Ew'PCity Ofapril 2006
O
i
CgL1FO4N�P Draft Environmental Impact Report
General Plan 2006 Update
SCH No. 2006011119
Volume I
J _
�i
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
GENERAL PLAN 2006 UPDATE
Volume I
Draft Environmental Impact Report
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
Acronyms/Abbreviations.................................................................................................................x CHAPTER1 Introduction............................................................................................................1-1
1.1 Purpose and Legal Authority.........................................................................................1-1
1.2 Scope of the EIR.............................................................................................................1-2
1.2.1 Environmental Setting/Definition of the Baseline.....................................1-3
1.2.2 Plan Comparison..............................................................................................1-4
1.3 Intended Use of the EIR................................................................................................1-4
1.4 Lead, Responsible, and Trustee Agencies....................................................................1-5
1.5 Environmental Review Process.....................................................................................1-5
1.6 Areas of Controversy and Issues to Be Resolved.......................................................1-7
1.7 Document Organization.................................................................................................1-8 CHAPTER2 Summary................................................................................................................. 2-1
2.1 Introduction.....................................................................................................................2-1
2.2 Project Description.........................................................................................................2-1
2.2.1 Potential Land Use Changes...........................................................................2-4
2.3 Classification of Environmental Impacts.....................................................................2-5
2.4 Synopsis of Alternatives.................................................................................................2-5
2.5 Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures...........................................................2-6 CHAPTER 3 Project Description.................................................................................................3-1
3.1 Environmental Setting and Location............................................................................3-1
3.1.1 Background.......................................................................................................3-2
3.2 Statement of Objectives..................................................................................................3-9
3.3 Project Characteristics.................................................................................................. 3-10
3.3.1 Elements and Components of the Proposed General Plan Update...... 3-10
3.3.2 Updated General Plan Potential Land Use Changes ................................ 3-10
3.3.3 Transportation Improvements.................................................................... 3-17
3.3.4 Goals and Policy Changes............................................................................ 3-18
CHAPTER 4 Environmental Analysis......................................................................................... 4-1
4.0 Introduction to Analysis.................................................................................................4-1
4.1 Aesthetics and Visual Quality....................................................................................
4.1-1
4.1.1 Introduction..................................................................................................
4.1-1
4.1.2 Existing Conditions......................................................................................
4.1-1
4.1.3 Regulatory Setting.......................................................................................
4.1-14
4.1.4 Thresholds of Significance........................................................................
4.1-15
4.1.5 Project Impacts, Mitigation Measures, and Proposed Policies............
4.1-15
4.1.6 References...................................................................................................
4.1-40
4.2 Air Quality....................................................................................................................
4.2-1
4.2.1 Introduction..................................................................................................
4.2-1
City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR
4.2.2 Existing Conditions...................................................................................... 4.2-1
4.2.3 Regulatory Framework................................................................................
4.2-7
4.2.4 Thresholds of Significance........................................................................
4.2-10
4.2.5 Project Impacts, Mitigation Measures, and Proposed Policies ............
4.2-11
4.2.6 Cumulative Impacts...................................................................................
4.2-17
4.2.7 References....................................................................................................4.2-24
4.3 Biological Resources.................................................................................................... 4.3-1
4.3.1 Introduction..................................................................................................
4.3-1
4.3.2 Existing Conditions......................................................................................
4.3-1
4.3.3 Regulatory Setting.......................................................................................
4.3-16
4.3.4 Thresholds of Significance........................................................................
4.3-21
4.3.5 Project Impacts, Mitigation Measures, and Proposed Policies ............
4.3-22
4.3.6 References....................................................................................................4.3-36
4.4 Cultural Resources.......................................................................................................
4.4-1
4.4.1 Introduction..................................................................................................
4.4-1
4.4.2 Existing Conditions......................................................................................
4.4-1
4.4.3 Regulatory Framework................................................................................
4.4-9
4.4.4 Thresholds of Significance........................................................................4.4-13
4.4.5 Project Impacts, Mitigation Measures, and Proposed Policies ............
4.4-13
4.4.6 References....................................................................................................4.4-23
4.5 Geology, Soils, and Mineral Resources..................................................................... 4.5-1
4.5.1 Introduction..................................................................................................
4.5-1
4.5.2 Geology and Soils.........................................................................................4.5-1
4.5.3 Regulatory Framework..............................................................................
4.5-10
4.5.4 Thresholds of Significance........................................................................
4.5-12
4.5.5 Project Impacts, Mitigation Measures, and Proposed Policies ............
4.5-12
4.5.6 Mineral Resources......................................................................................
4.5-23
4.5.7 Regulatory Framework..............................................................................
4.5-27
4.5.8 Thresholds of Significance........................................................................
4.5-28
4.5.9 Project Impacts, Mitigation Measures, and Proposed Policies ............
4.5-28
4.5.10 References....................................................................................................4.5-34
4.6 Hazards
and Hazardous Materials.............................................................................
4.6-1
4.6.1 Introduction..................................................................................................
4.6-1
4.6.2 Existing Conditions......................................................................................
4.6-2
4.6.3 Regulatory Framework..............................................................................
4.6-10
4.6.4 Thresholds of Significance........................................................................4.6-16
4.6.5 Project Impacts, Mitigation Measures, and Proposed Policies ............
4.6-17
4.6.6 References....................................................................................................4.6-35
4.7 Hydrology and Water Quality.................................................................................... 4.7-1
4.7.1 Introduction..................................................................................................
4.7-1
4.7.2 Existing Conditions......................................................................................
4.7-2
4.7.3 Regulatory Framework..............................................................................
4.7-20
4.7.4 Thresholds of Significance........................................................................
4.7-26
4.7.5 Project Impacts, Mitigation Measures, and Proposed Policies ............
4.7-27
4.7.6 References....................................................................................................4.7-55
4.8 Land Use and Planning...............................................................................................
4.8-1
4.8.1 Introduction..................................................................................................
4.8-1
iv City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR
4.8.2 Existing Conditions...................................................................................... 4.8-2
4.8.3 Regulatory Framework................................................................................
4.8-5
4.8.4 Thresholds of Significance..........................................................................
4.8-8
4.8.5 Project Impacts, Mitigation Measures, Proposed Policies .....................
4.8-8
4.8.6 References...................................................................................................
4.8-39
4.9 Noise..............................................................................................................................4.9-1
4.9.1 Introduction..................................................................................................
4.9-1
4.9.2 Existing Conditions......................................................................................
4.9-1
4.9.3 Regulatory Setting.........................................................................................
4.9-8
4.9.4 Thresholds of Significance........................................................................
4.9-19
4.9.5 Project Impacts, Mitigation Measures, and Proposed Policies............
4.9-21
4.9.6 References...................................................................................................
4.9-42
4.10 Population and Housing...........................................................................................
4.10-1
4.10.1 Introduction................................................................................................
4.10-1
4.10.2 Existing Conditions....................................................................................
4.10-1
4.10.3 Thresholds of Significance........................................................................
4.10-4
4.10.4 Project Impacts, Mitigation Measures, and Proposed Policies............
4.10-4
4.10.5 References.................................................................................................
4.10-11
4.11 Public Services............................................................................................................ 4.11-1
4.11.1 Fire Protection............................................................................................
4.11-1
4.11.2 Police Protection......................................................................................4.11-12
4.11.3 Schools.......................................................................................................4.11-18
4.11.4 Libraries.....................................................................................................
4.11-26
4.11.5 References.................................................................................................
4.11-31
4.12 Recreation and Open Space..................................................................................... 4.12-1
4.12.1 Introduction................................................................................................ 4.12-1
4.12.2 Existing Conditions.................................................................................... 4.12-1
4.12.3 Regulatory Setting.....................................................................................
4.12-12
4.12.4 Thresholds of Significance......................................................................4.12-13
4.12.5 Project Impacts, Mitigation Measures, and Proposed Policies ..........
4.12-14
4.12.6 References.................................................................................................
4.12-24
4.13 Transportation/Traffic............................................................................................. 4.13-1
4.13.1 Introduction................................................................................................
4.13-1
4.13.2 Existing Conditions.................................................................................... 4.13-2
4.13.3 Regulatory Setting.....................................................................................
4.13-19
4.13.4 Thresholds of Significance......................................................................4.13-21
4.13.5 Analytic Method, Project Impacts, Mitigation Measures, and Proposed Policies.......................................................................................................
4.13-23
4.13.6 References.................................................................................................
4.13-63
4.14 Utilities and Service Systems.................................................................................... 4.14-1
4.14.1 Water System............................................................................................... 4.14-1
4.14.2 Sewer System.............................................................................................
4.14-22
4.14.3 Solid Waste................................................................................................
4.14-36
4.14.4 Energy........................................................................................................
4.14-46
4.14.5 References.................................................................................................
4.14-51
City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR v
CHAPTER5 Alternatives............................................................................................................. 5-1
5.1 Introduction..................................................................................................................... 5-1
5.2 Potential Feasible Alternatives...................................................................................... 5-2
5.3 Alternative 1: No Project/No Development Alternative ......................................... 5-2
5.3.1 Description.......................................................................................................5-2
5.3.2 Impact Evaluation........................................................................................... 5-2
5.4 Alternative 2: No Project/No Action Alternative (Existing General Plan)........... 5-3
5.4.1 Description.......................................................................................................5-3
5.4.2 Impact Evaluation........................................................................................... 5-4
5.5 Alternative 3: GPAC Recommendations.................................................................. 5-12
5.5.1 Description.....................................................................................................5-12
5.5.2 Impact Evaluation......................................................................................... 5-12
5.6 Alternative 4: Subarea Only Minimum...................................................................... 5-20
5.6.1 Description.....................................................................................................5-20
5.6.2 Impact Evaluation......................................................................................... 5-22
5.7 Summary Comparison of Alternatives...................................................................... 5-29
5.8 Environmentally Superior Alternative....................................................................... 5-29
CHAPTER 6 Other CEQA Considerations................................................................................. 6-1
6.1 Significant, Irreversible Environmental Changes....................................................... 6-1
6.2 Significant, Unavoidable Adverse Impacts................................................................. 6-1
6.3 Growth -Inducing Impacts.............................................................
6.3.1 Extension of Public Facilities........................................................................ 6-3
6.3.2 Population Growth......................................................................................... 6-3
6.4 Effects Not Found to Be Significant........................................................................... 6-4 CHAPTER7 Report Preparers..................................................................................................... 7-1 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
A City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR
Figures
Figure3-1
Regional Location.....................................................................................................................3-3 Figure3-2
Planning Area............................................................................................................................3-5 Figure3-3
Subareas......................................................................................................................................3-7 Figure 4.1-1
Coastal Views -Map 1 of 3................................................................................................. 4.1-3 Figure 4.1-2
Coastal Views -Map 2 of 3.................................................................................................
4.1-5
Figure 4.1-3
Coastal Views -Map 3 of 3.................................................................................................
4.1-7
Figure 4.3-1
Biological Resources...........................................................................................................4.3-11 Figure 4.3-2
Environmental Study Areas............................................................................................... 4.3-13 Figure4.4-1
Historic Resources................................................................................................................
4.4-7
Figure4.5-1
Regional Fault Map...............................................................................................................
4.5-4
Figure 4.5-2
Seismic Hazards Map........................................................................................................... 4.5-7 Figure 4.5-3
Oil Production Areas..........................................................................................................
4.5-25
Figure 4.5-4
Mineral Resource Zones.................................................................................................... 4.5-29 Figure4.7-1
Water Resources.................................................................................................................... 4.7-5 Figure 4.7-2
Storm Drainage Infrastructure.......................................................................................... 4.7-13 Figure4.7-3
Flood Zones........................................................................................................................ 4.7-17 Figure 4.9-1
Noise Measurement Locations........................................................................................... 4.9-5 Figure 4.9-2
Existing Noise Contours -Western Planning Area ........................................................ 4.9-9 Figure 4.9-3
Existing Noise Contours -Northern Planning Area .................................................... 4.9-11 Figure 4.9-4
Existing Noise Contours -Eastern Planning Area ....................................................... 4.9-13 Figure 4.9-5
Future Noise Contours -Western Planning Area ......................................................... 4.9-23 Figure 4.9-6
Future Noise Contours -Northern Planning Area ....................................................... 4.9-25 Figure 4.9-7
Future Noise Contours -Eastern Planning Area.......................................................... 4.9-27 Figure 4.12-1
Existing Parks...................................................................................................................... 4.12-5 Figure 4.12-2
Proposed Parks and Service Areas...................................................................................
4.12-7
Figure 4.13-1
Newport Beach Traffic Model (NBTM) Primary Study Area ...................................... 4.13-3 Figure 4.13-2
Newport Beach Existing Through Lanes........................................................................
4.13-4
Figure 4.13-3
Existing Count Average Daily Traffic (ADT)................................................................ 4.13-7 Figure 4.13-4
Existing Volume/Capacity (V/C) Ratios........................................................................ 4.13-8 Figure 4.13-5
Intersection Count Locations.........................................................................................
4.13-12
Figure 4.13-6
Existing Public Transit Routes.......................................................................................
4.13-16
Figure 4.13-7
Newport Beach Existing Bicycle Facilities....................................................................
4.13-18
Figure 4.13-8
General Plan Buildout with Project Average Daily Traffic (ADT) ...........................
4.13-26
Figure 4.13-9
General Plan Buildout With Project Volume/Capacity (V/C) Ratios ......................
4.13-27
Figure 4.14.1
Water Infrastructure and Service Areas........................................................................... 4.14-3 Figure 4.14-2
Wastewater Infrastructure and Service Areas...............................................................
4.14-25
City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR A
Tables
Table 2-1
Citywide Land Use Changes................................................................................................... 2-4 Table 2-2
Summary of Impacts Compared to Existing Conditions and Mitigation Measures.................................................................................................................................... 2-7
Table 3-1
Current Elements of the General Plan................................................................................. 3-2
Table3-2
Existing Land Use.................................................................................................................. 3-12
Table 3-3
City of Newport Beach General Plan Update Existing and Proposed Land Use ........ 3-13
Table 3-4
Transportation Improvements under Proposed General Plan Update ......................... 3-18
Table 4.2-1
Summary of Ambient Air Quality at the Costa Mesa Monitoring Station (SRA 18)............................................................................................................................................
4.2-6
Table 4.2-2
AQMP Control Strategies for Local Governments.......................................................
4.2-10
Table 4.2-3
Carbon Monoxide Concentrations at Selected Intersections .......................................
4.2-16
Table 4.5-1
Modified Mercalli Intensity Scale........................................................................................
4.5-5
Table 4.6-1
CERCLIS Sites in the Newport Beach Area.....................................................................
4.6-3
Table 4.6-2
Toxic Release Inventory of Facilities in the Newport Beach Area ................................
4.6-4
Table 4.6-3
EPA -Registered Large -Quantity Generator (LQG) Facilities in Newport Beach ......
4.6-5
Table 4.6-4
Prior Large -Quantity Generator (LQG) Facilities in Newport Beach ..........................
4.6-5
Table 4.6-5
LUSTs Reported in the Newport Beach Area..................................................................
4.6-6
Table 4.7-1
Ocean and Bay Water Closure Postings..........................................................................
4.7-10
Table 4.8-1
Existing Land Use.................................................................................................................
4.8-3
Table 4.8-2
SCAG Regional Comprehensive Plan and Guide Policies ...........................................
4.8-17
Table 4.9-1
Representative Environmental Noise Levels....................................................................
4.9-2
Table 4.9-2
Human Response to Different Levels of Groundborne Vibration ...............................
4.9-4
Table 4.9-3
Existing Daytime Noise Levels at Selected Locations.....................................................
4.9-7
Table 4.9-4
Existing Roadway Noise Levels........................................................................................4.9-15 Table 4.9-5
Incremental Noise Impact Criteria for Noise Sensitive Uses (CNEL, in dBA) ........
4.9-20
Table 4.9-6
Groundborne Vibration and Noise Impact Criteria......................................................4.9-21 Table 4.9-7
Vibration Source Levels for Construction Equipment .................................................
4.9-22
Table 4.9-8
General Plan Update Traffic Noise Contours................................................................
4.9-30
Table 4.9-9
Noise Ranges of Typical Construction Equipment.......................................................4.9-34 Table 4.10-1
Newport Beach Population...............................................................................................
4.10-2
Table 4.10-2
SCAG Population and Households Forecast.................................................................
4.10-2
Table 4.10-3
Households in Newport Beach and Orange County (2000-05)..................................
4.10-3
Table 4.11-1
Fire Station Facilities..........................................................................................................4.11-2 Table 4.11-2
Stations and Staffing Chart...............................................................................................4.11-3 Table 4.11-3
2004 NBFD Statistics.........................................................................................................4.11-4 Table 4.11-4
Average Response Time, from Dispatch to Arrival, for Each Unit in the NBFD for2004................................................................................................................................4.11-6 Table 4.11-5
2005 City of Newport Beach Part I Offenses...............................................................4.11-15 Table 4.11-6
NMUSD School Enrollment 2004/05..........................................................................4.11-19 Table 4.11-7
NBPL Facilities.................................................................................................................4.11-27 Table 4.12-1
Parkland Acreages...............................................................................................................
4.12-3
Table 4.13-1
Roadway Segment Capacities............................................................................................
4.13-9
Table 4.13-2
ICU Level of Service..........................................................................................................
4.13-9
Table 4.13-3
Existing Intersection Count............................................................................................
4.13-10
Table 4.13-4
Existing SR-73 Freeway/Toll Way Mainline Analysis.................................................4.13-13 viii City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR
Table 4.13-5
Existing SR-73 Freeway Peak Hour Ramp Analysis ....................................................
4.13-14
Table 4.13-6
General Plan Buildout with Project Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) ComparisonTo Existing..................................................................................................
4.13-29
Table 4.13-7
Intersection Analysis Summary for General Plan Buildout with Project .................
4.13-33
Table 4.13-8
General Plan Buildout with Project Summary of Improvement Needs Beyond 2005 Existing Lanes..........................................................................................................
4.13-39
Table 4.13-9
General Plan Buildout with Project SR-73 Freeway Peak Hour Ramp Analysis ....
4.13-40
Table 4.13-10
Transportation Improvements under Proposed General Plan Update ....................
4.13-47
Table 4.14-1
Current and Planned Water Supply and Demand (AFY)............................................
4.14-8
Table 4.14-2
Supply Reliability (AFY)....................................................................................................
4.14-9
Table 4.14-3
Projected Normal Water Supply and Demand Comparison (AFY) .........................
4.14-10
Table 4.14-4
Projected Single Dry -Year Supply and Demand Comparison (AFY), 2020 2025 2030.....................................................................................................................................
4.14-10
Table 4.14-5 Projected Supply and Demand Comparison During Multiple Dry -Year Period Ending in 2010 (AFY) 2008............................................................................................
4.14-10
Table 4.14-6
Projected Supply and Demand Comparison During Multiple Dry -Year Period Ending in 2015 (AFY) 2015............................................................................................
4.14-11
Table 4.14-7
Projected Supply and Demand Comparison During Multiple Dry -Year Period Ending in 2020 (AFY) 2019 2020..................................................................................
4.14-11
Table 4.14-8
Projected Supply and Demand Comparison During Multiple Dry -Year Period Ending in 2025(AFY)......................................................................................................
4.14-11
Table 4.14-9
Projected Supply and Demand Comparison During Multiple Dry -Year Period Ending in 2030 (AFY)......................................................................................................
4.14-11
Table 4.14-10
IRWD Historical Water Demand...................................................................................
4.14-12
Table 4.14-11
IRWD Projected Normal Year Supply and Demand Comparison (AFY)...............
4.14-12
Table 4.14-12
Projected Wastewater within the City............................................................................
4.14-31
Table 4.14-13
Landfill Capacity...............................................................................................................
4.14-38
Table 4.14-14
Estimated Increase of Solid Waste Generation............................................................
4.14-44
Table 4.14-15
Southern California Edison Power Content.................................................................
4.14-47
Table 5-1
Citywide Existing and Proposed General Plan Update Designations...............................5-3 Table 5-2
City of Newport Beach General Plan Update and GPAC Recommendation (Alternative 3)......................................................................................................................... 5-13
Table 5-3
City of Newport Beach General Plan Update and Subarea Only Minimum Alternative (Alternative 4).................................................................................................... 5-21
Table 5-4
Comparison of Alternatives to the Proposed Project ...................................................... 5-29
City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR ix
Acronym
Definiffon
ADT
average daily traffic
AELUP
Airport Environs Land Use Plan
AF
acre-feet
AHHPAC
Ad Hoc Historic Preservation Advisory Committee
ALs
action levels
ALS
advanced life support
ALUC
Airport Land Use Commission
AMP
Allen-McColloch Pipeline
ANSI
American National Standards Institute
AQMD
South Coast Air Quality Management District
AQMP
Air Quality Management Plan
ARB
California Air Resources Board
AWG
Airport Working Group
Basin
Orange County Groundwater Basin
Basin Plan
Santa Ana River Basin Water Quality Control Plan
BLS
basic life support
BMD
Beach Mile Days
BMPs
Best Management Practices
BP
before present
BSIP
Bus Service Implementation Program
Cal/EPA
California EPA
CaIARP
California Accidental Release Prevention Program
CBC
California Building Code
CCR
California Code of Regulations
CDFG
California Department of Fish and Game
CDHS
California Department of Health Services
CEC
California Energy Commission
CEQA
California Environmental Quality Act
CERCLA
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980
CERCLIS
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Information System CERT
Community Emergency Response Team
CESA
California Endangered Species Act
CFR
Code of Federal Regulations
CGS
California Geological Survey
CHP
California Highway Patrol
CHRIS
California Historic Resources Information System
CIOSA
Circulation and Improvement and Open Space Agreement
CIWMB
California Integrated Waste Management Board
City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR
Acronym
DeSnNon
CIWMP
Countywide Integrated Waste Management Plan
CLUP
Coastal Land Use Plan
CMP
Congestion Management Program
CMPD
Costa Mesa Police Department
CMSD
Costa Mesa Sanitation District
CNDDB
California Natural Diversity Database
CNPS
California Native Plant Society
CNPSEI
California Native Plant Society's Electronic Inventory
CO
carbon monoxide
COHb
carboxyhemoglobin
CPUC
California Public Utilities Commission
CRHR
California Register of Historical Resources
CRV
California Refund Value
CUPA
Certified Unified Program Agency
CWA
Clean Water Act
CWCP
California Wetlands Conservation Policy
DAMP
Drainage Area Management Plan
dB
Decibel
dBAs
A -weighted decibels
DHS
Department of Health Services
DOC
Department of Conservation
DOF
California Department of Finance
DOGGR
California Division of Oil, Gas and Geothermal Resources DOSH
California Division of Occupational Safety and Health
DRWF
Dyer Road Well Field
DTSC
Department of Toxic Substances Control
DWR
California Department of Water Resources
EIR
Environmental Impact Report
EPA
Environmental Protection Agency
EQAC
Environmental Quality Affairs Citizens Advisory Committee for the City of Newport Beach ESAs
Environmental Study Areas
ESHAs
Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Areas
FAA
Federal Aviation Administration
FCR
Federal Code of Regulations
FEIR
Final EIR
FEMA
Federal Emergency Management Agency
FESA
Federal Endangered Species Act
FHWA
Federal Highway Administration
FIRM
Federal Insurance Rate Maps
FRA
Federal Railroad Administration
FTA
Federal Transit Administration
GEIF
Governmental, Educational, and Institutional Facilities City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR xi
E
Acronym
Definition
GPAC
General Plan Advisory Committee
GPTS
General Plan Transportation Study
GRS
Groundwater Replenishment System
HABS
Historical American Building Survey
HCA
Orange County Health Care Agency
HCD
State Department of Housing and Community Development
HCP
Habitat Conservation Plan
HHWCC
household hazardous waste collection centers
HS
Highway System
HSWA
Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments Act
HUD
Housing and Urban Development
HWCL
Hazardous Waste Control Law
IBC
Irvine Business Complex
ICU
Intersection Count Utilization
IRWD
Irvine Ranch Water District
IS
Initial Study
IS/NOP
Initial Study/Notice of Preparation
ISO
Insurance Service Office
IWMD
Integrated Waste Management Department
JWA
John Wayne Airport
Kg
Kilograms
LAFCO
Local Agency Formation Commission
LBUSD
Laguna Beach Unified School District
LCP
Local Coastal Plan
LEED
Leadership in Environmental and Energy Design
LIP
Implementation Plan
LOMR
Letter of Map Revision
LOS
Level of Service
LQG
Large -Quantity Generator
LUST
Leaking underground storage tank
M
Richter Magnitude
Mbbl
million barrels
MBTA
Migratory Bird Treaty Act
MCE
Maximum Credible Earthquake
MCL
Maximum Contaminant Levels
Mesa
Mesa Consolidated Water District
MG
million gallons
MGD
million gallons per day
MMI
Modified Mercalli Intensity
MMP
Mitigation Monitoring Program
MPE
Maximum Probable Earthquake
MRZ
Mineral Resource Zones
A City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR
Acronym
Definition
MSHCP
Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan
Mw
Moment Magnitude
MWD
Metropolitan Water District of Southern California
MWD
Metropolitan Water District
MWDOC
Municipal Water District of Orange County
MWRP
Michelson Water Reclamation Plant
NBFD
Newport Beach Fire Department
NBPD
Newport Beach Police Department
NBPL
Newport Beach Public Library
NBTM
Newport Beach Traffic Model
NCCP
Natural Communities Conservation Plan
NDMA
N-nitrosodimethylamine
NFIP
National Flood Insurance Program
NFRAP
No Further Remedial Action Planned
NIMS
National Incident Management System
NMUSD
Newport -Mesa Unified School District
NO2
nitrogen dioxide
NOP
Notice of Preparation
NOx
nitrogen oxides
NPDES
National Pollution Discharge Elimination System
NPL
National Priorities List
NRHP
National Register of Historic Places
OCFA
Orange County Fire Authority
OCFA
Orange County Fire Authority
OCFCD
Orange County Flood Control District
OCSD
Orange County Sanitation District
OCSD
Orange County Sheriff Department
OCTA
Orange County Transportation Authority
OCWCRD
Orange County Watershed & Coastal Resources Division
OCWD
Orange County Water District
OEHHA
State Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment
OES
Office of Emergency Services
OHWM
ordinary high water mark
OSBR
Ocean Safety and Beach Rescue
OSHA
Occupational Safety and Health Administration
Pb
Lead
PCH
Pacific Coast Highway
PERC
Tetrachloroethylene
PM10
Respirable Particulate Matter
PPC
Public Protection Classification
PRC
Public Resources Code Section
psi
per square inch
City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR xiii
Acronym
Definiffon
PUC
California Public Utilities Commission
RCPG
Regional Comprehensive Plan and Guide
RCRA
Resources Conservation and Recovery Act
RDMD
Orange County Resources and Development Management Department RELOOC
Regional Landfill Options for Orange County
RMS
remote monitoring systems
RWQCB
California Regional Water Quality Control Board
SARA
Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act
SARWQCB
Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board
SAUSD
Santa Ana Unified School District
SCAG
Southern California Association of Government
SCAQMD
South Coast Air Quality Management District
SCE
Southern California Edison Company
SCG
Southern California Gas Company
SDMP
Storm Drain Master Plan
SDWA
Federal Safe Drinking Water Act
SEMS
Standardized Emergency Management System
SHPO
State Historic Preservation Office
SIP
State Implementation Plan
SMARA
Surface Mining and Reclamation Act
S02
sulfur dioxide
Sol
Sphere of Influence
SR-1
State Route 1
SRAs
source receptor areas
SRRE
Source Reduction and Recycling Element
SSMP
Sewer System Management Plan
SSO
sanitary sewer overflow
STIP
Statewide Transportation Improvement Program
SWPPP
Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan
SWRCB
State Water Resources Control Board
TAC
Toxic air contaminants
TBR
Technical Background Report
TDM
Travel Demand Management
TIA
traffic impact analysis
TMDLs
Total Maximum Daily Loads
TRI
Toxics Release Inventory
TSM
Transportation Systems Management
UBC
Uniform Building Code
UC
Urban Crossroads
USACE
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
USDOT
United States Department of Transportation
USFWS
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
xiv City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR
Acronym
Definifion
USGS
U.S. Geological Survey
UST
underground storage tanks
VIC
volume/capacity
VdB
vibration decibels
VMT
vehicle miles traveled
VOCs
volatile organic compounds
WDRs
Waste Discharge Requirements
WEC
Watershed Executive Committee
WMC
Watershed Management Committee
WQMP
Water Quality Management Plan
City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR xv
This Environmental Impact Report (EIR) examines the potential effects of the proposed General Plan Update for Newport Beach (proposed project). The proposed General Plan Update's background and the legal basis for preparing an EIR are described below.
1.1 PURPOSE AND LEGAL AUTHORITY
The last comprehensive update of the City's General Plan was in 1988. The City is proposing a new comprehensive update of the General Plan that requires the review and recommendation for adoption by the Planning Commission and the discretionary approval of the City Council of the City of Newport Beach. Adoption of the proposed General Plan Update is considered a project under the State of California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and is, therefore, subject to CEQA requirements. In accordance with Section 15121 of the CEQA Guidelines the purpose of this EIR is to serve as an informational document that:
... will inform public agency decision -makers and the public generally of the significant environmental effects of a project, identify possible ways to minimize the significant effects, and describe reasonable alternatives to the project.
The EIR must also disclose significant environmental impacts that cannot be avoided, growth inducing impacts, effects not found to be significant, and significant cumulative impacts of all past, present, and reasonably anticipated future projects.
This EIR has been prepared as a Program EIR pursuant to Section 15168 of the CEQA Guidelines. A Program EIR is an EIR that is prepared on a series of actions that can be characterized as one large project. As stated in the CEQA Guidelines, the use of a Program EIR can provide the following advantages:
1. Provide an occasion for a more exhaustive consideration of effects and alternatives than would be practical in an EIR on an individual action;
2. Ensure consideration of cumulative impacts that might be slighted in a case -by -case analysis;
3. Avoid duplicative reconsideration of basic policy considerations;
4. 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;
5. Allow reduction in paperwork.
This EIR will review the existing conditions of the City of Newport Beach and the Planning Area, analyze potential environmental impacts from implementation of the proposed General Plan Update, identify policies from the proposed General Plan Update that serve to reduce and minimize impacts, and identify additional mitigation measures, if necessary, to reduce potentially significant impacts of the General Plan Update. As the EIR does not focus on any specific development projects within the City, City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 1-1
subsequent activities in the City that involve individual projects must be examined in the light of the Program EIR to determine whether any additional environmental review is necessary. If it is determined that an individual project would result in adverse impacts on the environment, a specific Project EIR would then be required.
In accordance with Section 15166 of the CEQA Guidelines, two General Plan documents are being used to satisfy the requirements for a Draft EIR for the proposed General Plan Update. The two documents are the City of Newport Beach General Plan Technical Background Report (TBR), which describes the existing physical conditions, demographics, and trends in the Planning Area, and this EIR, which assesses the physical environmental impacts to the Planning Area from implementation of the proposed General Plan Update. The City of Newport Beach General Plan TBR provides existing data for the entire Planning Area. The TBR was published June 2004 and is available for review at the Newport Beach Planning Department and Central Library.
The purpose of this report is to serve as an informational document for the public and City of Newport Beach decision -makers. The process will culminate with Planning Commission and City Council hearings to consider certification of a Final EIR (FEIR) and a decision on whether or not to approve the proposed General Plan Update.
1.2 SCOPE OF THE EIR
This EIR addresses the potential environmental effects of Newport Beach's proposed General Plan Update. As the proposed General Plan Update is a comprehensive plan that outlines the future potential for growth and development within the City, the scope of the EIR includes an examination of all environmental issues that are considered in Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines. In addition, the environmental issues analyzed in this document will also include those areas determined to be potentially significant by the Notice of Preparation (NOP), responses to the NOP, consulting staff, and the City of Newport Beach. The NOP and comment letters received during the NOP review period are included in Appendix A of this EIR. The NOP identified potentially significant impacts on the following issue areas associated with implementation of the proposed General Plan Update, which are addressed in detail in this EIR:
■ Aesthetics and Visual Quality
■ Air Quality
■ Biological Resources
■ Cultural Resources
■ Geology, Soils, and Mineral Resources
■ Hazards and Hazardous Materials
■ Hydrology and Water Quality
■ Land Use and Planning
■ Noise
■ Population and Housing
■ Public Services
■ Recreation
1-2 City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR
■ Transportation/Traffic
■ Utilities and Service Systems
In accordance with Section 15128 (Effects Not Found to Be Significant) of the CEQA Guidelines, Chapter 6 of this EIR provides reasons why some environmental impacts related to Agriculture were not considered significant and, therefore, are not analyzed further in this EIR.
In preparing the EIR, pertinent policies of the proposed General Plan Update were evaluated for their ability to reduce impacts resulting from the proposed General Plan Update. Regional and local agencies that regulate and provide services to the City and its SOI were also contacted for information. A list of references and persons consulted are provided in at the end of each chapter.
Chapter 5 (Alternatives) of the EIR was prepared in accordance with Section 15126.6 of the CEQA Guidelines. It also identifies the "environmentally superior" alternative among the alternatives assessed.
The alternatives analyzed in this EIR include the CEQA-required "no project" alternative, the continued implementation of the City's existing General Plan, and two additional reduced intensity alternatives.
1.2.1 Environmental Setting/Definition of the Baseline
According to Section 15125 of the CEQA Guidelines, an EIR must include a description of the existing physical environmental conditions in the vicinity of the project to provide the "baseline condition" against which project -related impacts are compared. Normally, the baseline condition is the physical condition that exists when the Notice of Preparation (NOP) is published. The NOP for the General Plan Update EIR was published in January 2006. However, the CEQA Guidelines recognize that the date for establishing an environmental baseline cannot be rigid. Because physical environmental conditions may vary over a range of time periods, the use of environmental baselines that differ from the date of the NOP is reasonable and appropriate when doing so results in a more accurate or conservative environmental analysis.
For analytical purposes, impacts associated with implementation of the General Plan Update are derived from the existing environmental setting in the June 2004 Technical Background Report (TBR) prepared for the proposed project. Although the TBR was published in 2004, it is based on 2002 data. This baseline year (2002) is used for all impact areas analyzed in this EIR to determine impacts. Where it was feasible to present more current information, the more current information is also provided and analyzed. The TBR presents a more conservative analysis for this EIR because the TBR does not include the growth authorized under the existing General Plan that occurred between 2002 and the January 2006 NOP publication date. As a result, the allowable growth under the proposed land use changes (as defined by proposed General Plan buildout) in some areas is actually much less than what was used to analyze the environmental impacts in this EIR. For example, under the current General Plan Hoag Project had already been built between 2002 and 2006. Therefore, while the proposed General Plan Update was evaluated with a baseline to projected growth in West Newport Mesa of more than one million square feet of institutional uses, actually as of the date the NOP, significantly less than one million square feet is projected growth under the Proposed General Plan Update. Thus, this EIR presents a worst -case scenario based upon the maximum potential development within the City and adjacent areas from 2002 City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 1-3
through 2030.As a practical matter, as illustrated by the less than full build out under the current General Plan, actual development in any city or county is substantially less than the entitlement or theoretical limit of development because of building and zoning restrictions as well as market forces.
1.2.2 Plan Comparison
This EIR evaluates the potential impacts of the proposed land use changes and associated growth potential compared to the existing setting/baseline conditions, as described above. In some cases, the existing General Plan growth potential is also discussed to provide additional information to the reader of the differences or changes between the existing and proposed General Plan Update. However, the impacts analysis presented in this document is not a comparison of the existing to proposed General Plan Update.
1.3 INTENDED USE OF THE EIR
This EIR has been prepared to analyze potentially significant environmental impacts associated with future development resulting from implementation of the proposed General Plan Update, and also addresses appropriate and feasible mitigation measures or project alternatives that would minimize or eliminate these impacts. Additionally, this EIR will provide the primary source of environmental information for the City of Newport Beach, which is the Lead Agency, to use when considering the proposed General Plan Update.
This EIR is intended to provide decision -makers and the public with information that enables them to intelligently consider the environmental consequences of the proposed action. This EIR identifies significant or potentially significant environmental effects, as well as ways in which those impacts can be reduced to less -than -significant levels, whether through the imposition of mitigation measures or through the implementation of specific alternatives to the project. In a practical sense, this document functions as a technique for fact-finding, allowing concerned citizens and agency staff an opportunity to collectively review and evaluate baseline conditions and project impacts through a process of full disclosure.
To gain the most value from this report, certain key points recommended in the CEQA Guidelines should be kept in mind:
■ This report should be used as a tool to give the reader an overview of the possible ramifications of the proposed General Plan Update. It is designed to be an "early warning system" with regard to potential environmental impacts and subsequent effects on the local community's environmental resources.
■ A specific environmental impact is not necessarily irreversible or permanent. Most impacts, particularly in more developed urban areas, can be wholly or partially mitigated by incorporating the General Plan policies referenced in this report.
■ This report, while a summary of facts, reflects the professional judgment of the author. Therefore, the reader will have to individually weigh the facts that it reports. 1-4 City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR
1.4 LEAD, RESPONSIBLE, AND TRUSTEE AGENCIES
Per the CEQA Guidelines, this EIR defines lead, responsible, and trustee agencies. The City of Newport Beach is the lead agency for the project because it holds principal responsibility for approving the project. A responsible agency refers to a public agency other than the lead agency that has discretionary approval over the project. A trustee agency is a state agency having jurisdiction by law over natural resources affected by a project, which are held in trust for the people of the state. Agencies that would serve as both the responsible agency and the trustee agency for the proposed project may include the California Coastal Commission, the California Department of Fish and Game, the California Department of Transportation, and/or the Regional Water Quality Control Board.
1.5 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW PROCESS
This EIR has been prepared to meet all of the substantive and procedural requirements of CEQA of 1970 (California Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq.), California CEQA Guidelines (California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Section 15000 et seq.), and the rules, regulations and procedures for the implementation of CEQA as adopted by the City of Newport Beach. Accordingly, as discussed above, the City of Newport Beach has been identified as the Lead Agency for this project, taking primary responsibility for conducting the environmental review and approving or denying the project.
The proposed General Plan Update will serve as a comprehensive document that will guide future potential growth and development within the City. The Lead Agency has determined that an EIR for the proposed General Plan Update would best serve the City if it contains a comprehensive examination of all environmental issues that are contained in Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines with the exception of Agricultural Resources. The City, therefore, prepared an Initial Study (IS) to eliminate Agricultural Resources from further review and to make a preliminary determination of the impacts for the other environmental issue areas. The EIR that will analyze all aspects of the proposed General Plan Update to determine whether any aspect of the project, either individually or cumulatively, may cause a significant effect on the environment with regards to the environmental issues listed above in Section 1.2.
