrastructure, public service, resource conservation, and public safety policies for the entire city. While policies regarding future land use and development are addressed from a citywide perspective, the majority of land use changes are limited to nine primary study areas, which include about 10.5 percent of the City's land area. Accordingly, the EIR will comprehensively address the impacts of all policies throughout the City and, additionally, focus on those areas in which the most significant land use changes could occur.
These areas are illustrated in Figure 3.
Background
General Plan
The General Plan is a state -required legal document (Government Code Section 65300) that provides guidance to decision makers regarding the conservation of resources and the future physical form and character of development for the city. It is the official statement of the jurisdiction regarding the extent and types of development of land and infrastructure that will achieve the community's physical, economic, social, and environmental goals. The General Plan expresses the City's goals and articulates the City's intentions with respect to the rights and expectations of the general public, property owners, community interest groups, prospective investors, and business interests. Although the General Plan consists of individual sections, or "elements," that address a specific area of concern, it also embodies a comprehensive and integrated planning approach for the jurisdiction.
Under state law, each General Plan must contain seven elements:
■ Land Use
■ Circulation
■ Housing
Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR Initial Study 1
The City of Newport Beach
■ Conservation
■ Open Space
■ Noise
■ Safety
Provisions of Orange County's Measure M require jurisdictions to adopt a Growth Management Element describing how public services and facilities will be provided to residents and businesses within each community. The City's has incorporated Growth Management policies into the Circulation Element to meet Measure M requirements.
Table 1 includes a list of current elements of the General Plan and when they were last revised.
It is important to note that 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.
The General Plan policies for the SOI, however, are only advisory to Orange County as to the City's intentions for development; the County still maintains jurisdictional authority over the SOI areas unless they are annexed to the City.
Table 1 Current Elements of the General Plan
Current Elements
Date of Adoption/Update
Land Use
1988 with several amendments since
Housing
2003 with amendments and re -certification in 2005
Recreation and Open Space
1998
Conservation of Natural Resources
1974
Circulation
1998
Public Safety
1975
Noise
1994
Growth Management
1992
Harbor and Bay
2001
STATEMENT OF OBJECTIVES
The project seeks to achieve the objectives identified by the community during the extensive public outreach and participation process, as expressed in the Visioning Statement developed by the General Plan Advisory Committee (GPAC) and approved by the Planning Commission and the City Council. ■ Preserve and enhance Newport Beach's character as a beautiful, unique residential community. ■ Reflect a conservative growth strategy that
> Balances needs for housing, jobs and services
> Limits land use changes to a very small amount of the City's land area > Directs land use changes to areas where residents have expressed a willingness to consider change and where sustainable development can occur
• Protects natural resources, open space, and recreational opportunities ■ Protect and enhance water quality.
■ Protect and enhance recreational opportunities and public access to open space and natural resources.
■ Modify land uses, densities, and intensities so that traffic generation is controlled. 2 Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR Initial Study
mz § §
$§
z b q
\ LU � /
!
ƒ!\
<
\ ¢ !
!
_
/ $
�
\
| | 2 | / f \
z k
m Z
7 2
Q
\
2 $ƒ
•
2|! (
/ §
@
Z
E
/ \
f
)
$
7 t) »
$ a
|
7 |■
2 22
k
,
7 a
C
0. The City Newport Beach
■ Improve traffic flow without changing the character of the City. ■ Preserve and enhance parks, art, cultural and education facilities and programs that contribute to residents' quality of life.
■ Ensure the City has adequate municipal revenue to provide first rate municipal services, such as police, fire, lifeguard, library, recreation, refuse collection and recycling, and infrastructure maintenance.
■ Attract visitors to Newport Beach's harbor, beaches, hotels, restaurants, and shops with as little impact as possible on residents and natural resources.
■ Encourage revitalization of older and economically challenged commercial areas so that the areas continue to be community resources and have a positive impact on the value of nearby property and the local economy.
■ Maintain Newport Harbor as one of the premier small boat recreational boating harbors in the world, while causing little or no impact on the environment. ■ Control and contain noise and traffic impacts from operations at John Wayne Airport to protect the residents' quality of life and property values.
■ Modify the Land Use Element and other elements to reflect changes in the law and planning practices that have occurred in the 17 years since the last comprehensive amendments were approved.
■ Provide effective means to ensure compliance with Section 423 of the Charter.
PROJECT CHARACTERISTICS
Elements and Components of the Proposed General Plan
The proposed General Plan is a comprehensive update of the current General Plan. Elements of the existing General Plan have been re -organized by thematic topic for clarity and to avoid redundancy, as encouraged by the State's General Plan Guidelines. The updated City of Newport Beach General Plan is organized into the following elements:
■ Land Use
■ Housing
■ Circulation
■ Recreation
■ Natural Resources
■ Safety
■ Noise
■ Historic Resources
■ Arts and Cultural Resources
Goals and policies in the existing Harbor and Bay Element will be retained in a separate element or incorporated in the Land Use, Circulation, Recreation, Safety, and Natural Resources Elements. Growth Management Element goals and policies are incorporated into the Circulation/Mobility Element. Goals and polices for the protection of the City's open spaces, currently found in the Recreation and Open Space Element, are incorporated into the Natural Resources Element.
Updated General Plan Potential Land Use Changes
Existing land uses by major category and potential land use changes resulting from the update of the General Plan are described below.
Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR Initial Study 9
The City of Newport Beach
Existing Land Uses
Information regarding existing land uses and potential development within Newport Beach is presented below. More detail regarding the existing uses is presented in the General Plan TBR. The City of Newport Beach Planning Area contains 26,676 acres or 41.7 square miles. These are net acres and do not include streets and roadways, which account for approximately 20 percent of the total gross land acreage.
Approximately 42 percent (11,119 acres) of the Planning Area is water, which includes the Upper and Lower Newport Bay and its channels, and the Pacific Ocean. The following discussion pertains to the 13,062 acres of developed and undeveloped land in the Planning Area.
Existing land uses in the Planning Area have been classified into seven primary categories:
■ Residential —Residential uses include a mix of housing developed at varying densities and types.
Residential uses in the Planning Area include single-family, multiple -family, condominium, mobile, and senior housing.
■ Commercial/Office—This category includes commercial uses that offer goods for sale to the public (retail) and service and professional businesses housed in offices (accountants, architects, etc).
Retail and commercial businesses include those that serve local needs, such as restaurants, neighborhood markets and dry cleaners, and those that serve community or regional needs, such as auto dealers and furniture stores. Visitor -serving retail uses such as regional shopping centers and hotels are also included in this category.
■ Industrial —The industrial category includes a mix of manufacturing and light industrial uses, some of which are found in business, research, and development parks. Light industrial activities include warehousing and some types of assembly work. This category also includes wholesaling and warehousing.
■ Governmental, Educational, and Institutional Facilities (GEIF)—Government buildings, libraries, schools and other public institutions are found in this category. Uses in this category support civic, cultural, and educational needs of residents.
■ Open Space —This category encompasses public and private recreational spaces, local and regional parks, and beaches. Recreational areas, such as golf courses, also contribute to open space uses in the Planning Area.
■ Vacant —Vacant lands are undeveloped lands (as of June 2003) that are not preserved in perpetuity as open space or for other public purposes.
■ Dater —The bay, harbor, channels and reservoirs are included in this category.
Existing land uses are listed below in Table 2.
Proposed Land Use Changes
Table 3 presents the proposed land uses for Newport Beach. As shown, City-wide changes would occur in the following land use categories: Residential (single- and multi -family), Commercial, Office, Industrial, Visitor Serving, Institutional, and Parks/Open Space.
Newport Beach is almost fully developed. Therefore, the General Plan focuses on how limited population and employment growth can be strategically accommodated to preserve the distinguishing and valued qualities of the community. For most of the City, the updated General Plan conserves the existing pattern of uses and intensity of development, and establishes policies for protection and long- term maintenance of established neighborhoods.
10 Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR Initial Study
The City Newport Beach
Table 2 Existing Land Use
Land Use
Acres
Percent of City's Total
Residential
5,436.0
41.6%
Single -Family Detached
3,932.8
Single -Family Attached
625.3
Two -Family Residential
360.9
Multi -Family Residential
480.0
Mixed Residential
37.0 Commercial
1,154.6
8.8%
Retail
382.0
Administrative, Professional, and Financial
473.0
Marine and Auto Related
73.7 Visitor -serving
225.9
Industrial
114.4
0.9%
Industrial
68.9 Multi -Tenant Industrial
20.5 Industrial Business Park
25.0 Other
6,356.7
—
Government, Educational, Institutional Facilities
446.6
3.4%
• Quasi -Public
53.5 0.4%
■ Right of Way/Undesignated
4.8 <1 %
Recreation & Environmental Open Space
4,516.4
34.6%
Vacant Land
1,260.2
9.6%
Water
75.2 0.6%
Total
1 13, 061.7
j 100%
SOURCE: EIP Associates GIS 2003
Generally, new development in accordance with the updated General Plan would result as re -use of economically underperforming properties and obsolete development, conversion of uses in response to market demand (e.g., office and industrial to residential) and more intense use of land in limited, defined areas. Several subareas within Newport Beach determined to have special planning considerations were the subjects of special study during the update process. These areas are described below. Largely, the existing General Plan provides adequate guidance for development outside of these subareas within the City and changes have been made only to select locations where circumstances warrant. The land use changes in each of the special study subareas, and citywide totals are presented in Table 3. It should be noted that the amount of development that could occur within the subareas does not add up to the citywide total because the subareas represent only 10.5% of the total land area of the City.
Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR Initial Study 11
a)
N
i
a
J
N
O
Q
O
C
a
a1
C
y
'x
W
a
Q
C
_a
a
i
C
V
t
u
a
m
O
Q
3 Z
O
L -1
a
O
oN
rn
CD
O
00 O
0000
00 00
M
000
OM
O
O
Z j
Lo
M
Lf)
N
06 co
C4
N
LO
LO
Q
O
O
LO
Z
0)
0)
(O
Cl
O
O
.3G
N
N
M
CD
N=
M
L
LO
o
o
0 0
o
O
O
d'
a7
ti
N
Cl)
N
N
LO
M
M
N
co
O
O
8 W
Ob
�
CD
LO
r—
O
co
N
M
00 N
M
co
O)
co
LO
ti
co
LO
Cl)
M
0O
0MCNNO
O
cM
67 N
07 c+J
LL
_
CD
appb
00 NLC
NN0
N
N
y 0
O
H
O
O
C:)
Lr,C\j
N
O
O
O
LN f)
N
00 (0
00 CO
v y
CM
M
M
to
O
O
O
C C
r
CO
LA
04 O
O
OM
m
"
�
00 C
Lo
L0
,:t
Z
O
C
N g
C>
O
O
O
(Ci
cq
Lo
Lo
Lo
QC
CN
L
LO
LO
I
N
N
CO
=
�
ZCl)
Cl)
M
O
O
O
O
o
O
0 O
o
ti
O
O
LOI
O
O
Lr
CO
M
1-
01 f--
00 CV
O
OO
O
O
C00
00 000
LO
LO
M
00)
00 a
Lfj
ti
LO
00 0',
LPy
00 O
N M 007
N 1 N I N
O (M=, �O O
N V51 ti
O O O
O CD O
A
O
�
�
Oo
O
00 m
LO
cl
00 0
N
ti
�
�
O
COO
c00
.a
c0
co
0 CNJ 000
0 m
OMo
"
CO
OMO
M
LO
M
~
N
N
V
N
N
Z
co
�
N
CMO
ti
0L00
O
O
O
00 O
O
O
O
O
cli N
O
O
Na
LO
N
O
�
0 00
00 LMC)
N
Z 0
M
�
LO
p
O
O
O
V
m
Cb
U')
co
LO
'0
LO
00 N
N
M
LOf)
co
�
L(�
3 M
N
N
CD M
CDOo
I�
N
�
O
M
C4
O
cV
O
N
O
O
a)
ti
N
O
O
yy,,
y
y
N
(O
�
CO
O
O
1�
O
O
OM
M
CO
0 CO
f�
L()
Lf)
M
�
00 M
co
Lo
lf0j
L()
m
CT
I�
V
cc
L(i
O
N
O
N
m
M
N
L�f)
L
CO
O
O
Co
Lf)
CO
O
CV
O
yr
L
cl
L
N
N
Lfj
CO
I�
000
y
Lf)
f�
c0
L
H
a
a
0 to
(n
Cn
y
R
cc
��
N
_.
R
�
a
a
y
a
a
c
a
i7
d
d
�
tL
�_
�_
�_
O
d
rn
O
rn
C
a)
rn
C
rn
.i=
iO
k
,a
C
O
0-
E
c
L
O
Q
O
.�
O
Q-
N
O
-C
O
Q-
w
-�
O
fl-
N
in
N
N
in
++
(q
O
W
U
d
W
U
CD
a_U
W
U
a->
W
U
d
5 W
U
d
5 W
U
d
N
fb
2%
R0
\�
@
ki
�
)m
�
�
c
a
�
�
J}
0 �
2 �
$&
7 a$
0 �
�
./k
=
c
CD
@
S��
5 2
tea$�
7§
o
«
�
@
U
{
u
u =
o
@
$$
m
#%
t
CL
»
@
2 }A
2 A■
�
U
f�
��
/
/
-
2 n
@
f
m
�
g
.
#
cn
n
The City of Newport Beach
Subareas
The proposed Land Use Element identifies the special study subareas as districts or corridors, depending on their physical form, functional role, and how they relate to the land or water adjoining them.
Districts
Districts are uniquely identifiable by their common functional role, mix of uses, density/intensity, physical form and character, and/or environmental setting. Generally, they encompass areas that extend equally in length and breadth. While Newport Beach contains many subareas, the General Plan policies in the following areas focus on those that are likely to change over the next 20 years as existing viable land uses are enhanced, underperforming properties are revitalized, and opportunities are provided to accommodate the City's fair share of regional housing needs. Policies are directed to the management of these changes to assure that they complement the characteristics that are valued by Newport Beach's residents.
WEST NEWPORT MESA
The Plan allows for the establishment of a number of distinct and cohesive districts. Adjoining Hoag Hospital and on the Newport Technology Center site, properties would be designated for medical -related uses including offices, labs, convalescent and long-term care facilities, and limited retail sales. At its northern edge abutting the City of Costa Mesa, properties would be encouraged to retain light manufacturing and research and development uses. Multi -family housing would be maintained and newly developed on underutilized residential, commercial, and industrial properties between these nodes.