After completion of the IS, the City filed a Notice of Preparation (NOP), included in Appendix A, with the California Office of Planning and Research as an indication that an EIR would be prepared. In turn, the IS/NOP was distributed to involved public agencies and interested parties for a 30-day public review period, which began on January 27, 2006, and ended on February 27, 2006. The purpose of the public review period was to solicit comments on the scope and content of the environmental analysis to be included in the EIR. The City received seventeen comment letters on the IS/NOP, which are included in Appendix A of this EIR.
During preparation of the EIR, agencies, organizations, and persons who the City believed might have an interest in this project were specifically contacted. Information, data, and observations from these contacts are included in the EIR. Agencies or interested persons who did not respond during the public review period of the NOP will have an opportunity to comment during the public review period for the Draft EIR, as well as at subsequent hearings on the proposed General Plan Update.
City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 1-5
This EIR will be distributed to affected agencies, surrounding cities, involved public agencies, and interested parties for a 45-day review period in accordance with Section 15087 of the CEQA Guidelines.
During the 45-day public review period, this EIR is available for general public review on the City's website ( www.city.newport-beach.ca.us/) and at the following locations:
City of Newport Beach, Planning Department
3300 Newport Boulevard
Newport Beach, CA 92658-8915
Newport Beach Public Library
Central Branch
1000 Avocado Avenue
Newport Beach, Ca 92660
Interested parties may provide comments on the EIR in written form. Comments should be addressed to the City of Newport Beach to the following address:
Greg B. Ramirez, Senior Planner
Planning Department
City of Newport Beach
3300 Newport Boulevard
P.O. Box 1768
Newport Beach, CA 92658-8915
Upon completion of the 45-day public review period, written responses to all significant comments raised with respect to environmental issues discussed in the EIR will be prepared and incorporated into the Final EIR. Furthermore, written responses to comments received from any State agencies will be made available to these agencies at least 10 days prior to the public hearing during which the certification of the FEIR will be considered. These comments, and their responses, will be included in the FEIR for consideration by the City of Newport Beach Planning Commission and City Council, as well as any other public decision -makers.
According to Public Resources Code Section (PRC) 21081, the Lead Agency must make specific Findings of Fact ("Findings") before approving the FEIR, when the EIR identifies significant environmental impacts that may result from a project. The purpose of the Findings is to establish the link between the contents of the FEIR and the action of the Lead Agency with regard to approval or rejection of the project. Prior to approval of a project, one of three findings must be made:
■ Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the FEIR. ■ Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and not the agency making the finding. Such changes have been adopted by such other agency or can and should be adopted by such other agency.
■ Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the FEIR.
1-6 City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR
Additionally, according to PRC Section 21081.6, for projects in which significant impacts will be avoided by mitigation measures, the Lead Agency must include a mitigation monitoring program (MMP). The purpose of the MMP is to ensure compliance with required mitigation during implementation of the project.
However, environmental impacts may not always be mitigated to a less -than -significant level. When this occurs, impacts are considered significant and unavoidable. If a public agency approves a project that has significant and unavoidable impacts, the agency shall state in writing the specific reasons for approving the project, based on the FEIR and any other information in the public record. This is termed a "Statement of Overriding Considerations" and is used to explain the specific reasons why the benefits of a proposed project make its unavoidable environmental effects acceptable. The statement is prepared, if required, after the FEIR has been completed, yet before action to approve the project has been taken.
1.6 AREAS OF CONTROVERSY AND ISSUES TO BE RESOLVED
During the environmental review process, NOP comment letters were received that outlined areas of potential controversy and issues to be resolved. These issues are discussed within the technical sections of this document, and summarized below.
■ John WYlayne Airport and Orange County Ahport Land Use Commission —Development under the General Plan Update should be consistent with the Orange County Airport Land Use Commission's Airport Environs Land Use Plan, as well as all other land use policies pertaining to areas in the vicinity of an airport.
■ California Department of Transportation (Caltrans)—The proposed project should adhere to all applicable plans and policies emphasizing coordination between the City and Caltrans early in the land use and transportation planning process.
■ South Coast Air Quality Management District (AQMD)—AQMD recommends using the CEQA Air Quality Handbook as guidance when preparing its air quality analysis. The proposed project should identify any potential adverse air quality impacts that could occur from all phases of the proposed project and all air pollutant sources related to the project. Air quality impacts from both construction and operations should be considered, as well as air quality impacts from indirect sources. An analysis of all toxic air contaminant impacts should also be included. ■ Neighboring Municipalities —Municipalities adjacent to the Planning Area recommend full analysis of land use intensity and traffic changes, specifically including the Airport Area, West Newport Mesa, and Banning Ranch subareas of the Planning Area.
■ Environmental Quality Affairs Citi.Zens Advisory Committee —The proposed project should address potential impacts to population and housing development, hazardous emissions within the vicinity of a school, and the provision of visitor -serving facilities and land uses. Potential impacts of the addition of schools to accommodate new students due to new residential development must also be analyzed. A full discussion of transportation and circulation issues should be provided, including potential impacts associated with roadway improvements and levels of traffic congestion. ■ Greenlight—Possible adverse effects of the proposed General Plan Update on increased traffic levels within the City. All potential transportation and circulation impacts should be fully evaluated. ■ Public Comments and Citi.Zens Groups —A comprehensive analysis of population change, the provision of park acreage, and change in land area and land use under the proposed General Plan Update should be provided. Additionally, all proposed transportation improvements must be discussed.
City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 1-7
1.7 DOCUMENT ORGANIZATION
This EIR has been designed for easy use and reference. To help the reader locate information of particular interest, a brief summary of the contents of each section of the EIR is provided. The following chapters are contained within the EIR:
■ Chapter 1: Introduction —This section describes the purpose, approach, intended use, and scope of the EIR, a summary of the environmental and public review process, the project's relevant agencies, the availability of the EIR, documents incorporated by reference, areas of controversy and issues to be resolved, and a brief outline of this document's organization. ■ Chapter 2: Executive Summary —This section contains a summary of the proposed project, as well as an overview of the scope of the EIR. This section provides a summary of environmental impacts, proposed mitigation, level of significance after mitigation, and unavoidable impacts. ■ Chapter 3: Project Description —This section provides a detailed description of the proposed General Plan Update, including a description of the project location, environmental setting, project background, project objectives, and project characteristics. ■ Chapter 4: Environmental Analysis —This section describes and evaluates the environmental issue areas, applicable environmental thresholds, environmental impacts (both short-term and long-term), policy considerations related to the particular environmental issue area under analysis, mitigation measures capable of minimizing environmental harm, and a discussion of cumulative impacts. Where additional actions must be taken to ensure consistency with environmental policies, recommendations are made, as appropriate.
■ Chapter 5: Project Alternatives —This section analyzes feasible alternatives to the proposed General Plan Update, including the No Project Alternative, the continuation of the City's existing General Plan, and two additional reduced intensity alternatives. ■ Chapter 6: Other CEQA Considerations —This chapter provides analysis, as required by CEQA, regarding impacts that would result from the proposed General Plan Update, including effects found not to be significant, growth -inducing impacts, cumulative impacts, significant irreversible change to the environment, and significant and unavoidable adverse impacts. ■ Chapter 7: Report Preparers —This section identifies all individuals responsible for the preparation of this EIR.
1-8 City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR
This section summarizes the characteristics of the proposed City of Newport Beach General Plan Update, the environmental impacts, mitigation measures, and impacts associated with the proposed project.
2.1 INTRODUCTION
This Program EIR discusses the environmental impacts associated with implementation of the proposed General Plan Update for the City of Newport Beach and its Sphere of Influence (SOI). A complete description of the proposed General Plan Update is provided in Chapter 3 of this document, and a summary of the proposed General Plan Update components is provided below. This Program EIR provides a discussion of impacts by issue area and provides mitigation measures, where appropriate.
Specific issue areas discussed in this document include the following:
■ Aesthetics and Visual Quality
■ Air Quality
■ Biological Resources
■ Cultural Resources
■ Geology, Soils, and Mineral Resources
■ Hazards and Hazardous Materials
■ Hydrology and Water Quality
■ Land Use and Planning
■ Noise
■ Population and Housing
■ Public Services
■ Recreation
■ Transportation and Traffic
■ Utilities and Service Systems
Discussions of these issue areas are provided in Sections 4.1 through 4.14 of this document. According to California Code of Regulations §65302, there is no requirement that economic or social issues be included as elements to the General Plan. As the EIR is concerned with physical environmental impacts resulting from implementation of the proposed General Plan Update, economic and social impacts not related or resulting from environmental impacts were excluded from this document. An analysis of alternatives to the proposed General Plan Update and long-term implications resulting from implementation of the plan are also provided.
2.2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The City of Newport Beach is currently updating their General Plan. The proposed General Plan Update is a comprehensive update of the current General Plan. Elements of the existing General Plan have been City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 2-1
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/Mobility
■ Recreation
■ Natural Resources
■ Safety
■ Noise
■ Historic Resources
■ Arts and Cultural Resources
■ Harbor and Bay
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.
The 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.
Newport Beach is almost fully developed. Therefore, the proposed General Plan Update 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 proposed General Plan Update conserves the existing pattern of uses and intensity of development, and establishes policies for protection and long-term maintenance of established neighborhoods.
Generally, new development in accordance with the proposed General Plan Update 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 a few 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. Development outside of these subareas remains relatively unchanged from the existing General Plan with changes made only to select locations where circumstances warrant. The subareas where change could occur represent only 10.5 percent of the total land area of the City. They have been divided into districts and corridors, according to their physical characteristics.
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 2-2 City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR
these changes to assure that they complement the characteristics that are valued by Newport Beach's residents. The City has identified the following districts:
■ West Newport Mesa
■ Newport Center/Fashion Island
■ John Wayne Airport Area
■ Banning Ranch
■ Balboa Peninsula
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 policies in the proposed General Plan Update 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. The City has identified the following corridors:
■ West Newport Highway
■ Old Newport Boulevard
■ Mariners' Mile
■ Corona del Mar
Other Land Use Changes
While land use changes are proposed for other areas of the City by the updated General Plan, these areas would retain the basic land use character of existing uses. Land use intensification would also result throughout the City in areas where no changes in use are proposed, but additional development is permitted under the existing General Plan. Because no new land use patterns would be established, no conflicts of use would result.
The area bounded by Irvine Avenue, 15`h Street, St. Andrews Road, and Coral Place is currently designated for multi -family and is developed with a mix of housing units, including older apartments, small lot units, and single-family detached units. The proposed General Plan Update would re -designate this area as single-family residential to allow for consistency with the current development trend in the area replacing higher -density apartments with small -lot residential and detached units.
Another area where changes would take place is along the southern frontage of Westcliff Drive, east of Irvine Avenue, and the western frontage of Dover Drive, south of Westcliff Drive. Changes in this area include re -designating the area from Administrative, Professional, and Financial Commercial uses to mixed use, allowing a mix of office and multi -family residential uses. Any new residential development in this area would be compatible with the existing residential uses behind these properties.
City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 2-3
The Caltrans Remnant property, bounded by the SR 73, MacArthur Boulevard, and University Drive is currently a vacant property and would be re -designated for commercial use under the proposed General Plan Update.
The north side of San Miguel Drive, east of San Joaquin Hills Road, and west of Newport Hills Drive, which is currently a single parcel formerly used as a child care facility, abutting multi -family residential uses, would be re -designated as multiple -family residential. This would allow for consistency with adjacent land uses.
The property west of Big Canyon Reservoir, north of Pacific View Drive is currently developed with institutional (church) and senior affordable housing. Under the proposed General Plan Update, this area would be re -designated as multi -family residential also to promote consistency with adjacent land uses.
2.2.1 Potential Land Use Changes
Implementation of the proposed General Plan Update would result in varied opportunities for development consisting of buildout of existing entitlements, 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 defined areas. Table 2-1 compares development that could result at the fullest intensity allowed under the proposed General Plan Update with existing development in the City as of 2002. This table also includes a comparison of buildout of the existing General Plan with existing development.
Table
.- Land Use Changes
Single-Family
Multi -Family
Visitor Serving
Residential
Residential
Commercial Industrial (hotel and
Institutional
Parks
(units)
(units)
(st) s motel rooms) Offices
s
(acre)
Existing
18,702
21,477
5,539,388
1,569,229
3,365
12,616,827
694,820
133.5
Development
Existing General
19,570
30,159
7,412,132
2,234,242
5,676
14,576,930
893,213
178.8
Plan
General Plan
Update
20,402
33,992
7,685,030
1,163,460
6,549
12,867,500
853,413
254.7
Increase —General
Plan Update vs.
g 1 %
58.3%
38.7%
(25.8%)
94.6%
2.0%
22.8%
90.8/° °
Existing
Development
Increase —General
Plan Update vs.
4.2%
12.7%
3.7%
(54.7%)
47.9%
(13.3%)
(4.4 /°%)
42.4 °
/°
Existing General
Plan
2-4 City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR
2.3 CLASSIFICATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Potential environmental impacts have been classified in the following categories:
■ Less Than Significant —Results in no substantial adverse change to existing environmental conditions
■ Potentially Significant —Constitutes a substantial adverse change to existing environmental conditions that can be mitigated to less -than -significant levels by implementation of feasible mitigation measures or by the selection of an environmentally superior project alternative ■ Significant and Unavoidable —Constitutes a substantial adverse change to existing environmental conditions that cannot be fully mitigated by implementation of all feasible mitigation measures, or by the selection of an environmentally superior project alternative
2.4 SYNOPSIS OF ALTERNATIVES
As required by Section 15126.6(a) of the State CEQA Guidelines and recent court cases, an EIR must:
Describe a range of reasonable alternatives to the project, or to the location of the project, which would feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the project but would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project, and evaluate the comparative merits of the alternatives.
Further, Section 15126.6(b) Guidelines state:
The discussion of alternatives shall focus on alternatives to the project or its location which are capable of avoiding or substantially lessening any significant effects of the project, even if these alternatives would impede to some degree the attainment of the project objectives, or would be more costly.
Alternatives evaluated in this EIR include the following:
■ Alternative 1: No Project/No Development —With this alternative, development under the proposed General Plan Update would not occur. The Planning Area would remain developed with existing land uses.
■ Alternative 2: No Project/No Action (Existing General Plan) —With this alternative, development under the proposed General Plan Update would not occur. Development would be guided by continued implementation of the existing General Plan. ■ Alternative 3: GPAC Recommendations —With this alternative, development under the General Plan would consist of the land use recommendations formulated by GPAC. The Alternatives Chapter of the EIR will provide a detailed breakdown of the proposed land uses under this Alternative.
■ Alternative 4: 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.
The Subarea Only Minimum is considered the environmentally superior alternative.
City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 2-5
2.5 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Pursuant to Section 15123(b)(1) of the State CEQA Guidelines, Table 2-2 contains a summary of less - than -significant, potentially significant, or significant and unavoidable environmental impacts associated with the proposed General Plan Update, mitigation measures that would reduce or avoid those effects, and the level of significance of the impacts following the implementation of mitigation measures. 2-6 City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR
Aesthetics and Visual Quality
Impact 4.1-1 Scenic vistas could potentially be
obstructed as the result of new development.
LTS
No mitigation is required.
LTS
Impact 4.1-2 Development under the proposed
LTS
No mitigation is required.
LTS
General Plan Update could change the visual
character of portions of the City.
Impact 4.1-3 New sources of light and glare would be
PS
No feasible mitigation measures are available.
SU
created in the Banning Ranch subarea by new
developments under the proposed General Plan
Update.
Air Quality
Impact 4.2-1 Implementation of the proposed General
PS
No feasible mitigation measures are available.
SU
Plan Update would conflict with or obstruct
implementation of the Air Quality Management Plan.
Impact 4.2-2 Implementation of the proposed General
PS
No feasible mitigation measures are available.
SU
Plan Update would result in construction emissions
that would contribute substantially to an existing or
projected air quality violation.
Impact 4.2-3 Implementation of the proposed General
PS
No feasible mitigation measures are available.
SU
Plan Update would result in a cumulatively
considerable net increase of criteria pollutants for
which the region is in nonattainment under an
applicable national or State ambient air quality
standard.
Impact 4.2-4 Implementation of the proposed General
LTS
No mitigation is required.
LTS
Plan Update could expose sensitive receptors to
substantial CO concentrations.
Impact 4.2-5 Implementation of the proposed General
LTS
No mitigation is required.
LTS
Plan Update could create objectionable odors that
could affect a substantial number of people.
City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 2-7
Biological Resources
Impact 4.3-1 Development allowed under the
LTS
No mitigation is required.
LTS
proposed General Plan Update could result in
potential adverse impacts either directly or indirectly through habitat modifications, to candidate, sensitive, or special status plant and wildlife species.
Impact 4.3-2 Development allowed under the
LTS
No mitigation is required.
LTS
proposed General Plan Update could result in adverse
effects on riparian habitat or other sensitive natural
community identified in local or regional plans,
policies, and regulations, or by the CDFG or USFWS.
Impact 4.3-3 Development under the proposed
LTS
No mitigation is required.
LTS
General Plan Update could interfere with the
movement of native resident or migratory fish or
wildlife species or corridors.
Cultural Resources
Impact 4.4-1 Development under the proposed
PS
No feasible mitigation measures are available.
SU
General Plan Update would result in the demolition of
historic structures.
Impact 4.4-2 Ground -disturbing activities associated
LTS
No mitigation is required.
LTS
with development under the proposed General Plan
Update could result in damage to or destruction of
archaeological and/or Native American cultural
resources.
Impact 4.4-3 Ground -disturbing activities associated
LTS
No mitigation is required.
LTS
with development under the proposed General Plan
Update could result in damage to or destruction of
unique paleontological resources within rock units or
geologic features.
Impact 4.4-4 Ground -disturbing activities associated
LTS
No mitigation is required.
LTS
with development under the proposed General Plan
Update could result in damage to or destruction of
human burial grounds.
2-8 City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR
Geology and Soils
Impact 4.5-1 Implementation of the General Plan
LTS
No mitigation is required.
LTS
Update could expose people or structures to adverse
effects involving strong seismic ground shaking.
Impact 4.5-2 Implementation of the General Plan
LTS
No mitigation is required.
LTS
Update could expose people or structures to adverse
effects involving seismic -related ground failure or
landslides.
Impact 4.5-3 Implementation of the proposed General
LTS
No mitigation is required.
LTS
Plan Update could result in substantial soil erosion
and the loss of topsoil.
Impact 4.5-4 Implementation of the proposed General
LTS
No mitigation is required.
LTS
Plan Update could subject people and structures to
hazards associated with lateral spreading,
subsidence, collapse, differential settlement, or
heaving.
Impact 4.5-5 Implementation of the proposed General
LTS
No mitigation is required.
LTS
Plan Update could result in the construction of
facilities on expansive soils, creating substantial risk to people and structures.
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Impact 4.6-1 Implementation of the proposed General
LTS
No mitigation is required.
LTS
Plan Update could result in an increase in commercial
development that could increase the overall routine
transport, use, storage, and disposal of hazardous
materials within the City.
Impact 4.6-2 Construction activities associated with
LTS
No mitigation is required.
LTS
implementation of the proposed General Plan Update
could result in the release of hazardous materials to
the environment through reasonably foreseeable
upset and accident conditions.
City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 2-9
Table 2-2 Summary
of Impacts
Compared to Existing Conditions and Mitigation Measures Significance
Significance
Impact
Before Mitigation
Mitigation Measures
AfferMitigafion
Impact 4.6-3 Operation of future land uses that could
LTS
No mitigation is required.
LTS
be developed under the proposed project could create
a significant hazard to the public or the environment
through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident
conditions involving the release of hazardous
materials into the environment.
Impact 4.6-4 Implementation of the proposed General
LTS
No mitigation is required.
LTS
Plan Update could result in a safety hazard as a result of existing oil wells or methane gas areas within the
City.
Impact 4.6-5 Implementation of the proposed General
LTS
No mitigation is required.
LTS
Plan Update could emit hazardous emissions or
handle acutely hazardous materials, substances, or
waste within one -quarter mile of an existing or
proposed school.
Impact 4.6-6 The proposed General Plan Update
LTS
No mitigation is required.
LTS
includes sites which are included on a list of
hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to
Government Code Section 65962.5 and as a result,
could create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment.
Impact 4.6-7 Implementation of the proposed General
LTS
No mitigation is required.
LTS
Plan Update could result in a safety hazard for people
residing or working in the Planning Area as a result of the proximity of a public airport.
Impact 4.6-8 Implementation of the proposed General
LTS
No mitigation is required.
LTS
Plan Update could result in interference with an
adopted emergency response plan or emergency
evacuation plan.
Impact 4.6-9 Implementation of the proposed General
LTS
No mitigation is required.
LTS
Plan Update could result in development in urbanized
areas adjacent to or intermixed with wildlands.
2-10 City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR
Hydrology and Water Quality
Impact 4.7-1 Development under the proposed
LTS
No mitigation is required.
LTS
General Plan Update could result in an increase in
pollutants in stormwater and wastewater, although
water quality standards and waste discharge
requirements would not be violated.
Impact 4.7-2 Development of the proposed General
LTS
No mitigation is required.
LTS
Plan Update could create additional impervious
surfaces, which could interfere with groundwater
recharge. Development could substantially deplete
groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with
groundwater recharge.
Impact 4.7-3 Development under the proposed
LTS
No mitigation is required.
LTS
General Plan Update could alter the existing drainage
pattern of the Planning Area and potentially result in
erosion and siltation.
Impact 4.7-4 Development under the proposed
LTS
No mitigation is required.
LTS
General Plan Update could alter the existing drainage
pattern of the Planning Area and potentially result in
increased downstream flooding through the addition of
impervious surfaces, exceeding the capacity of
existing or planned stormwater drainage systems, or
providing substantial additional sources of polluted
runoff.
Impact 4.7-5 Increases in stormwater runoff could
LTS
No mitigation is required.
LTS
require expansion of existing or construction of new
storm drain facilities, the construction of which could result in significant environmental effects.
Impact 4.7-6 Development under the proposed
LTS
No mitigation is required.
LTS
General Plan Update could result in the degradation of
groundwater quality.
Impact 4.7-7 Development under the proposed
LTS
No mitigation is required.
LTS
General Plan Update could place housing within a
100-year flood zone.
City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 2-11
Table 2-2 Summary
of Impacts
Compared to Existing Conditions and Mitigation Measures Significance
Significance
Impact
Before Mitigation
Mitigation Measures
After Wgafion
Impact 4.7-8 Development under the proposed
LTS
No mitigation is required.
LTS
General Plan Update could place structures within a
100-year flood zone, but not in a manner that would
substantially impede or redirect flows.
Impact 4.7-9 Development under the proposed
LTS
No mitigation is required.
LTS
General Plan Update could expose people and
structures to flood risks.
Impact 4.7-10 Development under the proposed
LTS
No mitigation is required.
LTS
General Plan Update could expose people and
structures to flood risks.
Land Use and Planning
Impact 4.8-1 Implementation of the proposed General
LTS
No mitigation is required.
LTS
Plan Update could involve new uses and structures
that may result in intensification of development within the Planning Area that creates incompatibilities with
adjacent land uses.
Impact 4.8-2 Implementation of the proposed General
LTS
No mitigation is required.
LTS
Plan Update could physically divide an established
community.
Impact 4.8-3 Implementation of the proposed General
LTS
No mitigation is required.
LTS
Plan Update could conflict with applicable land use
plans, policy, or regulations.
Noise
Impact 4.9-1 Implementation of the proposed General
PS
No feasible mitigation measures are available.
SU
Plan Update would generate or expose persons to
ambient noise levels in excess of standards
established in the local general plan or noise
ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies.
Impact 4.9-2 Implementation of the proposed General
PS
No feasible mitigation measures are available.
SU
Plan Update would expose persons to vibration levels
generated during construction activities that would
exceed 72 VdB.
2-12 City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR
Table 2-2 Summary of Impacts
Compared to Existing Conditions and Mitigation Measures Significance
Significance
Impact Before Mftafion
Mifi afionMeasures
AfferMfWgafion
Impact 4.9-3 Implementation of the proposed General
PS
No feasible mitigation measures are available.
SU
Plan Update would result in substantial permanent
increases in traffic -related ambient noise levels.
Impact 4.9-4 Implementation of the proposed General
LTS
No mitigation is required.
LTS
Plan Update could expose persons to substantial
temporary or periodic ambient noise increases.
Impact 4.9-5 Implementation of the proposed General
PS
No feasible mitigation measures are available.
SU
Plan Update would expose sensitive receptors in
proximity to the John Wayne Airport to excessive
noise levels.
Population and
Impact 4.10-1 Implementation of the proposed PS No feasible mitigation measures are available. SU General Plan Update would induce substantial growth
in an area, either directly or indirectly.
Public Services
Impact 4.11-1 Implementation of the proposed LTS No mitigation is required. LTS General Plan Update could increase the demand for
fire protection services, which could result in the need for additional fire facilities.
Recreation and Open Space
Impact 4.12-1 Implementation of the proposed
LTS
No mitigation is required.
LTS
General Plan Update could result in increased use of
existing parks or recreational facilities that could
accelerate physical deterioration of those facilities.
Impact 4.12-2 Implementation of the proposed
LTS
No mitigation is required.
LTS
General Plan Update could include new parks and
recreational facilities to maintain acceptable service
ratios. The proposed project could result in adverse
physical impacts associated with the provision of
these facilities.
City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 2-13
Transportation/Traffic
Impact 4.13-1 Implementation of the proposed
LTS
No mitigation is required.
LTS
General Plan Update could result in a substantial
increase in the number of vehicle trips, volume to
capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections compared to existing conditions.
Impact 4.13-2 Implementation of the proposed
PS
No feasible mitigation measures are available.
SU
General Plan Update would contribute to a substantial
increase in deficient freeway segments and ramps.
Impact 4.13-3 Implementation of the proposed
LTS
No mitigation is required.
LTS
General Plan Update could result in exceeding, either
individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management
agency for designated roads or highways.
Impact 4.13-4 Implementation of the proposed
LTS
No mitigation is required.
LTS
General Plan Update could result in a change in air
traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in locations that results in
substantial safety risks.
Impact 4.13-5 Implementation of the proposed
LTS
No mitigation is required.
LTS
General Plan Update could substantially increase
hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or
dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g.,
farm equipment).
Impact 4.13-6 Implementation of the proposed
LTS
No mitigation is required.
LTS
General Plan Update could result in inadequate
emergency access.
Impact 4.13-7 Implementation of the proposed
LTS
No mitigation is required.
LTS
General Plan Update could result in inadequate
parking capacity.
2-14 City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR
Table 2-2 Summary
of Impacts
Compared to Existing Conditions and Mitigation Measures Significance
Significance
Impact
Before Mitigation
Mitigation Measures
After Wgafion
Impact 4.13-8 Implementation of the proposed
LTS
No mitigation is required.
LTS
General Plan Update could conflict with adopted
policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative
transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks).
Utilities and Service Systems
Impact 4.14.-1 Increased population and development
LTS
No mitigation is required.
LTS
associated with the proposed General Plan Update
could result in inadequate capacity of water treatment
plants and water conveyance systems in the Planning
Area.
Impact 4.14.-2 Implementation of the proposed
LTS
No mitigation is required.
LTS
General Plan Update could result in increased
demand for water supply within the Planning Area
beyond existing entitlements.
City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 2-15
3.1 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 3-1. Generally, Newport Beach, a charter City with approximately 83,120 residents, 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 (San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor [SJHTq) and State Route 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).1 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 3-2. The City of Newport Beach General Plan Technical Background Report (TBR) provides existing data for the entire Planning Area.
The TBR was published June 20042 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 and is intended to be a comprehensive update from the City's current General Plan, last updated in 1988. While proposed General Plan Update contains policies regarding future land use and development addressed from a citywide perspective, the majority of the proposed land use changes are limited to nine primary study areas, which cover 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 3-3. 1 The term "sphere of influence" means an area outside a city where the probable physical boundaries and service area of a local agency might be expected to grow.
2 The TBR was published in June 2004 but relies on 2002 data.
City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 3-1
3.1.1 Background
S 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
■ 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 3-1 includes a list of current elements of the General Plan and when they were last revised.
Table 3-1 Current
Current Elements
Elements of the General Plan
Date of Adopflon/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
3-2 City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR
CITY of NEWPORT BEACH
GENERAL PLAN UPDATE EIR
Figure 3-1
REGIONAL
LOCATION
Legend
rM Cmy of Newpj It BeoCh
City Boundary
County Boundary
Hydrography
Wafer Body
Waterway
Roads
State and Federal Hfgnwav
Primary Rood
P,�i�m-curare
NMIM
m
CITY of NEWPORT BEACH
GENERAL PLAN UPDATE EIR
Figure 3-2
PLANNING
AREA
Legend
F•FF•FI Planning NeaBorKkry
Cry'
- Bannlw ranch Sol
Hydrography
Rk4ands and Subrneryged Lairds
Wata-av
ko�ds
S1atQ and PQdArd Higi'twdy
Sheets
'NOW 1. R~ of B nVV R WCh w-rM CTy imps
l0f»of150w G5Cf_I "
2- CAIV kclwyes o 1 fool slFp
otolrrd h],kQ ft"-
ota Pmgcum. ca stare
City WNewporl OeacM1
g
a 0,5
Miles
Sources: City of Newts 8—h, Pa 1 , JuN 2003, CIty Boundary, Dray 2003. Caunlres.— 2003: u3 Census Bur 011rer City Bountlles. 2000, F.—N 2002, and EIP Assecidres, GIS Program,
Feb _ 2004
Hogct No. 10579-03
COSTA MESA
West
NCe P lL
Highway
• f UPPER
(\/} NEWPORT
SAY
Airport
Area
CITY of NEWPORT BEACH
GENERAL PLAN UPDATE EIR
Figure 3-3
PLANNING
SUB -AREAS
Legend
sub -A l o k;
-�,-.-:
SC
WNewyorl BeccM1
oAn
0 0,5 ,
�� �'• Mi195
11 3oumes CIY of Newts B h, CM Bou, Mo 2W3, R
2111,roclales 3LLwreas. Se Wg 2Wz: ,Wreoe.ESP
N.. 10579 03
_ETT
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.
3.2 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. ■ 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.
City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 3-9
3.3 PROJECT CHARACTERISTICS
3.3.1 Elements and Components of the Proposed General
Plan Update
The proposed General Plan Update 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
■ Harbor and Bay
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.
3.3.2 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.
■ 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.
3-10 City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR
■ 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.
■ Wlater—The bay, harbor, channels and reservoirs are included in this category.
Existing land uses are listed below in Table 3-2.
■ Proposed Land Use Changes
Table 3-3 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. In addition to the land uses listed in Table 3-3, 300 acres of Banning Ranch would be preserved as 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 establishes policies for protection and long-term maintenance of established neighborhoods.
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 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. The land use changes in each of the special study subareas, and citywide totals are presented in Table 3-3. 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.
City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 3-11
Land Use
Acres
Percent of C#y'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 WaylUndesignated
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
13,061.7
100%
SOURCE: EIP Associates GIS 2003
a The majority of the vacant land represented in this table is within the Banning Ranch subarea.
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.
3-12 City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR
Office (sf)
Existing
12,616,827
453,530
266,270
3,592,080
5,513,429
0 22,920
305,540
97,740
Current GP
14,576,930
784,280
466,190
3,635,670
5,873,012
235,600
89,260
375,390
147,020
Proposed
12,867,500
1,025,865
294,725
3,675,670
4,911,197
0 12,000
80,656
185,696
Residential (du)
MFR
21,477
2,472
188
245
0 0
178
8 292
8 Existing
SFR(A)
18,702
108
820
0 1,191
257
384
Total Units
40,179
2,580
1,008
245
0 0
1,369
265
292
392
Current
MFR
30,159
2,649
188
245
0 2,510
242
8 293
8 GP
SFR(A)
19,570
98 837
225
1,190
352
584
Total Units
49,729
Z747
1,025
245
0 2,735
1,432
360
293
592
MFR
33,992
3,542
625
845
4,300
687
512
823
361
244
Proposed
SFR(A)
20,402
98 837
688
1,196
291
579
Total Units
54,394
3,640
1,462
845
4,300
1,375
1,708
1,114
361
823
Commercial (sf)
Existing
5,539,388
72,170
633,950
1,556,320
665,019
0 203,360
643,020
35,350
48,700
Current GP
7,412,132
72,170
779,800
1,861,980
871,500
50,000
217,340
669,110
50,030
66,380
Proposed
7,685,030
50,910
853,208
1,986,980
880,620
75,000
192,503
745,320
57,935
92,848
Visitor Serving (hotel -motel rooms)
Existing
3,365
177
925
974
0 34
41 90
23 Current GP
5,676
204
1,110
984
0 34
41 90
53 Proposed
6,549
204
1,175
1,213
75 265
240
90 53
Industrial (sf)
Existing
1,569,229
678,530
508,759
0 58,950
300
Current GP
2,234,242
1,191,722
551,930
164,400
0 0
Proposed
1,163,460
837,270
0 0
0 0
City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 3-13
Institutional (sf)
Existing
694,820
886,270
99,410
100,000
86,096
21,710
Current GP
893,213
1,235,797
105,260
105,000
97,000
32,010
Proposed
853,413
1,235,797
105,260
105,000
96,996
96,710
Parks
Existing 133.5 0.2 0
Current GP 178.8 0.2 0
Proposed 254.7 1 30
3-14 City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR
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.
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 City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 3-15
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.
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.
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 3-16 City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR
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 are proposed for other areas of the City by the updated General Plan, these areas would retain the basic land use character of existing uses. The area bounded by Irvine Avenue, 15`' Street, St. Andrews Road, and Coral Place is currently designated for multi -family and is developed with a mix of housing units, including older apartments, small lot units, and single-family detached units. The proposed General Plan Update would re -designate this area as single-family residential to allow for consistency with the current development trend in the area replacing higher -density apartments with small -lot residential and detached units.
Along the southern frontage of Westcliff Drive, east of Irvine Avenue, and the western frontage of Dover Drive, south of Westcliff Drive the area would be re -designated from Administrative, Professional, and Financial Commercial uses to mixed use, allowing a mix of office and multi -family residential uses. Any new residential development in this area would be compatible with the existing residential uses behind these properties.
The Caltrans Remnant property, bounded by the SR 73, MacArthur Boulevard, and University Drive is currently a vacant property and would be re -designated for commercial use under the proposed General Plan Update.
The north side of San Miguel Drive, east of San Joaquin Hills Road, and west of Newport Hills Drive, which is currently a single parcel formerly used as a child care facility, abutting multi -family residential uses, would be re -designated as multiple -family residential to be consistent with adjacent land uses.
The property west of Big Canyon Reservoir, north of Pacific View Drive is currently developed with institutional (church) and senior affordable housing. Under the proposed General Plan Update, this area would be re -designated as multi -family residential also to promote consistency with adjacent land uses.
3.3.3 Transportation Improvements
Several transportation -related improvements are included in the proposed General Plan Update. The improvements listed below in Table 3-4 would be implemented under the proposed General Plan Update to ensure that impacts resulting from buildout of the General Plan Update are minimized.
City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 3-17
Table 3-4 Transportation Improvements under Proposed General Plan Update_ Intersection Additional Intersection Improvements w#h Project
1. Bluff Rd. (NS) at Coast Hw. (EW)
Provide two SB left -turn lanes and two SB right -turn lanes (2nd with overlap phase). Provide two EB left -turn lanes. Provide one WB right -turn lane.
2. 15th St. (NS) at Coast Hw. (EW)
Provide 2nd SB right turn lane with overlap phase. Provide 2nd EB left turn lane.
3. Newport BI. (NS) at Hospital Rd. (EW)
Provide 2nd NB left turn lane.
4. Riverside Av. (NS) at Coast Hw. (EW)
Provide 3rd EB through lane.
5. MacArthur BI. (NS) at Campus Dr. (EW)
Provide 2nd NB left turn lane. Restripe SB to provide 3.5 through lanes and 1.5 right turn lanes.
6. Von Karman Av. (NS) at Campus Dr. (EW)
Provide 2nd EB left turn lane.
7. Jamboree Rd. (NS) at Campus Dr. (EW)
Provide NB 1 st right turn lane with overlap phase. Provide 4th SB through lane.
Provide WB right turn overlap phase for current right turn lane.
8. Campus Dr. (NS) at Bristol St. N (EW)
Provide 5th WB through lane.
Provide 3rd NB through lane. Provide 3rd SB through lane. Provide 1st EB right Irvine Av. (NS) at Mesa Dr. (EW)—Funded
turn lane. Provide 2nd WB left turn lane. Construct funded improvements, but EB 9 Improvements University Dr. (EW)
right turn lane not necessary.
Provide 3rd NB through lane. Provide 3rd SB through lane. Restripe EB to include 1.5 left turn lanes, 1.5 through lanes, and 1 right turn lane.
10. 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.
3.3.4 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 a 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.
3-18 City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR
I 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. In addition, LOS policies for the intersections operating at unacceptable levels of service in the new Circulation Element are more clearly laid out compared to the Circulation Element of the existing General Plan.
■ 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.
■ 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 City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 3-19
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. ■ Harbor and Bay
The goals and policies in the existing Harbor and Bay Element will be retained as a separate element, and will also incorporate policies 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.
■ 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 new Arts and Cultural 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 Update 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:
■ Alternative 1: No Project/No Development —With this alternative, development under the proposed General Plan Update would not occur. The Planning Area would remain developed with existing land uses.
■ Alternative 2: No Project/No Action (Existing General Plan) —With this alternative, development under the proposed General Plan Update would not occur. Development would be guided by continued implementation of the existing General Plan. ■ Alternative 3: GPAC Recommendations —With this alternative, development under the General Plan would consist of the land use recommendations formulated by GPAC. The Alternatives Chapter of the EIR will provide a detailed breakdown of the proposed land uses under this Alternative.
3-20 City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR
■ Alternative 4: 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.
City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 3-21
4.0 INTRODUCTION TO ANALYSIS
This section provides an overview of the analysis that is provided in Chapter 4. ■ Existing Conditions
This subsection describes existing conditions that may be subject to change as a result of implementation of the proposed General Plan Update. This subsection provides the context for assessing potential environmental impacts resulting from implementation of the General Plan Update. ■ Thresholds of Significance
Before potential impacts are evaluated for significance, the threshold that will serve as the basis for judging impact significance is presented. Thresholds of Significance used for the evaluation of impacts include those thresholds presented in Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines. The City of Newport Beach relies on these thresholds as those that are appropriate for evaluating the significance of impacts in the City.