NEWPORT CENTER/FASHION ISLAND
The Plan allows for expanded retail opportunities at Fashion Island, including an additional anchor department store and ancillary shops, another hotel or additions to existing hotels, and 600 additional housing units. Limited new capacity for office development (40,000 square feet) would be limited to minor expansion of existing buildings and could not be converted to retail use. Plan policies encourage improved pedestrian connections and streetscape amenities connecting the area's diverse districts
JOHN WAYNE AIRPORT AREA
The Plan allows for the maintenance and/or limited expansion of the currently developed mix of uses, including office, airport -supporting commercial, hotel, and public uses. Additionally, it allows the opportunity for the development of new residential neighborhoods as replacement of existing and allowed future uses and, in some cases, on underutilized surface parking lots. Policies establish criteria for the development of cohesive residential neighborhoods oriented around neighborhood parks and local - serving convenience commercial facilities and interconnected by a network of pedestrian -oriented streets.
BANNING RANCH
The updated General Plan prioritizes the retention 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. Should the property not be acquired for open space, the Plan considers the possible development of a mixed -density residential village, with housing oriented around a neighborhood park, convenience commercial, and small hotel, and preservation of the majority of the site as open space. Policies stipulate that any development would have to be located and designed to protect views, the bluffs, natural drainage, and important habitat. 14 Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR Initial Study
The City Newport Beach
BALBOA PENINSULA
The Plan differentiates Balboa Peninsula into a series of commercial, residential, mixed -use, and water - oriented districts. The Plan encourages enhancement of Lido Village as a pedestrian -oriented district of small retail shops, bay supporting uses, small lodging facilities (bed -and -breakfast and inns), and mixed - use buildings that integrate housing with retail uses. Properties inland of the bay front in Cannery Village containing a fragmented mix of housing, commercial, and industrial uses could be re -used as a primarily residential village of two family and townhome residential, with mixed -use and live/work structures at intersections. Bay fronting properties east of Lafayette Avenue would continue to support water - dependent and marine -related uses. The Plan supports the retention of McFadden Square as an ocean and pier -oriented village containing visitor -serving retail, small overnight lodging facilities, and mixed -use buildings. The Newport Boulevard Corridor would contain retail commercial and mixed -use buildings.
Policies provide for the development of improved streetscapes and a waterfront promenade to link the districts. Cumulatively, the updated General Plan would allow for reductions in the area's commercial and industrial capacity, which would be replaced by opportunities for new housing. For Balboa Village, the General Plan would allow for the consolidation of commercial uses to enhance the area's economic vitality, which would be replaced by medium density housing (including townhomes and small -lot, attached single family) and mixed -use structures that would integrate housing with ground -level retail uses. Bay -fronting properties would be prioritized for marine -related and water -dependent uses.
Programs for streetscape enhancements would be continued.
HARBOR AND BAY
The goals and policies in the existing Harbor and Bay Element will be retained, either in a separate element or incorporated in the Land Use, Circulation, Recreation, Safety, and Natural Resources Elements of the General Plan Update. The goals and policies pertaining to Harbor and Bay issues are intended to guide the content of regulations related to development of, and the activities conducted on, the water. Additional goals and policies recognize the important component of land use decisions related to waterfront property around Newport Harbor. The aim of Harbor and Bay related goals and policies is to preserve the diversity and charm of existing uses without unduly restricting the rights of the waterfront property owner. Goals and policies related to the Harbor and Bay have been organized to address both water and land related issues.
Corridors
Corridors share common characteristics of districts by their identifiable functional role, land use mix, density/intensity, physical form and character, and/or environmental setting. They differ in their linear configuration, generally with shallow depth parcels located along arterial streets. They are significantly impacted by traffic, often inhibiting access during peak travel periods. While the City is crossed by a number of commercial corridors, the General Plan's policies focus on those in which change is anticipated to occur during the next 20 years. Additionally, they provide guidance for the maintenance of corridors in which it is the objective to maintain existing types and levels of development.
WEST NEWPORT HIGHWAY
Visitor- and neighborhood -serving commercial uses would be allowed in the area concentrated on the Pacific Coast Highway, near the Orange and Prospect Avenue intersections, with the intervening highway fronting properties developed for multi -family housing. The Plan encourages properties at the entry to the City to be enhanced as a "gateway" for amenities supporting Orange County River Park and/or new multi -family residential.
Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR Initial Study 15
The City of Newport Beach
OLD NEWPORT BOULEVARD
The Plan allows for a mix of medical office and retail uses supporting Hoag Hospital, convenience retail, and mixed -use buildings that integrate housing with ground level retail or office uses on Old Newport Boulevard.
MARINERS' MILE
The Plan provides for the differentiation of Mariners' Mile into distinct commercial, water -related, and mixed -use districts. Bayfronting properties would be prioritized for water -dependent and marine -related uses, including restaurants and service uses, with the development of housing on a limited portion of the properties. The Coast Highway frontages of all inland properties would be restricted to community - serving and marine -related commercial uses. Interior sites, generally between Riverside Avenue and the extension of Irvine Avenue, would be developed for neighborhood -serving commercial uses, mixed -use buildings with housing above retail, and multi -family residential buildings. Streetscape improvements are proposed to enhance the area's pedestrian character, as well as its identity along Coast Highway. Policies also support the relocation of the City's parking lot and the Postal Distribution Center.
CORONA DEL MAR
The Plan encourages development along this corridor to include a pedestrian -oriented "village" serving as the center of community commerce, culture, and social activity and providing identity for Corona del Mar.
Other Land Use Changes
While land use changes would be accommodated in other areas of the City by the updated Plan, these are generally small and retain the basic land use character as provided by the existing General Plan. For example, the General Plan would allow for land use changes in the Dover Drive area. These changes include redesignating the area from Administrative, Professional, and Financial Commercial uses to "mixed use," allowing a mix of office and multi -family residential uses.
Transportation Improvements
Several transportation -related improvements are included in the proposed General Plan. The improvements listed in Table 4 would be implemented under the proposed General Plan to ensure that impacts resulting from buildout of the General Plan Update are minimized.
Goals and Policy Changes
The General Plan Update includes new policies in the Land Use Element, the Circulation Element, the Safety Element, the Natural Resources Element, and the Recreation Element. The new policies are briefly described below.
Land Use Element
The Land Use Element contains new General Plan policies related to Community Character. These policies encourage maintenance and enhancement of Newport Beach's residential neighborhoods, commercial districts, employment centers, corridors, and open spaces, and help assure that new development complements and reinforces these characteristics.
New policies related to Urban Form are also contained in this Element. These policies establish and reinforce particular area's scale and development pattern. These policies are included in the General Plan Update to help establish or maintain physical and visual continuity and a sense of complete and identifiable neighborhoods and established strategies for areas of the City that require enhancement and revitalization.
16 Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR Initial Study
The City Newport Beach
Table 4 Transportation Improvements under Proposed General Plan Update Intersection
Additional Intersection Improvements with Project
1. Bluff Rd. (NS) at Coast Hw. (EW)
Provide two SB left -turn lanes and two SB right -turn lanes (2nd with overlap phase). Provide two EB left -turn lanes. Provide one WB right -turn lane.
2. 15th St. (NS) at Coast Hw. (EW)
Provide 2nd SB right turn lane with overlap phase. Provide 2nd EB left turn lane.
3. Newport BI. (NS) at Hospital Rd. (EW)
Provide 2nd NB left turn lane.
4. Riverside Av. (NIS) at Coast Hw. (EW)
Provide 3rd EB through lane.
5. MacArthur BI. (NS) at Campus Dr. (EW)
Provide 2nd NB left turn lane. Restripe SB to provide 3.5 through lanes and 1.5 right turn lanes.
6. Von Karman Av. (NS) at Campus Dr. (EW)
Provide 2nd EB left turn lane.
7. Jamboree Rd. (NS) at Campus Dr. (EW)
Provide NB 1st right turn lane with overlap phase. Provide 4th SB through lane.
Provide WB right turn overlap phase for current right turn lane.
8. Campus Dr. (NS) at Bristol St. N (EW)
Provide 5th WB through lane.
Provide 3rd NB through lane. Provide 3rd S8 through lane. Provide 1st EB right Irvine Av. (NS) at Mesa Dr. (EW)—Funded
turn lane. Provide 2nd WB left turn lane. Construct funded improvements, but EB
9. Improvements University Dr. (EW)
right turn lane not necessary.
Provide 3rd NB through lane. Provide 3rd SB through lane. Restripe EB to include 1.5 left turn lanes, 1.5 through lanes, and 1 right turn lane.
10. Dover Dr. (NS) at Coast Hw. (EW)
Provide 4th WB through lane.
11. MacArthur BI. (NS) at Jamboree Rd. (EW)
Provide 4th EB through lane. Provide 3rd WB left turn lane.
12. Jamboree Rd. (NS) at Bristol St. S (EW)
Provide 6th NB through lane. Provide 4th SB through lane.
MacArthur BI. (NS) at Ford Rd./Bonita
Provide 3rd SB left turn lane.
13. Canyon Dr. (EW) and San Joaquin Hills Rd.
Provide 3rd SB left turn lane. Provide 3rd EB left turn lane. Provide 4th NB (EW)
through lane.
Circulation Element
The Circulation Element contains new General Plan policies related to water transportation services and waterfront walkways. These policies encourage enhancement and maintenance of public water transportation services and expanded public water transportation uses and land support facilities. Policies related to waterfront walkways include encouraging the development of walkways along the Lido Marina Village boardwalk, along Rhine Channel, between Lido Village and Mariners' Mile, and along the Mariners' Mile waterfront.
Recreation Element
The Recreation Element contains new General Plan policies related to coastal recreation and support facilities. These policies encourage protection and enhancement of a wide range of recreational opportunities along the coast and beaches as well as the provision of adequate support facilities serving recreational opportunities within the coastal zone. The Recreation Element also contains policies that encourage the provision and maintenance of marine recreation related facilities that enhance the enjoyment of the City's natural resources and the provision and maintenance of public access for recreational purposes to the City's coastal resources. Many of these policies are in the existing Harbor and Bay element.
Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR Initial Study 17
The City of Newport Beach
Safety Element
New General Plan policies related to hazardous materials, disaster planning, and coastal hazards are contained in the Safety Element. Policies related to hazardous materials minimize exposure of people and the environment to hazardous materials associated with methane gas extraction, oil operations, leaking underground storage tanks, and hazardous waste generators. Policies related to disaster planning include measures for effective emergency response to natural or human -induced disasters that minimizes the loss of life and damage to property, while also reducing disruptions in the delivery of vital public and private services during and following a disaster. Policies related to coastal hazards are included to ensure that adverse effects of coastal hazards related to tsunamis and rogue waves to people and property are minimized.
Natural Resources Element
New General Plan policies related to water quality are contained in the Natural Resources Element.
These policies establish the goal of enhancing and protecting the water quality of all natural water bodies, including coastal waters, creeks, bays, harbors, and wetlands. Additionally, the General Plan Update contains new policies related to management of the Upper Newport Bay. These policies help achieve the goal of protection and management of Upper Newport Bay commensurate with the standards applicable to our nation's most valuable natural resources. Many of these policies are in the existing Harbor and Bay Element. Other new policies in this element include measures related to air quality, archaeology and paleontology, and energy conservation. Air Quality policies serve to reduce mobile source emissions, reduce air pollution emissions from stationary sources, and reduce air pollution emissions from aircraft.
Historical Resources Element
This new Element addresses the protection and sustainability of Newport Beach's historic and paleontological resources. Goals and policies presented within this Element are intended to recognize, maintain, and protect the community's unique historical, cultural, and archaeological sites and structures.
Arts and Cultural Resources Element
The goals and policies of the Arts and Culture Element are intended to be a guide for meeting the future cultural needs of the community. This Element is intended to serve as a mechanism for integrating these resources in order to provide improved and expanded arts and cultural facilities and programs to the community.
Alternatives
In accordance with Section 15126.6 of the CEQA Guidelines, alternatives to the proposed General Plan are analyzed. Four alternatives that would feasibly attain the most basic project objectives while avoiding or substantially lessening some of the significant effects of the project were analyzed. An environmentally superior alternative is also identified. These alternatives include the following:
■ No Project/No Development —With this alternative, development under the proposed General Plan would not occur. The Planning Area would remain developed with existing land uses. ■ No Project/No Action Alternative —With this alternative, development under the proposed General Plan would not occur. Development would be guided by continued implementation of the existing General Plan.
■ Alternative A: GPAC Recommendations —With this alternative, development under the General Plan would consist of the land use recommendations formulated by GPAC. The 18 Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR Initial Study
The City Newport Beach
Alternatives Chapter of the EIR will provide a detailed breakdown of the proposed land uses under this Alternative.
■ Alternative B: Subarea Only Minimum —With this alternative, development under the General Plan would consist of a mixture of land -use intensities for the various subareas. The Alternatives Chapter of the EIR will provide a detailed breakdown of the proposed land uses under this Alternative.
Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR Initial Study 19
The City Newport Beach
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. ® Aesthetics
® Biological Resources
® Hazards & Hazardous Materials
❑ Mineral Resources
❑ Public Services
® Utilities / Service Systems
❑ Agriculture Resources ® Air Quality
® Cultural Resources ❑ Geology/Soils
® Hydrology / Water Quality ® Land Use / Planning
® Noise ❑ Population / Housing
® Recreation ® Transportation/Traffic
® Mandatory Findings of Significance
DETERMINATION (TO BE COMPLETED BY THE LEAD
AGENCY)
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
❑
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
❑
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
❑
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
"potentially "potentially
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant impact" or significant unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.
❑
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required. 4 11 /5��aool�
Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR Initial Study
Date
Date
21 The City of Newport Beach
Less Than
Significant
Potentially with Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Would the project:
(a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? ® ❑ ❑ ❑ Discussion
Although there are no officially designated scenic vistas in the City, many natural features such as the ocean and bay provide open coastal views. The City has identified particular roadway segments that provide coastal views as significant vistas. In addition, parks and viewing areas throughout the City also provide significant views. While future development within the City would generally consist of infill and intensification of uses within a primarily built -out area, development associated with the General Plan could affect views to the identified vistas. Specifically, if new developments blocked or obscured views from any of the significant public viewpoints, then impacts would be potentially significant. This issue is potentially significant and will be further analyzed in the EIR. (b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not ❑ ® ❑ limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway?