Regulatory Framework
Regional and statewide regulations that govern development activities that are designed to ensure protection of resources, public and private property, and the local population are described. Examples of these regulations include the 2003 Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP), Uniform Building Code, and National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit system, among others. . Impacts
The project impacts discussion describes potential consequences to each resource that would result from implementation of the General Plan Update.
Potential environmental impacts have been classified in the following categories:
■ Less Than Significant —Results in no substantial adverse change to existing environmental conditions
■ Potentially Significant —Constitutes a substantial adverse change to existing environmental conditions that can be mitigated to less -than -significant levels by implementation of feasible mitigation measures or by the selection of an environmentally superior project alternative City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 4-1
■ Significant and Unavoidable —Constitutes a substantial adverse change to existing environmental conditions that cannot be fully mitigated by implementation of all feasible mitigation measures, or by the selection of an environmentally superior project alternative ■ Cumulative Impacts
This discussion (contained within each environmental resource section of Chapter 4) describes potential impacts from the proposed General Plan Update which, in combination with development in the area, surrounding the Planning Area. In many cases, development under the General Plan Update serves as the context for cumulative analysis, as it includes all development within the Planning Area over the next 25 years. For some environmental resource areas, however, the cumulative context extends beyond the borders of the Planning Area and may be the boundaries of a particular service provider (such as the Irvine Ranch Water District) or the entire County.
■ Mitigation Measures and Residual Impacts
If potential impacts are considered potentially significant and it is determined that implementation of General Plan policies would not reduce impacts, mitigation measures are proposed to reduce or avoid these impacts. This section also describes the level of significance of impacts following the implementation of mitigation measures. Impacts are defined as either significant but mitigable or significant and unavoidable. Significant but mitigable impacts are those impacts that could be reduced to a less -than -significant level with the incorporation of mitigation measures. Significant and unavoidable impacts are those impacts that would remain significant either due to the unavailability of feasible mitigation measures to reduce impacts or inability for mitigation measures to reduce impacts to a less - than -significant level.
4-2 City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR
4.1 AESTHETICS AND VISUAL QUALITY
4.1.1 Introduction
This section describes current visual conditions in and around the City of Newport Beach and evaluates the potential aesthetic and visual impacts of the proposed General Plan Update. Data for this section were taken from the 2004 Technical Background Report, the 2005 Local Coastal Program, and other documents prepared for the City.
During the Initial Study process, it was determine that the proposed project could have potentially significant impacts related to effects on a scenic vista or degradation of existing visual character of the project area. It was also determined during the Initial Study process impacts related to damage to scenic resources within a State scenic highway and creation of new sources of light and glare would be less than significant. However, all CEQA criteria were analyzed in this Draft EIR. Full bibliographic entries for all reference materials are provided in Section 4.1.6 (References) of this section.
One comment letter associated with hazards and hazardous materials was received in response to the Initial Study/Notice of Preparation (IS/NOP) circulated for the proposed General Plan Update. The John Wayne Airport QWA) requested that the DEIR provide an analysis of obstruction lighting and marking requirements, considering JWA's existing and future airport operations and the proximity of this subarea to this airport.
4.1.2 Existing Conditions
Visual resources are an important component of the quality of life of any geographic area. As users experience a place, their primary sensory interaction with that place is visual in nature, and a wide variety of shapes, colors, and textures, composed by topography, structures, roadways, and vegetation, forms the views of and from the City. The City of Newport Beach is sited on a coastal plain and is bounded on three sides by developed urban lands of Huntington Beach, Costa Mesa, and Irvine. The rolling green hills of Crystal Cove State Park create views to the east and form the City boundary at the east, while the Pacific Ocean fills the views to the southwest. Development in Newport Beach has been designed to capture views of the ocean, capitalizing on the ridgelines and hillsides as vantage points. The Upper and Lower Newport Bay, draining an area of 118 square miles via the San Diego Creek and Santa Ana Delhi Channel, bisects the City, and creates a dominant physical land feature that includes estuaries, beaches, the harbor, coastal bluffs, and meandering waterways unique to Newport Beach. From the higher elevations in the City, views to the north include the San Joaquin Hills and, in the distance, the Santa Ana Mountains. This combination of hills, canyons, bluffs, and water features create a visually dynamic landscape.
City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 4.1-1
■ Open Space
Open space areas provide visual relief from urbanized areas and scenic view opportunities for motorists, pedestrians, and residents. Open space is distributed throughout Newport Beach including the beach, bay, parks and underdeveloped areas such as Banning Ranch, and canyons, hillsides, and bluffs of Newport Ridge/Coast.
Ocean/Harbor/Bay
Water bodies constitute a major aesthetic asset as the ocean, creeks, and bay can be seen from many parts of Newport Beach. The Pacific Ocean provides the predominant visual setting for the majority of Newport's scenic attributes. The ocean can be seen from residences atop coastal bluffs and hilltop ridges, from the upper floors of offices and hotel buildings, and can be enjoyed by visitors of the beaches, Fashion Island, and from some of the major north/south corridors. Associated with the ocean, the bay and harbor areas also provide picturesque natural and nautical views. These waterways provide scenic elements such as estuaries, small islands, beaches, coastal bluffs, channels, tide pools, the harbor, etc. At a larger scale, they also provide sweeping views.
Newport Beach includes many areas that are environmentally sensitive in nature. Many of these are water -associated habitats such as marine intertidal and subtidal, riparian, or marsh areas. Intertidal areas consist of platform intertidal reefs and pocket sandy beaches, with conspicuous offshore rocks, stacks, and arches. Undeveloped plant and animal habitat areas provide attractive landscapes that also contribute to the City's visual quality. The habitat areas listed below (partial list) contribute to the City's visual resources, and are also discussed in the Biological Resources Section (Section 4.3):
■ Semeniuk Slough (Santa Ana River Marsh)
■ North Star Beach
■ West Bay
■ Upper Newport Bay Ecological Reserve and DeAnza/Bayside Marsh Peninsula ■ San Diego Creek
■ Buck Gully
Coastal Views
Newport Beach is located in a unique physical setting that provides a variety of spectacular coastal views, including those of the open waters of the ocean and bay, harbor, sandy beaches, rocky shores, wetlands, canyons, and coastal bluffs. The City has historically been sensitive to the need to protect and provide access to these scenic and visual resources and has developed a system of public parks, piers, trails, and viewing areas. Coastal views are also provided from a number of streets and highways and, due to the grid street pattern in West Newport, Balboa Peninsula, Balboa Island, Newport Heights, and Corona del Mar, many north/south-tending streets provide view corridors to the ocean and bay.
Figures 4.1-1 through 4.1-3 show prominent coastal viewing locations throughout the City as identified through public view points and coastal view roads.
4.1-2 City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR
CITY of NEWPORT BEACH
GENERAL PLAN UPDATE EIR
Figure 4.1-1
COASTAL VIEWS MAP 1 OF 3
(WEST NEWPORT AREA)
Legend
* Public View Point
'-%�j Coastal View Road
�.. Coastal Zone Boundary
''•.. City Boundary
• Shoreline Height
Limitation Zone
- .. Proposed Park
Public Beach or Park
- �11- —
city WNewyorl BeccM1
g
0 Miles
source: city o1 Newport &acM1 ffe. Newport Preal. Au9u9, 20D6, Hogcl No. 10579 03
citror
NO& I.-
cbar
Laguna 6eacn
FY
PPER
NPQ T
B/ �I
.' SAN OIEGO CREE!
•!•r . mow'• ;•� - S .............
I � 1
Alk
34: t
CITY of NEWPORT BEACH
GENERAL PLAN UPDATE EIR
Figure 4.1-2
COASTAL VIEWS MAP 2 OF 3
(UPPER NEWPORT BAY)
Legend
* Public View Point
'—\�j Coastal View Road
�.. Coastal Zone Boundary
''•.. City Boundary
0 Shoreline Height
Limitation Zone
"'. Proposed Park
Public Beach or Park
City WNewy9rl BeccM1
g
Mo
9R�aM1,fe,1N-99��o. ,2-
Ptogct N.. 10579 03
CITY of NEWPORT BEACH
GENERAL PLAN UPDATE EIR
Figure 4.1-3
JASTAL VIEWS MAP 3 OF 3
(HARBOR AREA)
Legend
* Public View Point
'—%�j Coastal View Road
�.. Coastal Zone Boundary
''•.. City Boundary
• Shoreline Height
Limitation Zone
- .. Proposed Park
Public Beach or Park
city WNewyorl BeccM1
g
0 Miles
:e: CM o� Newport &acM1 ryve:, NewpM Prepl. �9�, 2W5,
"°"""
Scenic Coastal Vistas
The wide-open vistas in the City of Newport Beach are associated with natural features, such as the ocean and bay, both dominant visual images within the City. Internally, north/south streets provide unique vistas that characterize individual neighborhoods. Significant vistas, as identified in the City's Local Coastal Program, include public coastal views from the following roadway segments:
■ Avocado Avenue from San Joaquin Hills Road to Coast Highway ■ Back Bay Drive
■ Balboa Island Bridge
■ Bayside Drive from Coast Highway to Linda Island Drive ■ Bayside Drive at Promontory Bay
■ Coast Highway/Santa Ana River Bridge
■ Coast Highway/Newport Boulevard Bridge and Interchange ■ Coast Highway from Newport Boulevard to Marino Drive (Bayshores) ■ Coast Highway/Newport Bay Bridge
■ Coast Highway from Jamboree Road to Bayside Drive
■ Coast Highway from Pelican Point Drive to city limits ■ Eastbluff Drive from Jamboree Road to Back Bay Drive
■ Irvine Avenue from Santiago Drive to University Drive ■ Jamboree Road from Eastbluff Drive/University Drive to Bayview Way ■ Jamboree Road in the vicinity of the Big Canyon Park
■ Jamboree Road from Coast Highway to Bayside Drive
■ Lido Island Bridge
■ MacArthur Boulevard from San Joaquin Hills Road to Coast Highway ■ Marguerite Avenue from San Joaquin Hills Road to Fifth Avenue ■ Newport Boulevard from Hospital Road/Westminster Avenue to Via Lido ■ Newport Center Drive from Newport Center Drive E/W to Farallon Drive/Granville Drive ■ Newport Coast from Pelican Hill Road North to Coast Highway ■ Ocean Boulevard
■ Pelican Hills Road South
■ San Joaquin Hills Road from Newport Ridge Drive to Spyglass Hill Road ■ San Miguel Drive from San Joaquin Hills Road to MacArthur Boulevard ■ State Route 73 from Bayview Way to the easterly city limit ■ Superior Avenue from Hospital Road to Coast Highway
■ University Drive from Irvine Avenue to the Santa Ana —Delhi Channel ■ Vista Ridge Road from Ocean Heights to Altezza Drive
Topographic Features
Newport Beach, particularly the coastal zone, contains distinctive topographic features such as bluffs, cliffs, hillsides, canyons, and other significant natural landforms, which play an important part of the scenic and visual qualities of the City. The central and northwestern portions of the City are situated on a broad mesa that extends southeastward to join the San Joaquin Hills, commonly known as Newport Mesa. This upland has been deeply dissected by stream erosion, resulting in moderate to steep bluffs along the Upper Newport Bay estuary, one of the most striking and biologically diverse natural features in Orange County. The nearly flat-topped mesa rises from about 50 to 75 feet above mean sea level at City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 4.1-9
the northern end of the estuary in the Santa Ana Heights area, to about 100 feet above sea level in the Newport Heights, Westcliff, and Eastbluff areas.
Along the southwestern margin of the City, sediments flowing from the Santa Ana River and San Diego Creek, the two major drainage courses that transect the mesa, have formed the beaches, sandbars, and mudflats of Newport Bay and West Newport. In the southern part of the City, the San Joaquin Hills rise abruptly from the sea, separated from the present shoreline by a relatively flat, narrow shelf. Originally formed by wave abrasion, this terrace is now elevated well above the water and is bounded by steep bluffs along the shoreline. The coastal platform occupied by Corona Del Mar ranges from about 95 to 100 feet above sea level.
Mountains and Canyons
The Santa Ana Mountains are located northeast of the City. The San Joaquin Hills frame the City's easterly border. The Santa Ana Mountains are within the Cleveland National Forest and provide long- range views, forming the northern backdrop to the City. Views of these mountains are particularly significant from the newer developments on the City's northern side.
Slopes rising up from coastal plains provide a dramatic contrast to the generally flat topography at the coastline and visually dominate the majority of the relatively low -scale urban development at the beachfront. Canyons and gullies formed by water coursing from the mountains to the ocean similarly provide stunning contrast to the coastal tidelands and beaches. The majority of the undeveloped headlands lie in the eastern portion of the City in the area known as Newport Coast/Ridge.
Within the coastal zone, Big Canyon, Buck Gully, and Morning Canyon comprise the three significant canyons with steep slopes and vegetation which provide distinctive features on the shoreline. Big Canyon is protected as a nature park. However, Buck Gully and Morning Canyon are under private ownership and there is extensive residential development on the slopes of both canyons. In addition to these three canyons, Ridge Park, Los Trancos, Muddy Canyon, and Pelican Hill also contribute to the topographic landforms that render spectacular views of the City.
Coastal Bluffs
Coastal bluffs are a prominent landform in Newport Beach and are considered significant scenic and environmental resources. There are ocean facing coastal bluffs along the shoreline of Corona del Mar, Shorecliffs, and Cameo Shores. There are also coastal bluffs facing the wetlands of Upper Newport Bay, Semeniuk Slough, and the degraded wetlands of the Banning Ranch property.
Lower Newport Bay
In addition, coastal bluffs surround Lower Newport Bay. These can be seen along Coast Highway from the Semeniuk Slough to Dover Drive, along Bayside Drive in Irvine Terrace, and in Corona del Mar above the Harbor Entrance. These bluffs faced the open ocean before the Balboa Peninsula formed and are now generally separated from the shoreline.
4.1-10 City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR
Upper Newport Bay
Most of the coastal bluff top lands have been subdivided and developed over the years. However, many have been preserved as parkland and other open space. Also, most of the faces of the coastal bluff surrounding the Upper Newport Bay have been protected by dedication to the Upper Newport Bay Nature Preserve or dedicated as open space as part of planned residential developments. Eastbluff Remnant, Mouth of Big Canyon, Castaways, Newporter North, and Newport Beach Marine Life Refuge are undeveloped open spaces. In other areas, including Newport Heights, Cliff Haven, Irvine Terrace, Corona del Mar, Shorecliffs, and Cameo Shores, the coastal bluffs fall within conventional residential subdivisions.
Development on these lots occurs mainly on a lot -by -lot basis. As a result, some coastal bluffs remain pristine and others are physically or visually obliterated by structures, landform alteration or landscaping.
Residential development has begun to affect coastal bluff areas due to the siting and scale of some new and renovated homes. While some development has maintained the natural character of the coastal bluffs, other developments have been larger and more visually prominent, potentially impacting views of those bluffs.
Parks and View Parks
The City currently contains more than forty parks, in addition to ecological preserves and beaches, which together provide more than 441 acres of parkland and passive open space. Recreation and open space are discussed in greater detail in Chapter 4.12 (Recreation and Open Space) of this EIR. A portion of the Crystal Cove State Park is also within the City and provides open space views for Newport Beach residents.
Much of the built environment within the City is scenic because of its setting, the presence of low-rise buildings that preserve views, and wide landscaped roadways. View parks have been created specifically to take advantage of a significant view. View parks are small, one-half to three acre in size passive parks, and are often located on coastal bluffs to focus upon ocean or bay views. View parks in Newport Beach include the following:
■ Vest Nemport. The Sunset View Park provides an ocean view trail along the bluff top above the lower campus of Hoag Hospital. This park is accessible from Superior Avenue. ■ New
port Heightsl Cliff Haven. Cliff Drive Park, Ensign Park, and Kings Road Park are located on the bluff top above Mariners' Mile and Coast Highway. These parks provide views of the Lower Bay and the Pacific Ocean. Cliff Drive Park and Ensign Park are accessible from Cliff Drive. Kings Road Park is accessible from Kings Road.
■ Corona del Mar. The park begins at Lookout Point above Pirate's Cove and runs along Ocean Boulevard to Inspiration Point at the end of Orchid Avenue. ■ Upper Newport Bay. Castaways Park is a 17.4-acre view park. Castaways Park has bike and hiking trails and overlooks that provide panoramic views of the Newport Bay and the Pacific Ocean.
Castaways Park is accessible from Dover Drive and Polaris Drive. Castaways Park contains environmentally sensitive habitats, which are separated and protected from public recreation and viewing areas.
City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 4.1-11
■ Upper Back Bay. An 11-acre passive open space and view park is located on the bluff above the Newport Dunes. Upper Back Bay View Park is located at the northwest corner of the intersection of Coast Highway and Jamboree Road. This park provides views of the bay and serves as a staging area for bicyclists and pedestrians.
■ Wlestclo'Park, Galaxy Park, and Baynew Park are bluff -top parks that provide views of the Upper Newport Bay. Westcliff Park is accessible from Polaris Drive. Galaxy Park is accessible from Galaxy Drive. Bayview Park is accessible from Mesa Drive. ■ The Upper New Bay Nature Preserve is a 140-acre regional park that surrounds the Upper Newport Bay Ecological Preserve. The park provides hiking, bike, and equestrian trails and is accessible from Irvine Avenue, University Drive, Bayview Way, and Back Bay Drive. ■ Nemporter Knoll is a 12-acre passive open space area located on the bluff above Shellmaker Island.
The 4-acre Newporter North View Park is adjacent and provides a bluff top trail and overlook.
The Newport North View Park is accessible from San Joaquin Hills Road. Both areas are part of the Newporter North ESA and the provision of additional public access must be consistent with the protection of natural resources in this area.
Undeveloped Land
The Banning Ranch property is located primarily on unincorporated County of Orange land and is surrounded by the City of Newport Beach. For at least 50 years, the site has been used as an oil production field. Today, the site contains the remnants of old wells and pipelines. Some oil production, however, still occurs on site. The site is characterized by a mesa area, coastal bluffs, and lowlands, which are part of the Santa Ana River floodplain. While the site is degraded considerably, its scenic quality as a "natural" area has been identified as contributing to Newport Beach's scenic resources.
The protected canyons, hills, and bluffs of the eastern portion of the city are also recognized for their scenic quality. As identified previously under Mountains and Ridges, topographic landforms of the Newport Coast and Newport Ridge region contribute significantly to the aesthetic quality that residents value. The canyons and hillsides associated with Buck Gully, Morning Canyon, Ridge Park, Los Trancos, Muddy Canyon, and Pelican Hill provide impressive views for visitors and residents.
The Irvine Ranch Land Reserve contains more than 50,000 acres of permanently protected open space in Orange County. The reserve includes portions of the Upper Newport Bay and large portions of Newport Coast and Newport Ridge. In addition, Crystal Cove State Park is also located within the reserve area, but is publicly -owned as a State Park.
■ Urban Visual Character
While scenic vistas encompass long range views and often emphasize large-scale natural features, viewers are also affected by their more immediate visual surroundings. Local aesthetics, typically found on a neighborhood level, comprise the City's urban visual character. Development densities and types, distinctive neighborhoods and commercial districts, unique architectural elements, prominent public institutions/landmarks, and other elements all contribute to the City's unique aesthetic quality.
4.1-12 City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR
Development Patterns
The City of Newport Beach ranges in development intensity from highly developed to relatively pristine.
Older neighborhoods in the southwestern part of the City, particularly those along the Balboa Peninsula, have small lots and mixed commercial and residential land uses. In the eastern part of the city, development is less dense and is predominantly single-family residential. Compact, highly developed areas are often visually complex, containing many buildings, signs and landscape elements within a small space. Less dense areas contain fewer buildings and due to space between buildings, may provide relatively more views of the surrounding natural areas.
Many of the City's commercial neighborhoods are auto -oriented, with wide streets, and visible parking lots/structures. Pedestrian neighborhoods in Newport Beach tend to have fewer parking lots, smaller scale buildings, and more architectural details than auto -oriented districts. Many of the pedestrian neighborhoods, especially those along the coast, contain older architecture and visually prominent tourist amenities (for example, the Fun Zone in Balboa Village).
As previously noted, many open spaces have been preserved, notably at Newport Coast and Ridge, along the coast, around Newport Bay, and in Crystal Cove State Park. On a neighborhood scale, parks provide greenspace and visual relief from the built environment and are an important element of the City's visual character.
■ Scenic Highways
California's Scenic Highway Program was created by the Legislature in 1963. Its purpose is to preserve and protect scenic highway corridors from change that would diminish the aesthetic value of lands adjacent to highways. Scenic corridors typically pertain to highways and visible lands outside the highway right-of-way generally described as the view from the road. There are no officially designated scenic vistas or scenic highways within Newport Beach.
However, State Route 1 (SR-1) is identified as Eligible for State Scenic Highway designation. A State scenic highway changes from eligible to officially designated when the local jurisdiction adopts a scenic corridor protection program, applies to the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) for scenic highway approval, and receives notification from Caltrans that the highway has been designated as a Scenic Highway. The city must also adopt ordinances to preserve the scenic quality of the corridor or document such regulations that already exist in local codes.
The City identifies coastal views such as Coastal View Roads and Public View Points. These areas are identified in the Coastal Land Use Plan Coastal Views Figure 4.1-1 through Figure 4.1-3. ■ Light and Glare
The City of Newport Beach is primarily built -out; therefore, a significant amount of ambient light from urban uses already exists. Similar to other developed urban areas, sources of light and glare include neon signs, glass building facades, streetlights, parking lot lighting, automotive headlights, etc.
City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 4.1-13
4.1.3 Regulatory Setting
f Federal
No existing federal regulations pertain to the visual resources within the proposed General Plan Update area.
■ State
California Coastal Act Policy 30251
According to the California Coastal Act Policy 30251, the scenic and visual qualities of coastal areas shall be considered and protected as resources of public importance. Permitted development shall be sited and designed to protect views to and along the ocean and scenic coastal areas to minimize the alteration of natural land forms, to be visually compatible with the character of surrounding areas, and, where, feasible, to restore and enhance visual quality in visually degraded areas. New development in highly scenic areas such as those designated in the California Coastline Preservation and Recreation Plan prepared by the Department of Parks and Recreation and by local government shall be subordinate to the character of its setting.'
Caltrans Scenic Highways
The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) defines a scenic highway as any freeway, highway, road, or other public right-of-way, that traverses an area of exceptional scenic quality. Suitability for designation as a State Scenic Highway is based on vividness, intactness, and unity. As discussed previously, there are no officially designated scenic highways within Newport Beach. ■ Local
Shoreline Height Limitation zone
Concern over the intensity of development around Lower Newport Bay led to the adoption of a series of ordinances in the early 1970's that established more restrictive height and bulk development standards around the bay. The intent was to regulate the visual and physical mass of structures consistent with the character and visual scale of Newport Beach. As a result, new development within the Shoreline Height Limitation Zone is limited to a height of 35 feet. Residential development is limited to a height of 24 to 28 feet and non-residential development is limited to a height of 26 to 35 feet. Outside of the Shoreline Height Limitation Zone, heights up to 32 feet are permitted within the planned community districts.
There is also one property, the Newport Beach Marriott Hotel in Newport Center, which is in the coastal zone and also within the High Rise Height Limitation Zone, which permits heights up to 375 feet. 3 California Coastal Act of 1976 — Article 6 - Section 30251 PRC, http://www.coastal.ca.gov/fedcd/cach3.pdf , Accessed February 2, 2006.
4.1-14 City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR
Floor Area Ratios
Floor areas are strictly limited citywide. In the coastal zone, residential development is limited to floor areas ranging from 1.5 to 2.0 times the buildable area of the parcel (the land minus required setback yards), which typically translates to actual floor area ratios of 0.95 to 1.35. Nonresidential development floor area ratios range from 0.30 to 1.25.
Signs and Utilities
The City recently adopted new sign regulations. These sign regulations include limitations on freestanding signs and prohibit roof signs, which have the greatest potential to impact coastal and scenic visual resources.
In some of the older neighborhoods, electrical, telephone, and other utility lines are still located above ground. The City requires utilities to be placed underground in all new developments and has ongoing programs to remove and underground overhead utilities through the establishment of underground utility assessment districts.
4.1.4 Thresholds of Significance
The following thresholds of significance are based on Appendix G of the 2005 CEQA Guidelines. For purposes of this EIR, implementation of the proposed project would have a significant adverse impact on aesthetic/visual quality if it would result in any of the following:
■ Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista
■ Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a State scenic highway
■ Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings ■ Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views
4.1.5 Project Impacts, Mitigation Measures, and Proposed Policies
Effects Not Found to Be Significant
The IS/NOP prepared for the proposed project did not identify any effects not found to be significant associated with Aesthetics and Visual Quality. Therefore, all thresholds are addressed in this section.
City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 4.1-15
N Project Impacts
Threshold Would the proposed project have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? Impact 4.1-1 Scenic vistas could potentially be obstructed as the result of new development.
Although there are no officially designated scenic vistas in the City, many natural features such as the ocean and bay provide open coastal views. As discussed previously, 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 under the proposed project 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.
However, development projects would undergo further environmental and design review on a project - by -project basis to ensure that scenic vistas and resources are not adversely affected. In addition, policies outlined in the proposed General Plan Update would protect scenic vistas in the City. In particular, Policy NR 22.1 would maintain the Shoreline Height Limitation Zone to protect views of the water, and could consider amending the boundary of this Zone where public views would not be impacted. For example, Policy LU 6.19.13 would consider the modification of the boundary of the Shoreline Height Limitation Zone (26') to accommodate higher mixed use buildings, where these are located adjacent to bluffs and the viewshed "envelope" is maintained. Policy NR 20.3 would protect and enhance public views from the roadway segments identified previously that provide significant vistas. Policy LU 1.1, Policy LU 1.6, and Policy NR 20.1 require that views from public areas be preserved and where, feasible, enhanced. In addition, Policy LU 6.19.9 requires that buildings be located and sites designed to provide adequate and unobstructed views significant visual corridors of the Bay from Coast Highway (Mariners' Mile). Further, new development would also be required to protect existing scenic areas. For example, under Policy NR 20.2, new development would be required to restore and enhance the visual quality in visually degraded areas, where feasible, and provide view easements or corridors designed to protect public views or to restore public views in developed areas, where appropriate. Policy NR 20.4 would design and site new development, including landscaping, on the edges of public view corridors, including those down public streets, to frame, accent, and minimize impacts to public views. As such, existing and future development would be regulated by the proposed General Plan Update policies, and scenic vistas would not be adversely affected. Therefore, impacts to scenic vistas would be less than significant.
Threshold Would the proposed project substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a State scenic highway?
Implementation of the proposed General Plan Update would not degrade scenic resources within a state- or locally designated scenic highway or corridor.
4.1-16 City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR
As discussed previously, 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.
A State scenic highway changes from "eligible" to "officially designated" when the local jurisdiction adopts a scenic corridor protection program, applies to Caltrans for scenic highway approval, and receives notification from Caltrans that the highway has been designated as a Scenic Highway. The City must also adopt ordinances to preserve the scenic quality of the corridor or document that such regulation already exists in local codes. If in the future, the City decides to pursue these actions, it would also be required to take actions to preserve views within the corridor. However, these procedures are beyond the scope of the proposed General Plan Update. Consequently, because no scenic highways are currently designated within the City, implementation of the proposed General Plan Update would have no impact.
Threshold Would the proposed project substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings?
Impact 4.1-2 Development under the proposed General Plan Update could change the visual character of portions of the City.
The proposed General Plan Update provides more direct aesthetic guidance compared to the existing General Plan. The proposed land use changes tend to establish the aesthetic character of an area. While all land uses would be required to adhere to appropriate design and height guidelines associated with land use designations, the General Plan Update establishes policies (such as community character) that are area -specific. As discussed below, the proposed General Plan Update clearly defines (both physically and visually) the community character of the City in various subareas, and sets forth urban form policies to ensure that the City retains its unique aesthetic qualities that its residents value.
Urban Areas
The proposed General Plan Update would concentrate infill development and redevelopment in several specified subareas including Newport Center/Fashion Island, Balboa Village, Balboa Peninsula, West Newport Mesa, West Newport Highway, Mariners' Mile, and the Airport Area as well as in a few smaller areas throughout the remainder of the City. In addition, as discussed further below under the Open Space Areas sub -section of this impact, while the proposed General Plan Update prioritizes the retention of the Banning Ranch property as open space, the proposed project also considers the possible development of a mixed density residential village should the property not be acquired for open space.
Visual Quality
Some of the identified subareas would not be considered areas with existing high visual or scenic quality.
Examples of conditions that may currently detract from local visual character include: building facades that are faded and in poor repair, sparse or under -maintained landscaping, poorly maintained mobile homes, and dated or incongruent architecture (which could be historic, though not currently distinguished as such). In areas such as this, which are typically economically underperforming, proposed General Plan Update Policy LU 3.2, aims to enhance existing neighborhoods, districts, and corridors, City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 4.1-17
allowing for re -use and infill with uses that are complementary in type, form, scale, and character. In addition, the proposed General Plan Update would aim to improve aesthetics in these areas through both redevelopment and incentives for others to improve maintenance. For example, the West Newport Highway area would be subject to Policies LU 6.17.3 and 6.17.4, which would provide redevelopment incentives for commercial properties as well as improved visual image and quality, respectively. Further, Policy NR 20.2 would require new development to restore and enhance the visual quality in visually degraded areas, where feasible, and provide view easements or corridors designed to protect public views or to restore public views in developed areas, where appropriate.
Other subareas are considered to have high existing visual quality. The architecture and landscaping is attractive, the area is visually diverse, and the different land uses in the area are harmoniously arranged so as to complement neighboring uses. Corona del Mar and Newport Center/Fashion Island are areas that might be considered to have high overall visual quality. In these areas, new development allowed under the proposed General Plan Update would be done in such a way as to fit into the existing visual setting.
Policy LU 1.1 requires that new development "maintain and enhance" existing development.
Proposed New Uses
Mixed Use
In addition to enhancing existing development, mixed -use development which is relatively new in the City, is a more prominent theme permitted within the identified subareas. Mixed -use developments integrate housing and commercial or office uses in proximity to one another, and tend to unify fragmented areas. While mixed -use developments could represent a change to the existing visual setting of urban areas, the community character and the associated aesthetics of urban infill development could be enhanced by these new districts. For example, Policy LU 5.3.1 requires that mixed -use buildings be designed to convey a high level of architectural and landscape quality and ensures compatibility among their uses in consideration of various principles, including the visual and physical integration of residential and non-residential uses.
High -Density Residential
Another new use proposed under the General Plan Update includes higher density residential development in the Newport Center/Fashion Island area, the Airport Area and West Newport Mesa.
Proposed General Plan Update policies would ensure that these new uses would not interrupt the existing aesthetic setting of the City, and instead, would provide for more pedestrian -oriented features. In Newport Center/Fashion Island, Policy LU 6.14.4 would encourage some new development to be located and designed to orient to the inner side of Newport Center Drive, establishing physical and visual continuity that would diminish the dominance of surface parking lots and encourage pedestrian activity.
Pedestrian access and connections among uses would also be encouraged and improved through Policy LU 6.14.5, with the provision of additional walkways and streetscape amenities concurrent with the development of expanded and new uses. Further, visual and physical connectivity with adjoining uses would be provided through Policy LU 6.14.6, where new buildings shall be located on axes connecting Newport Center Drive with existing buildings.
4.1-18 City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR
In the Airport Area, Policy LU 6.15.7 would encourage and, when subject to redevelopment, require property owners within the Campus Tract to upgrade the street frontages of their properties with landscape, well -designed signage, and other amenities that improve the area's visual quality. Additional General Plan policies (LU 6.15.10 through 6.15.14) guide the minimum size, density, and process of allowed residential development within the Airport Area. Consequently, the higher density residential development that would be permitted in these areas would have policies guiding and regulating the visual and aesthetic character of the development to ensure compatibility. Defining features of both areas would include more buildings and fewer surface parking lots.
Summary
Proposed General Plan Update policies (both City-wide and area -specific) would establish criteria for the development of cohesive neighborhoods oriented around neighborhood parks and local -serving commercial facilities, interconnected by a network of pedestrian -oriented streets. A citywide policy example includes Policy NR 22.2, which would continue to regulate the visual and physical mass of structures consistent with the unique character and visual scale of Newport Beach. An area -specific policy example includes Policy LU 6.19.6 for Mariners' Mile, which would implement landscape, signage, lighting, sidewalk, pedestrian crossing, and other amenities in order visually define the corridors' identity and quality.
All new developments would undergo a subsequent environmental review consisting of a case -by -case analysis of visual impacts. In addition to policies listed above, the proposed General Plan Update would include policies associated with aesthetic improvements such as landscaping, pedestrian amenities, and design standards for architecture and lighting. Not only would developments be required to conform to General Plan Update standards, they would also be subject to existing building and development standards specified in the City's Municipal Code, and in many areas, to the Local Coastal Program (LCP) design standards authorized by the Local Coastal Plan. Thus, the visual character would change as development intensity increased, but the impact would not be considered significantly adverse.
In general, the proposed General Plan Update would provide development opportunities which would complement and enhance the City's existing visual character. Development would be required to conform to "[a] development pattern that retains and complements the City's residential neighborhood, commercial and industrial districts, open spaces, and natural environment" (Proposed General Plan Update, Goal 3 of the Land Use Element). Therefore the proposed General Plan Update would have a less -than -significant impact on the visual character of developed urban areas.
Open Space Areas
No existing public open space excluding Banning Ranch, which is discussed below, would be converted from its current use to any other land use as a result of the proposed General Plan Update. Citywide Policy NR 17.1 would protect, conserve, and maintain designated open space areas that define the City's urban form, serve as habitat for many species, and provide recreational opportunities. In addition, Policy NR 17.2 considers the conversion of public sites designated for open space to other uses only when the City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 4.1-19
conversion will meet a significant need, and there are no alternative sites that could feasibly meet that need.
The proposed General Plan Update would protect open spaces through land use and natural resources policies, and thus, the existing aesthetic qualities of the open space areas of the City would be maintained.
For example, Policy LU 1.3 would protect the natural setting that contributes to the character and identity of Newport Beach and the sense of place it provides for its residents and visitors. This policy aims to preserve open space resources, beaches, harbor, parks, bluffs, preserves, and estuaries as visual, recreational and habitat resources. Policy LU 1.6 requires public views, including scenic and visual resources such as open space, mountains, canyons, ridges, the ocean, and the harbor, be preserved and where possible, enhanced from public vantage points. In addition, with respect to coastal bluffs, Policy LU 6.19.12 requires that development projects locate and design buildings to maintain the visual quality and maintain the structural integrity of the bluff faces.
There are several policies within the Natural Resources Element that encourage the preservation of natural landforms such as coastal bluffs and, thus, maintain and enhance the open space areas within the City. For example, Policy NR 23.1 would preserve cliffs, canyons, bluffs, significant rock outcroppings, and site buildings to minimize alteration of the site's natural topography and preserve the features as a visual resource. In addition, Policy NR 23.3 requires new planned communities to dedicate or preserve as open space the coastal bluff face and an area inland from the edge of the coastal bluff adequate to avoid or minimize visual impacts. In light of these factors, the proposed General Plan Update would have a less -than -significant impact on public open space visual character.
Banning Ranch
The Banning Ranch property is currently developed with oil production uses and associated structures, including large storage tanks. However, much of Banning Ranch consists of open space. As such, the existing conditions in Banning Ranch contribute to overall natural aesthetics within the City.
Development of the Banning Ranch property would only be allowed if the property is not acquired for open space. Policy LU 3.4 prioritizes the retention of Banning Ranch as an open space amenity for the City and region, consolidating oil operations, enhancing wetland and other habitats, and providing parkland amenities to serve nearby neighborhoods. If the property cannot be acquired in a timely manner, the development of a compact residential village that preserves the majority of the site as open space and restores critical habitat is allowed in accordance with Policies LU 6.3.1 through 6.5.5. Under both land use options proposed for Banning Ranch, Policies LU 6.5.1 and 6.5.3 would both apply to the area, and would relocate and cluster oil operations, as well as restore and enhance wetlands and wildlife habitats. Both of these policies would improve the overall aesthetic quality of the area.
While both options (open space and high quality residential development) would protect visually important open space components of the existing area, the visual impacts of retaining the site as open space would be less than if development were to be allowed in the area. Thus, if Banning Ranch is ultimately acquired as open space for the City, visual impacts would be less than significant. However, if the site is ultimately developed, new land uses would include residential, limited commercial, overnight accommodations, and community parks designed in such a way as to provide a cohesive urban form that
4.1-20 City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR
provides the sense of a complete and identifiable neighborhood (Policy LU 6.4.5). Most importantly, Policy LU 6.5.5 requires that development be located and designed to prevent residences on the property from dominating public views of the bluff faces from Coast Highway, the ocean, wetlands, and surrounding open spaces. In addition, as discussed above, the consolidation of oil operations as well as the restoration of wetlands and habitat areas would improve the visual quality of the area. While new development would represent a change from the existing land uses, with implementation of the proposed General Plan Update policies, the potential visual impacts of new development in the Banning Ranch area would be minimized. Consequently, development in Banning Ranch under the proposed General Plan Update would have less -than -significant impacts on the visual quality of the area.
Threshold Would the proposed project create a new source of substantial light and glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views?
Impact 4.1-3 New sources of light and glare would be created in the Banning Ranch subarea by new developments under the proposed General Plan Update.
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. These sensitive land uses could generally be considered as undeveloped lands and residential uses adjacent to commercial or industrial areas.
Daytime Glare
Glare could be produced by the increased amount of surface area of proposed commercial and residential structures, which could reflect or concentrate sunlight and result in a potentially significant impact. However, Policy LU 5.5.2 would require that new and renovated buildings be designed to avoid the use of styles, colors, and materials that unusually impact the design character and quality of their location such as the use of reflective surfaces that increase heat gain of adjoining buildings and ambient glare. Implementation of design features required by Policy 5.5.2, including the use of non -reflective textured surfaces on building exteriors, as well as avoidance of the use of reflective glass, would reduce impacts resulting from daytime glare from new development to a less -than -significant level.
Ambient Nighttime Light Levels and Vehicle Headlights
As implementation of the project would primarily result in infill of vacant or underutilized parcels, as well as intensification and reuse of existing sites, the majority of new development would be located in areas that commonly experience at least minimal impacts from existing light sources. The only exception to this would be development in the Banning Ranch area, which is currently developed with oil production uses and associated structures and is discussed further below.