Discussion
There are currently no officially designated scenic highways within the City of Newport Beach. However, SR-1 is identified by the City as eligible for State Scenic Highway designation. Although it is anticipated that this impact would be less than significant, this issue will be further analyzed in the EIR. (c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or ® ❑ ❑ ❑ quality of the site and its surroundings?
Discussion
The proposed General Plan Update would concentrate infill development and redevelopment in several specified subareas: Newport Center/Fashion Island, Balboa Village, Balboa Peninsula, West Newport Mesa, West Newport Highway, Mariner's Mile, and the John Wayne Airport Area. In addition, while the General Plan Update prioritizes the retention of the Banning Ranch property as open space, the Plan also considers the possible development of a mixed- density residential village with a small component of resident- and visitor -serving commercial should the property not be acquired for open space. It is generally anticipated that development under the General Plan Update would compliment the areas surrounding new development, ultimately providing a more cohesive development pattern throughout the City. In addition, the General Plan Update would include policies to protect the character of the City's communities. However, because some areas of the City, including Banning Ranch, could experience a significant change in the overall visual character, this impact is considered potentially significant. The EIR will evaluate the development scenarios under the General Plan Update to determine impacts to the existing visual character of the City. 22 Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR Initial Study
The City of Newport Beach
(d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the
area?
Discussion
Less Than
Significant
Potentially
with
Less Than
Significant
Mitigation
Significant No
Impact
Incorporated
Impact Impact
❑
®
❑ ❑
The City of Newport Beach is primarily built -out, and a significant amount of ambient light from urban uses already exists. However, new development permitted under the proposed General Plan Update could create new sources of light and glare from any of the following: exterior building lighting, lighted recreation facilities (such as outdoor ball fields), parking lots/structures, glare from reflective building surfaces, or the headlights of vehicular traffic. As a result, these new sources of light or glare could affect the day or nighttime views of adjacent sensitive land uses. This impact is considered potentially significant. With the incorporation of appropriate mitigation measures, this impact could be reduced to a less -than -significant level.
In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. Would the project:
(a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of ❑
❑
❑
Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps
prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and
Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency,
to nonagricultural use?
(b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a ❑
❑
❑
Williamson Act contract?
(c) Involve other changes in the existing environment, which, ❑
❑
❑
due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to nonagricultural use?
Discussion
a—c: The City of Newport Beach does not contain any significant agricultural resources as the City is almost entirely built out. No impact would occur on agricultural resources and this issue area will not be analyzed in the EIR.
Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR Initial Study 23
The City of Newport Beach
Less Than
Significant
Potentially with
Significant Mitigation
Impact Incorporated
Less Than
Significant No
Impact Impact
Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project:
(a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicableL�I El El El air quality plan?
Discussion
The Planning Area is located within the South Coast Air Basin (SCAB), which is identified as a non - attainment area for various criteria pollutants. As a result, any new emissions into the SCAB are considered significant and adverse impacts. The Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) for SCAB was prepared to accommodate growth, to reduce the high levels of pollutants within the areas of the South Coast Air Quality Management District's (SCAQMD), and to return clean air to the region.
Implementation of the proposed General Plan Update would result in increased population, development, and vehicular traffic in the Planning Area. These increases could lead to increases in construction and operation activities which could ultimately conflict with or obstruct implementation of the AQMP. Projects that are considered inconsistent with the AQMP would interfere with attainment because the growth induced by such projects is not included in the projections used to formulate the AQMP. Therefore, the EIR will evaluate whether the proposed General Plan Update is consistent with the AQMP. This issue is potentially significant and will be further analyzed in the EIR. (b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially ® ❑ ❑ to an existing or projected air quality violation?
Discussion
Implementation of the proposed General Plan Update would result in increased population, development, and vehicular traffic in the Planning Area. These increases could lead to increases in construction and operation activities which could result in exceeding the SCAQMD's thresholds of potential significance. Therefore, it is necessary that the EIR evaluate the proposed General Plan Update's potential to violate any air quality standards or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation. This impact is considered potentially significant and will be further analyzed in the EIR.
(c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any ® ❑ ❑ ❑ criteria pollutant for which the project region is
nonattainment under an applicable federal or state
ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions that exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? Discussion
Activities associated with implementation of the General Plan Update may result in potentially significant air quality impacts that are cumulatively considerable. The possible General Plan Update components could result in air quality impacts, as well as contribute to cumulative impacts from the implementation of all possible projects. Additionally, the General Plan update could potentially contribute to air quality impacts when combined with other past, present, or reasonably foreseeable future projects within the Planning Area. Potentially significant impacts could occur, and therefore, the EIR will analyze and 24 Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR Initial Study
The City of Newport Beach
Less Than
Significant
Potentially with Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
evaluate air quality impacts related to potential increases of criteria pollutants for which the General Plan Update region is in non -attainment under federal or state ambient air quality standards. (d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant ® ❑ ❑ ❑ concentrations?
Discussion
Sensitive receptors are populations that are more susceptible to the effects of air pollution than are the population at large. The General Plan Update could have potentially significant impacts on sensitive receptors, as identified by the SCAQMD, in the Planning Area including single-family and multi -family residences located within the City. Carbon monoxide (CO) "hot spots," or areas of high CO concentration, can occur at traffic congested roadway intersections as a result of accumulating vehicle CO emissions. A significant air quality impact would occur where sensitive receptors are exposed to CO levels that exceed state or federal standards. Potentially significant impacts could occur, and therefore, the EIR will further analyze and evaluate air quality impacts, including potentially significant impacts to sensitive receptors adjacent to, and in the immediate vicinity of, the City. (e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial ® ❑ ❑ ❑ number of people?
Discussion
Implementation of the General Plan Update could create objectionable odors caused by construction and/or operational sources. This impact is considered potentially significant and will be further analyzed in the EIR.
Would the project:
(a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or ® ❑ ❑ ❑ through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service?
Discussion
Eleven special -status wildlife species occur or have the potential to occur within the City of Newport Beach: San Diego fairy shrimp, Tidewater goby, California black rail, light-footed clapper rail, western snowy plover, California least tern, southwestern willow flycatcher, coastal California gnatcatcher, least Bell's vireo, Belding's savannah sparrow, and pacific pocket mouse. In addition, other sensitive species include 27 sensitive wildlife species and 24 sensitive plant species that occur or potentially occur within the Newport Beach area. Implementation of the General Plan Update could potentially have a substantial adverse effect on special -status species within the Planning Area. This impact is considered potentially significant. The EIR will include an analysis of potential impacts to special -status species.
Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR Initial Study 25
The City of Newport Beach
Less Than
Significant
Potentially with Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
(b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat El El or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife
Service?
Discussion
Many plant habitats can be found in Newport Beach that includes scrub, chaparral, grassland, and riparian habitats. Implementation of the General Plan Update could affect riparian habitat or other sensitive natural communities identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. This impact is considered potentially significant. The EIR will address the potential effects to riparian habitat or other sensitive natural communities as a result of build -out under the General Plan Update. (c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected 1171 wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water
Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means?
Discussion
The marine resources of the City and surrounding ocean waters are very diverse. They include plants and animals of marshes and wetlands living in Upper Newport Bay, the developed channels, beaches, and areas of Lower Newport Bay (Newport Harbor), and the intertidal and subtidal landforms (sandy beaches, rocky intertidal, sandy subtidal, and subtidal reefs) along the coast of Newport Beach between the Santa Ana River and the boundary between the City and unincorporated Orange County. Many of these areas are considered wetland habitat by the State of California and federal wetland definitions are protected by a no -net loss wetlands policy. Implementation of the General Plan Update could have a significant impact on these resources. This impact will be further analyzed in the EIR. (d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native 1:1 El El resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with
established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites?
Discussion
Undeveloped areas supporting natural habitats that may be capable of supporting sensitive biological resources within the City are referred to as Environmental Study Areas (ESAs) by the Local Coastal Plan.
An ESA may support species and habitats that are sensitive and rare within the region or may function as a migration corridor for wildlife. There are 28 identified ESAs within the City of Newport Beach.
Implementation of the General Plan Update could potentially interfere with the movement of native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species within these corridors. This impact is considered potentially significant and will be further analyzed in the EIR.
26 Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR Initial Study
The City of Newport Beach
(e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance?
Discussion
Less Than
Significant
Potentially
with
Less Than
Significant
Mitigation
Significant No
Impact
Incorporated
Impact Impact
❑
❑
® ❑
The EIR will identify any local policies and ordinances that relate to the protection of biological resources and evaluate the applicability and any impact to these policies or ordinances. It is not anticipated that the General Plan Update would conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources. Impacts are considered less than significant. (f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat ❑ ❑ ® ❑ Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat
conservation plan?
Discussion
The Orange County Central -Coastal NCCP Subregional Plan is the applicable habitat conservation plan for the Planning Area. In July of 1996, the City became a signatory agency in this plan. As a signatory agency, the City is responsible for enforcing mitigation measures and other policies identified in the NCCP/Habitat Conservation Plan Implementation Agreement for properties located within the City Limit that are part of the NCCP Subregional Plan. Impacts resulting from implementation of the General Plan Update would be less than significant.
Would the project:
(a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of ® ❑ ❑ ❑ a historical resource as defined in 15064.5?
Discussion
There are a number of federal, state, and locally recognized historical resources in the Planning Area.
Redevelopment under the General Plan Update could result in the demolition of historic or potentially historic structures to enable a different or more intensive use of a site. Additionally, infrastructure or other public works improvements could result in damage to or demolition of other historic features. It is not anticipated that significant land use changes would occur in areas of the Planning Area that contain historical resources. This impact is considered potentially significant and will be further analyzed in the EIR.
(b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of ❑ ® ❑ ❑ an archaeological resource pursuant to 15064.5?
Discussion
The Planning Area has a long cultural history and is known to have been home to Native American groups prior to settlement by Euro-Americans. Archaeological materials associated with occupation of the Planning Area are known to exist and have the potential to provide important scientific information regarding history and prehistory. Ground -disturbing activities associated with the General Plan Update, particularly in areas that have not previously been developed with urban uses have the potential to Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR Initial Study 27
The City of Newport Beach
Less Than
Significant
Potentially with Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
damage or destroy historic or prehistoric archaeological resources that may be present on or below the ground surface. This impact is considered potentially significant. The EIR will recommend mitigation measures to reduce this impact to a less -than -significant level. (c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological ® ❑ ❑ resource or site or unique geologic feature?
Discussion
Paleontological resources may be present in fossil -bearing soils and rock formations below the ground surface. A number of locations in the City have a variety of known significant paleontological resources, including portions of the Vaqueros formation that underlie the Newport Coast, the Newport Banning Ranch portion of the SOI, the Topanga and Monterey Formations, and Fossil Canyon in the North Bluffs area of the Planning Area. Ground -disturbing activities in these fossil -bearing soils and rock formations have the potential to damage or destroy paleontological resources that may be present below the ground surface. This impact is considered potentially significant. The EIR will recommend mitigation measures to reduce this impact to a less -than -significant level. (d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred ❑ ® ❑ ❑ outside of formal cemeteries?
Discussion
Archeological materials, including human burials, have been found in the City. Human burials outside of formal cemeteries often occur in prehistoric archaeological contexts. Particularly in the areas of the City that are still mostly undeveloped for urban uses, such as the Banning Ranch area, the potential still exists for these resources to be present. Development under the General Plan Update could potentially affect these resources. This impact is considered potentially significant. The EIR will recommend mitigation measures to reduce this impact to a less -than -significant level.
Would the project:
(a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:
(i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated ❑ ® ❑ ❑ on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault
Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area
or based on other substantial evidence of a known
fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special
Publication 42.
(ii) Strong seismic ground shaking?
Discussion
❑ ® ❑ ❑
(i—ii) The City of Newport Beach is located in the northern part of the Peninsular Ranges Province, an area that is exposed to risk from multiple earthquake fault zones. The highest risks originate from the Newport -Inglewood fault zone, the Whittier fault zone, the San Joaquin Hills fault zone, and the Elysian 28 Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR Initial Study
The City of Newport Beach
Less Than
Significant
Potentially with Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
Park fault zone, each with the potential to cause moderate to large earthquakes that would cause ground shaking in Newport Beach and nearby communities. The area faults could significantly impact the City but these impacts generally can be addressed through adherence to applicable regulations (i.e., Uniform Building Code) and design, grading, and structural recommendations. The EIR will include an analysis of impacts associated with seismic hazards associated with implementation of the General Plan Update and will recommend mitigation measures to reduce or eliminate these impacts. (iii) Seismic -related ground failure, including liquefaction? ❑ N ❑ ❑ Discussion
Areas of Newport susceptible to liquefaction and related ground failure (i.e., seismically induced settlement) include areas along the coastline that includes Balboa Peninsula, in and around the Newport Bay and Upper Newport Bay, in the lower reaches of major streams in Newport Beach, and in the floodplain of the Santa Ana River. It is likely that residential or commercial development will never occur in many of the other liquefiable areas, such as Upper Newport Bay, the Newport Coast beaches, and the bottoms of stream channels. However, implementation of the General Plan Update could affect other areas susceptible to liquefaction. This impact is considered potentially significant. The EIR will recommend mitigation measures to reduce this impact to a less -than -significant level. (iv) Landslides? ❑ N ❑ ❑
Discussion
Much of the area in eastern Newport Beach has been identified as vulnerable to seismically induced slope failure. Approximately 90 percent of the land from Los Trancos Canyon to the Crystal Cove State Park boundary is mapped as susceptible to landsliding by the California Geologic Survey. Additionally, the sedimentary bedrock that crops out in the San Joaquin Hills is locally highly weathered. In steep areas, strong ground shaking can cause slides or rockfalls in this material. Rupture along the Newport - Inglewood Fault Zone and other faults in Southern California could reactivate existing landslides and cause new slope failures throughout the San Joaquin Hills. Slope failures can also be expected to occur along stream banks and coastal bluffs, such as Big Canyon, around San Joaquin Reservoir, Newport and Upper Newport Bays, and Corona del Mar. Thus, impacts resulting from development under the General Plan Update are considered potentially significant. The EIR will recommend mitigation measures to reduce this impact to a less -than -significant level.
(b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? N ❑ ❑ ❑ Discussion
Erosion is a significant concern in Newport Beach, especially along the shoreline, where beach sediments and coastal bluffs are highly susceptible to erosion by wave action. Other parts of the City, including bluffs along Upper Newport Bay, canyon walls along tributary streams leading to the Bay, and slopes (both natural and man-made) within the San Joaquin Hills are also susceptible to erosion. This impact is considered potentially significant and will be further analyzed in the EIR.
Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR Initial Study 29
The City of Newport Beach
(c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project,
and potentially result in on- or off -site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse?
Discussion
Less Than
Significant
Potentially
with
Less Than
Significant
Mitigation
Significant No
Impact
Incorporated
Impact Impact
❑
®
❑ ❑
Compressible soils underlie a significant part of the City, typically in the lowland areas and in canyon bottoms. These are generally young sediments of low density with variable amounts of organic materials.
Under the added weight of fill embankments or buildings, these sediments will settle, causing distress to improvements. Low -density soils, if sandy in composition and saturated with water, will also be susceptible of the effects of liquefaction during a moderate to strong earthquake. This impact is considered potentially significant and will be further analyzed in the EIR. The EIR will recommend mitigation measures to reduce this impact to a less -than -significant level. (d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of ❑ ® ❑ ❑ the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property?
Discussion
Some of the geologic units in the Newport Beach area, including both surficial soils and bedrock, have fine-grained components that are moderate to highly expansive. These materials may be present at the surface or exposed by grading activities. Man-made fills can also be expansive, depending on the soils used to construct them. This impact is considered potentially significant and will be further analyzed in the EIR. The EIR will also recommend mitigation measures to reduce this impact to a less -than - significant level.
(e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of ❑ ❑ ❑ septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water?
Discussion
The City of Newport Beach is almost entirely built out with established utility services and new development would not require the use of septic tanks. For this reason, this impact is not further analyzed in the EIR.
Would the project:
(a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the ❑ ❑ ® ❑ environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials?
Discussion
Implementation of the General Plan Update would concentrate infill development and redevelopment in several specified subareas: Newport Center/Fashion Island, Balboa Village, Balboa Peninsula, West Newport Mesa, West Newport Highway, Mariner's Mile, and the John Wayne Airport area. In addition, 30 Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR Initial Study
The City of Newport Beach
Less Than
Significant
Potentially with Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
while the General Plan Update prioritizes the retention of the Banning Ranch property as open space, the Plan also considers the possible development of a mixed -density residential village with a small component of resident- and visitor -serving commercial should the property not be acquired for open space. Implementation of these land use changes would not generally involve the transportation, use, or disposal of hazardous materials. Further, industrial uses within the City would decrease upon implementation of the General Plan Update and any development that would handle or use hazardous materials would be required to comply with the regulations, standards, guidelines established by the EPA, State of California, Orange County, and the City of Newport Beach. For these reasons, this impact is considered less than significant and will not be further analyzed in the EIR. (b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the ® ❑ ❑ ❑ environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and
accident conditions involving the release of hazardous
materials into the environment?
Discussion
Demolition of existing structures in the City could result in exposure of construction personnel and the public to hazardous substances such as asbestos or lead -based paints. In addition, the disturbance of soils and the demolition of existing structures or the potential relocation of oil wells located on Banning Ranch could result in the exposure of construction workers or employees to health or safety risks if contaminated structures and/or soils are encountered during construction or maintenance activities. This impact is considered potentially significant and will be further analyzed in the EIR. (c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely ® ❑ ❑ hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one -
quarter mile of an existing or proposed school?
Discussion
Under the General Plan Update, the increase of residential and mixed -use land uses could increase the quantity of sensitive receptors (including schools) in areas adjacent to industrial and commercial land uses, thereby potentially increasing the risk of exposure to hazardous materials. Thus, hazardous materials sites may be located within one -quarter mile from school sites. This impact is considered potentially significant and will be further analyzed in the EIR. The EIR will recommend mitigation measures that would reduce this impact to a less -than -significant level. (d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of ® ❑ ❑ hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to
Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment?
Discussion
The City contains sites that have been identified as being contaminated from the release of hazardous substances in the soil, including oil fields, landfills, sites containing leaking underground storage tanks, and large and small -quantity generators of hazardous waste. Implementation of the proposed General Plan Update could lead to development of these sites that could create a significant hazard to the public or environment. This impact is considered potentially significant will be further analyzed in the EIR. The EIR will recommend mitigation measures that would reduce this impact to a less -than -significant level.
Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR Initial Study 31
The City of Newport Beach
Less Than
Significant
Potentially with Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
(e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, ® ❑ ❑ where such a plan has not been adopted, within two
miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area?
Discussion
Newport Beach borders the southeastern portion of John Wayne Airport. In addition, the City lies beneath the arrival traffic pattern of Long Beach Airport. Between the two airports, JWA generates nearly all aviation traffic directly above the City of Newport Beach because the descent pattern for Long Beach air traffic generally takes place over the ocean rather than over the City. An emergency incident, although rare, could impact the City's response capabilities. Additionally, the potential growth and development that could occur through implementation of the General Plan Update, in particular residential development in the Airport Area, could place people at risk from an aviation hazard. This impact is considered potentially significant and will be further analyzed in the EIR. (f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would ❑ ❑ the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area?
Discussion
There are no existing private airstrips within the City. As a result, no safety hazard associated with location near a private airstrip would occur for the proposed General Plan Update. (g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an ® ❑ ❑ ❑ adopted emergency response plan or emergency
evacuation plan?
Discussion
With additional growth in the City's population that could result from implementation of the proposed General Plan Update, traffic conditions could become more congested. In the event of an accident or natural disaster, the increase in traffic in the City may impede the rate of evacuation for the residents.
Concurrently, the response times for emergency medical or containment services could also be adversely affected by the increased traffic conditions in the City. This issue area will be further analyzed in the EIR. (h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, ❑ ® ❑ injury, or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where
residences are intermixed with wildlands?
Discussion
The eastern portion of the City and portions of the Newport Beach region and surrounding areas to the north, east, and southeast include grass- and brush -covered hillsides with significant topographic relief that facilitate the rapid spread of fire, especially if fanned by coastal breezes or Santa Ana winds. In those areas identified as susceptible to wildland fire, land development is governed by special State codes. In addition, the Fire Department enforces locally developed regulations which reduce the amount and continuity of fuel (vegetation) available, firewood storage, debris clearing, proximity of vegetation to structures and other measures aimed at Hazard Reduction. In addition, new development that would occur in areas susceptible to wildland fires as a result of the General Plan Update would be subject to the 32 Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR Initial Study
The City of Newport Beach
Less Than
Significant
Potentially with Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
Uniform Building Code, which is designed to increase the fire resistance of a building. This impact is considered less than significant.
Would the project:
(a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge ❑ ® ❑ ❑ requirements?
Discussion
Implementation of the General Plan Update would involve infill development and redevelopment in several areas throughout the City that would potentially result in site characteristics that could cause runoff to adversely affect water quality. For projects that would potentially affect water quality, the City is required to prepare a water quality management plan pursuant to the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) requirements, which addresses impacts on water quality. The ability of development under the General Plan Update to meet applicable waste discharge and water quality requirements will be addressed in the EIR. This impact is considered potentially significant will be further analyzed in the EIR. The EIR will also recommend mitigation measures to reduce this impact to a less -than -significant level.
(b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere ® ❑ ❑ ❑ substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level that would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)?
Discussion
Construction activities associated with the implementation of the General Plan Update could take place near or in natural groundwater recharge areas and sub -surface aquifers. This is particularly the case in the Banning Ranch subarea. Where construction activities take place on recharge areas, such as vacant fields, natural drainages, and other open spaces covered with permeable surfaces, percolation of water into the aquifer may be hindered by the presence of construction -related vehicles, stockpiles, tarps, etc. These activities could constitute a temporary impact on groundwater recharge at construction sites. Operation of development associated with the General Plan Update would not involve direct additions or withdrawals of groundwater. It is not anticipated that the City's groundwater supply would be altered due to the implementation of the General Plan Update. Nonetheless, short term impacts are considered potentially significant and will be further analyzed in the EIR.
Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR Initial Study 33
The City of Newport Beach
Less Than
Significant
Potentially
with
Less Than
Significant
Mitigation
Significant No
Impact
Incorporated
Impact Impact
(c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site ®
❑ ❑
or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner that would result in substantial erosion or siltation on or off site?
Discussion
Development under the proposed General Plan would result in alterations to drainage, such as changes in ground surface permeability via paving, changes in topography via grading and excavation, and changes in the flow of waterways via filling. The potential for these impacts to occur exists primarily in the Banning Ranch subarea. This impact is considered potentially significant and will be further analyzed in the EIR.
(d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site ® ❑ ❑ or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner that would result in flooding on or off site?
Discussion
Development under the proposed General Plan could result in alterations to natural drainages and could potentially alter storm drain infrastructure. Construction of buildings, roadways, and parking lots would increase impervious surfaces, which would subsequently increase stormwater runoff in the City. This increased runoff could exceed the capacity of existing and planned infrastructure and cause downstream flooding impacts. This impact is considered potentially significant and will be further analyzed in the EIR.
(e) Create or contribute runoff water that would exceed the ® ❑ ❑ ❑ capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage
systems or provide substantial additional sources of
polluted runoff?
Discussion
Development associated with the General Plan Update could result in alterations to natural drainages and could potentially exceed the capacity of storm drain infrastructure. Operation of the proposed General Plan could degrade runoff water quality by contributing chemicals associated with household, commercial, transportation, and landscape uses. This impact is considered potentially significant and will be further analyzed in the EIR.
(f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? ® ❑ ❑ ❑ Discussion
In coastal groundwater basins, such as the Orange County Groundwater Basin, groundwater quality can be degraded through the intrusion of seawater primarily by pumping the aquifer for domestic and irrigation water supply. It is possible that below -grade structures proposed for construction as a result of implementation of the General Plan Update would be comprised of materials capable of leaching out to the groundwater during the lifetime of the development, thereby degrading groundwater quality.
Hazardous materials used during construction could contaminate surface water and percolate into the aquifer underlying the project site if the materials are not properly contained. Other common sources of groundwater contamination are leaking underground storage tanks, septic systems, oil fields, landfills, and 34 Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR Initial Study
The City of Newport Beach
Less Than
Significant
Potentially with Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
general industrial land uses. This impact is considered potentially significant and will be further analyzed in the EIR.
(g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood
Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation
map?
Discussion
The 100-year flood zone generally lies in and along the edges of Newport Bay and along the coastline of the Planning Area. Because development associated with the General Plan Update includes an increase in residential development throughout the City, it is possible residential uses could be sited in the flood zone. This impact is considered potentially significant and will be further analyzed in the EIR. (h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures that 1:1 El El would impede or redirect flood flows?
Discussion
Flood flows primarily travel along Newport Bay and across the coastline. Although structures that substantially impede flood flows, such as dams and levees, would not be constructed under the proposed General Plan, overall intensification of development could alter existing passages through which flood waters flow. This impact is considered potentially significant and will be further analyzed in the EIR. (i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, 1:1 El El injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam?
Discussion
Several dams are located within and in the vicinity of the City of Newport Beach. Portions of Newport Beach are threatened by inundation resulting from failure of Prado Dam, Santiago Creek Reservoir, Villa Park Reservoir, San Joaquin Reservoir, Big Canyon Reservoir, and Harbor View Reservoir. This impact is considered potentially significant and will be further analyzed in the EIR. (i) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? 1:1 El El Discussion
Seiching in large, enclosed bodies of water, such as the reservoirs in the City and, to an extent, Newport Harbor and Newport Bay, would inundate immediate areas surrounding the body of water. Prolonged rainfall during certain storm events would saturate and could eventually loosen soil, resulting in the flow of mud down steep slopes and slope failure. In addition, the proximity to the ocean leads to natural risk of tsunamis from offshore and distant seismic events. This impact is considered potentially significant and will be further analyzed in the EIR.
Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR Initial Study 35
The City of Newport Beach
Less Than
Significant
Potentially
with
Less Than
Significant
Mitigation
Significant No
Impact
Incorporated
Impact Impact
Ix. LAND USE AND PLANNING
Would the project:
(a) Physically divide an established community?
❑
❑
® ❑
Discussion
The implementation of the proposed General Plan Update would not physically divide an established community as it would provide increased development in various separate locations with the intention of increasing the cohesiveness of the city. This impact is considered less than significant but will be further analyzed in the EIR.
(b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or ® ❑ ❑ regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance)
adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an
environmental effect?
Discussion
The General Plan Update contains updated land use polices that govern development in the City and the Planning Area for the next 20 years. It also provides for new land use and development patterns, which are different from the City's existing General Plan and Zoning Code for some areas, such as the Airport Area and Newport Center/Fashion Island. This impact is considered potentially significant and will be further analyzed in the EIR.
(c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or ❑ ® ❑ natural community conservation plan?
Discussion
The Orange County Central -Coastal NCCP Subregional Plan is the applicable habitat conservation plan for the Planning Area. In July of 1996, the City became a signatory agency in this plan. As a signatory agency, the City is responsible for enforcing mitigation measures and other policies identified in the NCCP/Habitat Conservation Plan Implementation Agreement for properties located within the City Limit that are part of the NCCP Subregional Plan. Impacts resulting from implementation of the General Plan Update would be less than significant.
36 Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR Initial Study
The City of Newport Beach
Less Than
Significant
Potentially
with
Less Than
Significant
Mitigation
Significant
No
Impact
Incorporated
Impact
Impact
X. MINERAL RESOURCES
Would the project:
(a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource ❑
❑
®
❑
that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state?
(b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally -important ❑
❑
®
❑
mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local
general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan?
Discussion
(a—b) Two separate production and reserve areas exist within the Planning Area: the Newport oil field and the West Newport oil field. The Newport Oil Field is located in the western portion of the Planning Area, and is estimated to have oil reserves of approximately 35 million barrels (Mbbl) and produces approximately 55 billion cubic feet of gas. The West Newport oil field, located in the Banning Ranch area, produces approximately 20.5 billion cubic feet of gas with a daily production per oil well of approximately 5 bbl. Estimated oil reserves within this field are approximately 728 Mbbl.