City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 4.1-21
There would be some construction of residential uses next to commercial uses. For example, in Balboa Peninsula, 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, which would be replaced by medium density housing and mixed -use structures that would integrate housing with ground -level retail uses. As older uses are phased out over time, light conflicts could occur. Another example could include the waterfront development in Mariners' Mile, which could produce light impacts on the existing neighborhood above.
Commercial facilities typically involve substantial amounts of lighting for the building exterior and parking lots. Additionally, the potential introduction of new playfields (and associated field lighting) could result in light spillover onto adjacent properties.
However, the proposed General Plan Update contains policies to address these potential nighttime lighting impacts. Most importantly, LU Policy 5.5.3 requires that outdoor lighting be located and designed to prevent spillover onto adjoining properties or significantly increase the overall ambient illumination of their location. In addition, Policy LU 5.1.1 requires the establishment of development regulations that insure compatibility of residential development with other land uses. Policies such as LU
6.1.3 and 6.2.5 allow for the integration of uses to be designed specifically to assure development compatibility by addressing issues such as lighting. Also, existing municipal code regulations require that light be shielded and confined within site boundaries to prevent spillage. Therefore, with implementation of the above -mentioned policies, nighttime lighting impacts and potential spillover would be less than significant.
Banning Ranch
While the proposed policies would reduce nighttime lighting impacts in most areas of the City as result of future development opportunities, Banning Ranch could be an exception to this if the area is not acquired for open space. Because Banning Ranch is currently underdeveloped and located adjacent to sensitive residential uses, the introduction of residential and commercial development would also introduce new sources of nighttime lighting, which would affect the existing adjacent uses. In addition, the new sources of nighttime lighting could also affect the sensitive habitat areas within the site as a majority of Banning Ranch would remain open space. While spillover would be minimized by the proposed policies and existing regulations, the substantial increase of lighting alone would present a significant impact to the Banning Ranch area, with no feasible mitigation available to reduce the impacts.
Consequently, if Banning Ranch remains open space, lighting impacts would be less than significant; however, if development ultimately occurs in Banning Ranch (including the development of an active park with nighttime lighting), the increased light effects caused by new development would be significant and unavoidable.
■ Cumulative Impacts
The geographic context for cumulative visual impacts that would occur under the proposed General Plan Update is southwestern Orange County, particularly Newport Beach and adjacent cities, such as Huntington Beach, Costa Mesa, and Irvine.
4.1-22 City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR
Development under the proposed General Plan Update, in combination with all other development in the area, could affect scenic resources or viewsheds. However, since proposed General Plan Update policies require that natural landforms and features be preserved and that viewsheds be maintained (proposed General Plan Update Policies LU 1.3 and LU 1.6), contributions to adverse impacts to scenic vistas as a result of the General Plan Update would not be cumulatively considerable. Therefore, in this regard the General Plan's impact would be less than significant.
As noted earlier in this analysis, the City of Newport Beach does not contain or adjoin any scenic highways. No significant impacts on scenic highways, cumulative or otherwise, would occur as a result of the proposed General Plan Update.
While most of the Newport Beach developments would take place in already urbanized areas, portions of the Banning Ranch area, currently underdeveloped, could be developed as a residential village with some commercial land uses (if the property is not acquired for open space). Although a majority of the site would be preserved as open space if development did occur, the cumulative impacts associated with the loss of open space would still be considered potentially significant. Although development in this portion of the City would convert underdeveloped and vacant lands to urban uses, implementation of proposed General Plan Update policies would minimize the degradation of the visual quality of the area, and the project's contribution to this impact would not be cumulatively considerable. This project impact would be less than significant.
Cumulative development within southwestern Orange County could result in some increase in daytime glare or in the creation of new sources of light that could affect nighttime views. Under the proposed General Plan Update, future developments and associated specific building materials and configurations are uncertain. However, LU Policy 5.5.2 requires new and renovated buildings be designed to reduce ambient glare. Further, future projects would in many cases be subject to CEQA review and may require mitigation for these effects, which would likely reduce the impacts to a less -than -significant level.
Consequently, cumulative daytime glare within the area would be less than significant. As implementation of the proposed General Plan Update would not result in a significant daytime glare impact, the proposed project would not result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to this impact.
Therefore, cumulative impacts associated with daytime glare would not be cumulatively considerable and would be less than significant.
Existing commercial and residential uses have resulted in a cumulative increase in nighttime lighting within southwestern Orange County. The cumulative effect of this past development has resulted in a cumulative loss of available nighttime views. Future development would occur among existing urban uses, which would already be subject to lighting from existing development and vehicle headlights.
However, minimal nighttime lighting currently exists in the Banning Ranch area. Even though a majority of the site would be preserved as open space if developed, and the direct illumination of adjacent uses would be minimized through requirements designed to prevent spillover light on surrounding areas, ambient nighttime lighting levels in southwestern Orange County would increase due to increased overall development and associated vehicle headlights. Because implementation of the proposed General Plan Update could result in new sources of nighttime lighting within this area, the proposed project would City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 4.1-23
represent a cumulatively considerable contribution to this impact, and the cumulative nighttime lighting impact would be significant and unavoidable.
■ Proposed General Plan Update Policies
Policies within the Land Use, Natural Resources, and Harbor and Bay Elements of the proposed Newport Beach General Plan Update would directly or indirectly minimize the visual quality effects of prospective growth within the City. The aesthetics -related policies that are applicable to the project are included below.
Land Use Element
Goal LU 1 A unique residential community with diverse coastal and upland neighborhoods, which values its colorful past, high quality of life, and community bonds, and balances the needs of residents, businesses, and visitors through the recognition that Newport Beach is primarily a residential community.
Policy LU 1.1 Unique Environment
Maintain and enhance the beneficial and unique character of the different neighborhoods, business districts, and harbor that together identify Newport Beach. Locate and design development to reflect Newport Beach's topography, architectural diversity, and view sheds.
Policy LU 1.2 Citywide Identity
While recognizing the qualities that uniquely define its neighborhoods and districts, promote the identity of the entire City that differentiates it as a special place within the Southern California region.
Policy LU 1.3 Natural Resources
Protect the natural setting that contributes to the character and identify of Newport Beach and the sense of place it provides for its residents and visitors.
Preserve open space resources, beaches, harbor, parks, bluffs, preserves, and estuaries as visual, recreational and habitat resources.
Policy LU 1.6 Public Views
Protect and, where feasible, enhance significant scenic and visual resources that include open space, mountains, canyons, ridges, ocean, and harbor from public vantage points.
4.1-24 City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR
Goal LU 3 A development pattern that retains and complements the City's residential neighborhoods, commercial and industrial districts, open spaces, and natural environment.
Policy LU 3.1 Neighborhoods, Districts, Corridors, and Open Spaces Maintain Newport Beach's pattern of residential neighborhoods, business and employment districts, commercial centers, corridors, and harbor and ocean districts.
Policy LU 3.2 Growth and Change
Enhance existing neighborhoods, districts, and corridors, allowing for re -use and infill with uses that are complementary in type, form, scale, and character.
Changes in use and/or density/intensity should be considered only in those areas that are economically underperforming, are necessary to accommodate Newport Beach's share of projected regional population growth, improve the relationship and reduce commuting distance between home and jobs, or enhance the values that distinguish Newport Beach as a special place to live for its residents. The scale of growth and new development shall be coordinated with the provision of adequate infrastructure and public services, including standards for acceptable traffic level of service.
Policy LU 3.3 Opportunities for Change
Provide opportunities for improved development and enhanced environments for residents in the following districts and corridors, as specified in Polices
6.3.1 through 6.22.7:
■ West Newport: consolidation of retail and visitor -serving commercial uses, with remaining areas developed for residential units
■ West Newport Mesa: re -use of underperforming commercial and industrial properties for offices and other uses that support Hoag Hospital's medical activities, improvement of remaining industrial properties adjoining the City of Costa Mesa, and development of residential in proximity to jobs and services
■ Santa Ana Heights: use of properties consistent with the adopted Specific Plan and Redevelopment Plan
■ John Wayne Airport Area: re -use of underperforming industrial and office properties and development of cohesive residential neighborhoods in proximity to jobs and services
■ Fashion Island/Newport Center: expanded retail uses and hotel rooms and development of residential in proximity to jobs and services, while limiting increases in office development
■ Balboa Peninsula: more efficient patterns of use that consolidate the Peninsula's visitor -serving and mixed uses within the core commercial districts; encourage marine -related uses especially along the bay front; integrate residential with retail uses in Lido Village, McFadden Square, and City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 4.1-25
Balboa Village; re -use interior parcels in Cannery Village for residential and limited mixed -use and live/work buildings; and redevelop underperforming properties outside of the core commercial districts along the Balboa Boulevard corridor for residential. Infill development shall be designed and sited to preserve the historical and architectural fabric of these districts ■ Mariners' Mile: re -use of underperforming properties for retail, visitor - serving, and marine -related uses, integrated with residential ■ Corona del Mar: enhancement of public improvements and parking Policy LU 3.4 Banning Ranch
Prioritize the retention of Banning Ranch as an open space amenity for the City and region, consolidating oil operations, enhancing wetland and other habitats, and providing parkland amenities to serve nearby neighborhoods. If the property cannot be acquired in a timely manner, allow for the development of a compact residential village that preserves the majority of the site as open space and restores critical habitat in accordance with Policies 6.3.1 through
6.5.5. Goal 5.1 Residential neighborhoods that are well -planned and designed, contribute to the livability and quality of life of residents, respect the natural environmental setting, and sustain the qualities of place that differentiate Newport Beach as a special place in the Southern California region.
Policy LU 5.1.1 Compatible but Diverse Development
Establish property development regulations for residential projects to create compatible and high quality development that contributes to neighborhood character.
Policy LU 5.1.2 Compatible Interfaces
Require that the height of development in nonresidential and higher density residential areas transition as it nears lower density residential areas to minimize conflicts at the interface between the different types of development.
Policy LU 5.1.3 Neighborhood Identification
Encourage and support the identification of distinct residential neighborhoods.
Policy LU 5.1.4 Neighborhood Maintenance
Promote the maintenance of existing residential units through code enforcement and promotion of County and local rehabilitation programs, and public education. This may include providing information, guidance, and assistance where feasible.
4.1-26 City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR
Policy LU 5.1.5 Character and Quality of Single Family Residential Dwellings Require that residential units be designed to sustain the high level of architectural design quality that characterizes Newport Beach's neighborhoods in consideration of the following principles:
■ Articulation and modulation of building masses and elevations to avoid the appearance of "box -like" buildings
■ Compatibility with neighborhood development in density, scale, and street facing elevations
■ Architectural treatment of all elevations visible from public places ■ Entries and windows on street facing elevations to visually "open" the house to the neighborhood
■ Orientation to desirable sunlight and views
Policy LU 5.1.6 Character and Quality of Residential Properties Require that residential front setbacks and other areas visible from the public street be attractively landscaped, trash containers enclosed, and driveway and parking paving minimized.
Policy LU 5.1.9 Character and Quality of Multi -Family Residential Require that multi -family dwellings be designed to convey a high quality architectural character in accordance with the following principles:
Building Elevations
■ Treatment of the elevations of buildings facing public streets and pedestrian ways as the principal fagades with respect to architectural treatment to achieve the highest level of urban design and neighborhood quality ■ Architectural treatment of building elevations and modulation of mass to convey the character of separate living units or clusters of living units, avoiding the appearance of a singular building volume
■ Provide street- and path -facing elevations with high -quality doors, windows, moldings, metalwork, and finishes
Ground Floor Treatment
Where multi -family residential is developed on large parcels such as the Airport Area and West Newport Mesa:
■ Set ground -floor residential uses back from the sidewalk or from the right- of-way, whichever yields the greater setback to provide privacy and a sense of security and to leave room for stoops, porches and landscaping ■ Raise ground -floor residential uses above the sidewalk for privacy and security but not so much that pedestrians face blank walls or look into utility or parking spaces
■ Encourage stoops and porches for ground -floor residential units facing public streets and pedestrian ways
City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 4.1-27
■ Where multi -family residential is developed on small parcels, such as the Balboa Peninsula, the unit may be located directly along the sidewalk frontage and entries should be setback or elevated to assure adequate security (as shown below).
Roof Design
■ Modulate roof profiles to reduce the apparent scale of large structures and to provide visual interest and variety.
Parking
■ Design covered and enclosed parking areas to be integral with the architecture of the residential units' architecture.
Open Space and Amenity
■ Incorporate usable and functional private open space for each unit. ■ Incorporate common open space that creates a pleasant living environment with opportunities for recreation.
Goal5.2 Commercial centers and districts that are well -designed and planned, exhibit a high level of architectural and landscape quality, and are vital places for shopping and socialization.
Policy LU 5.2.1 Architecture and Site Design
Require that new development within existing commercial districts centers and corridors complement existing uses and exhibit a high level of architectural and site design in consideration of the following principles:
■ Seamless connections and transitions with existing buildings, except where developed as a free-standing building
■ Modulation of building masses, elevations, and rooflines to promote visual interest
■ Architectural treatment of all building elevations, including ancillary facilities such as storage, truck loading and unloading, and trash enclosures ■ Treatment of the ground floor of buildings to promote pedestrian activity by avoiding long, continuous blank walls, incorporating extensive glazing for transparency, and modulating and articulating elevations to promote visual interest
■ Clear identification of storefront entries
■ Incorporation of signage that is integrated with the buildings' architectural character
■ Architectural treatment of parking structures consistent with commercial buildings, including the incorporation of retail in the ground floors where the parking structure faces a public street or pedestrian way ■ Extensive on -site landscaping, including mature vegetation to provide a tree canopy to provide shade for customers
4.1-28 City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR
■ Incorporation of plazas and expanded sidewalks to accommodate pedestrian, outdoor dining, and other activities
■ Clearly delineated pedestrian connections between business areas, parking, and to adjoining neighborhoods and districts (paving treatment, landscape, wayfinding signage, and so on)
■ Integration of building design and site planning elements that reduce the consumption of water, energy, and other nonrenewable resources Policy LU 5.2.2 Buffering Residential Areas
Require that residential areas be buffered from adjoining nonresidential uses to the extent feasible, such as retail commercial and industrial, through the establishment of performance -based regulations, the removal of nonconforming uses, and other tools such as landscape screening.
Policy LU 5.2.3 Alley Design
Improve and enhance the aesthetic quality of alleys without impacting service access.
Goal5.3 Districts where residents and businesses are intermixed that are designed and planned to assure compatibility among the uses, that they are highly livable for residents, and are of high quality design reflecting the traditions of Newport Beach.
Policy LU 5.3.1 Mixed Use Buildings
Require that mixed -use buildings be designed to convey a high level of architectural and landscape quality and ensure compatibility among their uses in consideration of the following principles:
■ Design and incorporation of building materials and features to avoid conflicts among uses, such as noise, vibration, lighting, odors, and similar impacts
■ Visual and physical integration of residential and nonresidential uses ■ Architectural treatment of building elevations and modulation of their massing
■ Separate and well-defined entries for residential units and nonresidential businesses
■ Design of parking areas and facilities for architectural consistency and integration among uses
■ Incorporation of extensive landscape appropriate to its location; urbanized streetscapes, for example, would require less landscape along the street frontage but integrate landscape into interior courtyards and common open spaces
City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 4.1-29
Policy LU 5.3.3 Parcels Integrating Residential and Non -Residential Uses Require that properties developed with a mix of residential and nonresidential uses be designed to achieve high levels of architectural quality in accordance with policies 5.1.8 and 5.2.2 and planned to assure compatibility among the uses and provide adequate circulation and parking. Residential uses should be seamlessly integrated with nonresidential uses through architecture, pedestrian walkways, and landscape. They should not be completely isolated by walls or other design elements.
Goal5.5 Neighborhoods, districts, and corridors containing a diversity of uses and buildings that are mutually compatible and enhance the quality of the City's environment
Policy LU 5.5.2 Form and Environment
Require that new and renovated buildings be designed to avoid the use of styles, colors, and materials that unusually impact the design character and quality of their location such as abut changes in scale, building form, architectural style, and the use of surface materials that raise local temperatures or adversely modify wind patterns.
Policy LU 5.5.3 Ambient Lighting
Require that outdoor lighting be located and designed to prevent spillover onto adjoining properties or significantly increase the overall ambient illumination of their location.
Goal6.1 A diversity of governmental service, institutional, educational, cultural, social, religious, and medical facilities that are available for and enhance the quality of life for residents and are located and designed to complement Newport Beach's neighborhoods.
Policy LU 6.1.3 Architecture and Planning that Complements Adjoining Uses Ensure that the City's public buildings, sites, and infrastructure are designed to be compatible in scale, mass, character, and architecture with the district or neighborhood in which they are located, following the design and development policies for private uses specified by this Plan. Design impacts on adjoining uses shall be carefully considered in development, addressing such issues as lighting spillover, noise, hours of operation, parking, local traffic impacts, and privacy.
4.1-30 City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR
Goal6.2 Residential neighborhoods that contain a diversity of housing types and supporting uses to meet the needs of Newport Beach's residents and are designed to sustain livability and a high quality of life.
Policy LU 6.2.5 Neighborhood Supporting Uses
Allow for the integration of uses within residential neighborhoods that support and are complementary to their primary function as a living environment such as schools, parks, community meeting facilities, religious facilities, and comparable uses. These uses shall be designed to assure compatibility with adjoining residential addressing such issues as noise, lighting, and parking.
Goals 6.3 and 6.4 pertain to the Banning Ranch policies identified below.
Goal 6.3 Preferably a protected open space amenity, with restored wetlands and habitat areas, as well as active community parklands to serve adjoining neighborhoods.
Policy LU 6.3.1 Primary Use
Open space, including significant active community parklands that serve adjoining residential neighborhoods if the site is acquired through public funding.
Goal6.4 If acquisition for open space is not successful, a high -quality residential community with supporting uses that provides revenue to restore and protect wetlands and important habitats
Policy LU 6.5.4 Relationship of Development to Environmental Resources Development should be located and designed to preserve and/or mitigate for the loss of wetlands and drainage course habitat. It shall be located to be contiguous and compatible with existing and planned development along its eastern property line, preserving the connectivity of wildlife corridors, and set back from the bluff faces, along which shall be located a linear park to provide public views of the ocean, wetlands, and surrounding open spaces.
Policy LU 6.5.5 Public Views of the Property
Development shall be located and designed to prevent residences on the property from dominating public views of the bluff faces from Coast Highway, the ocean, wetlands, and surrounding open spaces.
City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 4.1-31
Goal6.13 An economically viable pedestrian oriented village that serves local residents, visitors, and provides residential in proximity to retail uses, entertainment, and recreation
Policy LU 6.13.4 Streetscapes
Promote the completion of enhancements to Balboa Village's streetscapes to enhance the area's visual quality and character as a pedestrian -oriented environment.
Goal6.14 A successful mixed -use district that integrates an economic and commercial centers serving the needs of Newport Beach residents and the sub -region, with expanded opportunities for residents to live close to jobs, commerce, entertainment, and recreation, and is supported by a pedestrian -friendly environment
Policy LU 6.14.4 Urban Form
Encourage that some new development be located and designed to orient to the inner side of Newport Center Drive, establishing physical and visual continuity that diminishes the dominance of surface parking lots and encourages pedestrian activity.
Policy LU 6.14.5 Pedestrian Connectivity and Amenity
Encourage that pedestrian access and connections among uses within the district be improved with additional walkways and streetscape amenities concurrent with the development of expanded and new uses.
Policy LU 6.14.6 Fashion Island Architecture and Streetscapes Encourage that new development in Fashion Island complement and be of equivalent or higher design quality than existing buildings. Additionally, new buildings shall be located on axes connecting Newport Center Drive with existing buildings to provide visual and physical connectivity with adjoining uses, where practical.
Goal 6.15 A mixed -use community that provides jobs, residential, and supporting services in close proximity, with pedestrian -oriented amenities that facilitates walking and enhance livability
Policy LU 6.15.6 Auto -Rental and Supporting Uses
Work with auto rental and supporting uses to promote the consolidation and visual improvement of auto storage, service, and storage facilities.
4.1-32 City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR
Policy LU 6.15.7 Site Planning and Architecture
Encourage and, when subject to redevelopment, require property owners within the Campus Tract to upgrade the street frontages of their properties with landscape, well -designed signage, and other amenities that improve the area's visual quality.
Policy LU 6.15.10 Number and Size of Residential Villages (refer to Figure LU23) Allow development of a maximum of four (4) mixed use residential villages, each centered on a neighborhood park and other amenities (as conceptually illustrated in Figure LU23). The first phase of residential development in each neighborhood shall encompass at least 10 gross acres of land, exclusive of existing rights -of -way. The 10 acres may include multiple parcels provided that they are contiguous or face one another across an existing street. The 10 acre requirement may be waived for projects of at least 5 acres if a concept plan is prepared that integrates existing and new uses into a cohesive mixed -use neighborhood and achieves the objectives for the Airport Area.
Goal 6.17 A corridor that includes a gateway to the City with amenities that support the Orange Coast River Park, as well as commercial clusters that serve local residents and coastal visitors at key intersections, interspersed with compatible residential development
Policy LU 6.17.3 Redevelopment Incentives
Permit commercial properties to be developed at a maximum floor area ratio of 1.0 as an incentive for their redevelopment.
Policy LU 6.17.4 Improved Visual Image and Quality
Implement streetscape improvements to enhance the area's character and image as a gateway to Newport Beach and develop a stronger pedestrian environment at the commercial nodes.
Policy LU 6.17.5 Streetscape
Require that upgraded and redeveloped properties incorporate landscaped setbacks along arterial streets to improve their visual quality and reduce impacts of the corridor's high traffic volumes.
Goal6.18 A corridor of uses and services that support Hoag Hospital and adjoining residential neighborhoods
Policy LU 6.18.4 Property Design
Require that buildings be located and designed to orient to the Old Newport Boulevard frontage, while the rear of parcels on its west side shall incorporate City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 4.1-33
landscape and design elements that are attractive when viewed from Newport Boulevard.
Goal 6.19 A corridor that reflects and takes advantage of its location on the Newport Bay waterfront, supports and respects adjacent residential neighborhoods, and exhibits a quality visual image for travelers on Coast Highway Policy LU 6.19.6 Corridor Identity and Quality
Implement landscape, signage, lighting, sidewalk, pedestrian crossing, and other amenities consistent with the Mariner's Mile Specific Plan District and Mariner's Mile Strategic Vision and Design Plan.
Policy LU 6.19.9 Bay Views
Require that buildings be located and sites designed to provide clear views of and access to the Harbor and Bay from the Coast Highway and Newport Boulevard rights -of -way in accordance with the following principles, as appropriate:
■ Clustering of buildings to provide open view and access corridors to the Harbor
■ Modulation of building volume and masses
■ Variation of building heights
■ Inclusion of porticoes, arcades, windows, and other "see -through" elements in addition to the defined open corridor
■ Minimization of landscape, fencing, parked cars, and other nonstructural elements that block views and access to the Harbor
■ Prevention of the appearance of the public right-of-way being walled off from the Harbor
■ Inclusion of setbacks that in combination with setbacks on adjoining parcels cumulatively form functional view corridors
■ Encouragement of adjoining properties to combine their view corridors that achieve a larger cumulative corridor than would have been achieved independently
■ A site -specific analysis shall be conducted for new development to determine the appropriate size, configuration, and design of the view and access corridor that meets these objectives, which shall be subject to approval in the Development Plan review process.
Policy LU 6.19.12 Properties Abutting Bluff Faces
Require that development projects locate and design buildings to maintain the visual quality and maintain the structural integrity of the bluff faces.
4.1-34 City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR
Policy LU 6.19.13 Building Heights
Consider the modification of the boundary of the Shoreline Height Limitation Zone (26') to accommodate higher mixed use buildings, where these are located adjacent to bluffs and the viewshed "envelope" is maintained.
Natural Resources Element
Goal NR 17 Maintenance and expansion of designated open space resources.
NR 17.1 Open Space Protection
Protect, conserve, maintain, designated open space areas that define the City's urban form, serve as habitat for many species, and provide recreational opportunities.
NR 17.2 Other Uses of Public Sites Designated for Open Space Consider conversion of public sites designated for open space to other uses only when the conversion will meet a significant need, and there are no alternative sites that could feasibly meet that need.
NR 17.3 New Open Space Areas
Consider opportunities to expand designated open space areas within the City.
Goal NR 20 Preservation of significant visual resources.
NR 20.1 Enhancement of Significant Resources
Protect and, where feasible, enhance significant scenic and visual resources that include open space, mountains, canyons, ridges, ocean, and harbor from public vantage points, as shown in Figure NR3.
NR 20.2 New Development Requirements
Require new development to restore and enhance the visual quality in visually degraded areas, where feasible, and provide view easements or corridors designed to protect public views or to restore public views in developed areas, where appropriate.
NR 20.3 Public Views
Protect and enhance public views from the following roadway segments (shown in Figure NR3), and other locations may be identified in the future:
■ Avocado Avenue from San Joaquin Hills Road to Coast Highway ■ Back Bay Drive
■ Balboa Island Bridge
■ Bayside Drive from Coast Highway to Linda Island Drive City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 4.1-35
■ Bayside Drive at Promontory Bay
■ Coast Highway/Santa Ana River Bridge
■ Coast Highway/Newport Boulevard Bridge and Interchange ■ Coast Highway from Newport Boulevard to Marino Drive (Bayshores) ■ Coast Highway/Newport Bay Bridge
■ Coast Highway from Jamboree Road to Bayside Drive
■ Coast Highway from Pelican Point Drive to city limits ■ Eastbluff Drive from Jamboree Road to Backbay Drive
■ Irvine Avenue from Santiago Drive to University Drive ■ Jamboree Road from Eastbluff Drive/University Drive to Bayview Way ■ Jamboree Road in the vicinity of the Big Canyon Park
■ Jamboree Road from Coast Highway to Bayside Drive
■ Lido Isle Bridge
■ MacArthur Boulevard from San Joaquin Hills Road to Coast Highway ■ Marguerite Avenue from San Joaquin Hills Road to Fifth Avenue ■ Newport Boulevard from Hospital Road/Westminster Avenue to Via Lido ■ Newport Center Drive from Newport Center Drive E/W to Farallon Drive/Granville Drive
■ Newport Coast from Pelican Hill Road North to Coast Highway ■ Ocean Boulevard
■ Pelican Hills Road South
■ San Joaquin Hills Road from Newport Ridge Drive to Spyglass Hill Road ■ San Miguel Drive from San Joaquin Hills Road to MacArthur Boulevard ■ State Route 73 from Bayview Way to the easterly City limit ■ Superior Avenue from Hospital Road to Coast Highway
■ University Drive from Irvine Avenue to the Santa Ana —Delhi Channel ■ Vista Ridge Road from Ocean Heights to Altezza Drive
NR 20.4 Public View Corridor Landscaping
Design and site new development, including landscaping, on the edges of public view corridors, including those down public streets, to frame, accent, and minimize impacts to public views.
NR 20.5 Public View Corridor Amenities
Provide public trails, recreation areas, and viewing areas adjacent to public view corridors, where feasible.
4.1-36 City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR
Goal NR 21 Minimize visual impacts of signs and utilities.
Policy NR 21.1 Signs and Utility Siting and Design
Design and site signs, utilities, and antennas to minimize visual impacts.
Policy NR 21.2 Illegal Signs and Legal Nonconforming Signs Implement programs to remove illegal signs and amortize legal nonconforming signs.
Policy NR 21.3 Overhead Utilities
Support programs to remove and underground overhead utilities, in new development as well as existing neighborhoods.
Goal NR 22 Maintain the intensity of development around Newport Bay to be consistent with the unique character and visual scale of Newport Beach.
NR 22.1 Shoreline Height Limitation Zone
Maintain the Shoreline Height Limitation Zone to protect views of the water.
Consider amending the boundary of this Zone where public views would not be impacted.
NR 22.2 Regulation of Structure Mass
Continue to regulate the visual and physical mass of structures consistent with the unique character and visual scale of Newport Beach.
Goal NR 23 Development respects natural landforms such as coastal bluffs.
Policy NR 23.1 Maintenance of Natural Topography
Preserve cliffs, canyons, bluffs, significant rock outcroppings, and site buildings to minimize alteration of the site's natural topography and preserve the features as a visual resource.
Policy NR 23.2 Bluff Edge Setbacks
Maintain approved bluff edge setbacks for the coastal bluffs within the communities of Castaways, Eastbluff, Park Newport, Newporter North (Harbor Cove), and Bayview Landing and neighborhoods from Jamboree Road to Corona del Mar, north of Bayside Drive, to ensure the preservation of scenic resources and geologic stability
Policy NR 23.3 Open Space Dedication or Preservation for New Planned Communities Require new planned communities to dedicate or preserve as open space the coastal bluff face and an area inland from the edge of the coastal bluff City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 4.1-37
adequate to provide safe public access and to avoid or minimize visual impacts.
Policy NR 23.4 New Development on Blufftops
Require all new blufftop development located on a bluff subject to marine erosion to be set back based on the predominant line of development. This requirement shall apply to the principal structure and major accessory structures such as guesthouses and pools. The setback shall be increased where necessary to ensure safety and stability of the development.
Policy NR 23.5 New Accessory Structures on Blufftops
On bluffs subject to marine erosion, require new accessory structures such as decks, patios and walkways that do not require structural foundations to be sited at least 10 feet from the bluff edge. Require accessory structures to be removed or relocated landward when threatened by erosion, instability or other hazards.
Policy NR 23.6 Canyon Development Standards
Establish canyon development setbacks based on the predominant line of existing development for Buck Gully and Morning Canyon. Do not permit development to extend beyond the predominant line of existing development by establishing a development stringline where a line is drawn between nearest adjacent corners of existing structures on either side of the subject property.
Establish development stringlines for principle structures and accessory improvements.
Policy NR 23.7 New Development Design and Siting
Design and site new development to minimize the removal of native vegetation, preserve rock outcroppings, and protect coastal resources.
Harbor and Bay Element
Goal HB3 Enhanced and updated waterfront commercial areas.
Policy HB 3.1 Building Improvements and Programs
Preserve and/or enhance existing water -enhanced, water- related and water - dependent commercial uses and marine oriented commercial areas through building improvements and programs that preserve the design and character of the Harbor.
4.1-38 City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR
Goal HB4 Preservation of existing commercial uses in the Harbor to maintain and enhance the charm and character of the Harbor and to provide support services for visitors, recreational boaters, and other water -dependent uses.
Policy HB 4.3 Entertainment and Tour Vessels
Support continued operation of entertainment and tour boats subject to reasonable regulations designed to ensure the operations don't have an adverse impact, such as unsafe navigation, impaired water quality, reduced visual quality, excessive noise, unsafe street traffic conditions, or parking shortages on the environment and land uses surrounding the harbor.
Goal HB9 A variety of beach/bulkhead profiles that characterize its recreational, residential, and commercial waterfronts.
Policy HB 9.1 Design of New or Renovated Bulkheads
Balance private property rights, natural harbor tidal and current forces and other coastal processes (such as erosion and accretion) and harbor aesthetics with other policies when considering designs for new or renovated bulkhead permits.
Policy HB 9.2 Protection of Beach Profile
Permit and design bulkheads and groins to protect the character of the existing beach profiles and to restore eroded beach profiles found around the Harbor and island perimeters, and the safe navigation and berthing of vessels.
Policy HB 9.3 Structures Impacting Visual Resources
Limit structures bayward of the bulkhead line to piers, floats, groins, appurtenances related to marine activities, and public walkways.
Policy HB 9.4 Abandoned Vessels
Utilize City, county, state, and federal regulations to remove derelict, abandoned and unseaworthy vessels from City controlled tidelands promptly. ■ Impacts and Mitigation Measures
The majority of impacts associated with aesthetics would be less than significant after implementation of proposed General Plan Update policies, and no mitigation would be required. However, as discussed above, while light spillover would be minimized by the proposed policies and existing regulations, the substantial increase of lighting alone would present a significant impact to the Banning Ranch area, if the area is ultimately developed, with no feasible mitigation available to reduce the impacts.
City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 4.1-39
Level of Significance After Policies/Mitigation Measures If Banning Ranch is ultimately developed with new residential and commercial uses, the impact of nighttime lighting would be significant and unavoidable, as no additional feasible mitigation measures are available to reduce light impacts. However, all other project impacts associated with aesthetics and visual resources would be less than significant under the proposed Newport Beach General Plan Update. Policies in the General Plan would reinforce design standards, protect visual character and views, and enhance the City's existing aesthetic qualities while simultaneously accommodating projected growth.
4.1.6 References
EIP Associates. 2004. Technical Background Report
Newport Beach, City of. 2005. Local Coastal Program —Coastal Land Use Plan. Adopted 13 December.
Newport Beach, City of. 2004. Neavport Beach: Current Conditions, Future Choices.
4.1-40 City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR
4.2 AIR QUALITY
4.2.1 Introduction
This section evaluates the potential impacts on air quality resulting from the proposed General Plan Update. This includes the potential for the proposed General Plan Update to conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan, to violate an air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation, to result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is in nonattainment, expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations, or create objectionable odors that would affect a substantial number of people. Data for this section were taken from the 2004 Technical Background Report, the 2005 Local Coastal Program, and other documents prepared for the City.
During the Initial Study process, it was determined that the proposed project could have potentially significant impacts for all five of the air quality CEQA criteria for determining significance. All potential impacts were analyzed in this Draft EIR. Full bibliographic entries for all reference materials are provided in Section 4.2.7 (References) of this section.
One comment letter related to Air Quality was received in response to the IS/NOP circulated for the proposed General Plan Update. The South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) recommended that analysis of the potential air quality impacts associated with the proposed project should be included in this EIR. Recommendations for the calculation of construction and operational impacts would not apply to this EIR as analysis of the proposed project is at the programmatic level.
4.2.2 Existing Conditions
L Regional Climate
The Planning Area is located within the South Coast Air Basin (Basin), named so because its geographical formation is that of a basin, with the surrounding mountains trapping the air and its pollutants in the valleys and basins below. This area includes all of Orange County and the nondesert portions of Los Angeles, San Bernardino, and Riverside Counties. The regional climate within the Basin is considered semi -arid and is characterized by warm summers, mild winters, infrequent seasonal rainfall, moderate daytime onshore breezes, and moderate humidity. ■ Local Climate
The Planning Area is located in central coastal Orange County. The typical daily wind pattern in the Basin is a daytime onshore sea breeze (from the west) followed by a nighttime land breeze in the opposite direction. On practically all spring and early summer days, the winds are strong enough to flush much of the air pollutants from the Basin. However, from late summer through the winter months, the City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 4.2-1
wind speeds decrease, the flushing is much less pronounced, and higher levels of air pollutants can build up.
■ Air Quality Background
Air pollutant emissions within the Basin are generated by stationary sources (e.g., industrial processes, power generation), mobile sources (e.g., automobiles, trucks, aircraft, trains), and natural sources (e.g., dust suspension from high winds).
Both the federal and state governments have established outdoor ambient air quality standards for several of the most common air pollutants in order to protect public health. Each of these air pollutants is identified and briefly described below:
■ Ozone is a gas that is formed when volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and nitrogen oxides (NOX) undergo photochemical reactions in the presence of sunlight; internal combustion engine exhaust accounts for a majority of such compounds. Ozone concentrations are generally highest during the summer months when direct sunlight, light wind, and warm temperature conditions are favorable to ozone formation.
■ Carbon Monoxide (CO) is a colorless, odorless gas produced by the incomplete combustion of motor vehicle fuels. The highest ambient CO concentrations are generally found near congested transportation corridors and intersections in the winter. ■ Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2) is a reactive, oxidizing gas capable of damaging cells lining the respiratory tract and is an essential ingredient in the formation of ozone. It is emitted as a by-product of fuel combustion.
■ Respirable Particulate Matter (PM,o) and Fine Particulate Matter (PM2.5) consist of extremely small, suspended particles or droplets with diameters less than 10 microns and less than 2.5 microns, respectively. Most particulate matter in urban areas is produced by fuel combustion, motor vehicle travel, and construction activities.
■ Sulfur dioxide (SOJ is a colorless, extremely irritating gas. It enters the atmosphere as a result of burning sulfur -containing fuels and from certain industrial processes (e. g., oil refining). ■ Lead (Pb) is present in the atmosphere in particulate form. Its primary source is the combustion of leaded gasoline, but other sources also contribute (e.g., recycling of batteries, manufacture of paint, ink, ceramics, ammunition, etc.).
Health Effects of Air Pollutants
Ozone
Individuals exercising outdoors, children and people with preexisting lung disease, such as asthma and chronic pulmonary lung disease, are considered to be the most susceptible sub -groups for ozone effects.
Short-term exposures (lasting for a few hours) to ozone at levels typically observed in Southern California can result in breathing pattern changes, reduction of breathing capacity, increased susceptibility to infections, inflammation of the lung tissue, and some immunological changes. Elevated ozone levels are also associated with increased school absences. In recent years, a correlation between elevated
4.2-2 City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR
ambient ozone levels and increases in daily hospital admission rates, as well as mortality, has also been reported. An increased risk for asthma has been found in children who participate in multiple sports and Eve in high ozone communities.
Ozone exposure under exercising conditions is known to increase the severity of the above mentioned observed responses. Animal studies suggest that exposure to a combination of pollutants that include ozone may be more toxic than exposure to ozone alone. Although lung volume and resistance changes observed after a single exposure diminish with repeated exposures, biochemical and cellular changes appear to persist, which can lead to subsequent lung structural changes.
Carbon Monoxide
Individuals with a deficient blood supply to the heart are the most susceptible to the adverse effects of CO exposure. The effects observed include earlier onset of chest pain with exercise, and electrocardiograph changes indicative of worsening oxygen supply to the heart.
Inhaled CO has no direct toxic effect on the lungs, but exerts its effect on tissues by interfering with oxygen transport and competing with oxygen to combine with hemoglobin present in the blood to form carboxyhemoglobin (COHb). Hence, conditions with an increased demand for oxygen supply can be adversely affected by exposure to CO. Individuals most at risk include patients with diseases involving heart and blood vessels, fetuses, and patients with chronic hypoxemia (oxygen deficiency) as seen in high altitudes.
Reduction in birth weight and impaired neurobehavioral development have been observed in animals chronically exposed to CO, resulting in COHb levels similar to those observed in smokers. Recent studies have found increased risks for adverse birth outcomes with exposure to elevated CO levels.
These include pre -term births and heart abnormalities.
Particulate Matter
A consistent correlation between elevated ambient fine particulate matter (PM,o and PMZ 5) levels and an increase in mortality rates, respiratory infections, number and severity of asthma attacks and the number of hospital admissions has been observed in different parts of the United States and various areas around the world. In recent years, some studies have reported an association between long-term exposure to air pollution dominated by fine particles and increased mortality, reduction in life -span, and an increased mortality from lung cancer.