Thirty-three abandoned oil wells are located in numerous sites throughout the City, concentrated along the northwest boundary. Other than oil and gas resources, there is no active mining within the Newport Beach area. Mineral Resource Zones (MRZ) within the City are either classified as containing no significant mineral deposits (MRZ-1), or the significance of mineral deposits has not been determined (MRZ-3). Section 1401 of the City's Charter does not allow new drilling, or production or refining of oil, gas, or other hydrocarbon substances within the City. However, the Section does not prohibit these activities within any area annexed to the City after the effective date of the Charter if these activities were already in operation. The City's Municipal Code does allow for slant drilling activities for oil, gas, tar, and other hydrocarbon substances within a designated area of Newport Beach. Thus, this impact is considered potentially significant and will be further analyzed in the EIR.
Would the project result in:
(a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in ® ❑ ❑ ❑ excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other
agencies?
Discussion
With implementation of the General Plan Update, it is expected that there would be increases noise levels throughout the City. Noise levels associated with construction activities could temporarily exceed noise level standards established by the City. In addition, the increase population, commercial and retail, and corresponding traffic could cause operational increases in noise levels which could be in excess of established standards. This impact is considered potentially significant and will be further analyzed in the EIR.
Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR Initial Study 37
The City of Newport Beach
Less Than
Significant
Potentially
with
Less Than
Significant
Mitigation
Significant No
Impact
Incorporated
Impact Impact
(b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive ® ❑
❑ ❑
groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels?
Discussion
Implementation of the General Plan Update would include construction activities associated with development. Construction activities typically create an increase in groundborne vibrations and noise levels. Groundborne vibrations and noise generated by construction activities associated could increase noise levels intermittently at nearby sensitive receptors, which generally include residential and school land uses. Groundborne vibration impacts are considered potentially significant. This issue will be further analyzed in the EIR.
(c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels ® ❑ ❑ in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project?
(d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient ® ❑ ❑ ❑ noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project?
Discussion
(c—d) Implementation of the General Plan Update could increase ambient noise in the City above existing levels. This would be due to the increase in population, traffic flow and patterns, increased business, and increased construction throughout the City. Some of these sources would be regulated by existing noise ordinances, but could still exceed existing levels. This impact is considered potentially significant and will be further analyzed in the EIR.
(e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, ® ❑ ❑ ❑ where such a plan has not been adopted, within two
miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?
Discussion
The General Plan Update covers an area that has flight paths directly overhead from John Wayne Airport. Although aircraft noise can be heard throughout Newport Beach, the highest noise levels are experienced just south of the airport, in the Airport Area, Santa Ana Heights Area, Westcliff, Dover Shores, the Bluffs, and Balboa Island, and are generated by aircraft departures. Development in these locations within the Planning Area would expose an increased a greater number of residents and visitors to noise generated by operations at John Wayne Airport. This impact is considered potentially significant and will be further analyzed in the EIR.
(f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would ❑ ❑ the project expose people residing or working in the
project area to excessive noise levels?
Discussion
There are no private airstrips in the vicinity of the City and would have no impact. This impact will not be further discussed in the EIR.
38 Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR Initial Study
The City of Newport Beach
Less Than
Significant
Potentially with
Significant Mitigation
Impact Incorporated
Would the project:
(a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either ❑ ❑ directly (for example, by proposing new homes and
businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)?
Discussion
Less Than
Significant No
Impact Impact
/1 ■
Development associated with implementation of the General Plan Update would induce substantial population growth in the Planning Area. It is not anticipated that the population growth that would result from the General Plan Update would be greater than regional population projections since many of the land use changes in the General Plan Update would serve to accommodate these already -identified increases in population. The EIR will evaluate the changes in population resulting from proposed changes in land use designations. This impact is considered less than significant but will be further analyzed in the EIR.
(b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, ® ❑ necessitating the construction of replacement housing
elsewhere?
(c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the ® ❑ construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
Discussion
(b—c) Implementation of the General Plan Update would result in the development of single and multi- family residential uses. The increase in residential land uses in the City would serve to accommodate the increase in population that would occur as a result of State and regional population growth.
Implementation of the General Plan would not displace substantial numbers of existing housing and/or people. This impact is considered less than significant. (a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or
other performance objectives for any of the public
services:
(i) Fire protection? ❑ ® ❑ ❑
Discussion
The Newport Beach Fire Department, the Orange County Fire Authority, and the Costa Mesa Fire Department provide fire protection services for the City and Planning Area. Development under the proposed General Plan would increase over existing conditions in the Planning Area. Any development Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR Initial Study 39
The City of Newport Beach
Less Than
Significant
Potentially with Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
increase that would occur as a result of implementation of the proposed General Plan would have a corresponding increase in traffic volumes and congestion problems on surface streets, which could hinder response times for calls for service (for both fire protection and emergency medical service). This impact is considered potentially significant and will be further analyzed in the EIR. The EIR will recommend mitigation measures that would reduce this impact to a less -than -significant level. (ii) Police protection? ❑ N ❑ ❑
Discussion
The Newport Beach Police Department, the Orange County Sheriff Department, and the Costa Mesa Police Department provide police services to the City and the Planning Area. Increases in population resulting from build out of the General Plan Update could affect the ratio of law enforcement officers per 1,000 residents. This impact is considered potentially significant and will be further analyzed in the EIR. The EIR will recommend mitigation measures that would reduce this impact to a less -than - significant level.
(iii) Schools? ❑ N ❑ ❑
Discussion
The Newport -Mesa Unified School District provides educational services to the City of Newport Beach as well as the City of Costa Mesa and other unincorporated areas of Orange County. The Airport Area is served by the Santa Ana Unified School District. Population increases resulting from implementation of the General Plan Update would increase the demand for school services which could ultimately result in an exceedance of capacity at the District's schools. This impact is considered potentially significant and will be further analyzed in the EIR. The EIR will recommend mitigation measures that would reduce this impact to a less -than -significant level.
(iv) Parks? ❑ N ❑ ❑
Discussion
The City contains approximately 278 acres of developed parks. Implementation of the proposed General Plan Update would increase the population of the Planning Area and could ultimately increase demand on the City's parkland resources. This impact is considered potentially significant and will be further analyzed in the EIR. The EIR will recommend mitigation measures that would reduce this impact to a less -than -significant level.
(v) Other public facilities? ❑ N ❑ ❑
Discussion
An increase in population resulting from implementation of the General Plan Update would increase demand on other public facilities including libraries. This impact is considered potentially significant and will be further analyzed in the EIR. The EIR will recommend mitigation measures that would reduce this impact to a less -than -significant level.
40 Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR Initial Study
The City of Newport Beach
Less Than
Significant
Potentially with Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
(a) Would the project increase the use of existing
neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational
facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated?
Discussion
The City has approximately 286 acres of developed parks and approximately 90 acres of active beach recreation acreage, for a total of 376.8 acres. Although the City of Newport Beach appears largely built out, there are a number of vacant parcels available for future development. An increase in population resulting from implementation of the proposed General Plan Update may place an even higher demand on these existing facilities such that deterioration of these facilities would be accelerated. This impact is considered potentially significant and will be further analyzed in the EIR. (b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require ® ❑ ❑ the construction or expansion of recreational facilities that might have an adverse physical effect on the
environment?
Discussion
Development under the General Plan would include construction of recreational facilities that would serve current and future City residents. Construction of such facilities could have an adverse effect on the environment. This impact is considered potentially significant and will be further analyzed in the EIR. The EIR will recommend mitigation measures to reduce this impact to a less -than -significant level.
Would the project:
(a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation ® ❑ ❑ ❑ to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)?
(b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of ® ❑ ❑ ❑ service standard established by the county congestion
management agency for designated roads or highways?
Discussion
(a—b) Development associated with the General Plan Update would result in an increase in traffic and modifications to existing roadways. A traffic analysis technical report will be prepared to assist in the evaluation of the potential impacts related to traffic that would result from project implementation. The General Plan Update would generate additional vehicular trips that could potentially result in a substantial traffic increase in the City. This increase in traffic would further add to the existing traffic load and could impact the existing capacity of the street system. The potential impacts due to increased Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR Initial Study 41
The City of Newport Beach
Less Than
Significant
Potentially with Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
trip generation, changes to the volume -to -capacity ratio on roads, and congestion at intersections will be analyzed in the EIR.
(c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either ❑ an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks?
Discussion
Newport Beach borders the southeastern portion of John Wayne Airport. The increased in population and traffic volume resulting from implementation of the General Plan Update is, however, not anticipated to increase use of this airport to a level that would significantly increase air traffic levels or require a change in air traffic patterns. Impacts are considered less than significant. (d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or
incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
Discussion
Implementation of the General Plan Update would include several roadway improvement measures, but would not include design features that would result in roadway hazards. The General Plan would also include goals and policies that would govern the safety of the City's roadways. This impact is considered less than significant and will be further evaluated in the EIR. (e) Result in inadequate emergency access? ® ❑ ❑ El
Discussion
Development associated with the General Plan Update would be required to comply with the Municipal Code and other applicable polices that set forth guidelines for emergency access to and from development sites. However, on a City-wide scale, significant increases in traffic volumes on roadways could impede access for emergency vehicles such as ambulances and police cars. This impact is considered potentially significant and will be further analyzed in the EIR. (f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? ❑ ❑ Z El
Discussion
The implementation of the General Plan Update would cause an increased demand for parking as new residential and commercial land uses would increase. However, new development that would occur under the General Plan would be required to adhere to the Municipal Code standards as well as any applicable parking policies for the area. This impact is considered less than significant and will not be further analyzed in the EIR.
(g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs ❑ ❑ supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)?
Discussion
The General Plan Update will not conflict with any policies, plans, or programs which support alternative transportation in the City. The General Plan Updates contains updated policies regarding alternative transportation modes in the City. The General Plan Update contains updated transportation polices that 42 Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR Initial Study
The City of Newport Beach
Less Than
Significant
Potentially with Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
guide circulation issues in the City over the next 20 years. Thus, by its nature, the General Plan Update would not conflict with any adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation.
No impact would result and no further analysis is required.
Would the project:
(a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the ❑ ❑ ® ❑ applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board?
Discussion
Any development resulting from implementation of the General Plan Update would be required to obtain a National Pollution Discharge Elimination System permit from the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) that would contain requirements for wastewater discharge, Best Management Practices, and a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Program. Within the NPDES permit the effluent quality criteria shall be specified in the permit as determined by the RWQCB. Compliance with requirements set forth by the RWQCB would reduce impacts to a less -than -significant level. (b) Require or result in the construction of new water or ® ❑ ❑ wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects?
Discussion
Domestic water for the City is supplied by both groundwater and imported surface water. Groundwater is provided from the Orange County Groundwater Basin and the remaining water supply is provided to the City by the Metropolitan Water District. Wastewater generated in the City is treated by the Orange County Sanitation District (OCSD). Development resulting from implementation of the General Plan Update would result in increased demands on water and wastewater treatment facilities which could ultimately result in the construction of new facilities. This impact is considered potentially significant and will be further analyzed in the EIR. The EIR will recommend mitigation measures to reduce this impact to a less -than -significant level.
(c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water ® ❑ ❑ ❑ drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant
environmental effects?
Discussion
The City provides storm drain facilities to the Planning Area. Undeveloped areas within the Planning Area, including Banning Ranch, do not currently have storm water facilities and would require new facilities if development were to occur under the General Plan Update. Construction of new facilities or expansion of existing facilities could have adverse environmental effects in currently undeveloped areas.
This impact is considered potentially significant and will be further analyzed in the EIR.
Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR Initial Study 43
The City of Newport Beach
Less Than
Significant
Potentially
with
Less Than
Significant
Mitigation
Significant No
Impact
Incorporated
Impact Impact
(d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the ❑
project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed?
Discussion
Domestic water for the City is supplied by both groundwater and imported surface water. Currently, about 64 percent of the water supplied to both the City and Costa Mesa's service area is from groundwater from the Orange County Groundwater Basin (administered by the Orange County Water District or OCWD), and the remaining 36 percent of water supply is provided by the Metropolitan Water District (MWD), which delivers surface water imported from the Colorado River and State Water Project. Increases in population resulting from implementation of the General Plan Update could place a demand on water suppliers that would exceed existing entitlements and resources. This impact is considered potentially significant and will be further analyzed in the EIR. The EIR will recommend mitigation measures to reduce this impact to a less -than -significant level. (e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment ® ❑ ❑ provider that serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected
demand in addition to the provider's existing
commitments?
Discussion
Wastewater treatment is provided by the OCSD. Increases in wastewater generation resulting from implementation of the General Plan could exceed the capacity of the existing treatment facilities. The EIR will include an analysis of the current and future capacity of OCSD facilities to determine whether impacts would result from implementation of the General Plan Update. If applicable, mitigation measures will be recommended to reduce any potentially significant impacts to a less -than -significant level.
(f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to ® ❑ ❑ accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs?
(g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and ® ❑ ❑ regulations related to solid waste?
Discussion
(f—g) Implementation of the General Plan would result in increased generation of solid waste. The EIR will include an analysis of the ability for existing landfills to accommodate future solid waste disposal needs in the Planning Area. In addition, the EIR will discuss compliance with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste. If applicable, mitigation measures will be recommended to reduce any potentially significant impacts to a less -than -significant level. 44 Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR Initial Study
(a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the
quality of the environment, substantially reduce the
habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the
number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered
plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the
major periods of California history or prehistory?
Discussion
The City of Newport Beach
Less Than
Significant
Potentially with Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
® ❑ ❑ ❑
The General Plan Update could potentially convert open land within the City and already developed land to higher density development which could have the above listed impacts. As discussed above, the General Plan Update could potentially affect aesthetics, air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, land use and planning, noise, recreation, transportation, and utilities and service systems. Additionally, impacts to any of the issue areas described above (which have potentially significant impacts identified) could be considered to affect the quality of the environment. This impact is considered potentially significant and will be further analyzed in the EIR.
(b) Does the project have impacts that are individually ® ❑ ❑ ❑ limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively
considerable" means that the incremental effects of a
project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? Discussion
The implementation of the General Plan Update along with cumulative development in surrounding cities is considered the cumulative scenario, as the City as well as surrounding areas are the whole of the area that could be impacted. Because of this, each issue area will include an analysis of cumulative impacts. This impact is considered potentially significant and will be further analyzed in the EIR. (c) Does the project have environmental effects that will ® ❑ ❑ ❑ cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly?
Discussion
As previously discussed, the proposed project could potentially result in environmental effects that may cause adverse effects on human beings with regard to aesthetics, air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, land use and planning, noise, recreation, transportation, and utilities and service systems. Impacts are considered potentially significant and will be further analyzed in the EIR.
Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR Initial Study 45
AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION
ORANGE COUNTY
FOR ORANGE COUNTY
�— 3160 Airway Avenue • Costa Mesa, California 92626 - 949.252.5170 fax: 949.252.6012 February 27, 2006 PLANNING DEPAR I ME,;, I
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
FEB 2 $ 2006 PM
Gregg B. Ramirez, Senior Planner 71819110111,12 �],+�+�����16 Planning Department, Community and Economic Development City of Newport Beach
3300 Newport Boulevard
P.O. Box 1768
Newport Beach, CA 92658-8915
Subject: City of Newport Beach General Plan Update
Dear Mr. Ramirez:
Thank you for the opportunity to review the Initial Study for the City of Newport Beach General Plan Update in the context of the Orange County Airport Land Use Commission's Airport Environs Land Use Plan for John Wayne Airport (JWA AELUP). We wish to offer the following comments and respectfully request consideration of these comments as you proceedwith the preparation of your Environmental Impact Report (EIR).
As you may know, the powers and duties of the Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) include "... assisting local agencies in ensuring compatible land uses in the vicinity of all new airports and in the vicinity of existing airports to the extent that the land in the vicinity of those airports is not already devoted to incompatible uses." CAL.PU]3.UTIL.CODE §21674(a). To fulfill this basic obligation, the ALUC has two specific duties: (i) to prepare an airport land use plan for each airport within its jurisdiction; and (ii) to review local agency land use actions and plans.
CAL.PUB.UTIL.CODE §§21674(c), 21674(d) and 21675(a). Therefore, the ALUC must provide appropriate prospective land use planning through, for example, the adoption of land use compatibility measures that minimize the public's exposure to excessive noise and safety hazards, such as height restrictions on buildings, appropriate land use compatibility determinations for specified areas, and building standards.
The proposed General Plan Update raises potentially significant land use compatibility impact concerns in the Subarea labeled "John Wayne Airport Area." In light of this Subarea's close proximity to John Wayne Airport, Orange County (SNA) ("JWA"), and its location which is directly under a general aviation, low -altitude, primary flight corridor, the EIR should specifically address the impacts of development of new residential neighborhoods as replacement of existing and allowed future uses.
With the proposed increase in residential and mixed use land uses it is important that the EIR address the portions of the proposed project area that are within the Federal Aviation Regulation (FAR) Part 77 Imaginary Surfaces aeronautical obstruction area in the vicinity of JWA and those portions located on the AELUP Height Restriction Zone Map for JWA. The environmental
document should address these height restrictions and imaginary surfaces within the Hazards and Hazardous Materials section.
Given that the proposed general plan amendment provides for new residential development patterns in the John Wayne Airport Area, the land use section of the environmental document should discuss the incompatibility of residential land uses within close proximity to JWA.
General Plan policies and environmental mitigation measures should be included restricting residential uses within areas of the General Plan -designated "John Wayne Airport Area" that experience significant overflight by aircraft and aircraft noise. Future zoning level development standards related to residential development surrounding JWA should be considered.
The proposed project also affects areas within JWA noise impact zones. The Noise Section of the EIR should address impacts related to incompatible development within the 65 dB and 60 dB CNEL contours and address ALUC polices contained in the JWA AEL UP.
Included in the following sections of this letter are more specific suggestions for the City to consider as General Plan policies and EIR mitigation measures.
Sound Attenuation: Include General Plan sound attenuation policies and EIR mitigation measures for all John Wayne Airport Area residential development in order to minimize the noise impacts on the residences from present and projected future noise levels, including roadway, aircraft, helicopter and railroad and other noise sources. The sound attenuation requirements should, at a minimum, meet all current City interior and exterior noise standards.
Avigation Easement. Include policies and. mitigation measures requiring all John Wayne Airport Area residential development to record an avigation easement in the chain of title of each residential dwelling unit for noise and related aviation impacts in favor of the County of Orange, the airport proprietor of JWA, prior to issuance of building permits. The avigation easement should be in a form consistent with current Airport requirements. (This avigation easement is separate from and in addition to the "Avigation Easement for Orange County Airport" recorded March 17, 1964 in book 6965, page 721, which represents a separate John Wayne Airport "ownership" avigation easement already existing over portions of the City of Newport Beach.) Height Limitations: Include General Plan policies and EIR mitigation measures addressing height limitations on all John Wayne Airport Area residential development to limit the height of any permanent or temporary structure, to a height under 203.68 feet Above Mean Sea Level ("AMSL" ), reference National Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1929 (NGVD 29), consistent with current Orange County Surveyor Adjustment Datum.
Obstruction Lighting and Marking: Include General Plan policies and EIR mitigation measures addressing lighting and marking on all John Wayne Airport residential development to comply with the conditions and recommendations by the Federal Aviation Administration ("FAA") with respect to obstruction lighting and/or marking consistent with the criteria provided in FAA Advisory Circulars 70/7460-1 and 70/7460-IK.
Disclosure of JWA Proximity: -Include General Plan policies and EIR mitigation measures for occupancy disclosure to be provided in future sales literature and sales/rental/lease agreements for the residential developments stating that the property is located in the vicinity of JWA.
Deed Disclosure Notice: Include General Plan policies and EIR mitigation measures for deed disclosure notification on all John Wayne Airport Area residential development units which
require a "Deed Disclosure Notice" of the avigation easement. This disclosure notice must be submitted to the City and signed as a part of each sales/rental/lease agreement.
Signage: Include General Plan policies and EfR mitigation measures for signage on all "John Wayne Airport Area" parks and recreational development which requires every local park, recreational area, and private recreational facility to place appropriate signage indicating the presence of operating aircraft.
Density and Intensity Limitations: Include General Plan policies and EIR mitigation measures in order to minimize the safety impacts on the residences from aircraft operations. The safety measures should establish appropriate criteria limiting the maximum number of dwellings or people in areas close to the airport. The density and intensity limitations should be consistent with those provided by the Airport Environs Land Use Plan for the Airport.
A referral by the City to the ALUC is required for this project due to the location of the proposal within an AELUP Planning Area and due to the nature of the required City approvals (i.e.
General Plan Amendment) under PUC Section 21676(b). In this regard, please note that the Commission wants such referrals to be submitted and agendized by the ALUC staff between the Local Agency's expected Planning Commission and City Council hearings. Since the ALUC meets on the third Thursday afternoon of each month, submittals must be received in the ALUC office by the first of the month to ensure sufficient time for review, analysis, and agendizing.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this initial study. Please contact Lea Umnas at (949) 252-5123 or via email at [email protected] if you need any additional details or information regarding the future referral of your project.
Sincerely,
Kari A. Rigoni
Executive Officer
cc: Gerald Bresnahan
Alan Murphy
Larry Serafini
John Leyerle
JOHN P. AND SUZANNE V. CHAMBERLAIN
260 CAGNEY LANE - UNIT 304
NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA 92663
949.476.8303
February 27, 2006
HAND DELIVERED and U.S. MAIL
Gregg B. Ramirez, Senior Planner
Planning Department
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
P.O. Box 1768
3300 Newport Boulevard
Newport Beach, CA 92658-8915
RE: Newport Beach General Plan Update
Dear Mr. Ramirez:
_ L7U
CITY OF NEWPORT REACH
FEB 2 7 2006
AM PM
7 819110I1I,12,11213141 6
This is in response to the Notice of Preparation of a Draft EIR for the Newport Beach General Plan Update ("Project"), and is made after review of the Initial Study and the City of Newport Beach General Plan Technical Background Report ("TBR").'
Introduction: Role of the TBA as Stated in City Documents "For the update of the General Plan, the City has identified a Planning Area for which the Plan will provide policies ... [The] TBR provides existing data for the entire Planning Area ..."z The 'Initial review of the TBR was attempted at the Newport Beach Central Library, however, while the binder was full to overflowing, it was determined that certain chapters were missing sections, among them Chapter 3 Infrastructure, Section 3.1 Circulation. Then consulted was the only other copy of the TBR available to the public, a much -depleted version in the Planning Department. This too, was missing Section 3.1 Circulation. Upon inquiry as to the whereabouts of Section 3.1, staff provided a separate document designated "Draft" and entitled "Traffic Model Executive Summary Newport Beach General Plan Update Existing Conditions and Currently Adopted General Plan Buildout Forecasts," which document was reviewed.
Additionally, this response is made with certain questions to staff regarding the Initial Study and TBR, still unacknowledged and pending.
2TBR at page 1-3.
1 purpose of [the TBR], is to serve as a comprehensive database that describes the City's existing conditions for physical, social, and economic resources ... The TBR is the foundation document from which subsequent planning policies and programs will be formulated (emphasis added)."3 "From the key physical, environmental, and economic conditions and trends identified in the technical analyses contained in the TBR, implications for the City will be assessed and presented as planning issues. Consideration of the planning issues ... will be critical in updating the General Plan (emphasis added) . "4
Central to this process and plan is the Planning Area which it appears has not been accurately identified in the TBR.
Additionally, the TBR's determination and identification of existing conditions, together with its basis of assessment for potential development, appear fundamentally flawed. As "... the TBR will serve as the `Environmental Setting' section for each technical environmental issue analyzed in the Environmental Impact Report ,p5 it can be anticipated that this analysis too, would be flawed. Accordingly, the comments which follow, in highlighting deficiencies in the TBR, present environmental issues which should be addressed in the EIR.
Planning Area
The Planning Area upon which the TBR operates is the existing City boundaries and its sphere of influence ("SOI"). Both the Initial Study and the TBR agree that, exclusive of waterways, the City encompasses 13,062 acres. As to the Banning Ranch area, however, the two documents differ.
The TBR states, "[a]pproximately 45 acres of the area is within the City's SOI [and] the City has jurisdiction over a one -foot strip along the perimeter of Banning Ranch that totals approximately 25 acres, and Orange County has jurisdiction over the remainder of the area. j6 The Initial Study states, "[a]pproximately 53 acres of the ... Banning Ranch is within the City's boundaries, with another 361 acres of this property in the City's SOI, subject to Orange County jurisdiction. The entire property is surrounded by a one - foot strip within the City's jurisdiction."'
3TBR at page 1-2.
4TBR at page 1-4.
6TBR at page 1-- 2 .
6TBR at page 1-- 3 .
'Initial Study at page 1.
E
Whether SOI, subject to jurisdiction or within City bounds, the discrepancy in land area to be planned is glaring, and it is neither explained or even acknowledged in the Initial Study, the most recent of the two documents. Requisite environmental analysis for the Project demands accurate determination of the area subject to it so that it is not parced and impacts accurately identified and assessed.
Land Use
Land use --existing and future --is the very reason for planning, and is the sole impetus for any document addressing development such as a General Plan. In the TBR, land use is discussed in Section 2.1 of Chapter 2 entitled "Community Development." For the TBR, information regarding existing land use and potential development was derived from "" ... a visual field survey and discussion with City staff, a review of July 2003 aerial data, and review of adopted Specific Plans, the General Plan, and Zoning Code.118 - Existing Land Use
As to existing land use, the TBR notes that data was derived upwards of three years ago from visual field surveys and discussions with City staff.jj9 These existing land uses are then classified by the TBR into seven categories, two of which are "Industrial," and "Governmental, Educational and Institutional Facilities." The General Plan breaks use and development into four major categories, each then refined by way of sub -categories.
These General Plan categories include "Industrial," and a sub- category within "Public, Semi -Public and Institutional" designated "Governmental, Educational and Institutional Facilities." In comparing uses as set forth in these two documents and among these particular categories, it becomes apparent that existing land use has been either miscategorized or ignored by the TBR. The degree to which this has been done across the developed and undeveloped land in the Planning Area is unknown. The problem which this presents for the public and any subsequent EIR or General Plan, however, can be illustrated by the use "hospital." Both the Initial Study and the TBR contain descriptions of the seven categories of existing land use.7-0 None of these definitions, including those for "Industrial" or "Governmental, Educational and Institutional Facilities,"" mention hospital as a land use. Both documents contain identical Tables of "Existing 8TBR at page 2.1-1.
9TBR at page 2.1-1.
"'Initial Study at page 10; TBR at pages 2.1-1 - 2.1-2. 3 Land Use" with percentages shown for each alleged use." Whether by knowledge that since the early 19901's, the approximately 38 acres collectively constituted by the upper and lower campuses of Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian ("Hoag" or "Hospital") have been zoned "Governmental, Educational and Institutional Facilities, "" or by intuition that a hospital would be considered an "institutional facility," many would view the Table and believe Hoag's acreage would be reflected in the 3.40 of the City's total for "Governmental, Educational and Institutional Facilities" use.
They would be misled, however, for only by proceeding further in the text of the TER is it disclosed that "hospital" is categorized as an "Industrial" use.
The Table further breaks "Industrial"" into three sub --categories with corresponding acreage: Industrial/68.9 acres; Multi -Tenant Industrial/20.5 acres; and Industrial Business Park/25.0 acres. In that Hoag's property is about 38 acres, if it is included as "industrial" use, it constitutes 5501 of the 68.9 acres for the sub- category and 3301 of the total category "Industrial" use within the City. This would appear to be an inordinately high percentage and likely an incorrect representation of use.
The TBR represents that the data in Table 2.1-1, ""... is illustrated in Figure 2.1-1, ",12 a map said to show existing land use by color code.