Daily fluctuations in PM, concentration levels have also been related to hospital admissions for acute respiratory conditions in children, to school and kindergarten absences, to a decrease in respiratory lung volumes in normal children and to increased medication use in children and adults with asthma. Recent studies show lung function growth in children is reduced with long-term exposure to particulate matter.
The elderly, people with pre-existing respiratory or cardiovascular disease and children appear to be more susceptible to the effects of high levels of PM,o and PM2.5• City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 4.2-3
Nitrogen Dioxide
Population -based studies suggest that an increase in acute respiratory illness, including infections and respiratory symptoms in children (not infants), is associated with long-term exposures to NO, at levels found in homes with gas stoves, which are higher than ambient levels found in Southern California.
Increase in resistance to air flow and airway contraction is observed after short-term exposure to NO2 in healthy subjects. Larger decreases in lung functions are observed in individuals with asthma or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (e.g., chronic bronchitis, emphysema) than in healthy individuals, indicating a greater susceptibility of these sub -groups.
In animals, exposure to levels of NO2 considerably higher than ambient concentrations results in increased susceptibility to infections, possibly due to the observed changes in cells involved in maintaining immune functions. The severity of lung tissue damage associated with high levels of ozone exposure increases when animals are exposed to a combination of ozone and NO2.
Sulfur Dioxide
A few minutes exposure to low levels of S02 can result in airway constriction in some asthmatics, all of whom are sensitive to its effects. In asthmatics, increase in resistance to air flow, as well as reduction in breathing capacity leading to severe breathing difficulties, are observed after acute exposure to SO2. In contrast, healthy individuals do not exhibit similar acute responses even after exposure to higher concentrations of SO2.
Animal studies suggest that despite S02 being a respiratory irritant, it does not cause substantial lung injury at ambient concentrations. However, very high levels of exposure can cause lung edema (fluid accumulation), lung tissue damage, and sloughing off of cells lining the respiratory tract.
Some population -based studies indicate that the mortality and morbidity effects associated with fine particles show a similar association with ambient S02 levels. In these studies, efforts to separate the effects of S02 from those of fine particles have not been successful. It is not clear whether the two pollutants act synergistically or one pollutant alone is the predominant factor.
Lead
Fetuses, infants, and children are more sensitive than others to the adverse effects of Pb exposure.
Exposure to low levels of Pb can adversely affect the development and function of the central nervous system, leading to learning disorders, distractibility, inability to follow simple commands, and lower intelligence quotient. In adults, increased Pb levels are associated with increased blood pressure.
Pb poisoning can cause anemia, lethargy, seizures and death, although it appears that there are no direct effects of Pb on the respiratory system. Pb can be stored in the bone from early age environmental exposure, and elevated blood Pb levels can occur due to breakdown of bone tissue during pregnancy, hyperthyroidism (increased secretion of hormones from the thyroid gland) and osteoporosis (breakdown of bony tissue). Fetuses and breast-fed babies can be exposed to higher levels of Pb because of previous environmental Pb exposure of their mothers.
4.2-4 City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR
Odors
The science of odor as a health concern is still new. Odorant compounds can irritate the eye, nose, and throat, which can reduce respiratory volume. Second, some odors can stimulate sensory nerves to cause neurochemical changes that might influence health, for instance by compromising the immune system.
Finally, unpleasant odors can trigger memories or attitudes linked to unpleasant odors, causing cognitive and emotional effects such as stress. Potential operational airborne odors relevant to implementation of the proposed General Plan Update include cooking activities associated with the new residential and restaurant uses. These odors could be similar to existing housing and food service uses throughout the City are generally confined to the immediate vicinity of buildings. Other potential sources of odors include trash receptacles.
Toxic Air Contaminant Emissions
Toxic air contaminants (TAC) are airborne substances that are capable of causing chronic (i.e., of long duration) and acute (i.e., severe but of short duration) adverse effects on human health. They include both organic and inorganic chemical substances that may be emitted from a variety of common sources including gasoline stations, motor vehicles, dry cleaners, industrial operations, painting operations, and research and teaching facilities. Toxic air contaminants are different than the "criteria" pollutants previously discussed in that ambient air quality standards have not been established for them, largely because there are hundreds of air toxics and their effects on health tend to be local rather than regional.
Lifetime cancer risk is defined as the increased chance of contracting cancer over a 70-year period as a result of exposure to a toxic substance or substances. It is the product of the estimated daily exposure of each suspected carcinogen by its respective cancer unit risk. The end result represents a worst -case estimate of cancer risk. The California Air Resources Board (ARB) has produced a series of estimated inhalation cancer risk maps based on modeled levels of outdoor composite toxic pollutant levels. The 2000 map (the most recent map available) indicates that the City of Newport Beach is exposed to an estimated inhalation cancer risk of more than 250 persons per million. These risk maps depict inhalation cancer risk due to modeled outdoor toxic pollutant levels, and do not account for cancer risk due to other types of exposure. The largest contributors to inhalation cancer risk are diesel engines. ■ Regional Air Quality
The Southern California Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) is responsible for bringing air quality within the Basin into conformity with the federal and state standards. The Basin is a nonattainment area for the federal ozone and PMIo standards. It has recently improved from nonattainment to attainment for the federal NO, standard, and is about to be designated an attainment area for CO. The Basin is a nonattainment area for the state ozone, CO (Los Angeles County only), and PMIo. Regional air quality throughout the Basin has improved substantially over the 1980's and 1990's, even as substantial growth has occurred.
City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 4.2-5
■ Local Air Quality
Ambient air pollutant concentrations of ozone, CO, NO,, and SO, are monitored near the Planning Area by a SCAQMD station in Costa Mesa. Table 4.2-1 identifies the federal and state ambient air quality standards and provides a summary of ambient air quality measured at Costa Mesa from 2001 to 2003.
Ozone
Maximum 1-hour concentration
0.098
0.087
0.107
Number of days exceeding federal 1-hour standard
>0.12 ppm
0 0
0 Number of days exceeding state 1-hour standard
>0.09 ppm
1 0
4 Maximum 8-hour concentration
0.073
0.070
0.088
Number of days exceeding federal 8-hour standard
>0.08 ppm
0 0
1 Carbon Monoxide (CO)
Maximum 1-hour concentration
6 5
7 Number of days exceeding federal 1-hour standard
>35.0 ppm
0 0
0 Number of days exceeding state 1-hour standard
>20.0 ppm
0 0
0 Maximum 8-hour concentration
4.64 4.29
5.90 Number of days exceeding federal 8-hour standard
>9.0 ppm
0 0
0 Number of days exceeding state 8-hour standard
>9.0 ppm
0 0
0 Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2)
Maximum 1-hour concentration I I 0.082 I 0.106 0.107
Number of days exceedinq state 1-hour standard 1 >0.25 ppm 1 0 0 0 Sulfur Dioxide (S02)
Maximum 24-hour concentration
0.005
0.011
0.012
Number of days exceeding federal 24-hour standard
>0.14 ppm
0 0
0 Number of days exceeding state 24-hour standard
>0.04 ppm
0 0
0 SOURCE: ARB 2004, www.arb.ca.gov/adam/cgi-bin/db2www/adamtop4b.d2w/Branch . ppm = parts by volume per million of air.
Ambient concentrations of PMio, and PM2.5 are not monitored in SRA 18.
The California Air Resources Board (ARB) has produced a series of cancer risk maps based on modeled levels of composite TAC inhalation exposures. Residents of Newport Beach are exposed to an estimated risk of more than 250 chances in a million of developing cancer from the inhalation of TACs. This is generally higher than what is estimated by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to be the national average, in which case the risk is more than 25 chances in a million in urban areas and more than
4.2-6 City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR
50 chances in a million in transportation corridors.4 However, the risk in the City of Newport Beach is lower than the state and regional cancer risk. The estimated regional cancer risk from air toxics in the South Coast Air Basin is approximately 1,000 chances in a million.' The estimated risk from air toxic contaminants statewide, based on being exposed to an annual average concentration for 70 years, is approximately 750 chances in a million.' The largest contributor to inhalation cancer risk is small - diameter particulate matter produced by diesel engines. ■ Sensitive Receptors
Federal and state ambient air quality standards have been set to protect the most sensitive persons from illness or discomfort. Residential areas, schools, playgrounds, child care centers, athletic facilities, hospitals, long-term health care facilities, rehabilitation centers, convalescent centers, and retirement homes are especially likely to include persons sensitive to air pollutants. Each of these land use types is present within the Planning Area.
L Land Use Planning and Air Quality
Land use patterns and development density affect the amount of air pollutants that are generated in communities. Segregation of land uses within a community reduces the opportunities to walk, ride bicycles and use public transportation and increases the number of motor vehicle trips. Communities with low development densities have longer average trip distances and fewer opportunities for efficient public transportation services. Thus, land use segregation and low density, both characteristics of the Newport Beach Planning Area, increase air pollutant emissions. Low -density uses also produce more air pollutant emissions from the use of natural gas for space and water heating, and from the use of landscape maintenance equipment. In job -rich communities like Newport Beach, there is an increased potential for air pollutant emissions as non-resident employees commute long distances to/from their homes and work.
4.2.3 Regulatory Framework
Air quality within the air basins is addressed through the efforts of various federal, state, regional, and local government agencies. These agencies work jointly, as well as individually, to improve air quality through legislation, regulations, planning, policy -making, education, and a variety of programs. The agencies responsible for improving the air quality within the air basins are discussed below. 4 Environmental Protection Agency, 2006. National -Scale Air Toxics Assessment for 1999: Estimated Emissions, Concentrations and Rick. February 22, 2006
5 Air Resources Board's Air Quality and Land Use Handbook: A Community Health Perspective (April 2005). 6 Air Resources Board Roseville Rail Study, Stationary Source Division, October 14, 2004.
City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 4.2-7
N Federal Regulations
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
The United States EPA is responsible for setting and enforcing the National Ambient Air Quality Standards for atmospheric pollutants. It regulates emission sources that are under the exclusive authority of the federal government, such as aircraft, ships, and certain locomotives. The EPA also maintains jurisdiction over emissions sources outside state waters (outer continental shelf), and establishes various emissions standards for vehicles sold in states other than California.
As part of its enforcement responsibilities, the EPA requires each state with federal nonattainment areas to prepare and submit a State Implementation Plan (SIP) that demonstrates the means to attain the federal standards. The SIP must integrate federal, state, and local plan components and regulations to identify specific measures to reduce pollution, using a combination of performance standards and market -based programs within the timeframe identified in the SIP.
E State Regulations
California Air Resources Board
The ARB, a part of the California Environmental Protection Agency, is responsible for the coordination and administration of both federal and state air pollution control programs within California. In this capacity, the ARB conducts research, sets California Ambient Air Quality Standards, compiles emission inventories, develops suggested control measures, provides oversight of local programs, and prepares the SIP. The ARB establishes emissions standards for motor vehicles sold in California, consumer products (such as hair spray, aerosol paints, and barbecue lighter fluid), and various types of commercial equipment. It also sets fuel specifications to further reduce vehicular emissions.
Southern California Association of Governments
The Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) is a council of governments for Imperial, Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, and Ventura Counties. It is a regional planning agency and serves as a forum for regional issues relating to transportation, the economy and community development, and the environment.
Although SCAG is not an air quality management agency, it is responsible for developing transportation, land use, and energy conservation measures that affect air quality. The organization also promotes using carpools, buses, trains, and other alternative forms of transportation throughout the region. SCAG's Regional Comprehensive Plan and Guide (RCPG) provides growth forecasts that are used in the development of air quality —related land use and transportation control strategies by the SCAQMD. The RCPG is a framework for decision -making for local governments, assisting them in meeting federal and state mandates for growth management, mobility, and environmental standards, while maintaining consistency with regional goals regarding growth and changes through the year 2015, and beyond.
4.2-8 City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR
Policies within the RCPG include consideration of air quality, land use, transportation, and economic relationships by all levels of government.
South Coast Air Quality Management District
The SCAQMD is the agency principally responsible for comprehensive air pollution control in the South Coast Air Basin. To that end, the SCAQMD, a regional agency, works directly with SCAG, county transportation commissions, local governments, and cooperates actively with all federal and state government agencies. The SCAQMD develops rules and regulations, establishes permitting requirements, inspects emissions sources, and enforces such measures though educational programs or fines, when necessary.
The SCAQMD is directly responsible for reducing emissions from stationary (area and point), mobile, and natural sources. It has responded to this requirement by preparing a series of Air Quality Management Plans (AQMPs). The most recent of these was adopted by the Governing Board of the SCAQMD on August 1, 2003. This AQMP, referred to as the 2003 AQMP, was prepared to comply with the federal and state Clean Air Acts and amendments, to accommodate growth, to reduce the high pollutant levels in the Basin, to meet federal and state ambient air quality standards, and to minimize the fiscal impact that pollution control measures have on the local economy. It identifies the control measures that will be implemented to reduce major sources of pollutants. These planning efforts have substantially decreased the population's exposure to unhealthful levels of pollutants, even while substantial population growth has occurred within the Basin. As discussed on pages 2-5 through 2-7 of the 2003 AQMP, levels of ambient pollutants monitored throughout the Basin have decreased substantially since 1980.The future air quality levels projected in the 2003 AQMP are based on several assumptions. For example, the SCAQMD assumes that general new development within the Basin will occur in accordance with population growth and transportation projections identified by SCAG in its most current version of the RCPG, which was adopted in March 1996. The AQMP also assumes that general development projects will include strategies (mitigation measures) to reduce emissions generated during construction and operation.
F Local Regulations
City of Newport Beach
Local jurisdictions, such as the City of Newport Beach, have the shared responsibility to help develop and implement some of the control measures of the AQMP. Transportation -related strategies for congestion management, low emission vehicle infrastructure, and transit accessibility and non - transportation -related strategies for energy conservation can be encouraged by policies of local governments. A summary of the AQMP control measures that are partially within the jurisdiction of local governments to implement is provided in Table 4.2-2.
City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 4.2-9
Miscellaneous Sources
MSC-01 Promotion of Lighter Colored Roofing and Road Materials and Tree Planting Programs Energy Conservation Transportation Strategies
TCM-B I Transit & Svstems Manaqement Trip Reduction
TCM-C I Information Based Measures Trip Reduction
SOURCE: SCAQMD 2003 Air Quality Management Plan.
4.2.4 Thresholds of Significance
The following thresholds of significance are based on Appendix G of the 2005 CEQA Guidelines. For purposes of this EIR, implementation of the proposed project may have a significant adverse impact on air quality if it would result in any of the following:
■ Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan ■ Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation
■ Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non -attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard ■ Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations ■ Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people The SCAQMD is principally responsible for comprehensive air pollution control in the South Coast Air Basin and recommends that projects should be evaluated in terms of air pollution control thresholds established by the SCAQMD and published in the CEQA Air Quality Handbook. These thresholds were developed by the SCAQMD to provide quantifiable significance levels for comparison with projects. The City of Newport Beach utilizes the SCAQMD's thresholds that are recommended at the time that development projects are proposed to assess the significance of quantifiable impacts. The following quantifiable thresholds are currently recommended by the SCAQMD and are used to determine the significance of air quality impacts associated with the proposed General Plan Update. 0 Construction Emissions Thresholds
The SCAQMD currently recommends that projects with construction -related emissions that exceed any of the following emissions thresholds should be considered potentially significant. These thresholds apply to individual development projects only; they do not apply to cumulative development:
■ 550 pounds per day of carbon monoxide (CO)
■ 75 pounds per day of volatile organic compounds (VOC) ■ 100 pounds per day of nitrogen oxides (NOx)
■ 150 pounds per day of sulfur oxides (SOx)
■ 150 pounds per day of Fine Suspended Particulate Matter (PM,,)
4.2-10 City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR
Operational Emissions Thresholds
The SCAQMD currently recommends that projects with operational emissions that exceed any of the following emissions thresholds should be considered potentially significant. These thresholds apply to individual development projects only; they do not apply to cumulative development:
■ 550 pounds per day of CO
■ 55 pounds per day of VOC
■ 55 pounds per day of NOx
■ 150 pounds per day of SOx
■ 150 pounds per day of PM10
In order to assess cumulative impacts, the SCAQMD recommends that projects be evaluated to determine whether they would be consistent with Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) performance standards and emission reduction targets. If a project incorporates design features, land use characteristics, and/or mitigation measures that reduce emissions of CO, VOC, NOx, SOx, and PM10 by at least one percent, then it would not result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of criteria pollutants. If a project does not reduce these operational emissions by one percent, then it would result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of criteria pollutants for which the project region is in nonattainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard.
4.2.5 Project Impacts, Mitigation Measures, and Proposed Policies
■ Effects Not Found to Be Significant
The IS/NOP prepared for the proposed project did not identify any effects not found to be significant associated with Air Quality. Therefore, all thresholds are addressed in this section. ■ Project Impacts
Threshold Would the project conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan?
Impact 4.2-1 Implementation of the proposed General Plan Update would conflict with or obstruct implementation of the Air Quality Management Plan.
The 2003 Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) discussed in Section 4.24 (Regulatory Setting) was prepared to accommodate growth, to reduce the high levels of pollutants within the areas under the jurisdiction of SCAQMD, to return clean air to the region, and to minimize the impact on the economy.
Projects that are considered to be consistent with the AQMP would not interfere with attainment because this growth is included in the projections utilized in the formulation of the AQMP. Therefore, projects, uses, and activities that are consistent with the applicable assumptions used in the development City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 4.2-11
of the AQMP would not jeopardize attainment of the air quality levels identified in the AQMP, even if they exceed the SCAQMD's recommended daily emissions thresholds.
Projects that are consistent with the projections of employment and population forecasts identified in the Growth Management Chapter of the Regional Comprehensive Plan and Guide (RCPG) prepared by the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) are considered consistent with the AQMP growth projections, since the Growth Management Chapter forms the basis of the land use and transportation control portions of the AQMP.
The City of Newport Beach is located within the Orange County subregion of the RCPG. As discussed in Section 4.10 (Population and Housing) of this EIR, implementation of the proposed General Plan Update would induce substantial population growth through increased residential development beyond projected population levels for the City. The potential net increase of 14,215 residential units would result in a population increase of approximately 31,131 residents.
This population increase would result in a total population of 103,753 persons at buildout of the proposed General Plan Update, which would represent a 43 percent increase in population over 2002 population. The SCAG-projected population for Newport Beach is 94,167 by 2030, and the population resulting from the proposed General Plan Update buildout would be approximately 10 percent higher than SCAG projections. The projected net population increase of 31,131 residents would represent an increase of approximately less than one percent over what is projected by SCAG for Orange County as well as the entire SCAG region for 2030.
However, as the AQMP growth projections are based on SCAG population levels, the increase in population growth associated with the proposed plan would not have been accounted for in the AQMP.
Therefore, implementation of the proposed General Plan Update would not be consistent with AQMP attainment forecasts and attainment of the standards could be delayed.
Another measurement tool in determining consistency with the AQMP is to determine how a project accommodates the expected increase in population or employment. Generally, if a project is planned in a way that results in the minimization of vehicle miles traveled (VMT), both within the project area and the surrounding area in which it is located, and consequently the minimization of air pollutant emissions, that aspect of the project is consistent with the AQMP.
Goals and policies contained in the General Plan Update would serve to promote a mixed -use, pedestrian -friendly district for Balboa Peninsula, Airport Area, Newport Center/Fashion Island, Mariners' Mile and which could contribute to decreases in vehicle miles traveled. Land Use Policy 3.3 identifies opportunities for mixed use development in these subareas and encourages a mixed -use district which would integrate economic and commercial centers, serving the needs of Newport Beach residents and the sub -region, with expanded opportunities for residents to live close to jobs, commerce, entertainment, and recreation, and is supported by a pedestrian -friendly environment. Specifically, Policy LU 6.14.5 encourages improved pedestrian connections and streetscape amenities, and Policy LU 6.15.9 allows the development of multi -family residential units and mixed -use buildings that integrate residential with commercial uses, and supporting retail, grocery stores, and parklands. Integration of residential uses
4.2-12 City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR
with commercial and entertainment uses, along with pedestrian -oriented development, would encourage pedestrian activities and discourage vehicle trips.
The proposed General Plan Update also includes specific policies in the Natural Resources Element aimed at reducing vehicle miles traveled, providing alternative methods of transportation, encouraging the use of alternative fuel vehicles, as well as land uses that encourage pedestrian use through placement and design. Policy NR6.1, NR6.2, and NR6.3 would reduce vehicle trips through land use planning through mixed -use development or siting of amenities in proximity to residential or employment areas.
Policy NR 6.4 and NR 6.5 would promote Transportation Demand Management programs, which encourages the use of alternative transportation modes, and coordination with transit agencies to promote mass transit use. These planning policies would serve to encourage the use of transit, reduce the number of vehicle trips and miles traveled, and create further opportunities for residents and employees of the City to walk and bike to work or shop.
Based on the above information, the proposed General Plan Update would be consistent with the 2003 AQMP in the reduction of vehicle miles traveled, but would be inconsistent with the 2003 AQMP, because buildout of the proposed project would result in population levels above those uses in the 2003 AQMP. Therefore, because the proposed General Plan Update would conflict with implementation of the 2003 AQMP, this impact would be significant.
Threshold Would the project violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation?
Impact 4.2-2 Implementation of the proposed General Plan Update would result in construction emissions that would contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation.
Implementation of the proposed General Plan Update would result in new emissions being generated from construction activities. The thresholds of significance that have been recommended by the SCAQMD for these new emissions were developed for individual development projects. Under the proposed General Plan Update, varying amounts of construction would likely occur every year until buildout of the proposed General Plan Update. Many of the individual projects would be small and generate construction emissions that do not exceed the SCAQMD's recommended thresholds of significance. Although the City would not consider these projects to cause a potentially significant air quality impact, it will require each project to implement the proposed General Plan Update policies that address air quality in order to minimize emissions. Other projects will be large enough to generate construction emissions that exceed these thresholds. Through the environmental review process for individual projects, additional mitigation may also be required to further reduce emissions and potential impacts; however, even with mitigation it may not be possible to mitigate to a less -than -significant level.
In the case of the proposed General Plan Update, which is an individual project under CEQA, it is expected that a number of construction projects could occur every year. It would be difficult, if not impossible, to quantify the emissions related to construction activities under the proposed General Plan City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 4.2-13
Update as the amount and timing of each construction event is not known at this time. Because the thresholds are established for individual development projects, and it is assumed that some of the projects that would be implemented under the proposed General Plan Update could individually exceed the SCAQMD thresholds, the total amount of construction within the Planning Area under the proposed General Plan Update could also exceed the SCAQMD's recommended thresholds of significance, and this impact would be significant.
Implementation of proposed General Plan Update policies NR 8.1 through NR 8.5 would help reduce construction -related impacts by reducing air pollutant emissions from construction activities. These policies call for the maintenance of construction equipment, the use of non-polluting and non -toxic building equipment, and minimizing fugitive dust. However, this impact would not be reduced to a less - than -significant level. This impact would remain significant and unavoidable. Air emissions associated with the proposed General Plan Update would also occur as a result of operation of new land uses. The thresholds of significance that have been recommended by the SCAQMD for these new emissions were developed for individual development projects and are based on the SCAQMD's New Source Review emissions standards for individual sources of new emissions such as boilers and generators. They do not apply to cumulative development or multiple projects.
The SCAQMD does not recommend calculation of operational emissions for a planning document, such as the proposed General Plan Update.
Threshold Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non -attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard;
Impact 4.2-3 Implementation of the proposed General Plan Update would result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of criteria pollutants for which the region is in nonattainment under an applicable national or state ambient air quality standard.
The SCAQMD's CEQA Air Quality Handbook identifies possible methods to determine the cumulative significance of land use projects (i.e., whether the contribution of a project is cumulatively considerable).
These methods differ from the methodology used in other cumulative impact analyses in which all foreseeable future development within a given service boundary or geographical area is predicted and its impacts measured. The SCAQMD has not identified thresholds to which the total emissions of all cumulative development can be compared. Instead, the SCAQMD's methods are based on performance standards and emission reduction targets necessary to attain federal and state air quality standards as predicted in the AQMP.
As discussed previously under Impact 4.2-1, according to the CEQA Air Quality Handbook, projects that are consistent with the 2003 AQMP performance standards and emission reduction targets would be considered less than significant unless there is other pertinent information to the contrary. The method employed for this impact is an analysis of consistency with specific AQMP performance standards and emission reduction targets. If implementation of the proposed General Plan Update provides at least a one percent per year reduction in project emissions of CO, VOC, NOx, SOx, and PM,o, then it would
4.2-14 City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR
not result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is in nonattainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard. Construction emissions reductions measures, as estimated by the CEQA Air Quality Handbook, remove 0.1 percent to
98.0 percent of construction equipment emissions and 7.0 percent to 92.5 percent of fugitive dust emissions. Similarly, the effectiveness of control policies aimed at operational emissions associated with water heating and space heating/cooling would be approximately 1.5 to 14 percent, and motor vehicle trip reduction policies could reduce potential emissions by 0.1 percent and up to 40 percent. Policies that are aimed at air quality reduction are included in the Natural Resources Element of the proposed General Plan Update (see below). In particular, Natural Resources policies under Goal NR6 would reduce mobile source emissions through the reduction of vehicle travel, cleaner vehicles, and promotion of alternative transportation; policies under Goal 7 would reduce emissions from stationary sources by promoting best management practices and efficiency to minimize pollution, incentives for new technologies, and discouraging the use of blowers by the City and private users; and policies under Goal NR 9 would reduce air pollution emissions from aircraft associated with the John Wayne Airport. Other policies related to energy conservation, land use design, and circulation would also indirectly reduce air pollution emissions. The policies contained in the proposed General Plan Update would be consistent with the measures, programs, and policies of the 2003 AQMP.
Although it can be reasonably assumed from the CEQA Air Quality Handbook data that the proposed policies would reduce the potential emissions that would otherwise be generated within the City by at least one percent on an annual basis, given the general nature of the proposed General Plan Update, it is not possible to quantify the exact reduction in emissions that would be provided by these policies.
Therefore, the proposed General Plan Update may not meet the performance standard for annual emissions reductions and could result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of one or more criteria pollutants for which the project region is in nonattainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard, and this impact would be significant.
Threshold Would the project expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations?
Impact 4.2-4 Implementation of the proposed General Plan Update could expose sensitive receptors to substantial CO concentrations.
SCAQMD recommends the use of CALINE4, a dispersion model for predicting CO concentrations, as the preferred method of estimating pollutant concentrations at sensitive receptors near congested roadways and intersections. For each intersection analyzed, CALINE4 adds roadway -specific CO emissions calculated from peak -hour turning volumes to the existing ambient CO air concentrations. For this analysis, CO concentrations were calculated based on a simplified CALINE4 screening procedure developed by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District and utilized by SCAQMD. The simplified model is intended as a screening analysis in order to identify a potential CO hotspot and assumes worst - case conditions and provides a screening of maximum, worst -case CO concentrations.
The SCAQMD defines typical sensitive receptors as residences, schools, playgrounds, childcare centers, athletic facilities, long-term health care facilities, rehabilitation centers, convalescent centers, and City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 4.2-15
retirement homes. When evaluating potential air quality impacts to sensitive receptors, the SCAQMD is primarily concerned with high localized concentrations of CO. Motor vehicles, and traffic -congested roadways and intersections are the primary source of high localized CO concentrations. Localized areas where ambient concentrations exceed federal and/or state standards for CO are termed CO "hotspots." Implementation of the proposed General Plan Update is not expected to expose existing or future sensitive uses within the City to substantial CO concentrations. As shown in Table 4.2-3, based on CO modeling using the simplified CALINE4 methodology at the 17 intersections expected to operate at LOS D or worse, CO concentrations would be substantially below the national 35.0 ppm and state 20.0 ppm 1-hour ambient air quality standards, and the national and state 9.0 ppm 8-hour ambient air quality standards when growth envisioned under the proposed General Plan Update occurs. Therefore, sensitive receptors within the City would not be exposed to substantial pollutant concentrations, and the potential impacts of the proposed General Plan Update would be less than significant.
Table 4.2-3 Carbon Monoxide
Intersection
Concentrations at Selected Intersections
Carbon Monoxide Concentrations (ppm)
1-Hour
Average Exist
(2005)
I -Hour
Average GP
Update
Buildout (2030)
8-Hour
Average Exist
2005
8-Hour
Average GP
Update
Buildout (2030)
Newport Boulevard & Hospital Road
8.5 5.4
6.7 4.4
Riverside Avenue & Pacific Coast Highway
9.9 5.6
7.9 4.5
Tustin Avenue & Pacific Coast Highway
8.7 5.6
7.1 4.5
MacArthur Boulevard & Campus Drive
8.2 5.7
6.8 4.6
MacArthur Boulevard & Birch Street
8.2 5.4
6.7 4.4
Von Karman Boulevard & Campus Drive
8.2 5.4
6.7 4.4
Jamboree Road & Campus Drive
9.5 5.9
7.6 4.7
Campus Drive & Bristol Street North
10.2 5.8
8.1 4.7
Irvine Avenue & Mesa Drive
9.0 5.6
7.3 4.5
Irvine Avenue & University Drive
8.8 5.6
7.2 4.5
Irvine Avenue & Westcliff Drive
8.5 5.4
7.0 4.3
Dover Drive & Pacific Coast Highway
9.5 5.9
7.7 4.7
Bayside Drive & Pacific Coast Highway
9.3 5.7
7.5 4.6
MacArthur Boulevard & Jamboree Road
9.5 5.7
7.6 4.6
MacArthur Boulevard & Ford Road/Bonita Canyon Drive
10.0 5.7
8.0 4.6
MacArthur Boulevard & San Joaquin Hills Road
10.1 5.8
8.1 4.6
Marguerite Avenue & Pacific Coast Highway
8.9 5.5
7.2 4.4
SOURCE: EIP Associates, 2005; Calculation sheets are provided in Appendix B National 1-hour standard is 35.0 parts per million. State 1-hour standard is 20.0 parts per million.
Federal 8-hour standard is 9.0 parts per million. State 8-hour standard is 9.0 parts per million.
4.2-16 City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR
Threshold Would the project create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people?
Impact 4.2-5 Implementation of the proposed General Plan Update could create objectionable odors that could affect a substantial number of people.
Construction activities occurring under the proposed General Plan Update would generate airborne odors associated with the operation of construction vehicles (i.e., diesel exhaust) and the application of architectural coatings. However, these odors are not generally considered to be especially offensive.
Emissions would occur during daytime hours only and would be isolated to the immediate vicinity of the construction site and activity. As such, they would not affect a substantial number of people as impacts related to these odors are limited to the number of people living and working nearby the source.
However, due to the types of odors that would occur in the City, the exposure of substantial people to the source would not constitute an impact.
Potential operational airborne odors could result from cooking activities associated with the new residential and restaurant uses within the City. These odors would be similar to existing housing and food service uses throughout the City and would be confined to the immediate vicinity of the new buildings.
Restaurants are also typically required to have ventilation systems that avoid substantial adverse odor impacts. The other potential source of odors would be new trash receptacles within the community. The receptacles would be stored in areas and in containers as required by City and Health Department regulations, and be emptied on a regular basis, before potentially substantial odors have a chance to develop. Consequently, implementation of the proposed General Plan Update would not create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people within the City and potential impacts would be less than significant.
4.2.6 Cumulative Impacts
The geographic context for air quality impacts is Source Receptor Area (SRA) 18 of the Basin. This area includes the Planning Area for the proposed General Plan Update. The analysis accounts for all anticipated cumulative growth within this geographic area. However, the significance of cumulative air quality impacts is typically determined according to the project methodology employed by the SCAQMD, as the regional body with authority in this area, and which has taken regional growth projections into consideration.
Cumulative development, including the proposed General Plan Update would result in a potentially significant impact in terms of conflicting with, or obstructing implementation of, the 2003 AQMP as development would result in population levels above those used in preparation of the AQMP. The AQMP was prepared to accommodate growth, to reduce the high levels of pollutants within the areas under the jurisdiction of SCAQMD, to return clean air to the region, and to minimize the impact on the economy. Growth considered to be consistent with the AQMP would not interfere with attainment because this growth is included in the projections utilized in the formulation of the AQMP.
Consequently, if growth in the Basin is not within the projections for growth identified in the Growth Management Chapter of the RCPG, implementation of the AQMP would be obstructed by such growth.
City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 4.2-17
As growth in the Basin would exceed these projections, at least in the Planning Area, this is considered to be a significant cumulative impact. Since growth under the proposed General Plan Update is inconsistent with growth under the RCPG, the impact of the proposed General Plan Update is cumulatively considerable. This is considered a significant impact.
With regard to daily operational emissions and the cumulative net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the region is in nonattainment, this is considered to be a potentially significant cumulative impact, due to nonattainment of ozone, CO, and PM,o standards in the Basin. With regard to the contribution of the proposed General Plan Update, the SCAQMD has recommended methods to determine the cumulative significance of new land use projects. The SCAQMD's methods are based on performance standards and emission reduction targets necessary to attain federal and state air quality standards as predicted in the AQMP. Under the SCAQMD methodology, as set forth in SCAQMD's CEQA Air Quality Handbook, because it is unknown whether the policies in the proposed General Plan Update would provide more than a one percent per year reduction in daily construction and operational emissions of criteria pollutants within the Planning Area, the proposed General Plan Update would have the potential to contribute to a cumulatively considerable net increase of a criteria pollutant. As discussed in Impact 4.2-3, the contribution of daily construction and operational emissions from the proposed project could be cumulatively considerable. This cumulative impact is considered to be significant.
Cumulative development is not expected to expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. Thus, this is considered to be a less -than -significant cumulative impact. As discussed under Impact 4.2-4, future ambient CO concentrations resulting from the proposed project would be substantially below national and state standards. These future predictions take into account cumulative development that would occur in SRA 18. Therefore, the project's contribution to the impact is considered less than cumulatively considerable, and the cumulative impact would be less than significant.
Cumulative development would not have a potentially significant impact in terms of the creation of objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people. Thus, this is considered to be a less -than - significant cumulative impact. Projects projected to be built in the Planning Area include residential, office, and commercial developments, and could include restaurants. Odors resulting from the construction of projects that would occur upon implementation of the General Plan Update are not likely to affect a substantial number of people, due to the fact that construction activities occur in a limited area and do not usually emit odors that are considered to be offensive. Other odor impacts resulting from these projects are also not expected to affect a substantial amount of people, as garbage from these projects would be stored in areas and in containers as required by City and Health Department regulations, and restaurants are typically required to have ventilation systems that avoid substantial adverse odor impacts. Cumulative odor impacts would thus be less than significant. ■ Proposed General Plan Update Policies
The Natural Resources and Land Use Elements of the proposed General Plan Update include policies that would address issues related to existing and future air quality within the City of Newport Beach. The policies that are applicable to the project are included below.
4.2-18 City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR
Natural Resources Element
Air Quality
Goal NR 6 Reduced mobile source emissions
Policy NR 6.1 Walkable Neighborhoods
Provide for walkable neighborhoods to reduce vehicle trips by siting amenities such as services, parks, and schools in close proximity to residential areas.
Policy NR 6.2 Mixed -Use Development
Support mixed -use development consisting of commercial or office with residential uses in accordance with the Land Use Element that increases the opportunity for residents to live in proximity to jobs, services, and entertainment.
Policy NR 6.3 Vehicle -Trip Reduction Measures
Support measures to reduce vehicle -trip generation such as at -work day care facilities, and on -site automated banking machines.
Policy NR 6.4 Transportation Demand Management Ordinance Implement the Transportation Demand Management Ordinance which promotes and encourages the use of alternative transportation modes, and provides those facilities such as bicycle lanes that support such alternate modes.
Policy NR 6.5 Local Transit Agency Collaboration
Collaborate with local transit agencies to: develop programs and educate employers about employee rideshare and transit; establish mass transit mechanisms for the reduction of work -related and non -work related vehicle trips; promote mass transit ridership through careful planning of routes, headways, origins and destinations ,and types of vehicles; and develop bus shelters, bicycle lanes, and other bicycle facilities.
Policy NR 6.6 Traffic Signal Synchronization
Encourage synchronization of traffic signals throughout the City and with adjoining cities and counties to allow free flow of traffic.
Policy NR 6.7 City Fleet Vehicles
Implement the program to replace existing vehicles in the City fleet with clean vehicles that are commercially available and will provide needed services.
City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 4.2-19
Policy NR 6.8 Accessible Alternative Fuel Infrastructure Support the development of alternative fuel infrastructure that is available and accessible to the public, and provide incentives for alternative fuel vehicles.
Policy NR 6.9 Education on Mobile Source Emission Reduction Techniques Provide education to the public on mobile source emission reduction techniques such as using alternative modes of transportation.
Goal NR 7 Reduced air pollution emissions from stationary sources.
Policy NR 7.1 Fuel Efficient Equipment
Support the use of fuel efficient heating equipment and other appliances.
Policy NR 7.2 Source Emission Reduction Best Management Practices Require the use of Best Management Practices (BMP) to minimize pollution and to reduce source emissions.
Policy NR 7.3 Incentives for Air Pollution Reduction
Provide incentives to promote siting or to use clean air technologies and building materials (e.g., fuel cell technologies, renewable energy sources, UV coatings, hydrogen fuel).
Policy NR 7.4 Use of Blowers
Consider eliminating the use of blowers by the City, and discourage their use on private property.
Goal NR 8 Reduced air pollutant emissions from construction activities Policy NR 8.1 Construction Equipment
Require developers to use construction equipment that use low polluting fuels, engines, and exhaust controls to the extent available and feasible.
Policy NR 8.2 Maintenance of Construction Equipment
Require developers maintain construction in good operating condition to minimize air pollutants.
Policy NR 8.3 Construction Equipment Operation
Require developers to turn off construction equipment when not in use for an extended time period.
4.2-20 City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR
Policy NR 8.4 Non -Polluting and Non -Toxic Building Materials Require developers to use building materials, paints, sealants, mechanical equipment, and other improvements that yield low air pollutants and are non- toxic.
Policy NR 8.5 Fugitive Dust
Require developers to use construction practices that minimize fugitive dust and do not impact adjoining uses, such as watering of exposed surfaces, covering stock piles with tarps, limitation of vehicle speeds, sweeping of adjacent streets, and similar techniques.
Goal NR 9 Reduced air pollution emissions from aircraft Policy NR9.1 Efficient Airport Operations
Work with John Wayne Airport to continue efficient airport operations through high gate utilization and other methods.