While the Figure includes three separate color codes corresponding to its three sub -categories noted above within the use "Industrial," again, using the Hoag example, no part of its property is coded for "Industrial." Rather, the Hospital's lower campus use is, by color code, "Governmental, Educational and Institutional Facilities." Oddly, its upper campus bears no color code which, according to the Figure's legend, indicates existing land use as "Study Area."' Not only is "Study Area" no where defined but such a designation, whether based on visual survey or staff discussion, defies all reason when applied to a property on which upwards of 900,000 square feet of development exists." The problems associated with mischaracterizing use and the uncertain percentage within the City which it constitutes persist throughout the analysis of conditions in the TBR. Table 2.1-4 11TBR/Table 2.1-1, Initial Study/Table 2.
12TBR at page 2.1-2.
':'Problems with the visual survey, the TER and this site are perhaps best illustrated by the picture at page 2.1-37 of a modest office building on the northeast corner of Hospital Road and Placentia Avenue, erroneously identified as Hoag Hospital. 4 illustrates this point.
This Table purports to set forth a "Comparison of Existing Land Uses vs. General Plan Designations." while combining some categories, the acreage figures shown for "Existing Land Use,, are virtually the same as those as shown on Table 2.1-1.
It should be noted that in the General Plan, the sub -category "Governmental, Educational and Institutional Facilities" includes as an "institutional facility," among other things, hospitals." As demonstrated above, there is, at best, a reclassification of some use and, at worst, a misclassification of some use as between the General Plan and the TBR. To compare disparate data as Table
2.1-4 seeks to do can only result in mistakes presented as facts in the "Difference" column and error in conclusions.
- Potential Development
If determination of existing land use involved visual survey, it may be assumed that information regarding potential development was derived from the balance of resources as noted in the TBR, to wit, ".., discussion with City staff, a review of July 2003 aerial data, and review of adopted Specific Plans, the General Plan, and Zoning Code. 11 -5 These resources are as incomplete as the picture of potential development which the TBR presents.
Many other plans and actions shape actual development within the City. Such plans include the Coastal Plan, County and State mandates and Development Agreements. Actions include such things as Planning Director Discretion which, deriving from certain code provisions, can excuse additional building bulk or add square footage in seeming contravention of articulated Policies or Statistical Area figures stated in the General Plan, or otherwise in the municipal code.
The TBR states, "[t]he General Plan clarifies and articulates the City's intentions with respect to the rights and expectations of the general public, property owners, special interest groups, prospective investors, and business interests. Through the General Plan, the City informs the community of its goals, policies, and development standards, thereby communicating the City's expectations of the private sector in meeting the intentions [again, as set forth in] the General Plan."16 This seems somewhat misleading given these other forces bearing on development. 14Land Use Element (as amended through August 2004) at page 25. 15TBR at page 2 . 1--1 .
16TBR at page 1-1 .
5 While addressing policies for the entire City, the General Plan Update focuses on areas where the most significant land use changes could occur. Though there is discrepancy between the TER and the Initial Study as to how many and what constitutes these study areas, it appears that as many as five are in close proximity to Hoag. 17
This serves as a telling example, in that the Development Agreement between the City and Hoag will run well into the 20-year life anticipated for the General Plan Update yet, like other Development Agreements for areas throughout the City, is virtually invisible in the discussion or analysis. While this is procedurally allowed, the substantive, reciprocal impact between Hoag's development and that of these other five areas --many of which have slated changes in land use attendant to which is greater trip -generation --cannot be denied. This is particularly disturbing when it has already been determined that many intersections within these areas, based on currently anticipated use per the General Plan buildout, will be deficient.1e
These forces which alter stated development goals and limits, whether currently operating in a particular area or potentially applicable City-wide, should be identified, the range of their respective cumulative impacts assessed in the EIR, and ultimately reflected in the General Plan Update in order that it, "... provides a comprehensive land use, housing, circulation and infrastructure, public service, resource conservation, and public safety policies for the entire city [sic] (emphasis added)."" To do any less is a disservice to the General Plan process and to the residents, investors and businesses who seek to rely on it. 17Special Study Areas identified in the TBR at Subsection 2.1-1 and believed of relevant impact: Mariner's Mile (also the subject of a Specific Plan) ; West Newport Industrial; Old Newport Boulevard (also the subject of a Specific Plan); Lido Village/City Hall; Newport Shores (also the subject of a Specific Plan).
Special Study sub -areas identified in the Initial Study at pages 14 - 16 and believed of relevant impact: Mariner's Mile (also the subject of a Specific Plan); West Newport Mesa; Old Newport Boulevard (also the subject of a Specific Plan); Banning Ranch; West Newport Highway.
"Traffic Model Executive Summary Newport Beach General Plan Update Existing Conditions and Currently Adopted General Plan Buildout Forecasts (March 26, 2003; revised December 8, 2003). 1Initial Study at page 1.
0 Conclusion
Though only few examples and brief discussion were provided herein, as they relate to land area and use from which virtually all General Plan concerns flow, it is believed they illustrate the inaccuracy of data and its attendant analysis likely throughout the TBR and so, draw into question its overall methodology, intent and value. Despite the initial Study's findings of the Project's significant impact across most considered environmental factors, impact cannot be accurately assessed if its source has not been accurately identified, and the efficacy of any attendant mitigation would seem unlikely. As the TBR is represented to serve as the "environmental setting" for each environmental issue discussed in the EIR, its potential adequacy is suspect, and the document may fail to provide the disclosure CEQA requires and the public deserves.
Very truly yours,
S an Viau Chamberlain
7 FROM :CITY OF COSTR MESA FAX NO. :714 754 4856 Feb. 27 2006 04:45PM P2
CITE' OF COSTA MESA
P.O. BOX 1200 - 77 FAIR DRIVE - CALIFORNIA 92028-1200
mm"MAWNEEMMMMMOPON
r
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT
February 27, 2006
Mr. Gregg B. Ramirez, Senior Planner
Planning Department, Community and Economic Development City of Newport Beach
3300 Newport Boulevard
P.Q, Box 1768
Newport Beach, CA 92658-8915
SUBJECT; NOTICE OF PREPARATION FOR DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
REPORT FOR THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL PLAN
UPDATE
Dear Mr. Ramirez.
The City of Costa Mesa has reviewed the Notice of Preparation for Draft Environmental Impact Report for the City of Newport Beach General Plan update. The proposed project consists of a General Plan update including the existing City of Newport Beach boundaries (totaling 13,062 arces, excluding waterways) and its sphere of influence.
Following are the City's comments on the proposed update. + LAND USE PLANNING
The City would appreciate the acknowledgement and analysis of impacts to changes in the West Newport Mesa and Banning Ranch Planning Sub -Areas on Costa Mesa's Westside revitalization efforts as set forth in the draft urban plans for the Westside. Draft copies of the Westside urban plans are enclosed for your convenience.
+ PU13LIC SERVICES
The Notice of Preparation acknowledges that Costa Mesa Police and Fire Departments currently provide services in Newport Beach. Additional analysis is recommended for the Environmental Impact Report to include the degree to which increases In population and employment as a result of the build out of the General Plan also results in increased demand for Costa Mesa Police and Fire service demands, personnel, and equipment.
Building DEvlslon (714) 754-5273 • Coda Enfnr(*R)er't (714) 7$4-6823 • Planning Division (714) 754-5245 (=ASS (714) 754Aa5e + TDD (Y14) 754-5244 • v,,,, i,coste-megaIca,ug
FROM :CITY OF COSTA MESA FAX NO. :714 754 4856 Feb. 27 2006 04:45PM P3 Mr. Ramirez
February 27, 2008
• TRANSPORTATION/CJRCUCATinm
For Year 2025, the City encourages that the future General Man analysis be conducted under the following assumptions:
(a) SR-55 Freeway is not extended south of 1911 Street
(b) i91h Street bridge over the Santa Ana River is not constructed The City recommends that all mitigaWn measures be conditioned based on these assumptions.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this update. The City of Costa Mesa is very interested in the City of Newport Beach (general Plan update. We hope to continue to have close communication on this update and an opportunity to fully understand any significant impacts. If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact me at (714) 754-5609,
Sincerely,
L
R' MICHAEL ROBINSON
Asst, Dev. Svs. Director
co: Donald D. Lamm, Deputy City Mgr., Dev. Svs. Director Kimberly Brandt, Principal Planner
Peter Naghavi, Transportation Mgr.
Raja Sethuraman, Assoc_ Engineer
Rebecca Robbins, Assistant Planner
STATE OF CALIFORNIA, RESOURCES AGENCY ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER, GOVERNOR
C A L I F O R N I A
CONSERVATION
February 7, 2006
DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION
DIVISION OF OIL, GAS, AND GEOTHERMAL RESOURCES
5816 Corporate Avenue, Suite 200, Cypress, CA 90630-4731 PHONE 714/816-6847 • FAX 714/816-6853 • WEB SITE conservation.ca.gov E`,LiY
t:.*INING F2� -:PARTME T
r l 1- x' 3F NFtlt100l *T BEACH
FH 0 d 2006
Mr. Greg City of B. Senior Planner AM PM
Y Newport Beach
3300 Newport Boulevard
P.O. Box 1768
Newport Beach, California 92658-8915
Subject: Notice of Preparation for the City of Newport Beach General Plan Update Dear Mr. Ramirez:
The Department of Conservation's (Department) Division of Oil, Gas, and Geothermal Resources (Division) has reviewed the above referenced project. The Division supervises the drilling, maintenance, and plugging and abandonment of oil, gas, and geothermal wells in California.
The proposed project is located within the administrative boundaries of the West Newport and Newport oil fields. There are numerous active, idle, plugged and abandoned wells within or in proximity to the project boundaries. These wells are identified on Division Map 136 and records. The Division recommends that all wells within or in close proximity to project boundaries be accurately plotted on future project maps.
Building over or in the proximity of plugged and abandoned wells should be avoided if at all possible.
If this is not possible, it may be necessary to plug or re -plug wells to current Division specifications.
Also, the State Oil and Gas Supervisor is authorized to order the reabandonment of previously plugged and abandoned wells when construction over or in the proximity of wells could result in a hazard (Section 3208.1 of the Public Resources Code). If reabandonment is necessary, the cost of operations is the responsibility of the owner of the property upon which the structure will be located.
Finally, if construction over an abandoned well is unavoidable an adequate gas venting system should be placed over the well.
Furthermore, if any plugged and abandoned or unrecorded wells are damaged or uncovered during excavation or grading, remedial plugging operations may be required. If such damage or discovery occurs, the Division's district office must be contacted to obtain information on the requirements for and approval to perform remedial operations.
The Department of Conservation s mission is to protect Californians and their environment 5y:
Protecting lives andproperty from earthquakes and randsCufes; Ensuring safe mining andoilandgas d Kling; Conserving CaCforniasfarmland; andSaving energy andresources through recycling.
Mr. Greg B. Ramirez, City of Newport Beach
February 7, 2006
To ensure proper review of building projects, the Division has published an informational packet entitled, "Construction Project Site Review and Well Abandonment Procedure" that outlines the information a project developer must submit to the Division for review. Developers should contact the Division's Cypress district office for a copy of the site -review packet. The local planning department should verify that final building plans have undergone Division review prior to the start of construction.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Notice of Preparation. If you have questions on our comments, or require technical assistance or information, please call me at the Cypress district office:
5816 Corporate Avenue, Suite 200, Cypress, CA 90630-4731; phone (714) 816-6847.
Sincerely,
Paul Frost
Associate Oil & Gas Engineer
Department of Toxic Substances Control
V4,%; 0
Maureen F. Gorsen, Director
Alan C. Lloyd, Ph.D. 5796 Corporate Avenue Arnold Schwarzenegger Agency Secretary p Governor
Cal/EPACypress, California 90630
C�Ty OF NEWK)RT &[-: �Ii
AM FEB 2 7 2006 PM
.
February 21, 2006
Mr. Gregg Ramirez
City of Newport Beach
Planning Department
3300 Newport Boulevard
Newport Beach, California 9285-8915
NOTICE OF PREPARATION FOR THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL PLAN UPDATE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (SCH# 2006011119) Dear Ms. Wellman:
The Department of Toxic Substances Control (DISC) has received your submitted Notice of Preparation (NOP) for the draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the above -mentioned project. The following project description is stated in your document:
"The General Plan Update defines comprehensive land use, noise, housing, circulation, and infrastructure, public service, resource conservation, and public safety policies for the entire City. While policies regarding future land use and growth are addressed from a citywide perspective, the majority of land use changes are limited to nine primary study areas. Accordingly, the EIR will comprehensively address the impacts of all policies throughout the City and, additionally, focus on those areas in which the most significant land use changes could occur."
Based on the review of the submitted document, DTSC has comments as follow:
1 } The EIR should identify and determine whether current or historic uses in the Project area may have resulted in any release of hazardous waste slsubstances. 2) The EIR should identify any known or potentially contaminated sites within the proposed Project area. For all identified sites, the EIR should evaluate whether conditions at the site may pose a threat to human health or the environment.
Printed on Recycled Paper
Mr. Gregg Ramirez
February 21, 2006
A Phase I Assessment may be sufficient to identify these sites. Following are the databases of some of the regulatory agencies:
• National Priorities List (NPL): A list maintained by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S.EPA).
• Site Mitigation Program Property Database (formerly CalSites):
ADatabase primarily used by the California Department of Toxic Substances Control.
• Resource Conservation and Recovery Information System (RCRIS):
A database of RCRA facilities that is maintained by U.S. EPA. • Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and Liability Information System (CERCLIS): A database of CERCLA sites that is maintained by U.S.EPA.
• Solid Waste Information System (SWIS): A database provided by the California Integrated Waste Management Board which consists of both open as well as closed and inactive solid waste disposal facilities and transfer stations.
• Leaking Underground Storage Tanks (LUST) I Spills, Leaks, Investigations and Cleanups (SLIC): A list that is maintained by Regional Water Quality Control Boards.
• Local Counties and Cities maintain lists for hazardous substances cleanup sites and leaking underground storage tanks.
• The United States Army Corps of Engineers, 911 Wilshire Boulevard, Los Angeles, California, 90017, (213) 452-3908, maintains a list of Formerly Used Defense Sites (FUDS).
3) The EIR should identify the mechanism to initiate any required investigation and/or remediation for any site that may be contaminated, and the government agency to provide appropriate regulatory oversight. If hazardous materials or wastes were stored at the site, an environmental assessment should be conducted to determine if a release has occurred. If so, further studies should be carried out to delineate the nature and extent of the contamination, and the potential threat to public health and/or the environment should be evaluated.
It may be necessary to determine if an expedited response action is required
Mr. Gregg Ramirez
February 21, 2006
to reduce existing or potential threats to public health or the environment. If no immediate threat exists, the final remedy should be implemented in compliance with state regulations, policies, and laws.
4) All environmental investigations, sampling and/or remediation for the site should be conducted under a Workplan approved and overseen by a regulatory agency that has jurisdiction to oversee hazardous substance cleanup. The findings of any investigations, including Phase I and II investigations, should be summarized in the document. All sampling results in which hazardous substances were found should be clearly summarized in a table.
5) Proper investigation, sampling and remedial actions, if necessary, should be conducted at the site prior to the new development or any construction, and overseen by a regulatory agency.
6) If any property adjacent to a project site is contaminated with hazardous chemicals, and if the proposed project is within 2,000 feet from a contaminated site, except for a gas station, then the proposed development may fall within the "Border Zone of a Contaminated Property." Appropriate precautions should be taken prior to construction if the proposed project is within a "Border Zone Property.
7) If building structures, asphalt or concrete -paved surface areas or other structures are planned to be demolished, an investigation should be conducted for the presence of lead -based paints or products, mercury, and asbestos containing materials (ACMs). If lead -based paints or products, mercury or ACMs are identified, proper precautions should be taken during demolition activities.
Additionally, the contaminants should be remediated in compliance with California environmental regulations, policies, and laws. 8) The project construction may require soil excavation and soil filling in certain areas. Appropriate sampling is required prior to disposal of the excavated soil.
If the soil is contaminated, properly dispose of it rather than placing it in another location. Land Disposal Restrictions (LDRs) may be applicable to these soils.
Also, if the project proposes to import soil to backfill the areas excavated, proper sampling should be conducted to make sure that the imported soil is free of contamination.
9) Human health and the environment of sensitive receptors should be protected during the construction or demolition activities. A study of the site, overseen by the appropriate government agency, might have to be conducted to determine if
Mr. Gregg Ramirez
February 21, 2006
there are, have been, or will be, any releases of hazardous materials that may pose a risk to human health or the environment.
10) If it is determined that hazardous wastes are, or will be, generated by the proposed operations, the wastes must be managed in accordance with the California Hazardous Waste Control Law (California Health and Safety Code, Division 20, chapter 6.5) and the Hazardous Waste Control Regulations (California Code of Regulations, Title 22, Division 4.5). 11) If it is determined that hazardous wastes are or will be generated and the wastes are (a) stored in tanks or containers for more than ninety days, (b) treated onsite, or (c) disposed of onsite, then a permit from DTSC may be required. If so, the facility should contact DTSC at (818) 551-2171 to initiate pre application discussions and determine the permitting process applicable to the facility. 12) If it is determined that hazardous wastes will be generated, the facility should obtain a United States Environmental Protection Agency Identification Number by contacting (800) 618-6942.
13) Certain hazardous waste treatment processes may require authorization from the local Certified Unified Program Agency (CUPA). Information about the requirement for authorization can be obtained by contacting your local CUPA. 14) If the project plans include discharging wastewater to storm drain, you may be required to obtain a wastewater discharge permit from the overseeing Regional Water Quality Control Board.
15) If during construction/demolition in the Project area, soil and/or groundwater contamination is suspected, construction/demolition in the area should cease and appropriate health and safety procedures should be implemented. If it is determined that contaminated soil and/or groundwater exist, the EIR should identify how any required investigation and/or remediation will be conducted, and the appropriate government agency to provide regulatory oversight. 16) If a site in the Project area was and/or is used for agricultural activities, onsite soils may contain pesticide, herbicides and agricultural chemical residue. Proper investigation and remedial actions, if necessary, should be conducted at the site prior to construction of the project.
Mr. Gregg Ramirez
February 21, 2006
DTSC provides guidance for cleanup oversight through the Voluntary Cleanup Program (VCP). For additional information on the VCP, please visit DTSC's web site at www.dtsc.ca.gov .
If you have any questions regarding this letter, please contact Mr. Joseph Cully, Project Manager, at (714) 484-5473 or email at [email protected].
Sincerely,
Greg Holmes
Unit Chief
Southern California Cleanup Operations Branch - Cypress Office cc: Governor's Office of Planning and Research
State Clearinghouse
P.O. Box 3044
Sacramento, California 95812-3044
Mr. Guenther W. Moskat, Chief
Planning and Environmental Analysis Section
CEQA Tracking Center
Department of Toxic Substances Control
P.O. Box 806
Sacramento, California 95812-0806
CEQA # 1312
MEMORANDUM
To: Gregg Ramirez, Senior Planner, City of Newport Beach From: Environmental Quality Affairs Citizens Advisory Committee City of Newport Beach
Subject: Notice of Preparation ("NOP") for the City of Newport Beach General Plan Update (the "Project")
Date: February 28, 2006
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the NOP for the captioned Project.
We offer the following comments in the hopes of improving the Draft Environmental Impact Report ("DEIR") and the Project.
A. Project Description:
The NOP contains an incomplete and confusing Project description which the DEIR should complete and clarify. Nine planning subareas are identified, including Banning Ranch. Page 7, Figure 3 However, the subareas/districts discussion on pages 14-17, adds "West Newport Mesa" and "Harbor and Bay" subareas. The DEIR should use consistent terminology throughout the document.
The Statement of Objectives further refers to allowing growth where sustainable development can occur. The DEIR should define sustainable development and explain whether it will reduce or eliminate potential environmental impacts from the Project.
The Project Description conflicts with other parts of the NOP. The NOP states that Orange County Measure M Growth Management policies are incorporated in the Circulation Element of the NOR However, the discussion of Circulation Element on
M Growth Management policies are incorporated in the Circulation Element, that should be specifically identified in the DEIR.
Also, the term "Circulation" reportedly describes how "public services and facilities will be provided to businesses and residents," but no mention of it is included in Section XV (Transportation/Traffic) and XVI (Utilities/Service Systems) on Pages 41-44.
The DEIR should clarify the relationship of Circulation requirements to these areas.
EQAC
City of Newport Beach
February 27, 2006
The Alternatives Section of the Project description states that Alternative A:
GPAC Recommendations and Alternate B: Subarea Only Minimum will be analyzed in the EIR. Pages 18-19 However, all four alternatives should also be analyzed for comparison purposes.
Figure 3 should be revised to include all the subareas. For example, West Newport Mesa and Balboa Peninsula are not depicted on the map. Further, the DEIR should include a discussion of whether the subarea Corona del Mar is intended to include only the properties with frontage on Pacific Coast Highway, or the larger area commonly referred to as Corona del Mar.
Figure 3-2 should be revised to depict Newport Coast within the city limits of the City of Newport Beach.
Table 3 should be revised to include all subareas, such as Corona del Mar, and provide a column that identifies the Existing, Current General Plan, and Proposed General Plan land use for the balance of the City.
The proposed General Plan Update will add approximately 15,000 dwelling units to the existing City inventory. At approximately 2.75 people per unit, this equals 42,000 additional residents. According to Table 3, only 61 additional park acres will be provided (60 acres in Banning Ranch). Using the Quimby Act park dedication ratio of 5 acres per 1,000 people, approximately 200 park acres is needed.
In order to further Project objectives to protect and enhance recreational and open space opportunities, the DEIR should evaluate whether additional Parks/Open Space land use is warranted and amend the land use table with the applicable open space acreage.
B. Environmental Checklist and Discussion:
I. Biological Resources:
The NOP states that there are eleven special -status wildlife species and states that there are 27 sensitive wildlife and 24 sensitive plant species that occur or potentially occur within the Newport Beach area. The Discussion states that the EIR will include an analysis of potential impacts to special -status species. The DEIR should include an analysis of potential impacts on the 27 sensitive wildlife and 24 sensitive plant species, including location, quality of habitat and risks, including the impacts associated with lighting, noise, etc.
II. Hazards and Hazardous Materials:
This section recognizes that the Project may create significant impacts unless mitigation occurs.
EQAC
City of Newport Beach
February 27, 2006
Sub -sections (c) and (d) address the potential for hazardous emissions within one - quarter mile of an existing or a proposed school and the potential to locate development on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites. These two sub -sections are designated as "Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated" on the Environmental Checklist.
This language is confusing. If the impact is currently "potentially significant," the potential impacts should be analyzed as such. It is especially critical that there is a thorough evaluation of all the impacts associated with the potential to develop a school or a housing development on a hazardous materials site. It is especially The DEIR may point out what can or cannot be done about them and what specific mitigation measures can be taken for some of these impacts. However, it appears to be premature to determine that these potentially significant impacts can be mitigated to a less than significant level. It should not be predetermined that these potentially significant impacts will not be completely discussed in the DEIR.
The DEIR must identify the potential impacts, thoroughly examine these potential impacts, discuss the threshold of significance, study the significance of the potential impacts and, if necessary, propose mitigation.
III. Hydrology and Water Quality:
As with the discussion of Hazards and Hazardous Materials, sub -section (a) states that even though implementation of the General Plan Update "could cause runoff to adversely affect water quality, this potential impact is `Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated."' Without the full identification of the potential impacts, it appears premature to determine that these potentially significant impacts can be mitigated to a less than significant level.
The DEIR must identify the potential impacts to hydrology and water quality of the proposed Project, including the flooding impacts associated with urban streams, thoroughly examine these potential impacts, discuss the threshold of significance, study the significance of the potential impacts and, if necessary, propose mitigation.
IV. Land Use and Planning:
Sub -section (a) of the Land Use and Planning Section states that the purpose for increasing development in select areas of the City is to increase cohesiveness in the City.
However, the objectives of the Statement of Objectives does not include the phrase "cohesiveness." The DEIR should fully define the meaning of cohesiveness and discuss its relationship to the objectives of the General Plan Update.
In the John Wayne Airport area where 4,300 dwelling units are proposed, there are no public parks. Much of Newport Beach developed over the past 40 years with a single landowner and master planned neighborhoods. Acquisition of public parks in the
EQAC
City of Newport Beach
February 27, 2006
John Wayne Airport area presents a significant challenge because it is built -out and has numerous landowners that will make master planning and aggregation of property for neighborhood parks difficult.
The DEIR should include mitigation measures that provide creative methods to consolidate and acquire multiple properties into a large neighborhood park for the residents of the John Wayne Airport area. The DEIR should also identify whether the City's vision is for each project to meet its park dedication requirement with on -site private parks. If park dedication is dependent entirely upon on -site private parks, residents in the John Wayne Airport area will be left with very little choice over the parks available to them. This will lead to further use of existing public parks elsewhere in the City.
The NOP describes the addition of approximately 1,200 additional dwelling units on Balboa Peninsula and Balboa Village. This equates to approximately 3,300 additional residents, and 16 acres of additional parkland using the Quimby Act formula. Similar to the challenge of providing public parks in the John Wayne Airport Area, the DEIR should identify the means to acquire public parkland for residents to use in this area of the City. The same issue presents itself with approximately 1,000 additional dwelling units in West Newport Mesa.
The DEIR should disclose whether the Newport -Mesa Unified School District has formulated a strategy for accommodating students from 11,000 additional homes permitted under the proposed Project outside the John Wayne Airport Area.
The DEIR should evaluate the cumulative traffic, school, and park impacts of additional dwelling units in Irvine's IBC proposed through General Plan Amendments, Zoning Entitlement, Preapplications, and other criteria for appropriate mitigation measures. Solutions to school capacity issues in the Irvine Business Complex may be applicable to residential development in the John Wayne Airport Area.
The proposed Project will add approximately 1,000 hotel rooms within the subareas, and 2,100 additional hotel rooms throughout the rest of the City. The addition of 2,100 hotel rooms outside the subareas is a significant increase over the current hotel room inventory. The DEIR should identify the location of the additional hotel rooms outside the subareas and evaluate the environmental impacts of them.
The proposed land use plan redesignates large portions of the subareas from nonresidential to residential land uses. The transition from nonresidential to residential will take many years. The DEIR should evaluate whether this transition may cause blight if properties will become nonconforming uses, or if nonresidential buildings are not maintained because they will be recycled to residential use sometime in the future.
The NOP describes the plan for West Newport Mesa as encouraging the retention of light industrial. The DEIR should describe whether Newport Beach's plan is
EQAC
City of Newport Beach
February 27, 2006
compatible with Costa Mesa's plan for its property adjacent to West Newport Mesa, and provide mitigation measures that will ensure the two neighboring areas will become cohesive as each City implements its General Plan Update.
The NOP describes the plan for Corona del Mar as a pedestrian oriented village.
Corona del Mar already meets this description. The DEIR should clearly contrast the new plan with the existing neighborhood and provide mitigation measures to ensure that the existing character of the neighborhood is maintained.
V. Transportation and Circulation:
Sub -sections (a) and (b) recognize that the proposed Project may create significant traffic impacts. Reference is made to increased traffic congestion due to the proposed Project and that these impacts will be analyzed in the DEIR. However, no critical areas of congestion are identified for analyses. If Table 4 on Page 17 is used as a guide for this analysis, it seems to be seriously lacking in understanding of the traffic impacts on Balboa Peninsula.
The proposed Project would add 471 hotel -motel rooms and 75,000 sq. ft. of institutional use on the Peninsula, but the NOP does not identify a need for additional Peninsula Transportation Improvements per Table 4. This appears to be a major oversight, which requires in-depth analysis the DEIR.
Sub -section (d) states that "less than significant" impacts will result from roadway improvements associated with implementation of the proposed Project. This assessment is premature and needs to be re-evaluated when the roadway improvements are actually identified in the DEIR analysis.
Sub -section (e) recognizes a "potentially significant impact" in emergency access resulting from implementation of the proposed Project. However, it is not specifically stated that certain areas within the City are vulnerable to this situation, including the Balboa Peninsula and the Airport Area. The DEIR should thoroughly analyze emergency access throughout the City and, if necessary, propose mitigation for Project impacts.
The discussion promises a traffic study, and if necessary, mitigation or Project features which may address potential impacts related to traffic that would result from the proposed Project implementation. The DEIR should incorporate the analysis promised by the NOP and also discuss, analyze and if necessary propose mitigation for Project impacts.
The DEIR should analyze whether the proposed Project adequately addresses alternative modes of transportation.
EQAC
City of Newport Beach