Policy NR9.2 Aircraft and Equipment Emission Reduction
Work with John Wayne Airport to encourage development and use of emission reduction aircraft and other equipment.
Land Use Element
Goal LU 3 A development pattern that retains and complements the City's residential neighborhoods, commercial and industrial districts, open spaces, and natural environment.
Policy LU 3.3 Opportunities for Change
Provide opportunities for improved development and enhanced environments for residents in the following districts and corridors, as specified in Polices
6.3.1 through 6.22.7:
■ West Newport: consolidation of retail and visitor -serving commercial uses, with remaining areas developed for residential units
■ West Newport Mesa: re -use of underperforming commercial and industrial properties for offices and other uses that support Hoag Hospital's medical activities, improvement of remaining industrial properties adjoining the City of Costa Mesa, and development of residential in proximity to jobs and services
■ Santa Ana Heights: use of properties consistent with the adopted Specific Plan and Redevelopment Plan
■ John Wayne Airport Area: re -use of underperforming industrial and office properties and development of cohesive residential neighborhoods in proximity to jobs and services
City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 4.2-21
■ Fashion Island/Newport Center: expanded retail uses and hotel rooms and development of residential in proximity to jobs and services, while limiting increases in office development
■ Balboa Peninsula: more efficient patterns of use that consolidate the Peninsula's visitor -serving and mixed uses within the core commercial districts; encourage marine -related uses especially along the bay front; integrate residential with retail uses in Lido Village, McFadden Square, and Balboa Village; re -use interior parcels in Cannery Village for residential and limited mixed -use and live/work buildings; and redevelop underperforming properties outside of the core commercial districts along the Balboa Boulevard corridor for residential. Infill development shall be designed and sited to preserve the historical and architectural fabric of these districts ■ Mariners' Mile: re -use of underperforming properties for retail, visitor - serving, and marine -related uses, integrated with residential ■ Corona del Mar: enhancement of public improvements and parking Goal LU 5.3 Districts where residents and businesses are intermixed that are designed and planned to assure compatibility among the uses, that they are highly livable for residents, and are of high -quality design reflecting the traditions of Newport Beach.
Policy LU 5.3.1 Mixed Use Buildings
Require that mixed -use buildings be designed to convey a high level of architectural and landscape quality and ensure compatibility among their uses in consideration of the following principles:
■ Design and incorporation of building materials and features to avoid conflicts among uses, such as noise, vibration, lighting, odors, and similar impacts
■ Visual and physical integration of residential and nonresidential uses ■ Architectural treatment of building elevations and modulation of their massing
■ Separate and well-defined entries for residential units and nonresidential businesses
■ Design of parking areas and facilities for architectural consistency and integration among uses
■ Incorporation of extensive landscape appropriate to its location; urbanized streetscapes, for example, would require less landscape along the street frontage but integrate landscape into interior courtyards and common open spaces
Policy LU 5.3.2 Mixed -Use Building Location and Size of Nonresidential Uses Require that 100 percent of the ground floor street frontage of mixed -use buildings be occupied by retail and other compatible nonresidential uses, unless specified otherwise by LU 6.0 for a district or corridor.
4.2-22 City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR
Policy LU 5.3.3 Parcels Integrating Residential and Nonresidential Uses Require that properties developed with a mix of residential and nonresidential uses be designed to achieve high levels of architectural quality in accordance with policies 5.1.8 and 5.2.2 and planned to assure compatibility among the uses and provide adequate circulation and parking. Residential uses should be seamlessly integrated with nonresidential uses through architecture, pedestrian walkways, and landscape. They should not be completely isolated by walls or other design elements.
Goal LU 6.14 A successful mixed -use district that integrates an economic and commercial centers serving the needs of Newport Beach residents and the subregion, with expanded opportunities for residents to live close to jobs, commerce, entertainment, and recreation, and is supported by a pedestrian -friendly environment.
Policy LU 6.14.5 Pedestrian Connectivity and Amenity
Encourage that pedestrian access and connections among uses within the district be improved with additional walkways and streetscape amenities concurrent with the development of expanded and new uses.
Policy LU 6.15.9 Residential and Supporting Uses
Accommodate the development of multi -family residential units, including work force housing, and mixed -use buildings that integrate residential with ground level office or retail uses in areas and supporting retail, grocery stores, and parklands. This may occur as replacement of existing buildings or as infill on parking lots, provided that the parking is replaced in a structure located on - site.
L Impacts and Mitigation Measures
The proposed General Plan Update policies listed above would not reduce future population levels as predicted for buildout of the proposed General Plan Update and there would be no feasible mitigation to reduce the impact of an increased population on implementation of the AQMP.
The proposed General Plan Update policies would reduce air pollutant emissions associated with construction under the proposed General Plan Update to the maximum extent feasible (as discussed in Impact 4.2-2). They would not, however, reduce the total emissions generated by new uses within the City to levels that are less than the SCAQMD's recommended thresholds of significance for construction of individual development projects. There are no additional feasible mitigation measures available.
Implementation of the proposed General Plan Update policies would apply to activities associated with operation of the projects that would occur under the proposed General Plan Update; however, implementation of the policies would not reduce the impact to a less -than -significant level. No additional mitigation is considered feasible to reduce this potential impact.
City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 4.2-23
Level of Significance After Policies/Mitigation Measures The proposed General Plan Update policies listed above would not reduce future population levels as predicted for buildout of the proposed General Plan Update and there would be no feasible mitigation to reduce the impact of an increase population on implementation of the Air Quality management plan (AQMP). Therefore, Impact 4.2-1 would be considered significant and unavoidable.
The proposed General Plan Update policies and mitigation measures listed above would reduce air pollutant emissions associated with construction under the proposed General Plan Update to the maximum extent feasible. They would not, however, reduce the total emissions generated by new uses within the City to levels that are less than the SCAQMD's recommended thresholds of significance for construction of individual development projects. Because the policies and mitigation measures would not reduce this potential impact (Impact 4.2-2) construction air quality impacts would remain significant and unavoidable. Cumulative impacts associated with construction air pollutant emissions would also remain significant and unavoidable.
Implementation of the proposed General Plan Update policies would apply to activities associated with operation of the projects that would occur under the proposed General Plan Update; however, implementation of the policies would not reduce the impact to a less -than -significant level. Because no additional mitigation is considered feasible to reduce this potential impact, air quality impacts would remain significant and unavoidable.
4.2.7 References
California. 1999. Department of Transportation, California LINE Source Dispersion Model, version 4, v. 1.31.
April
2005. Air Resources Board, Transportation and Land Use Programs Model, URBEMIS 2002, version 8.7.0. April
South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). 1993. CEQA AirQuality Handbook. 2003.2003 AirQuality Management Plan.
ND. AirQuality Analysis Guidance Handbook. Portions available for review at http://www.aqmd.gov/ceqa/hdbk.html
Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG). 2004 RTP Growtb Forecasts. http://www.scag.ca.gov/forecast/downloads/2004GF.xls , Accessed August 2005.
4.2-24 City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR
4.3 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
4.3.1 Introduction
This section evaluates the impacts of the proposed General Plan Update associated with biological resources within the City of Newport Beach. Existing data sources used to prepare this section were taken from a California Natural Diversity Database search for the U.S. Geological Survey's (USGS) 7.5- minute quadrangles for Newport Beach, Tustin, and Laguna Beach and biological resources reports prepared for the City of Newport Beach General Plan Update Technical Background Report including City of Newport Beach, California, Local Coastal Plan —Biological Appendix (Chambers Group and Coastal Resources Management 2002, December), the City of Newport Beach, California, General Plan Updates Newport Beach Biological Resources (Chambers Group and Coastal Resources Management 2003, January), and the City of Newport Beach, California, General Plan Update —Newport Beach Biological Resources Addendum (EIP Associates 2003, December). The Biological Resources Addendum has been included as Appendix Cl. Full bibliographic entries for all reference materials are provided in Section 4.3.6 (References) of this section.
During the Initial Study process, it was determined that the proposed General Plan Update could result in adverse impacts on biological resources including effects on candidate, sensitive, or special status species, riparian habitats, and jurisdictional waters of the United States. The Initial Study also identified potential impacts related to the alteration of wildlife corridors and consistency with established policies and plans.
One comment letter associated with biological resources was received in response to the IS/NOP circulated for the proposed General Plan Update. The Environmental Quality Affairs Citizens Advisory Committee for the City of Newport Beach requested that the DEIR include an analysis of potential impacts on sensitive wildlife and plant species. Section 4.3.5 (Project Impacts, Mitigation Measures, and Proposed Policies) provides such an analysis.
4.3.2 Existing Conditions
U Regional Characteristics
The City of Newport Beach, with a population of approximately 83,120,7 is an area of 13,062 acres located at the western edge of Orange County, adjacent to the Pacific Ocean, as shown in Figure 3-1.
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 and Laguna Beach to the southeast. The following descriptions of climate, geomorphology, and existing preserved open space have been provided for background on the regional setting of the resources within the Planning Area. 7 California. 2005. Department of Finance. Table 2: E-5 City/County Population and Housing Estimates. 1 January.
City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 4.3-1
Watersheds
The Planning Area is located within the boundaries of four watersheds, each of which contain an interconnected system of surface water resources that feed into the underlying groundwater aquifer or drain into the ocean. The main tributaries and groundwater resources located within the Planning Area are discussed in detail below. The watersheds within the Planning Area include the Newport Bay, Newport Coast, Talbert, and San Diego Creek watersheds. Both the Newport Bay and Newport Coast watersheds cover most of the Planning Area, with the remaining smaller portions covered by the Talbert and San Diego Creek watersheds. Section 4.7 (Hydrology and Water Quality) of this EIR contains detailed descriptions of these four watersheds.
Climate
The climate of Southern California is described as Mediterranean, a wet -winter, dry -summer climate.
Extremely dry summers are caused by the sinking air of the subtropical highs and may last for up to five months. Average mountain temperature in Southern California ranges from 32 to 60 degrees Fahrenheit (°F), getting colder with an increase in elevation. Along the coast, temperatures average 53-65°F.
Freezing weather may sometimes occur in the winter, but only for short durations. Most of the 12-40 inches per year of precipitation is in the form of rain, fall, winter, and spring receiving equal amounts (Blue Planet Biomes, 2005). Any snow that may fall in the winter melts very quickly. The precipitation also increases with elevation. During the summer, the coastline usually experiences more moderate weather and more moisture from fog than interior regions.
Within Mediterranean climates there can be dramatic differences in rainfall from year to year.
Consequently, the plant communities growing in these regions often consist of drought -tolerant, woody shrubs and trees, and annual, fall -sprouting grasses (Ritter 2006).
Geomorphology
Topography
The local topography in the Planning Area ranges from gently sloping areas in the northwest portion of the City to steeper topography in the eastern and southern areas. Over 50 percent of the Planning Area, including most of the northern and western portions, as well as some portions of the Newport Coast area, have a slope gradient that range up to approximately 10 degrees. Slopes increase with proximity to the Newport Mesa and San Joaquin Hills, and areas with more severe slopes are generally concentrated in the southern and eastern portions of the City. The bluffs that border the water -bodies in the City, including Newport Bay and City streams, have a slope gradient ranging from 10 to 40 degrees. Similarly, most of the San Joaquin Hills have a slope gradient of 10 to 40 degrees. Parts of the San Joaquin Hills located near the southern border of the City of Newport Beach have a slope gradient of 40 degrees and greater. Elevations across the City range from approximately 0 to 394 feet in the areas comprised of West Newport, Balboa Peninsula, and Newport Bay to approximately 2,460 to 3,281 feet in the high relief terrain areas of the San Joaquin Hills in the eastern portion of the City.
4.3-2 City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR
I Habitat Types
Several different plant communities/habitats occur within the Planning Area. Each plant community is determined by the balance (percentages) of particular plant species within a respective area. The following summarizes several of the plant communities known to exist within the limits of the project.
Scrub Habitats
Scrub habitats are characterized by an 80 percent or greater coverage by shrub species. Subtypes of scrub are determined by the dominant shrub species. This type of community often occurs on gentle to steep slopes, and tends to be drought -deciduous', low -growing, and gray -green in color (Chambers 2003).
Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub
This community can be defined as low, drought -deciduous, and evergreen shrubs that occur generally below 3,000 feet in elevation on steep to moderate, south -facing, exposed slopes of the western mountains. Shrubs are more widely spaced than those typical of chaparral and do not have the characteristic rigidness or thick drought -resistant leaves. Coastal scrub communities are characterized by low shrubs and an absence of trees. Types of shrubs include either pure stands or mixtures of low, thick - leaved evergreens and coarse, deciduous species that drop their leaves in response to periodic drought conditions. Dominant species include California sagebrush (Artemisia californica), California buckwheat (Erigonum fasciculatum), costal goldenbush (Isocoma men#esiz), island mallow (Latwera assurgentiflora), deerweed (Lotus scoparius), mesa bushmallow (Malacothamnus fasdculatus), laurel sumac (Malosma laurina), lemonadeberry (Bhus integrifolia), white sage (Salvia apiana), and small -flowered needle grass (Nassella lepida). Diegan coastal sage scrub integrates with chaparral communities at higher elevations and Riversidian sage scrub in drier inland areas (Holland 1986).
Wildlife Use of Coastal Sage Scrub
Coastal sage scrub is considered a sensitive habitat because it supports a diverse fauna and has potential to support numerous threatened, endangered, or rare species, and has been acknowledged as such by its inclusion in the Central and Coastal Orange County Natural Community Conservation Plan (NCCP) (Orange County 1996). Among these are the coastal cactus wren (Cam pylorhynchus brunneicapillus
sandiegensis), San Diego horned lizard (Phrynosoma coronatum blainvillez), orange -throated whiptail (Cnemidophorus hyperthyrus), coastal western whiptail (Cnemidophorus tigris multiscutatus), Bell's sage sparrow (Am
phicpi�,,a bella), coastal California gnatcatcher, and the southern California rufous -crowned sparrow (Aimophila rufzceps canescens). Scrub habitats are also important to larger species such as mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus) and mountain lions (Felis concolor). 8 Drought -deciduous species are those that that drop their leaves in response to periodic drought conditions.
City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 4.3-3
Chaparral Habitats
The presence of chaparral shrub species over 50 percent or more of an area indicates the presence of a chaparral vegetative community. Chaparral vegetation is typically thick, 4- to 12-foot tall evergreen woody shrubs and/or dwarf trees (Holland 1986). The community is composed mainly of species that are adapted to seasonal and periodic drought by having hardened leaves that resist water loss at high temperatures and/or low moisture.
Southern Mixed Chaparral
The coastal form of this community, which may contain coastal sage shrub species as its understory, is comprised primarily of toyon (Hetermeles arbutifolia), laurel sumac, and lemonadeberry in dense stands on moderately -wet north -facing slopes. In addition, holly -leafed redberry (Rhamnus ilicifolia), fuchsia -flowered gooseberry (gibes speaosum), and scrub oak (Quercus berberidifolia) are typical of this community (Chambers 2003).
Wildlife Use of Chaparral
High -quality chaparral supports a diverse fauna. Chaparral provides suitable shelter, basking sites, and foraging habitat for reptiles like the western rattlesnake (Crotalus viridis), common kingsnake (Lam propeltis
getulus), rosy boa (Charina trivirgata), coastal western whiptail, striped racer (Masticophis lateralis), northern red -diamond rattlesnake (Crotalus Tuber Tuber), and western fence lizard (Sceloporus oc(identalis). Avian species that characteristically nest in chaparral include wrentit (Chamaea fasciata), California quail (Callipepla californica), blue -gray gnatcatcher (Polioplila caerulea), black -chinned sparrow (Spi�Zella atrogularis), spotted towhee (Pipilo maculatus), and California thrasher (Toxostoma redivimm). Small mammals are common in chaparral and include brush rabbit (Sylvilagus bachmanz), California kangaroo rat (Dipodomys cal fornicus), and woodrat (Neotoma sp). Several predators will use chaparral opportunistically, foraging on the reptiles, birds, and small mammals. These include Cooper's hawk (Accipiter cooperit), sharp -shinned hawk (Accipiter striatus), bobcat (Felis rufus), and coyote (Canis latrans).
Riparian and Wetland Habitats
Riparian communities are those that require abundant moisture during all or most of the year and, as a result, occur along perennial and intermittent streams or rivers. Riparian habitats, including forest, woodland, and scrub subtypes, may or may not be classified as wetland habitat; however; this habitat type is distributed in waterways and drainages where a permanent supply of water (on the surface or below ground) typically exists. These communities generally consist of one or more deciduous tree species with an assorted understory of shrubs and herbs that are restricted to the banks and floodplains of these waterways (Holland and Keil 1995). Riparian communities generally occur among mid- to large -order streams below 4,000 feet in elevation, primarily within the foothills and valleys.
Riparian vegetation types and size vary along stream channels. Along small stream channels the extent of the riparian community may only be a thin band of vegetation within or directly adjacent to the channel, whereas along larger streams or rivers the riparian habitat can be in the form of dense woodlands that are
4.3-4 City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR
quite extensive (Holland and Keil 1995). Height of these communities can vary from 3 to 10 feet in scrub habitats, to over 100 feet tall in riparian forest habitats (Grenfell 1988).
Riparian forests generally have closed canopies dominated by broadleaved, winter -deciduous trees. In the Project Area, these forests are dominated by white alder (Alnus rhombifolia), and big leaf maple (Acer macrophyllum). Closer to the coast, white alder is replaced by red alder (Alnus rubra). Evergreen hardwoods such as California bay and coast live oak will commonly occur along the edges of riparian corridors.
Willow Riparian Scrub (Southern Willow Scrub)
Willow riparian scrub is dominated by willow trees (Salix spp) and also may contain gooseberry (gibes spp), Mexican elderberry, and an understory of herbaceous water -dependant plants. Arroyo willow (Salix lasiolepis) is the dominant species within perennial and intermittent stream channels at elevations up to about 2,450 feet. Goodding's black willow (Salix gooddingia) occurs along streambanks and in wet places within drier habitats at elevations below about 1,500 feet (Faber and Keller 1985).
Southern Cottonwood Riparian Forest
This community occurs on floodplains along major streams and creeks and is dominated by cottonwoods (Populus fremontii, P. trichocarpa), black willow, and red willow (Salix laevigata). Occasionally, a second canopy layer of arroyo willow, mulefat, poison oak (Toxicondendron dhersilobum), western false indigo (Amorpha fruticosa), and desert wild grape (Vitusgirdiana) is present. The understory is usually composed of giant creek nettle (Urtica holosericea), branching phacelia (Phacelia ramosissima), dock (Rumex sp.), and blackberry (Rebus sp.). In addition, several invasive species, including giant reed (Arundo donax), castor bean (Ricnius communis), and tree tobacco (Nicotiana glauca), are typical of this plant community (Chambers 2003).
Southern Arroyo Willow Forest
This community is typical of floodplains along major streams and rivers. Arroyo willow, which forms a closed canopy, is the dominant species in this community. The understory vegetation is generally comprised of nettle, poison oak, mugwort, western ragweed, dock, mustard (Brassica sp.), nightshade (Solanum sp.), poison hemlock (Conium maculatum), milk thistle (Silybum marianum), and blackberry.
Southern Coastal Salt Marsh
Coastal salt marshes develop along the intertidal shores of bays and estuaries. Estuaries occur where a river meets the sea, and the water is somewhat brackish. Salt marsh plants are adapted to a harsh, semi - aquatic environment and saline soils. Species composition and distributions in the salt marsh are governed by salinity gradients in combination with the amount of intertidal exposure (California Resources Agency 2005). Common species within this vegetation community include pickleweed (Salicornia sp.) and saltgrass (Distichlis sp.) (Sawyer and Keeler -Wolf 1995).
City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 4.3-5
Coastal Freshwater Marsh
Coastal freshwater marshes are sometimes found in association with salt marshes. Typical freshwater marsh plants include numerous species of sedges; these grass -like plants often exceed five feet in height (California Resources Agency 2005). Slough sedge (Carex obnupta) is one of the most common. Other typical species include cattails (Typha latifolia), bushy, needle -leaved rushes (Juncus phaeocephalus), aquatically adapted wildflowers such as yellow pond -lily (Nu
phar polysepalum), water buttercup (Ranunculus
orthorhynchus), and succulent water parsley (Oenanthe sarmentosa) are also typical freshwater marsh inhabitants. Most species have developed air tubes to their roots, buoyant leaves, or porous leaf coverings that enhance gas exchange. In contrast to salt marshes, freshwater marshes have little if any water movement.
Wildlife Use of Riparian and Wetland Habitats
The frequently abundant water that is available in riparian communities and seeps and springs provides breeding habitat for many amphibian species, including Pacific slender salamander (Batrachoseps pacificus major), coast range newt (Taricha torosa torosa), arroyo toad (Bufo microscaphus cal fornicus), western toad (Bufo boreas), and numerous species of treefrogs (Hyla spp). Reptiles that depend on or are closely associated with water include the two -striped garter snake (Thamnophis hammondiz), red racer (coachwhip) (Masticophis flagellum piceus), and southwestern pond turtle (Clemmys marmorata pallida) (Stebbins 2003).
Resident bird species that are commonly found in riparian areas include the mourning dove, woodpeckers (Picoides sp), black phoebe (Sayornis nigricans), orange -crowned warbler (IVermivora celata), and song sparrow. Several of these species nest or roost in riparian areas and feed in adjacent habitat types, such as annual grassland and agricultural fields. Mammals found within riparian woodland habitat may include the Virginia opossum (Didephis virginiana), raccoon (Procyon lotor), broad -footed mole (Seapanus latimanus), woodrats, striped skunk (Mephitis mephitis), and gray fox (Procyon cinereoargenteus). The abundance of birds and small mammals provides prey for several raptor species that nest and/or forage in riparian communities, including Cooper's hawk, sharp -shinned hawk, western screech owl (Otus kennicottiz), and red -shouldered hawk (Buteo lineatus). In addition to providing high value wildlife habitat, riparian corridors provide local movement corridors between patches of fragmented habitat. Riparian habitats are considered a sensitive habitat type and are monitored closely by the CDFG.
Grassland Habitats
Grassland consists of low herbaceous vegetation dominated by grasses. It grows in deep, well -developed soils on gentle slopes and flats, mostly at low elevations. There are three types of grassland in the Planning Area including native grassland, nonnative annual grassland, and ruderal grassland. Each type of grassland is further discussed below.
Native Grassland (Needlegrass Grassland)
Native grasslands are treeless areas dominated by perennial bunchgrasses and interspersed with native annual herbs and wildflowers (Holland and Keil 1995). Native grassland habitat is most often found at elevations below 1,500 feet, and is a mid -height (to 2 feet tall) grassland. In California, the dominant
4.3-6 City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR
bunchgrass is the perennial, tussock -forming purple needlegrass (Nassella pulcbra) (Holland 1986). Native grasslands usually occur on fine -textured (often clay) soils that are moist or even waterlogged during the winter, but very dry in the summer. Historically, native grasslands were much more widespread throughout California than today. The introduction of nonnative grasses and forbs, livestock grazing, and alteration of the natural fire regime are factors that resulted in the displacement of native bunchgrass, other native grasses, and fortis by introduced species (Heady 1988). Native and nonnative annual grasslands, as well as coastal scrub habitats, form transitional stages but are found primarily in rich -soiled valley bottoms and lower foothills. Generally, perennial grasses, such as needlegrasses (Nassella spp), dominate these communities. Native grasslands also provide a matrix for a host of native grasses and forbs including ryegrass (Elymus glaucus), junegrass (Koeleria macrantba), mariposa lily (Calocbortus spp), brodiaea (Brodiaea sp), checker bloom (Sidalcea malvaflora ), one-sided bluegrass (Poa secunda), blue wild -rye (Elymusglaucus), and melic grasses (Melica spp). These native species are often interspersed with nonnative annual grasses such as wild oats and bromes. Once covering one -fifth of the state, today native perennial grasslands cover approximately 0.1 percent of that area (CNPS 2005). Native grasslands that exist in California today are considered sensitive by resource agencies.
Nonnative Annual Grassland
Annual grasslands are virtually treeless areas dominated by nonnative annual grasses. Annual grasslands occur from sea level to about 3,600 feet (Kie 1988). Annual grasslands occur throughout California and have largely replaced the perennial, native grasslands. European grasses dominate the nonnative annual grassland habitat present within southern California (Holland, 1986). Characteristic species within the Planning Area include wild oats, ripgut brome, foxtail chess (Bromus madritensis), and cheat grass (Bromus tectorum), barley (Hordeum sp), and fescue (hupia sp). Other species commonly associated with nonnative grasslands include filaree (Erodium botrys), sweet fennel (Foeniculum vulgare), mustards, and thistles (Carduus spp, Centaurea calcitrapa, and others). Nonnative annual grasslands occur primarily in the deeper -soiled, clay -loam bottomlands bordering riparian communities and on the lower hillsides where they meet coastal live oak woodlands, chaparral, and coastal scrub communities. They generally constitute lands that are highly modified by humans' repeated disturbance.
Ruderal Grassland
Though not a true habitat community as defined by Holland (1986), ruderal grasslands are common within urbanized landscapes. These areas contain herbaceous vegetation dominated by highly adaptive and invasive species with few, if any, native species. Ruderal habitat is found most frequently in areas disturbed by human activities such as roadways, maintained ditches, and areas frequently cleared of vegetation. Characteristic ruderal species identified in the Planning Area include wild oats, ripgut brome, yellow star thistle (Centaurea solstitialis), bindweed (Convolvulus arvensis), California wild rose (Rosa cali(ornica), sow thistle, mustard, alyssum, lambs quarters, sunflower, telegraph weed, giant horseweed, common knotweed (Polygonum arenastrum), Bermuda grass (Cynodon dactylon), wild radish (Kaphanus sativus), and clover (Melilotus sp).
City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 4.3-7
Wildlife Use of Grasslands
Grasslands provide food and refuge for numerous wildlife species. Those species that formerly relied on native grasslands for nesting now also use annual grasslands. Native and nonnative grasslands and herbaceous understories provide habitat for a number of bird species including the grasshopper sparrow (Ammodramus savannarum), western meadowlark (Sturnella neglecta), horned lark (Eremophila alpestris), and western burrowing owl (Athene cuniculana hypugea). Grasslands produce large numbers of seeds that are a valuable food source for many bird species including American pipit (Anthus rubescens), lark sparrow (Chondestesgrammacus) and savannah sparrow (Passerculus sandaichensis). Rodents common within grasslands include deer mouse (Peromyscus maniculatus), California vole (Microtus californicus), Botta's pocket gopher (Thomomys bottae nigracans), San Diego pocket mouse (Perognathus fallax fallax), and California ground squirrel (Spermophilus beecheyi). These and other rodents become the prey base for various resident raptors, such as golden eagle (Aquila chysaetos), red-tailed hawk, white-tailed kite (Elanus leucurus), ferruginous hawk (Buteo regalis), and northern harrier (Circus yaneus) that utilize wide, open grasslands as foraging habitat. Coyote, Pacific gopher snake (Pituothis melanoleucus), western yellow -bellied racer (Coluber constrictor mormon), and western rattlesnake also feed on small rodents present in grasslands.
Ornamental
Ornamental landscaping consists of areas supporting introduced trees, shrubs, flowers, and turf grass.
Ornamental landscaping occurs in green belts, parks, and horticultural plantings throughout Orange County. Typical species include gum trees (Eucalyptus sp.), pepper trees (Schinus sp.), Canary Island date palm (Phoenix canariensis), and Mexican fan palm (Vashingtonia robusta) (Chambers 2003).
Disturbed
Disturbed areas are either devoid of native vegetation, (cleared or graded) including dirt roads, or dominated by a sparse cover of ruderal vegetation. These areas also include paved and upaved roads, as well as developed areas (offices, residences, etc.) (Chambers 2003).
W Sensitive Biological Resources
Special Status Species
Literature Survey
Information regarding the occurrences of special -status species in the vicinity of the Project Area was obtained from searching the California Department of Fish and Game's (CDFG) Natural Diversity Data Base (CNDDB, July 2005) and California Native Plant Society's Electronic Inventory (CNPSEI July 2005) for the USGS 7.5-minute quadrangles for Newport Beach, Tustin, and Laguna Beach. These databases contain records of reported occurrences of federal- or state -listed endangered, threatened, rare, or proposed endangered or threatened species, federal species of concern, state species of special concern, or otherwise sensitive species or habitat that may occur within or in the immediate vicinity of the Planning Area. Lists from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and CDFG were also
4.3-8 City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR
reviewed, and lists of sensitive wildlife and plant species potentially occurring within the Planning Area were developed. This search range encompasses a sufficient distance to accommodate for regional habitat diversity and to overcome the limitations of the CNDDB. The CNDDB is based on reports of actual occurrences and does not constitute an exhaustive inventory of every resource.
Additional background information on biological resources was derived from:
■ City of Newport Beach General Plan Update Technical Background Report — Newport Beach Biological Resources, January 2003
■ The Southern Coastal Sage Scrub Natural Community Conservation Plan ■ Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) Additional botanical information came from the Preliminary Descriptions of the Terrestrial Natural Communities of California (Holland 1986), the List of California Terrestrial Natural Communities Recognized by the Natural Diversity Data Base (CDFG 2004, January), the Jepson Manual of Higher Plants of California (Hickman 1993), and A Manual of Cal forma Vegetation (Sawyer and Keeler -Wolf 1995). Based upon the results of the literature review, record searches, and site -specific surveys, a list of special -status plant and animal species and habitats with the potential to occur within the Planning Area was developed for analysis (Appendix C2).
The CNDDB search for these quadrangles results in 1 amphibian, 1 fish, 8 invertebrates, 7 reptiles, 16 birds, 12 mammals, and 33 plant species. However, it should be noted that some of these species are restricted to habitats not found within the Planning Area. ■ Marine Resources
The marine resources of the Planning Area and surrounding ocean waters include plants and animals of marshes and wetlands living in Upper Newport Bay, the developed channels, beaches, and hardscape 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.
Sensitive Marine Species
Several species of marine mammals are present in the waters near the shore along the Newport coastline.
All marine mammals are protected by the Marine Mammal Protection Act. Protected marine mammals that are most likely to occur in the City are: California sea lion, Harbor seal, California gray whale, Killer whale, Common dolphin, Pacific white sided dolphin, and Dall's porpoise.
Eelgrass (Zostera marina), a flowering, marine vascular plant, is considered a sensitive marine resource due to its nursery function for invertebrates and fishes, and because it is considered critical foraging habitat for the federal- and state -listed California least tern. Eelgrass is protected by the Southern California Eelgrass Mitigation Policy, which requires impacts to this species be avoided, minimized or compensated.
City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 4.3-9
Other sensitive marine resources (shown in Figure 4.3-1) include eelgrass restoration areas, Giant kelp, California Grunion, and California halibut.
■ Environmental Study Areas
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). An ESA may support species and habitats that are sensitive and rare within the region or may function as a migration corridor for wildlife. ESAs, or portions of them, within the Coastal Zone that are shown, after more detailed study, to contain sensitive or rare species are referred to as Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Areas (ESHAs), as defined by the California Coastal Act. ESHAs are areas in which "plant or animal life or their habitats are either rare or are especially valuable because of their special nature or role in an ecosystem that could easily be disturbed or degraded by human activities and developments." The Coastal Act requires that ESHAs be protected against any significant disruption of habitat values. Only uses dependent on those resources are allowed within ESHAs and adjacent development must be sited and designed to prevent impacts that would significantly degrade the ESHA and must be compatible with the continuance of the ESHA.
There are 28 identified ESAs within the City of Newport Beach, as shown in Figure 4.3-2: (1) Semeniuk Slough, (2) North Star Beach, (3) West Bay, (4) Upper Newport Bay State Marine Park (formerly Ecological Reserve), (5) De Anza Bayside Marsh Peninsula, (6) San Diego Creek, (7) East Bluff Remnant, (8) Mouth of Big Canyon, (9) Newporter North, (10) Buck Gully, (11) Morning Canyon, (12) Newport Beach Marine Life Refuge, (13) Castaways, (14) Banning Ranch, (15) Newport Coast Open Space, (16) Los Trancos, Pelican Hill, (17) Ridge Park, (18) Irvine Coast Marine Life Refuge, (19) Newport Harbor Entrance Channel, (20) Bonita Canyon Creek Watershed, (21) San Joaquin Reservoir, (22) Arroyo Park, (23) Coyote Canyon, (24) MacArthur and Bison, (25) MacArthur and San Miguel, (26) MacArthur and San Joaquin Hills, (27) Spyglass Hill, and (28) and Non -Coastal Buck Gully.
Many of these sites contain one or more sensitive plant communities, and many species of wildlife. Some of the ESAs also contain endangered species of plants and animals. Most of these ESAs are protected as parks, conservation areas, nature preserves, and other open space areas. However, each of these ESAs are subjected to various threats from the surrounding urban environment that include polluted water quality, traffic, noise, public access, development encroachment, erosion and sedimentation, dredging or filling, stormwater runoff, invasive species, and feral animals. f Wildlife Movement
Terms such as habitat corridors, linkages, crossings, and travel routes are used to describe physical connections that allow wildlife to move between patches of suitable habitat in undisturbed landscapes as well as environments fragmented by urban development. To clarify the meaning of these terms and facilitate the discussion of wildlife movement in this analysis, these terms are further defined below.
4.3-10 City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR
CITY of NEWPORT BEACH
GENERAL PLAN UPDATE EIR
Figure 4.3-1
BIOLOGICAL
RESOURCES
Legend
Wgrass Bed
_ Giant Kelp Bed
_ Historic Grunion Spawning
Area
-upper Newport Bay
Nature Preserve
Upper Newport Beach
State Marine Park
City Boundary
0 County Boundary
Ciry of Newport Beach
g
0 0,5
Miles
o�ee: cnva rrvon Sean, zms.
CITY of NEWPORT BEACH
GENERAL PLAN UPDATE EIR
Figure 4.3-2
ENVIRONMENTAL
STUDY AREAS
Legend
. 50—+ Sough
NoriFstax Oeoch
owastBay
Nawpon BaY' NOAua Presence
• W �8oyfaaa FAarh
• ��� �iepo Creek
Q L ],I00 R—n—i
NPwpdta 1JWo
Beck [N
mvnim ca,yon
B.-, iv k— ufe
cwd-c"
gonr�kip Ra-,cn
p li—ma coati
•pup. P�
wino coat ma" too RBktpo
•�=1 1 *0u" 1
m na Cry-0—k
w�e�,ea
Son Jooa�haoca "
A�P�
carc" canton
;p �+acwtNxrswaBa,aL
MmAftwP .Lbaww,
• Soygk=w
® i.- cec td &.k G ky
city of Newport Beach
g
0 0,5
Miles
o -:c .rae,.von Sean,-s.
Wildlife corridors link areas of suitable habitat that are otherwise separated by areas of nonsuitable habitat such as rugged terrain, changes in vegetation, or human disturbance. Wildlife corridors are essential to the regional ecology of a species because they provide avenues of genetic exchange and allow animals to access alternative territories as dictated by fluctuating population densities. Fragmentation of open space areas by urbanization creates "islands" of wildlife habitat that are more or less isolated from each other. In the absence of habitat linkages that allow movement between habitat islands, studies have concluded that some wildlife species, especially the larger and more mobile mammals, would not persist over time because fragmentation limits infusion of new individuals and erodes genetic diversity.
Corridors mitigate the effects of this fragmentation by (1) allowing animals to move between remaining habitats, thereby permitting depleted populations to be replenished and promoting genetic exchange; (2) providing escape routes from fire, predators, and human disturbances, thus reducing the risk of catastrophic events (such as fire or disease) that could lead to local extinction; and (3) serving as travel routes for individual animals as they move within their home ranges in search of food, water, mates, and shelter. Wildlife corridors are typically relatively small, linear habitats that connect two or more habitat patches that would otherwise be fragmented or isolated from one another.
Wildlife corridors are usually bounded by urban land areas or other areas unsuitable for wildlife. The corridor generally contains suitable cover, food, and/or water to support species and facilitate movement while in the corridor. Larger, landscape -level corridors (often referred to as "habitat or landscape linkages") can provide both transitory and resident habitat for a variety of species. Although it is commonly used as a synonym for wildlife corridor, a habitat linkage refers to a more substantial, or wider, land connection between two habitat areas. Habitat linkages allow for the periodic exchange of animals between habitat areas, which is essential to maintain adequate gene pools. This linkage is most notable among populations of medium-sized and larger animals.
A travel route is usually a landscape feature (such as a ridgeline, drainage, canyon, or riparian corridor) within a larger natural habitat area that is used frequently by animals to facilitate movement and provide access to necessary resources (e.g., water, food, cover, den sites). The travel route is generally preferred because it provides the least amount of topographic resistance in moving from one area to another. It provides adequate food, water, or cover for individuals moving between habitat areas and provides a relatively direct link between target habitat areas. Wildlife crossings are small, narrow areas that are relatively short in length. They allow wildlife to bypass an obstacle or barrier. Crossings typically are manmade and include culverts, underpasses, drainage pipes, bridges, and tunnels to provide access past roads, highways, pipelines, or other physical obstacles. Wildlife crossings often represent "choke points" along a movement corridor.
City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 4.3-15
4.3.3 Regulatory Setting
Federal Regulations
Federal Endangered Species Act
As defined within the Federal Endangered Species Act (FESA) of 1973, an endangered species is any animal or plant listed by regulation as being in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its geographical range. A threatened species is any animal or plant that is likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its geographical range. Without a special permit, federal law prohibits the "take" of any individuals or habitat of federally listed species. Under Section 9 of the FESA, take is defined as "harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect or attempt to engage in any such conduct." The term "harm" has been clarified to include "any act which actually kills or injures fish or wildlife, and emphasizes that such acts may include significant habitat modification or degradation that significantly impairs essential behavioral patterns of fish or wildlife." Enforcement of FESA is administered by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Fisheries Service.
Federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act
Pursuant to the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) of 1918, as amended in 1972, federal law prohibits the taking of migratory birds or their nests or eggs (16 U.S.C. Section 703). The statute states:
Unless and except as permitted by regulations made as hereinafter provided in this subchapter, it shall be unlawful at any time, by any means or in any manner, to pursue, hunt, take, capture, kill, attempt to take, capture, or kill ... any migratory bird, any part, nest, or egg of any such bird... included in the terms of the [Migratory Bird] conventions...
The Act covers the taking of any nests or eggs of migratory birds, except as allowed by permit pursuant to 50 CFR, Part 21. Disturbances causing nest abandonment and/or loss of reproductive effort (i.e., killing or abandonment of eggs or young) may also be considered a "take." This regulation seeks to protect migratory birds and active nests.
In 1972, the MBTA was amended to include protection for migratory birds of prey (e.g., raptors). Six families of raptors occurring in North America were included in the amendment:
■ Accipitridae (kites, hawks, and eagles)
■ Cathartidae (New World vultures)
■ Falconidae (falcons and caracaras)
■ Pandionidae (ospreys)
■ Strigidae (typical owls)
■ Tytonidae (barn owls)
The provisions of the 1972 amendment to the MBTA protects all species and subspecies of the families listed above. The MBTA protects over 800 species including geese, ducks, shorebirds, raptors, songbirds,
4.3-16 City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR
and many relatively common species, including all species that were observed within the Planning Area (i.e., white -crowned sparrow, mourning dove, and red -wing blackbird).
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act
Section 404 of the Clean WlaterAct (CWA) requires that a permit be obtained from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) prior to the discharge of dredged or fill materials into any "waters of the United States or wetlands." Waters of the United States are broadly defined in the USACE's regulations (33 CFR 328) to include navigable waterways, their tributaries, lakes, ponds, and wetlands. Wetlands are defined as: "Those areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or ground water at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that normally do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions. Wetlands generally include swamps, marshes, bogs, and similar areas" (Federal Register 1982). Wetlands that are not specifically exempt from Section 404 regulations (such as drainage channels excavated on dry land) are considered to be ` jurisdictional wetlands." In a recent Supreme Court Case, the Court acted to limit the regulatory jurisdiction of the USACE under Section 404 of the CWA as it applies to adjacent waters (USSC 2001). Specifically, the Court ruled that waters that are nonnavigable, isolated, and intrastate are not subject to the USACE jurisdiction (Guzy and Anderson 2001). The USACE is required to consult with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Environmental Protection Agency, and State Regional Water Quality Control Board (among other agencies) in carrying out its discretionary authority under Section 404.
The USACE grants two types of permits, individual and nationwide. Project -specific individual permits are required for certain activities that may have a potential for more than a minimal impact and necessitate a detailed application. The most common type of permit is a nationwide permit. Nationwide permits authorize activities on a nationwide basis unless specifically limited, and are designed to regulate with little delay or paperwork certain activities having minimal impacts. Nationwide permits typically take two to three months to obtain whereas individual permits can take a year or more. To qualify for a nationwide permit, strict conditions must be met. If conditions are met, permittees may proceed with certain activities without notifying the USACE. Some nationwide permits require a 30-day pre - construction notification period before activities can begin. Fill of certain isolated waters or wetlands that affect less than 0.5 acre of impact per project may be permitted with a pre -construction notification.
F State Regulations
California Endangered Species Act
In addition to federal laws, the state of California has its own Endangered Species Act (CESA), enforced by the CDFG. The CESA program maintains a separate listing of species beyond the ESA, although the provisions of each act are similar.
City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 4.3-17
California Fish and Game Code
Unlawful Take or Destruction of Nests or Eggs
Section 3503.5 of the Fish and Game Code of California specifically protects birds of prey. The Code states:
It is unlawful to take, possess, or destroy any birds in the orders Falconiformes or Strigiformes (birds -of -prey) or to take, possess, or destroy the nest or eggs of any such bird except as otherwise provided by this code or any regulation adopted pursuant thereto.
Section 3513 of the Fish and Game Code of California duplicates the federal protection of migratory birds. The Code states:
It is unlawful to take or possess any migratory nongame bird as designated in the Migratory Bird Treaty Act or any part of such migratory nongame bird except as provided by rules and regulations adopted by the Secretary of the Interior under provisions of the Migratory Treaty Act.
California Department of Fish and Game Lake or Streambed Alteration Program
The CDFG, through provisions of the state of California Administrative Code, is empowered to issue agreements for any alteration of a river, stream, or lake where fish or wildlife resources may adversely be affected. Streams (and rivers) are defined by the presence of a channel bed and banks, and at least an intermittent flow of water. CDFG regulates wetland areas only to the extent that those wetlands are part of a river, stream, or lake as defined by CDFG.
Typically, wetland delineations are not required to obtain CDFG Agreements. The reason for this is that CDFG generally includes any riparian habitat present within the jurisdictional limits of streams and lakes.
Riparian habitat includes willows, mulefat, and other vegetation typically associated with the banks of a stream or lake shoreline. In most situations, wetlands associated with a stream or lake would fall within the limits of riparian habitat. Thus, defining the limits of CDFG jurisdiction based on riparian habitat will automatically include any wetland areas.
California Environmental Quality Act —Treatment of Listed Plant and Animal Species
The FESA and CESA protect only those species formally listed as threatened or endangered (or rare in the case of the state list). However, Section 15380 of the CEQA Guidelines independently defines "endangered" species of plants or animals as those whose survival and reproduction in the wild are in immediate jeopardy and "rare" species as those who are in such low numbers that they could become endangered if their environment worsens.
4.3-18 City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR
California Coastal Act §30000 et seq.
Chapter 3 of the California Coastal Act contains policies to protect water quality and the biological productivity of coastal waters (30231); avoid and minimize dredging, diking, and filling sediments (30233); and mitigation of wetland impacts (30607.1).
In addition, under the California Coastal Act "environmentally sensitive area means any area in which plant or animal life or their habitats are either rare or especially valuable because of their special nature or role in an ecosystem and which could be easily disturbed or degraded by human activities and developments" (PRC Section 30107.5).
The California Coastal Act requires that jurisdictions protect Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Areas (ESHA). Specifically, PRC Section 30240 states that:
a) Environmentally sensitive habitat areas shall be protected against any significant disruption of habitat values, and only uses dependent on such resources shall be allowed within such areas. b) Development in areas adjacent to environmentally sensitive habitat areas and parks and recreation areas shall be sited and designed to prevent impacts which would significantly degrade such areas, and shall be compatible with the continuance of such habitat areas The Coastal Act generally protects ESHAs where they exist; it also protects "against any significant disruption of habitat values". Section 30007.5 of the Coastal Act states that where there is a conflict between policies that it:
... be resolved in a manner, which on balance is the most protective of significant coastal resources. In this context, the Legislature declares that broader policies which, for example, serve to concentrate development in close proximity to urban and employment centers may be more protective, overall, than specific wildlife habitat and other similar resource policies.
California Wetlands Conservation Policy (1993)
California wetlands policy is more restrictive than federal wetlands policy. The goal of California Wetlands Conservation Policy (1993) is to ensure no net loss of wetlands within the state. This policy, incorporated in an executive order by then Governor Pete Wilson, also encourages a long-term net gain in the state's quantity, quality, and permanence of wetlands acreage and values. Interpretation of this order indicates that any developer wishing to fill in wetlands for construction of new development must perform mitigation in the form of constructed wetlands elsewhere at ratios ranging from 2:1 to 10:1. In addition to the USACE, state regulatory agencies claiming jurisdiction over wetlands include the CDFG and the State Water Resources Control Board.
Porter -Cologne Water Quality Control Act
The Porter -Cologne WlaterQuality Control Act charges the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) and the nine Regional Water Quality Control Boards (RWQCB) statewide with protecting water quality throughout California. Typically, the SWRCB and RWQCB act in concert with the USACE under Section 401 of the CWA in relation to permitting fill of federally jurisdictional waters. As discussed above, the Supreme Court recently acted to limit the regulatory jurisdiction of the USACE under Section City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 4.3-19
404 of the CWA (USSC 2001). This action did not limit the state's regulatory jurisdiction over Waters of the state (Guzy and Anderson 2001). Waters of the state are defined in Section 13050(e) of the Porter - Cologne WlaterQuality Control Act as "...any surface water or groundwater, including saline waters, within the boundaries of the state." Currently, an applicant would delineate the wetlands on their property utilizing methodology presented in the 1987 Corps of Engineers Wletland Delineation Manual (Environmental Laboratory 1987) and the delineation would be verified by the USACE. In cases where an area meets the criteria to be considered a wetland, but the USACE does not have jurisdiction, the applicant is referred to the appropriate RWQCB. In these cases, the project must receive a permit for Waste Discharge Requirements or a Waiver of Waste Discharge Requirements from the RWQCB. Projects that affect Waters of State are required by the RWQCB to incorporate mitigation. Mitigation ratios are determined on a project specific basis during the permitting process and are based on the quality of the wetlands impacted by the project.
■ Regional
Natural Community Conservation Plan and Habitat Conservation Plan, County of Orange, Central and Coastal Subregion
The preparation of a comprehensive natural resources management conservation plan for Central and Coastal Orange County was completed in 1996. The Central and Coastal Orange County NCCP and Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) and the associated Implementation Agreement covers thirteen cities.
In July of 1996, the City became a signatory agency in the NCCP/HCP. The purpose of the NCCP/HCP is to create a multi -species multi -habitat reserve system and implementation of a long-term management program that will protect primarily coastal sage scrub and the species that utilize this habitat. At the same time that it protects this habitat and species, the NCCP/HCP is also intended to allow for economical use of the lands that meet the people's needs.
The NCCP/HCP is intended to focus on multiple species and habitats and address conservation of these species on a regional context. The three main target species are the coastal California gnatcatcher, cactus wren, and orange -throated whiptail. There are twenty-six other species that are also identified and afforded management protection under the NCCP/HCP. An additional ten species of plants and animals that are either federally listed or treated as if they were listed according to FESA Section 10(a) are addressed within the NCCP/HCP.
Several areas within the Planning Area fall within the reserve system of the NCCP/HCP. For the areas outside the reserve system, development restrictions of the NCCP/HCP do not apply to the city owned land, nor that of the individual landowners. However, since the Planning Area lies within the area of the NCCP/HCP, non participating landowners are provided with different mitigation options than those provided for participating landowners. Nonparticipating landowners may satisfy the requirements of the FESA and CESA in relation to the species covered under the NCCP/HCP one of three ways:
■ On -site avoidance of take
■ Satisfaction of the applicable FESA and CESA regulations through the regular permitting and consultation process (outside the NCCP/HCP)
4.3-20 City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR
■ Payment of a mitigation fee to the nonprofit management organization established by the
NCCP/HCP
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. ■ Local Regulations
The City's existing Conservation of Natural Resources Element of the General Plan contains policies for Bay and Ocean Water Quality, Air Quality, Beach Erosion, Mineral Resources, Archaeological and Paleontological Resources, and Energy Conservation. There are currently no policies addressing habitat protection, protection of federally protected wetlands or waters of the United States, or prevent interference with the movement of native resident or migratory species. The City's certified Coastal Land Use Plan (CLUP) contains extensive policy language addressing biological, habitat and resource protection. CLUP policies are applicable only in the Coastal Zone, which covers only a portion of the Planning Area. The Newport Beach Municipal Code includes Chapter 7.26 to protect Newport Bay as a habitat for migratory and other waterfowl by prohibiting the incubation and feeding of waterfowl.
4.3.4 Thresholds of Significance
The following thresholds of significance are based on Appendix G of the 2005 CEQA Guidelines. For purposes of this EIR, implementation of the proposed project may have a significant adverse impact on biological resources if it would result in any of the following:
■ Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or indirectly through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or the CDFG or USFWS
■ Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the CDFG or USFWS ■ Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected 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 ■ Interfere substantially with the movement of any native 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
■ Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance
■ Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 4.3-21
4.3.5 Project Impacts, Mitigation Measures, and Proposed Policies
0 Effects Not Found to Be Significant
The IS/NOP prepared for the proposed project did not identify any effects not found to be significant associated with biological resources. Therefore, all thresholds are addressed in this section. ■ Project Impacts
Threshold Would development allowed under the proposed General Plan Update have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or indirectly through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or the CDFG or USFWS.
Impact 4.3-1 Development allowed under the proposed General Plan Update could result in potential adverse impacts either directly or indirectly through habitat modifications, to candidate, sensitive, or special status plant and wildlife species.
The proposed General Plan Update would allow infill development throughout the Planning Area, following existing land use patterns. The Update would concentrate new development and redevelopment in several specified subareas: Newport Center/Fashion Island, Balboa Village, Balboa Peninsula, West Newport Mesa, West Newport Highway, Mariners' Mile, and the Airport Area. In addition, while the proposed 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. As indicated previously, a variety of plant and animal species are present within the Planning Area, especially within the ESAs. Some of the sensitive wildlife species that have been observed within the Planning Area include, but are not limited to, California least tern (Sterna antillarum brown), yellow warbler (Dendroica petecbia brewsten), Belding's savannah sparrow (Passerculus sandwichensis beldinga), golden eagle (Aquila chrysaetos), light-footed clapper rail (Kallus Ion gitrostris letipes), and western
snowy plover (Charadrius alexandrinus nimsus).
Development under the proposed General Plan Update could also result in the removal of mature trees that may serve as perching or nesting sites for migratory birds and raptors in both developed and undeveloped areas. It is anticipated that any migratory birds or raptors using mature trees as perching or nesting sites could vacate the site upon the initiation of construction activities because the resulting increase in noise and activity levels could disturb nesting behaviors. As noted previously, several federal and state regulations, including the MBTA, FESA, and CESA, restrict activities that may result in the "take" (kill, harm, harass, etc.) of certain species, including active nests. During the project -level analysis of development proposed under the General Plan, project -specific mitigation, such as pre -construction surveys, may be necessary to ensure that development under the proposed General Plan Update does not result in the "take" of such species as a result of vegetation removal. The proposed General Plan
4.3-22 City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR
Update's Natural Resource Element, specifically Goal NR 10 and Policies NR 10.1 through NR 10.13, delineate the types and manner of mitigation measures that may be necessary during project -specific analysis and development.
The proposed General Plan Update has identified goals that would aid in (1) the protection of sensitive and rare terrestrial and marine resources from urban development; (2) the protection of eelgrass meadows for their ecological function as a nursery and foraging habitat within the Newport Bay ecosystem, balanced with maintenance of Newport Harbor as a recreational boating resource; (3) the protection of coastal dune habitats; (4) the proper disposal of dredge spoils to avoid disruption to natural habitats; (5) the protection, maintenance, and enhancement of Southern California Wetlands; (6) the protection and management of Upper Newport Bay commensurate with the standards applicable to our nation's most valuable natural resources; and (7) the protection of environmental resources in Newport Harbor while preserving and enhancing public recreational boating opportunities. Specifically, Policies NR 10.1 through NR 10.8 protect plant and wildlife species and habitat in the Planning Area by requiring: (1) cooperation with the state and federal resource protection agencies and private organizations to protect terrestrial and marine resources; (2) the compliance with the policies contained within the NCCP; (3) the protection, and prohibition of development in, nature preserves, conservation areas, and designated open space areas; (4) site -specific surveys and analysis prepared by a qualified biologist as a filing requirement for any development permit applications where development would occur within or contiguous to areas identified as an ESA; (5) that the siting and design of new development, including landscaping and public access, protect sensitive or rare resources against any significant disruption of habitat values; (6) the limiting of uses within an area containing any significant or rare biological resources to only those uses that are dependent on such resources, except where application of such a limitation would result in a taking of private property; (7) maintenance of a buffer of sufficient size around significant or rare biological resources and the use of native vegetation within buffers and the prohibition of invasive plant species within buffer areas; and (8) the shielding and direction of exterior lighting away from significant or rare biological resources.
These policies providing protection to habitats containing candidate, and special status plant and wildlife species are additions to the City's General Plan, in light of the fact that there are currently no such policies contained in the existing Conservation of Natural Resources Element. Therefore, the proposed General Plan Update would increase the level of protection of these plant and wildlife species within the City's regulatory framework.
Compliance with FESA, CESA, and CEQA, as well as implementation of proposed General Plan Update goals and policies discussed above, would reduce potential impacts on sensitive plant and wildlife species within the Planning Area. Policies under the proposed General Plan Update that require measures such as site -specific biological studies and compliance with the NCCP/HCP would ensure that proper assessment of potential impacts to candidate, sensitive, and special status species be made on a project - by -project basis. With compliance with these policies, impacts would be less than significant and no additional mitigation is required.
City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 4.3-23
Threshold Would development allowed under the proposed General Plan Update have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations, or by the CDFG or USFWS?
Impact 4.3-2 Development allowed under the proposed General Plan Update could result in adverse effects on riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, and regulations, or by the CDFG or USFWS.
The proposed General Plan Update would allow infill development throughout the Planning Area, following existing land use patterns. The Update would concentrate new development and redevelopment in several specified subareas: Newport Center/Fashion Island, Balboa Village, Balboa Peninsula, West Newport Mesa, West Newport Highway, Mariners' Mile, and the Airport Area. In addition, while the proposed 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. This would preclude most sites containing riparian habitats from being developed under the proposed General Plan Update. Riparian habitats are known to exist throughout the Planning Area, especially in Banning Ranch. As discussed in Section 4.3.3 (Regulatory Setting), the CDFG, under Section 1600 of the Fish and Game Code of California, is empowered to regulate impacts to lakes, streams, and associated riparian (streamside or lakeside) vegetation through the issuance of a Lake or Streambed Alteration Agreement (SAA). The CDFG considers most drainages to be "streambeds" unless it can be demonstrated otherwise. A stream is defined as a body of water that flows at least periodically or intermittently through a bed or channel with banks and supports fish or other aquatic life. This includes watercourses having a surface or sub -surface flow that supports, or has supported, riparian vegetation. CDFG jurisdiction typically extends from the stream bed to the edge of the riparian canopy, and any modification to the stream or its banks that would impact it or riparian vegetation would require a SAA. As many riparian communities (e.g., southern riparian scrub, southern willow scrub, and southern cottonwood) are listed as "rare" by the CDFG and California Native Plant Society (CNPS), additional protection is extended to some riparian communities by the CDFG under Section 15380 of the CEQA Guidelines. These guidelines independently define "endangered" species of plants or animals as those whose survival and reproduction in the wild are in immediate jeopardy and "rare" species as those who are in such low numbers that they could become endangered if their environment worsens. Therefore, a project normally will have a potentially significant effect on the environment if it will substantially affect a rare or endangered species of animal or plant or the habitat of the species. The significance of impacts to a species under CEQA must be based on analyzing actual rarity and threat of extinction despite legal status or lack thereof.
While there are no federal regulations that specifically mandate the protection of riparian vegetation, federal regulations set forth in Section 404 of the CWA address areas that potentially contain riparian - type vegetation, such as wetlands. However, the jurisdiction of Section 404 is generally less than that of the Section 1600 SAA, covering only riparian vegetation that is within the active channel itself.
4.3-24 City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR
In addition to the applicable state and federal regulations, the proposed General Plan Update has identified as goals: (1) the protection of sensitive and rare terrestrial and marine resources from urban development, and; (2) the protection, maintenance, and enhancement of Southern California Wetlands.
Implementation of proposed General Plan Update Policies NR 10.1 through NR 10.7 would reduce or avoid impacts to riparian areas by ensuring cooperation with resource protection agencies, organizations, and conservation plans, and limiting or placing constraints on future development within identified ESAs or areas containing significant or rare biological resources. In addition, Policies NR 10.9 and NR 10.10 would specifically protect the existing or potential riparian habitats, and encourage restoration of the ESAs located within the Planning Area. Policies NR 13.1 and NR 13.2 would serve to protect wetlands and their riparian habitat, and require a survey and analysis of future development within a delineated wetland area under the proposed General Plan Update.
These policies providing protection to habitats containing candidate, and special status plant and wildlife species are additions to the City's General Plan, in light of the fact that there are currently no such policies contained in the existing Conservation of Natural Resources Element. Therefore, the proposed General Plan Update would increase the level of protection of these plant and wildlife species within the City's regulatory framework.
An indirect impact to riparian habitat could result from the future development of existing vacant lands, including potential development in the Banning Ranch subarea. The placement of development next to riparian habitats would disturb wildlife that rely on these areas for shelter and food and could also result in the degradation of these areas through the introduction of feral animals and contaminants that are typical of urban uses. Because federal regulations do not specifically address protection of riparian vegetation under the Section 404 permitting process, and the fact that the CDFG Section 1600 SAA is a negotiated agreement, some unmitigated loss of riparian resources may occur. Therefore these regulations would not serve to fully protect and manage riparian habitat under future development However, the aforementioned proposed General Plan Update policies would serve to regulate indirect impacts future development could have on riparian habitats. Therefore, the impacts associated with riparian habitats within the Planning Area would be less than significant.
Threshold Would development allowed under the proposed General Plan Update have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected 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.
Development allowed under the proposed General Plan Update would not result in a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands and/or waters of the United States through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means.
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act requires that a permit be obtained from the Corps prior to the discharge of dredged or fill materials into any "waters of the United States." Waters of the United States, as defined by regulation and refined by case law, include (1) the territorial seas; (2) coastal and inland waters, lakes, rivers, and streams that are navigable waters of the United States, including their adjacent City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 4.3-25
wetlands; (3) tributaries to navigable waters of the United States, including adjacent wetlands; (4) interstate waters and their tributaries, including adjacent wetlands; and (5) all other waters of the United States not identified above, such as some isolated wetlands and lakes, intermittent and ephemeral streams, and other waters that are not a part of a tributary system to interstate waters or navigable waters of the United States, the degradation or destruction of which could affect interstate commerce. In addition to any potential wetlands, the limits of Corps jurisdiction extends to the ordinary high water mark (OHWM) of streams and lakes, which is defined at 33 CFR 328.3(e) as:
... that line on the shore established by the fluctuation of water and indicated by physical characteristics such as a clear, natural line impressed on the bank, shelving, changes in the character of the soil, destruction of terrestrial vegetation, the presence of litter and debris, or other appropriate means that consider the characteristics of the surrounding areas.
Wetlands are defined as "[t]hose areas that are inundated or saturated by surface water or groundwater at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that normally do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions. Wetlands generally include swamps, marshes, bogs, and similar areas." Section 404 Permits often require mitigation to offset losses of these habitat types.
Wetlands that are not specifically exempt from Section 404 regulations (such as drainage channels excavated on dry land) are considered to be jurisdictional wetlands. The Corps is required to consult with the USFWS, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), State Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), and the CDFG in carrying out its discretionary authority under Section 404.
Stream channels that do not meet the federal definition of a wetland may still be regulated by the Corps as "other waters of the United States" if they meet the definition provided above. In addition, they are generally regulated within California by Section 1600of the California Fish and Game Code.
As stated previously, the areas within the Planning Area containing wetland habitat include Upper Newport Bay, the developed channels, beaches, and hardscape 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. Additionally, Banning Ranch contains relatively high -quality wildlife habitat due to its size, habitat diversity, and continuity with the adjacent Semeniuk Slough and federally -restored wetlands.
Generally, development under the proposed General Plan Update would be confined to previously developed areas and would not be located within the vicinity of wetland areas. However, should certain development proposed under the General Plan be located within or adjacent to such wetland areas, state and federal laws and regulations would be implemented to protect resources from development through the Corps Section 404 permitting process, which is a discretionary rather than negotiated process, and the California Wetlands Conservation Policy (CWCP 1993). The CWCP is intended to ensure that no net loss of wetlands would occur within the state. This is an analogous policy to a federal Executive Order that also mandates no net loss of wetlands. With respect to the state's policy, it also encourages a long- term net gain in the quantity, quality, and permanence of wetlands acreage and values. Interpretation of this order indicates that any developer wishing to fill in wetlands for construction of new development must provide mitigation of in -kind habitat at ratios ranging from 2:1 to 10:1.
4.3-26 City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR
In addition to the state and federal regulation, proposed General Plan Update Policies NR 13.1 and NR
13.2 would protect, maintain, and enhance the City's wetlands. Policies NR 14.1 through NR 14.4 would maintain and enhance deep water channels and ensure they remain navigable by boats through the management of dredging and maintaining the capacity of wetlands and estuaries. Policies NR 15.1 through NR 15.3 would ensure the proper disposal of dredge spoils to avoid disruption to natural habitats through monitoring and management of sediment. As such, implementation of the above policies, which are not in the City's existing Conservation of Natural Resources Element, and strict adherence to the identified state and federal laws and regulations and the "no net wetland loss" policy currently in place, would ensure that implementation of the proposed General Plan Update would have no impact on jurisdictional waters and wetlands within the Planning Area.
Threshold Would development allowed under the proposed General Plan Update interfere substantially with the movement of any native 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.
Impact 4.3-3 Development under the proposed General Plan Update could interfere with the movement of native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or corridors.
The proposed General Plan Update would allow infill development throughout the Planning Area, following existing land use patterns. The Update would concentrate new development and redevelopment in several specified subareas: Newport Center/Fashion Island, Balboa Village, Balboa Peninsula, West Newport Mesa, West Newport Highway, Mariners' Mile, and the Airport Area. In addition, while the proposed 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. Although the Banning Ranch site contains an assemblage of diverse habitats that have been historically disturbed, when this area is considered with the contiguous Semeniuk Slough and restored wetlands, it provides wildlife with a significantly large, diverse area for foraging, shelter, and movement. Development of the Banning Ranch subarea could lead to habitat fragmentation, which occurs when new development divides undisturbed habitat. The resulting fragmentation is particularly harmful to species that rely on large territories to draw food and cover. Without adequate continuous habitat, native species would be adversely affected by development occurring under the proposed General Plan Update. New urban use of previously undeveloped areas requires new roads or widening of existing roads, which block migration routes, separate wildlife from food sources, and otherwise fragment habitat.
Nonetheless, implementation of applicable General Plan policies would ensure that substantial impacts to native, resident, or migratory wildlife species or corridors would not occur in areas of infill and redevelopment. Implementation of Policies NR 10.1 and NR 10.2 would ensure that all future development cooperates with federal, state, and private resource protection agencies/organizations, and complies with policies contained in the NCCP. Policies NR 10.3 and NR 10.4 would protect and prohibit development in nature preserves, conservation areas, and designated open space areas, and would require City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 4.3-27
a site -specific study be prepared where development would occur within or contiguous to such areas.
Policies NR 10.5, NR 10.7, and NR 10.8 would prevent disruption, and ensure protection of sensitive habitat though siting and design requirements, along with sufficient buffer sizes and shielding from direct exterior lighting. Policies NR 12.1 through NR 12.3 would serve to protect coastal dune habitats, which serve as movement corridor for coastal wildlife species. Policies NR 13.1 and NR 13.2 would protect, maintain, and enhance the Planning Area's wetlands, another movement corridor for a variety of aquatic, terrestrial, and avian species. With implementation of the proposed policies, which are not in the existing Conservation of Natural Resources Element, new urban uses within the developed areas of the City would not have a substantial effect on the movement of native resident of migratory wildlife species or corridors. Impacts on these areas would be less than significant.
Although implementation of the proposed General Plan Update policies previously described would reduce impacts, there could still be impacts to the movement of native resident or migratory wildlife species if habitat fragmentation from development of vacant areas and reuse occurs. As mentioned, the main area of concern is the Banning Ranch, which includes important habitat types and numerous special -status species and is largely underdeveloped. If this areas is not retained as open space, it could be developed as a mixed- density residential village with a small component of resident- and visitor -serving commercial. The magnitude of this development could adversely affect the existing wildlife habitats and interfere with its movement corridors. Many proposed General Plan Update policies would ensure that impacts on the movement of native resident of migratory wildlife species or corridors in Banning Ranch remain less than significant. These policies, as discussed above, include proposed General Plan Update Policy NR 10.10, which protects sensitive and rare species located on Banning Ranch; Policy NR 10.7, which would maintain buffers around significant or rare species; and Policy NR 10.8, which would shield and direct exterior lighting away from significant or rare species. The existing Conservation of Natural Resources Element does not contain similar policies. As a result, this impact would be less than significant.
Threshold Would development allowed under the proposed General Plan Update conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance?
Implementation of the proposed General Plan Update would not conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources.
Implementation of the proposed General Plan Update would be subject to all applicable federal, state, and local policies and regulations related to the protection of biological resources. Some of the local policies that future development under the proposed General Plan would be required to adhere to include Council Policy G-1 (Retention or Removal of City Trees) and Chapter 7.26 of the City's Municipal Code (Protection of Natural Habitat for Migratory and Other Waterfowl.) Council Policy G-1 was created to establish and maintain appropriate diversity in tree species and age classes to provide a stable and sustainable urban forest with an inventory that the City can reasonably maintain in a healthy and non -hazardous condition. Chapter 7.26 of the City's Municipal Code recognizes and strives to maintain the value of natural habitat for migratory waterfowl and other birds such as ducks, gulls, terns, and pelicans. In addition, Policy NR 10.1 states that future development shall cooperate with state and
4.3-28 City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR
federal agencies, and private organizations in the protection of the Planning Area's biological resources, and Policy NR 10.3 would protect, and prohibit development in, nature preserves, conservation areas, and designated open space areas in order to minimize urban impacts upon resources in identified ESAs.
As the proposed General Plan Update includes policies to ensure that future development within the Planning Area would not conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, there would be no impact.
Threshold Would development allowed under the proposed General Plan Update conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan?
Implementation of the proposed General Plan Update would not conflict with the provisions an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan.
The Orange County Central and Coastal NCCP is the applicable habitat conservation plan for the Planning Area, of which the City is a signatory agency. The proposed General Plan Update is consistent with the NCCP, because the NCCP is included as a part of the proposed General Plan Update policies.
Policy NR 10.2 explicitly states that future development must comply with the policies contained within the Orange County Natural Communities Conservation Plan. In addition, Policy NR 10.1 states that future development shall cooperate with state and federal agencies, and private organizations, in the protection of the Planning Area's biological resources. This includes local, regional, or state habitat conservation plans. The existing Conservation of Natural Resources Element does not contain similar policies. Because the proposed General Plan Update has included policies to ensure compliance of future development within the Planning Area with the provisions of the NCCP, and approved local, regional, and state habitat conservation plans, there would be no impact. ■ Cumulative Impacts
The geographical context for the analysis of cumulative biological impacts includes the Orange County Central and Coastal NCCP area. This analysis accounts for all anticipated cumulative growth within this geographic area, as represented by full implementation of the proposed General Plan Update as well as the cumulative development anticipated in the Orange County General Plan.
Because rare natural communities do not need to be formally listed as threatened or endangered under any state or federal regulations to be considered "sensitive", the proposed General Plan Update and future projects within the County would not prohibit development within areas that contain sensitive natural communities. However, the policies and goals outlined under the proposed General Plan Update, specifically those identified in Impact 4.3-3, recognize the importance and value of these areas and are aimed at protecting these resources. Because of this, the project's contribution to the cumulatively adverse effect on these communities would not be considerable. Therefore, because the proposed General Plan Update does not contribute considerably to the decline of sensitive natural communities, the proposed General Plan Update's contribution to this impact would not be cumulatively considerable, and would result in a less -than -significant impact.
City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 4.3-29
Cumulative development within Orange County could affect riparian habitats. Because there are no current regulations prohibiting development in riparian habitats, or requiring specific mitigation measures that would ensure no net loss on riparian vegetation, the loss of these areas could occur as a result of the proposed project. However, the proposed General Plan Update policies identified in Impact 4.3-3 would reduce the project's contribution to a level that is not considerable. Therefore, because the proposed General Plan Update does not contribute considerably to the decline of riparian habitats, the cumulative impact to these areas from the project is considered less than significant.
Future development within the County could affect federally protected wetlands. However, there are state and federal regulations that prohibit the net loss of wetlands. Potential impacts to wetlands within the Planning Area would also be subject to proposed General Plan Update policies NR 13.1 and NR 132.2, which would protect, maintain, and enhance the City's wetlands. In addition, Policies NR 14.1 through NR 14.4 would maintain and enhance deep water channels and ensure they remain navigable by boats through the management of dredging and maintaining the capacity of wetlands and estuaries.
Further, Policies NR 15.1 through NR 15.3 would ensure the proper disposal of dredge spoils to avoid disruption to natural habitats through monitoring and management of sediment. Implementation of these policies would minimize effects. As such, the project's contribution to the cumulative loss of wetlands is not considerable. Therefore, because the proposed General Plan Update does not contribute considerably to wetland loss, there would be no cumulative impact.
New development in large, underdeveloped areas has the potential to interfere with the movement of native resident or migratory wildlife species. However, most development that would occur under the proposed General Plan Update would generally lead to the intensification of existing uses on sites throughout the Planning Area. The NCCP guides development in preventing adverse effect on the movement of, native resident or migratory wildlife species, or corridors within the County. In addition, the proposed General Plan Update policies identified in Impact 4.3-3 would ensure that the proposed General Plan Update's contribution to the cumulative impact to movement of native resident or migratory wildlife species, or corridors would not be significant. Therefore, because the proposed General Plan Update does not contribute a considerable amount to the interruption of migration and movement of wildlife, the cumulative impact to these resources from the project is considered be less than significant.
■ Proposed General Plan Update Policies
The Natural Resources Element of the proposed General Plan Update includes policies that would address issues related to biological resources within the City of Newport Beach. The policies that are applicable to the project are included below.. The policies that are applicable to the project are included below. Policies identified below that are also contained in the Harbor and Bay Element are denoted with an "HB".
4.3-30 City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR
Natural Resources Element
Goal NR 10 Protection of sensitive and rare terrestrial and marine resources from urban development.
Policy NR 10.1 Terrestrial and Marine Resource Protection Cooperate with the state and federal resource protection agencies and private organizations to protect terrestrial and marine resources Policy NR 10.2 Orange County Natural Communities Conservation Plan Comply with the policies contained within the Orange County Natural Communities Conservation Plan.
Policy NR 10.3 Development in Environmental Study Areas Protect, and prohibit development in nature preserves, conservation areas, and designated open space areas in order to minimize urban impacts upon resources in identified Environmental Study Areas (ESAs).
Policy NR 10.4 Development Permit Applications
Require a site -specific survey and analysis prepared by a qualified biologist as a filing requirement for any development permit applications where development would occur within or contiguous to areas identified as an ESA.
Policy NR 10.5 New Development Siting and Design
Require that the siting and design of new development, including landscaping and public access, protect sensitive or rare resources against any significant disruption of habitat values.
Policy NR 10.6 Development in Areas Containing Significant or Rare Biological Resources
Limit uses within an area containing any significant or rare biological resources to only those uses that are dependent on such resources, except where application of such a limitation would result in a taking of private property. If application of this policy would likely constitute a taking of private property, then a non -resource -dependent use shall be allowed on the property, provided development is limited to the minimum amount necessary to avoid a taking and the development is consistent with all other applicable resource protection policies. Public access improvements and educational, interpretative and research facilities are considered resource dependent uses.
Policy NR 10.7 Use of Buffers
Maintain a buffer of sufficient size around significant or rare biological resources, if present, to ensure the protection of these resources. Require the City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 4.3-31
use of native vegetation and prohibit invasive plant species within these buffer areas.
Policy NR 10.8 Exterior Lighting
Shield and direct exterior lighting away from significant or rare biological resources to minimize impacts to wildlife.
Policy NR 10.9 Standards for Buck Gully and Morning Canyon Prepare natural habitat protection regulations for Buck Gully and Morning Canyon for the purpose of providing standards to ensure both the protection of the natural habitats in these areas and of private property rights. Include standards for the placement of structures, native vegetation/fuel modification buffers, and erosion and sedimentation control structures.
Policy NR 10.10 Development on Banning Ranch
Protect the sensitive and rare resources that occur on Banning Ranch. If future development is permitted, concentrate development to protect biological resources and coastal bluffs, and design structures to not be intrusive on the surrounding landscape. Require the restoration of any important habitat areas that are affected by future development.
Policy NR 10.11 Interagency Coordination to Monitor Ecological Conditions Coordinate with County and state resource agencies to monitor ecological conditions within the Newport Beach Marine Conservation Areas and Irvine Coast Marine Life Refuge and to implement management programs to protect these areas. Maintain public use of the refuges to the extent it is consistent with the preservation of intertidal and subtidal resources.
Policy NR 10.12 Giant Kelp Reforestation
Support reforestation programs for giant kelp.
Policy NR 10.13 Tide Pool Exhibits
Support the construction of tide pool exhibits away from ocean beaches to provide an educational alternative to the tide pools at Corona del Mar State Beach and Crystal Cove State Park.
Goal NR 11 Protection of eelgrass meadows for their ecological function as a nursery and foraging habitat within the Newport Bay ecosystem, balanced with maintenance of Newport Harbor as a recreational boating resource.
Policy NR 11.1 Eelgrass Protection
Avoid impacts to eelgrass (Zostera marina) to the extent feasible. Mitigate losses of eelgrass in accordance with the Southern California Eelgrass
4.3-32 City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR
Mitigation Policy. Encourage the restoration of eelgrass in Newport Harbor at appropriate sites, where feasible.
Policy NR 11.2 Interagency Coordination on Establishing Eelgrass Restoration Sites Cooperate with the County of Orange, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and resource agencies to establish eelgrass restoration sites.
Policy NR 11.3 Eelgrass Mitigation
Allow successful eelgrass restoration sites to serve as mitigation sites for City projects and as a mitigation bank from which eelgrass mitigation credits will be issued to private property owners for eelgrass removal resulting from dock and channel dredging projects.
Goal NR 12 Protection of coastal dune habitats.
Policy NR 12.1 Exotic Vegetation Removal and Native Vegetation Restoration Require the removal of exotic vegetation and the restoration of native vegetation in dune habitat.
Policy NR 12.2 Dune Habitat Protection
Design and site recreation areas to avoid impacts to dune habitat areas, and direct public access away from these resources through methods such as well- defined footpaths, boardwalks, protective fencing, and signage.
Policy NR 12.3 Beach Sand Removal
Limit earthmoving of beach sand in dune habitat areas to projects necessary for the protection of coastal resources and existing development.
Goal NR 13 Protection, maintenance, and enhancement of Southern California wetlands.
Policy NR 13.1 Wetland Protection
Recognize and protect wetlands for their commercial, recreational, water quality, and habitat value.
Policy NR 13.2 Wetland Delineation
Require a survey and analysis with the delineation of all wetland areas when the initial site survey indicates the presence or potential for wetland species or indicators. Wetland delineations will be conducted in accordance with the definitions of wetland boundaries established by California Department of Fish and Game, and/or United States Fish and Wildlife Service.
City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 4.3-33
Goal NR 14 Maintain and enhance deep water channels and ensure they remain navigable by boats. (Goal HB13)
Policy NR 14.1 Newport Bay Dredging
Support and assist in the management of dredging within Newport Bay. (Policy HB13.1)
Policy NR 14.2 Interagency Coordination for Federal Navigational Channels Cooperate with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in their maintenance and delineation of federal navigational channels at Newport Harbor in the interest in providing navigation and safety. (Policy HB13.2)
Policy NR 14.3 Permit Processing
Secure blanket permits or agreements through the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the California Coastal Commission to expedite permit processing for residential and commercial dock owners in the Bay. (Policy HB13.3)
Policy NR 14.4 Wetland or Estuary Capacity
Require that any project that includes diking, filling or dredging of an estuary must maintain the capacity of the wetland or estuary as required by state and federal law.
Policy NR 14.5 New Structure Design
Require that all structures permitted to encroach into open coastal waters, wetlands, and estuaries be sited and designed to be consistent with the natural appearance of the surrounding area.
Goal NR 15 Proper disposal of dredge spoils to avoid disruption to natural habitats.
Policy NR 15.1 Monitor dredging projects within the region to identify opportunities to reduce disposal costs and utilize dredge spoils for beach nourishment.
Policy NR 15.2 Regional Sediment Management
Participate in regional sediment management by maintaining records of the number of channelized streams, miles of channelization in streams, volumes of sediment extracted from stream channels and debris basins, and the grain size distribution of the extracted sediments.
Policy NR 15.3 Interagency Coordination for Future Dredging Projects Work with appropriate agencies to secure sediment disposal site(s) for future dredging projects.
4.3-34 City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR
Goal NR 16 Protection and management of Upper Newport Bay commensurate with the standards applicable to our nation's most valuable natural resources. (Goal HB7) Policy NR 16.1 Funding Support for Upper Newport Bay Ecosystem Restoration Project
Support and secure federal funding for Upper Newport Bay ecosystem restoration to restore the Upper Newport Bay to its optimal ecosystem. (Policy HB7.1)
Policy NR 16.2 Management of Upper Newport Bay State Marine Park Support and implement unified management of the Upper Newport Bay State Marine Park (formerly Ecological Reserve) by collaborating with Orange County, the California Department of Fish and Game, non-profit corporations with resource management expertise and volunteer organizations to improve resource management, implement resource enhancement projects and expand opportunities for public access, recreation, and education. (Policy HB7.2) Policy NR 16.3 Management of Upper Newport Bay Nature Preserve Assume responsibility from the County to manage, operate and maintain the Upper Newport Bay Nature Preserve, including the Peter and Mary Muth Center, such that natural resources and public education programs are enhanced, using a combination of public agency and private sector personnel as well as volunteers. (Policy HB7.3)
Policy NR 16.4 Public Uses within Upper Newport Bay State Marine Park Maintain public use of the Upper Newport Bay State Marine Park (formerly Ecological Reserve) to the extent such use is consistent with the preservation of sensitive resources. (Policy HB7.4)
Policy NR 16.5 Water -Related Education and Research within Upper Newport Bay Promote facilities in and around Upper Newport Bay to adequately serve as water quality and estuarine education and research programs. (Policy HB 7.5, HB8.22)
Land Use Element
Policies Pertaining to Both Land Use Options (Goals 6.3 and 6.4) Policy LU 6.5.4 Relationship of Development to Environmental Resources Development should be located and designed to preserve and/or mitigate for the loss of wetlands and drainage course habitat. It shall be located to be contiguous and compatible with existing and planned development along its eastern property line, preserving the connectivity of wildlife corridors, and set City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 4.3-35
back from the bluff faces, along which shall be located a linear park to provide public views of the ocean, wetlands, and surrounding open spaces. ■ Impacts and Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures are necessary, as the proposed General Plan Update policies fully mitigate the impacts.
Level of Significance After Policies/Mitigation Measures Compliance with existing federal, state, and local regulations, implementation of the identified proposed General Plan Update policies would limit impacts associated with biological resources within the Planning Area to a less -than -significant level. Cumulative impacts would also be less than significant.
4.3.6 References
Atwood, J.L., and D.E. Minsky. 1983. Least Tern Foraging Ecology at Three Major California Breeding Colonies.
Wlestern Birds 14:57-71.
Blueplanet Biomes, 2005. California Chaparral Climate - Mediterranean Climate (Cs). http://www.blueplanetbiomes.org/calif chap_climate.htm. Accessed January 17, 2006.
California Department of Fish and Game. 2003. California Natural Diversity Database.
California Native Plant Society. 2003. Electronic Inventory of Rare and Endangered Vascular Plants of California.
Chambers Group and Coastal Resources Management. 2002. City of Newport Beach, California, Local Master Plan — Biological Appendix.
2003. City of NeVort Beach, California, General Plan — Newport Beach Biological Resources.
EIP Associates. 2003. Biological Resources Addendum — Local Coastal Plan and General Plan, New Beach, California.
Gallagher, S.R. 1997. Atlas of Breeding Birds Orange County, California.
Hickman, J.C., Ed. 1993. The Jepson Manual — Higher Plants of California.
Holland, R.F. 1986. Preliminary Descriptions of the Terrestrial Natural Communities of California.
MEC Analytical Systems, Inc. 1991. Ecological Descriptions and Evaluations of Proposed Enhancement/ Restoration for Eight Southern Cal forma Wletlands Prepared in Response to California Coastal Commission for Southern California Edison Company.
PCR. 2000. Draft Program Environmental Impact Report Newport Banning Ranch Local Coastal Program.
Ritter, Michael. 2006. The Physical Environment: An Introduction to Physical Geography. http://www.uwsp.edu/ geo/faculty/titter/geog101 /textbook/tide_page.html Accessed January 17, 2006.
Sawyer, John and Todd Keeler -Wolf. 1995. A Manual of California Vegetation.
Tibor, D.P., Ed. 2001. California Native Plant Society's Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants of California.
4.3-36 City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR
4.4 CULTURAL RESOURCES
4.4.1 Introduction
This section describes existing cultural resources at the project area and describes whether the proposed General Plan Update would cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of the following resources: historic, archeological, and paleontological resources. Existing data sources used to prepare this section were taken from EIP Associates 2004 Technical Background Report, City of Newport Beach 2005 Local Coastal Progra)w--Coastal Land Use Plan. Adopted 13 December, and EIP Associates 2005 Historical Resources General Plan Element. Full bibliographic entries for all reference materials are provided in Section 4.4.6 (References) of this section.
The Initial Study prepared for the proposed General Plan Update identified potential impacts related to a substantial adverse change related to the significance of a historical or an archaeological resource, paleontological resources, and the disturbance of any human remains.
No comment letters were received in response to the IS/NOP circulated for the proposed General Plan Update.
4.4.2 Existing Conditions
L Historical Overview
The community of Newport Beach has a rich and diverse history, and its close proximity to the water played a large role in the development of the City. The first stirring activity in the community later known as Newport Beach began in 1870, when a small stern wheeler from San Diego named "The Vaquero' made its first trip to a marshy lagoon. James McFadden and other ranch owners in the Lower Bay decided from then on that the area should be called "Newport." In 1888 James McFadden changed the isolated settlement by building a wharf that extended from the shallow bay to deeper water where large steamers could dock. Shipping activity increased dramatically, and in two years, Newport Beach was known as a vibrant Southern California shipping town.'
Soon after, the Pacific Electric Railroad established itself in Newport Beach in 1905, connecting the City of Los Angeles by rail. Public transit brought new visitors to the waterfront, and small hotels and beach cottages were developed that catered to the tourist industry. West Newport, East Newport, Bay Island, Balboa, Corona del Mar, Balboa Island, and Port Orange (at old Newport Landing) were soon subdivided, and in August 1906, residents in the booming bay town voted to incorporate. Between 1934 and 1936, the Federal government and the county dredged the Lower Bay, extended jetties, and created 9 Newport Beach 75 1906-1981: A Diamond Jubilee History. Edited by James P. Felton. 1981 City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 4.4-1
the present day contour of Newport Beach. In 1936, community members dedicated the City's main harbor, named Newport Harbor.10
During World War Il, the harbor became a vital hub as naval ships were built and repaired in its coastal waters. At the end of the war, a housing construction boom began as seasonal rentals became year-round housing, and the City's identity as a summer resort location began to change. The Santa Ana freeway, built in the 1950s, triggered further growth. During this time, housing development began to spread northward from the waterfront to the hills and mesa areas. The community's economic industry changed, as the fishing industry, once the backbone of Newport Beach's economy, gradually declined to be replaced with new businesses and commercial centers. Beginning in the 1970s, the building of shopping centers such as Fashion Island, hotels, restaurants, offices, and many new homes led to the creation of many active employment, retail, and residential areas that characterize much of Newport Beach today." For many years, Newport Beach's scenic location, attractive neighborhoods and active commercial areas have continued to place many of the City's original buildings, paleontological resources, and historical sites under extreme development pressures. Many of the community's early structures and archaeological sites have been demolished or altered. However, some historical sites and buildings have been preserved that are representative of the community and the region. Several of these historical resources have been recognized as being of statewide or national importance. This section discusses the existing cultural resources that help define the City's heritage.
■ Archaeology
The first generally accepted period of human occupation of Southern California began at about the end of the Pleistocene Epoch, about 10,000 to 12,000 years ago. Archaeological sites around Upper Newport Bay have yielded some of the evidence for the earliest human occupation of Orange County and date to about 9,500 years before present (BP). Over 50 sites have been documented in the Planning Area, including the recently annexed Newport Coast area12,11,14 and in the Newport Banning Ranch portion of the SOI ". Many of these sites have yielded —or have been determined to have the potential to yield — substantial information regarding the prehistory of the City and County, and have included human burials.
At least two and possibly three distinct cultural groups inhabited the area, and later period sites indicate that the area including the Planning Area was heavily populated at the time of European contact.
Ethnographically, the Planning Area falls within a region in which tribal boundaries are unclear: both the Gabrielino and the Luisefio/Juaneno lay ancestral territorial claims. According to David Belardes of the 10 Orange, County of. 2003. Brief History of Orange County. Webpage: http://www.oc.ca.gov/history/ oc_history.asp 11 History of Newport Beach. Newport Beach Real Estate. Webpage:
http://www.realestatenewportbeach.com/relocation/1-iistory.php 12 Newport Beach, City of. 2005. Local Coastal Program Coastal Land Use Plan, 20 January, 4-83. 13 Newport Beach, City of. 2005. Local Coastal Program Coastal Land Use Plan, 20 January, 4-83. 14 Newport Beach, City of. 1974. Nenvport Beach General Plan Conservation of Natural Resources Element, 14 January, 34-35. 15 Keeton Kreitzer Consulting. 2000. Screencheck Program Environmental Impact Report: Nenport Banning Ranch Local Coastal Program, 28 April. Prepared for the County of Orange Planning and Development Services Department.
4.4-2 City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR
Juaneno Band of Mission Indians, the territory of the Juaneno extended north to the Santa Ana River drainage; however, Gabrielino territory is thought by some to extend south of the Santa Ana River Drainage to Aliso Creek, and possibly even further south.' The Luiseno/Juaneno were hunter/gatherers, organized into sedentary and semi -sedentary, autonomous villages. A large village was typically 30 square miles, and contained several hunting, fishing, and collecting areas in different ecological zones. Seasonal moves to exploit resources outside a village's territory occurred during several weeks of the year.
The coastal Luiseno/Juaneno bands exploited a variety of plant food resources. Seeds and acorns accounted for up to 75 percent of the typical diet. Many fruits, berries, bulbs, and roots were used as medicines, beverage bases, and manufacturing materials as well as food. Terrestrial game accounted for an estimated five to ten percent of the coastal Luiseno/Juaneno diet; fish and marine mammals represented an additional 20 to 35 percent. Luiseno/Juaneno material culture associated with food procurement includes tools such as manos and metates, as well as mortars and pestles for processing acorns and seeds, and pulverizing pulpy materials and small game. They probably hunted first with spears, and then later with bows and arrows. The projectiles themselves would have had fire -hardened wood or chipped stone tips. Near -shore fishing and marine mammal hunting were accomplished with light balsa or dugout canoes.
■ Paleontology
Fossils in the central Santa Ana Mountains represent the oldest formations in the County at 145 to 175 million years old and contain aquatic fossil types, such as radiolarians (single -celled plankton), ammonites (extinct members of the class including nautili, squid, and octopi), and bivalves (such as oysters and clams). The predominance of these fossil types indicates that Orange County, for much of its geological history, was underwater.17
During the Miocene Epoch (26 million years ago [mya] to 7 mya), tectonic forces produced uplifts that resulted in the formation of mountains and initiated movement on the nascent San Andreas Fault system, forming numerous coastal marine basins, including the Los Angeles Basin, of which Orange County is a part. As the sea retreated, the County became a shallow bay surrounded by jungle and savannah areas, as indicated by the mix of aquatic and terrestrial fossils found in rocks of Miocene age.
Miocene -age rock units that underlie the Planning Area, particularly in the Newport Coast area, are considered to be of high -order paleontological significance (6 to 9 on a scale of 1 to 10). 18,19 Further tectonic activity began to uplift the land during the Pliocene Epoch (7 mya to 2.5 mya), and the sea slowly receded from the coast, resulting in the formation of a succession of shoreline deposits that 16 EIP Associates. 1998. Dana Point Headlands Draft Environmental Impact Report, 4.12-5. 17 Newport Beach, City of. 2005. Local Coastal Program Coastal Land Use Plan, 20 January, 4-83. 18 Newport Beach, City of. 2005. Local Coastal Program Coastal Land Use Plan, 20 January, 4-83. 19 Newport Beach, City of. 1996. Nenport Coast LCP SecondAmendment, 3 December, 7.
City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 4.4-3
formed a marine terrace. Sandstone deposited in the Newport Beach area during the Pliocene Epoch contains a variety of marine mammals, sea birds, and mollusks.
During the Pleistocene Epoch (2.5mya to 15,000 years ago), the seas continued to retreat as tectonic uplift continued. Although the Pleistocene Epoch is known as the "Ice Age," glacial ice never reached southern California, and paleontological evidence indicates that a heavily vegetated, marshy area extended inland beyond the shoreline. However, a variety of vertebrate animals typically associated with the Ice Age inhabited the area: local paleontological sites, particularly near the Castaways, have yielded fossils of Ice Age horses, elephants, bison, antelopes, and dire wolves. Also, a number of localities in the portions of the Vaqueros formation that underlie the Newport Coast area have yielded a variety of invertebrate and vertebrate fossils, and are considered to be of high -order paleontological significance (9 on a scale of 1 to 10). Other geological formations that underlie the Planning Area have also yielded significant fossils in the Planning Area, particularly in the Newport Banning Ranch portion of the SOI, as well as in other areas of the County. These include the Topanga and Monterey Formations. Known paleontological deposits at Fossil Canyon, in the North Bluffs area of the Planning Area, is considered a unique paleontological locality, and known vertebrate deposits within the Planning Area are considered to be among the most important in the State.21,21 The Newport Banning Ranch portion of the SOI is particularly rich, and contains at least 14 documented sites of high significance.22 ■ Historical Resources
Reflective of Newport Beach's unique history, several properties in the City exhibit significant heritage distinction. The following information provides an overview of the various distinctions of historical resources before identifying the existing historical resources located within the City.
Definitions of Historical Resources
Federal
The National Historic Preservation Act established the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) to recognize resources associated with the country's history and heritage. Structures and features must usually be at least 50 years old to be considered for listing on the NRHP, barring exceptional circumstances. Criteria for listing on the NRHP, which are set forth in Title 26, Part 63 of the Code of Federal Regulations (36 CFR Part 63), are significance in American history, architecture, archaeology, engineering, and culture as present in districts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects that possess integrity of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association, and that are (A) associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history; (B) associated with the lives of persons significant in our past; (C) embody the distinctive characteristics 20 LSA Associates. 1998. Environmental Impact Report, Phase IV-2 of the Newport Coast Planned Community, New ort Coast Planning Areas 3A-2, 3B, 14, MCDP Sixth Amendment and Coastal Development Permit. EIR No. 568, 10 February, 4.10-3. 21 Newport Beach, City of. 1974. NeVort Beach General Plan Conservation of Natural Resources Element, 14 January, 34-35. 22 Keeton Kreitzer Consulting. 2000. Screencheck Program Environmental Impact Report: Nenport Banning Ranch Local Coastal Program, 28 April, 4.4-2 and 4.4-3.
4.4-4 City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR
of a type, period, or method of construction; represent the work of a master; possess high artistic values, represent a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction; or (D) have yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history. Criterion D is usually reserved for archaeological and paleontological resources.
State
The California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR) was created to identify resources deemed worthy of preservation on a state level and was modeled closely after the NRHP. The criteria are nearly identical to those of the NRHP but focus upon resources of statewide, rather than national, significance.
The CRHR automatically includes resources listed on the NRHP.
Local
Properties that are not listed on the NRHP or CRHR may also be considered historical for the purposes of CEQA. The City of Newport Beach has established the Newport Beach Register of Historical Property ("City Register") to recognize structures or properties of local historical or architectural significance. Additionally, in 1991, City Council established an Ad Hoc Historic Preservation Advisory Committee (AHHPAC) to investigate the historic resources of the community and make recommendations regarding preservation. The AHHPAC completed its assignment on May 12, 1992, and reported its findings, which included a Historic Resource Inventory, to City Council June 8, 1992.
The inventory categorized the properties surveyed in five hierarchical "classes" of significance:23,21 ■ Class 1—Major Historic Landmark
■ Class 2—Historic Landmark
■ Class 3—Local Historic Site
■ Class 4—Structure of Historic Interest
■ Class 5—Point of Historic Interest
Under this scheme, Classes 1 to 3 would be eligible to use the State Historic Building Code; Class 4 and 5 properties would be listed for recognition purposes only. The Committee recommended that City Council act to include the inventory in the City Register. However, the entire AHHPAC Historic Resources Inventory was never officially adopted by the City and only some properties listed within were added to the City Register.25 For those properties that originated in the AHHPAC Historic Resources Inventory and are now listed in the City Register, the City Council Policies detailed below govern the listing process for these resources.
Historical Resources in the Planning Area
Eleven properties in the City have been listed or designated eligible for listing on the NRHP or CRHR, or otherwise listed as historic or potentially historic in the California Historic Resources Information 23 Ad Hoc Historic Preservation Advisory Committee (AHHPAC). 1992. Historic Resource Inventory. 24 Ad Hoc Historic Preservation Advisory Committee (AHHPAC). 1992. Report to City Council, May. 25 Ad Hoc Historic Preservation Advisory Committee (AHHPAC). 1992. Report to City Council, May.
City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 4.4-5
System (CHRIS) maintained by the Office of Historic Preservation. These properties are shown on Figure 4.4-1.
NRHP
Four properties within the City have been listed on the NRHP:26 ■ Balboa Inn —Built in 1929, the Balboa Inn is representative of Spanish Colonial Revival architecture and beachfront tourist development.
■ Balboa Pavilion —Constructed in 1905, the Balboa Pavilion has been the site of numerous social and cultural activities over the turn of the century. It is one the State's last surviving examples of great waterfront recreational pavilions.
■ Crystal Cove Historic District —The Crystal Cove Historic District is a 12.3-acre coastal portion of the 2,791-acre Crystal Cove State Park. The Federally listed Historic District is an enclave of 46 vintage rustic coastal cottages originally built in the 1920's and 1930's that are nestled around the mouth of Los Trancos Creek. It is one of the last remaining examples of early 20th century Southern California coastal development.
■ Lovell Beach House —Built in 1926, the Lovell Beach House was designed by Rudolf Schindler and is considered the first pure International Style house built in America.
State -Recognized Resources
Also, four sites within the City have been listed as California Historical Landmarks:27 ■ Old Landing (No. 198)—Established by Captain Dunnells in the 1870s, it was the site of the first shipping business in Newport Bay.
■ Site of First Water -to -Water Flight (No. 775)—Commemorates the May 10, 1912, flight of pioneer pilot Glenn L. Martin who flew from the waters of the Pacific Ocean at Balboa to Catalina Island on a primitive hydroplane the first water -to -water flight. Today a plaque at the foot of the Balboa Pier honors the memory of Glenn Martin.
■ McFadden Wlharf (No. 794)—The site of the original wharf built in 1888 by the McFadden brothers. ■ Balboa Pavilion (No. 759)—described above.
Four additional properties are also listed in the CHRIS database:28 ■ B.K. Stone Building --one of the oldest commercial structures in Newport Beach. ■ Balboa Island Firehouse No. 4—early police and fire station for the Balboa Peninsula (now demolished)
■ Bank of Balboa/Bank of America —Bank of Balboa, Bank of America, provided services from 1928- 1984 (now demolished)
■ Our Lady of Mount Carmel Church
26 Newport Beach, City of. 2003. Draft Local Coastal Program Coastal Land Use Plan, 20 January, 4-58. 27 Newport Beach, City of. 2003. Draft Local Coastal Program Coastal Land Use Plan, 20 January, 4-58. 28 California. Office of Historic Preservation. 2003. California Historic Resources Information System records check, December.
4.4-6 City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR
CITY of NEWPORT BEACH
GENERAL PLAN UPDATE EIR
Figure 4.4-1
HISTORIC
RESOURCES
Legend
Stb5 on Nou7oW RegWw of HWvic Paces
Balboa Inn
Balboa Pavlllon
® Crystal Cove Hls"Ic District
® Love1 Beach House
CdlfCVnla N75iarlcal LO'1tlRkXkS
MCFWMn W had
Old Landing
®
Site of First Woler-to-Woter Flight
OAter H alc Slles orPalenffd&, HWuho Res
N] " CHM$ Dotaoase
8011I)0o Islond FW House #4
(demolished)
Barns of BaR7pW8anl( of Aft)edr a
(demolished)
8 K Stone Building
Our Lady Mount Carmel
Ciry of Newport Beach
g
0 0,5
Miles
Sources: CIF
C of Nei M Beach, General Pon, JuN ]003, CiryLU C N,
Moy]003, Couniks. May 2003, CMC ac f0 er 03; LB .2;
a Ctty Bountlor N20�0: r2MPpr Roa ,FeLwaN 2N2: arM
EIP Asusociales. GIS Program. November 2003.
Nogci No. 10579 03
Locally Recognized Resources
The City has listed seven properties in the City Register, as shown in Figure 4.4-1, in recognition of their local historical or architectural significance, as described above. In addition to the Balboa Pavilion and the Balboa Inn, which are also listed in the NRHP and CRHR, the City Register includes the following:
■ Rende.Zvous Ballroom Site —A popular Balboa dance hall that featured numerous famous Big Bands of the 1930s and 1940s. It was destroyed by fire in 1966.
■ lYlilma'r Patio (formerly Pepper's Restaurant —Located on Balboa Island, the exposed structural components of Pepper's Restaurant are timbers used in the original Balboa Island Bridge and McFadden Wharf.
■ Balboa Theater —Built in 1928, the Balboa Theater is a former vaudeville theater that at one time housed an infamous speakeasy during the prohibition period. Currently, the theater is planned for renovation.
■ Balboa Saloon —The 1924 building is representative of the nautical history and Main Street commercial masonry style of Newport Beach.
■ Dog Fishing Fleet —The Dory Fishing Fleet is located adjacent to Newport Pier. The fleet and open-air fish market have operated at this location since the founding of the fleet in 1891 by Portuguese fishermen. The last remaining fleet of its type, it is a historical landmark designated by the Newport Beach Historical Society. It is a City Council Policy that an area immediately west of the Newport Pier be reserved for the Newport Dory Fishing Fleet.
In addition to the formally recognized resources described above, the Historic Resource Inventory compiled by the AHHPAC includes 61 properties in five designated levels of significance, as described above. The full inventory was never officially adopted by the City, but it still serves as a useful guide to potentially historic properties that may have historic or cultural significance to the City.
4.4.3 Regulatory Framework
The treatment of cultural resources is governed by Federal, State, and local laws and guidelines. There are specific criteria for determining whether prehistoric and historic sites or objects are significant and/or protected by law. Federal and State significance criteria generally focus on the resource's integrity and uniqueness, its relationship to similar resources, and its potential to contribute important information to scholarly research. Some resources that do not meet Federal significance criteria may be considered significant by State criteria. The laws and regulation seek to mitigate impacts on significant prehistoric or historic resources. The Federal, State, and local laws and guidelines for protecting historic resources are summarized below.
■ Federal Regulations
The National Historic Preservation Act of 1966
The National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 established the NRHP as the official Federal list of cultural resources that have been nominated by State Offices for their historical significance at the local, State, or national level. Properties listed in the NRHP, or "determined eligible" for listing, must meet City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 4.4-9
certain criteria for historical significance and possess integrity of form, location, and setting. Significance is determined by four aspects of American history or prehistory recognized by the NRHP Criteria, which are listed above under "Definitions of Historical Resources." Eligible properties must meet at least one of the criteria and exhibit integrity, measured by the degree to which the resource retains its historical properties and conveys its historical character, the degree to which the original fabric has been retained, and the reversibility of changes to the property.
State Regulations
The California Register of Historic Resources (Public Resources Code Section 5020 et seq.)
State law also protects cultural resources by requiring evaluations of the significance of prehistoric and historic resources in CEQA documents. A cultural resource is an important historical resource if it meets any of the criteria found in Section 15064.5(a) of the CEQA Guidelines. These criteria are nearly identical to those for the NRHP, which are listed on page 4.4-2 of this document under "Definitions of Historical Resources."
The State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) maintains the CRHR. Properties listed, or formally designated eligible for listing, on the NRHP are nominated to the CRHR and then selected to be listed on the CRHR, as are State Landmarks and Points of Interest.
California Health and Safety Code (Sections 7050.5, 7051, and 7054) These sections collectively address the illegality of interference with human burial remains (except as allowed under applicable sections of the Public Resources Code), as well as the disposition of Native American burials in archaeological sites and protects such remains from disturbance, vandalism, or inadvertent destruction; establishes procedures to be implemented if Native American skeletal remains are discovered during construction of a project, treatment of the remains prior to, during and after evaluation, and reburial procedures.
Public Resources Code §5097.98
This bill addresses the disposition of Native American burials in archaeological sites and protects such remains from disturbance, vandalism, or inadvertent destruction; establishes procedures to be implemented if Native American skeletal remains are discovered during construction of a project; and establishes the Native American Heritage Commission to resolve disputes regarding the disposition of such remains. It has been incorporated into Section 15064.5(e) of the State CEQA Guidelines.
4.4-10 City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR
Local Regulations
Newport Beach City Council Policy Manual
The Newport Beach City County Policy Manual identifies policies applicable to cultural resources. These policies are discussed below.
Places of Historical and Architectural Significance (K-2) This regulation establishes City Council authority to designate any building, object, structure, monuments, or collection having importance to the history or architecture of the City of Newport Beach and provides procedure for listing. Accordingly, the City Clerk is required to maintain the City of Newport Beach Register of Historical Property. The City Council may at any time repeal, revise, or modify any such designation upon reconsideration of the historical or architectural importance if the structure.
Paleontological Guidelines (K-4)
Under this guideline, the City is required to prepare and maintain sources of information regarding paleontological sites and the names and addresses of responsible organizations and qualified individuals who can analyze, classify, record, and preserve paleontological findings. If determined necessary by the Planning Director, it is the responsibility of a developer to examine the proposed site in order to determine the existence and extent of paleontological resources. Qualified observers are to prepare and submit a written report describing the findings and making recommendations for further action. Based on the report and recommendations, the City is required to assure that the findings or sites are recorded, preserved, and protected.
Archaeological Guidelines (K-5)
The policies set forth within this guideline are used to guide the development or redevelopment of land within the City. The City is required to, through its planning policies and permit conditions, ensure the preservation of significant archaeological resources and require that the impact caused by any development be mitigated in accordance with CEQA. The City is to prepare and maintain sources of information regarding archaeological sites and the names and addresses of responsible organizations and qualified individuals who can analyze, classify, record, and preserve archaeological findings.
If determined necessary by the Planning Director, it is the responsibility of the developer to examine the site to determine the existence and extent of archaeological resources. Qualified observers are to prepare and submit a written report describing the findings and making recommendations for further action, which may include monitoring. Based on the report and recommendations, the City is required to assure that the findings or sites are recorded, preserved, and protected.29 29 Newport Beach, City of. City Council Policy Manual. Webpage http://www.city.newport- beach.ca.us/Councilpoficies/toc.htm
City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 4.4-11
Local Coastal Program —Coastal Land Use Plan
The Coastal Land Use Plan sets forth goals, objectives, and policies that govern the use of land and water in the coastal zone within the City of Newport Beach and its sphere of influence, with the exception of Newport Coast and Banning Ranch. Thus, development in the City's Coastal Zone would be subject to these policies.
Policy 4.5.1-1 Require new development to protect and preserve paleontological and archaeological resources from destruction, and avoid and minimize impacts to such resources. If avoidance of the resource is not feasible, require an in situ or site -capping preservation plan or a recovery plan for mitigating the effect of the development.
Policy 4.5.1-2 Require a qualified paleontologist/archeologist to monitor all grading and/or excavation where there is a potential to affect cultural or paleontological resources. If grading operations or excavations uncover paleontological/ archaeological resources, require the paleontologist/ archeologist monitor to suspend all development activity to avoid destruction of resources until a determination can be made as to the significance of the paleontological/ archaeological resources. If resources are determined to be significant, require submittal of a mitigation plan. Mitigation measures considered may range from in -situ preservation to recovery and/or relocation. Mitigation plans shall include a good faith effort to avoid impacts to cultural resources through methods such as, but not limited to, project redesign, in situ preservation/capping, and placing cultural resource areas in open space.
Policy 4.5.1-3 Notify cultural organizations, including Native American organizations, of proposed developments that have the potential to adversely impact cultural resources. Allow qualified representatives of such groups to monitor grading and/or excavation of development sites.
Policy 4.5.1-4 Where in situ preservation and avoidance are not feasible, require new development to donate scientifically valuable paleontological or archaeological materials to a responsible public or private institution with a suitable repository, located within Orange County, whenever possible.
Policy 4.5.1-5 Where there is a potential to affect cultural or paleontological resources, require the submittal of an archeological/cultural resources monitoring plan that identifies monitoring methods and describes the procedures for selecting archaeological and Native American monitors and procedures that will be followed if additional or unexpected archeological/cultural resources are encountered during development of the site. Procedures may include, but are not limited to, provisions for cessation of all grading and construction activities in the area of the discovery that has any potential to uncover or otherwise disturb cultural deposits in the area of the discovery and all construction that may foreclose mitigation options to allow for significance testing, additional investigation, and mitigation.
Policy 4.5.1-6 Continue to protect Upper Newport Bay cliff faces to serve as a reference section for micropaleontological studies.
4.4-12 City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR
Policy 4.5.2-1 Continue to maintain the Newport Beach Register of Historical Property for buildings, objects, structures, and monuments having importance to the history or architecture of Newport Beach.
Policy 4.5.2-2 Allow the application of the State Historical Building Code to buildings or structures listed in the Neavport Beach Register of Historical Properly.
Policy 4.5.2-3 Provide incentives, such a granting reductions or waivers of applications fees, permit fees, and/or and liens placed by the City to properties listed in the Newport Beach Register of Historical property in exchange for preservation elements.
Policy 4.5.2-4 Continue to allow the Dory Fishing Fleet to be launched and stored and to sell fish on the public beach adjacent to Newport Pier within reasonable limits to protect the historical character of the fleet, the coastal access and resources, and the safety of beach users in the vicinity.
4.4.4 Thresholds of Significance
The following thresholds of significance are based on Appendix G of the 2005 CEQA Guidelines. For purposes of this EIR, implementation of the proposed General Plan Update may have a significant adverse impact on cultural resources if it would result in any of the following:
■ Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in Section 15064.5
■ Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to Section 15064.5
■ Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature ■ Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries
4.4.5 Project Impacts, Mitigation Measures, and Proposed Policies
■ Effects Not Found to Be Significant
The IS/NOP prepared for the proposed project did not identify any effects not found to be significant associated with Cultural Resources. Therefore, all thresholds are addressed in this section.
City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 4.4-13
■ Project Impacts
Threshold Would the proposed project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource?
Impact 4.4-1 Development under the proposed General Plan Update would result in the demolition of historic structures.
As described previously, the City of Newport Beach has a variety of historic resources, including Federal, State, and local resources. Eleven properties in the City have been listed or designated eligible for listing on the NRHP or CRHR, or otherwise listed as historic or potentially historic in the CHRIS maintained by the Office of Historic Preservation. In addition, the City Register also formally recognizes five structures or properties of local historical or architectural significance, most of which are not listed in the NRHP and CRHR. These structures meet the definition of historical resources under Section 15064.5(a) of the CEQA Guidelines. Section 15064.5(b) states that a project with an effect that may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource is a project that may have a significant effect on the environment. In addition to the formally recognized resources described above, the City's Historic Resource Inventory includes 61 properties, which while not officially adopted, serves as a useful guide to potentially historic properties that may have historic or cultural significance to the City.
Redevelopment to enable a different or more intensive use of a site could result in the demolition of historic or potentially historic structures. Additionally, infrastructure or other public works improvements could result in damage to or demolition of other historic features. As detailed in the Regulatory Framework Section above (Section 4.4.3), there are a number of Federal, State, and local policies, regulations, and institutions in place to protect historical resources in the City. For example, the Newport Beach City Council Policy Manual encourages the preservation of the City's cultural and historic heritage through establishing City Council authority over designating resources as having importance to the history or architecture of the City.
In addition, Policies HR 1.1 through HR 1.5 in the proposed General Plan Update are in place to protect historically significant landmarks, sites, and structures through requiring that the Historical Resources Inventory be maintained and updated, encouraging the preservation and adaptive reuse of historic structures, promoting the placement of historical landmarks throughout the City, encouraging adaptive reuse, and mandating the incorporation of historical elements in new redevelopment projects in the City.
Specifically, Policy HR 1.2 focuses on preserving structures listed in the National Register of Historic Places, the List of California Historic Landmarks, and the Newport Beach Register of Historic Property through offering incentives such as grading reductions or waivers of various fees, including application and permit fees. In addition to encouraging the placement of historical landmarks, photographs, markers, and plaques at areas of historical interest or value, Policy HR 1.3 would create a Landmark Plan to recognize and designate culturally important heritage sites that are eligible for the placement of historical landmarks or plaques and would also identify funding opportunities to support the program. Policy HR
1.4 encourages alternatives to demolition of historical sites through providing incentives including fee waivers and free technical advice for adaptive reuse, such as architecturally compatible rehabilitation of
4.4-14 City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR
historic structures. In the case that preservation or adaptive reuse is not possible, Policy HR 1.5 requires that a proposed project incorporates a physical link to the past within the site or structural design, be it incorporation of historical photographs or artifacts, or preservation of existing elements of the site, such as existing pathways or viewing vantage points. A comparison of Figure 3-3 (Chapter 3, Project Description) and Figure 4.4-1, most of the subareas within the Planning Area where changes could occur as a result of the proposed General Plan Update, do not have historic resources, including the Airport Area, Newport Center, West Newport Mesa and Mariners' Mile. Balboa Peninsula is an exception, and policies associated with Goal 6.8 of the proposed General Plan Update are in place to preserve the historic character of Balboa Peninsula's districts by offering incentives for the preservation of historic buildings and requiring that new development be compatible with the scale, mass, and materials of existing structures, while allowing opportunities for architectural diversity.
With the policy framework discussed above combined with the lack of historic resources in the subareas where most development would occur, the probability of demolition of historic structures would be minimized. However, the policies afford only limited protection to historic structures and would not ultimately prevent the demolition of a historic structure. Additionally, some structures that are not currently considered for historical value (as they must generally be at least 50 years or older) could become worthy of consideration during the planning period of the proposed General Plan Update.
Because the demolition of a historic structure constitutes a physical effect on the environment and the proposed General Plan Update does not propose policies that would effectively prevent the demolition of historic structures, this impact is considered significant. Implementation of proposed General Plan Update Policy HR 1.6 would reduce this impact by requiring the developers of a property containing a historic resource retain a qualified consultant to record the structure in accordance the U.S. Secretary of Interior guidelines, and HR 1.7 would require the developer of a project that would demolish a historic structure to offer the structure for relocation, which could result in the preservation of the structure.
However, these mitigation measures would not reduce this impact to a less -than -significant level.
Threshold Would the proposed project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to Section 15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines?
Impact 4.4-2 Ground -disturbing activities associated with development under the proposed General Plan Update could result in damage to or destruction of archaeological and/or Native American cultural resources.
The City of Newport Beach and its SOI have 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, particularly in areas that have not previously been developed with urban uses have the potential to damage or destroy historic or prehistoric archaeological resources that may be present on or below the ground surface. Such resources are generally considered to be historical resources, as defined in Section 15064.5(a)(3)(D) ("[h]as yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in history or prehistory"). In addition to the status of archaeological resources as historical resources, a resource may also be a "unique City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 4.4-15
archaeological resource," as defined in Section 21083.2(g)(1)—(3) of CEQA. Further, archaeological resources are often of cultural or religious importance to Native American groups, particularly if the resource includes human and/or animal burials. Consequently, damage to or destruction of these resources could occur as a result of development under the proposed General Plan Update. The Banning Ranch site is currently developed with oil production uses and associated structures, including large storage tanks and may have a greater potential to contain undisturbed archaeological sites or sites of cultural significance. Vacant parcels located within the City could also contain these cultural resources.
However, policies within Goal HR 2 and NR 18 of the proposed General Plan Update would protect these resources. For example, Policy HR 2.1 and Policy NR 18.1 require that any new development protect and preserve archaeological resources from destruction, and that potential impacts to such resources be avoided and minimized through planning policies and permit conditions. Other policies under Goal HR 2 and Goal NR 18 ensure that information resources are maintained regarding these resources; grading and excavation activities where there is a potential to affect cultural or archaeological resources be monitored by a qualified archaeologist; cultural organizations, including Native American organizations, are notified of all developments that have the potential to adversely impact these resources; and that any new development donates scientifically valuable archaeological resources to a responsible public or private institution. The Newport Beach City Council has also established "Archaeological Guidelines (K-5)" to ensure the preservation of significant archeological resources and require that the impact caused by any development be mitigated with CEQA.
The Historical Resources Element of the proposed General Plan Update also contains policies that ensure the protection of archaeological resources. For example, policy HR 2.1 would require new development to protect and preserve paleontological and archaeological resources from destruction, and avoid and minimize impacts to such resources in accordance with the requirements of CEQA. Through planning policies and permit conditions, this policy would ensure the preservation of significant archeological and paleontological resources and require that the impact caused by any development be mitigated in accordance with CEQA. Policy HR 2.2 would ensure that sources of information regarding paleontological and archeological sites and the names and addresses of responsible organizations and qualified individuals, who can analyze, classify, record, and preserve paleontological or archeological findings would continue to be maintained. A qualified paleontologist/archeologist would be required to monitor all grading and/or excavation where there is a potential to affect cultural, archeological or paleontological resources. If these resources are found, the applicant shall implement the recommendations of the paleontologist/archeologist, subject to the approval of the City Planning Department.
Consequently, implementation of the proposed General Plan Update policies would ensure that impacts to archaeological and Native American cultural resources would be less than significant, by requiring the scientific recovery and evaluation of any archaeological resources that could be encountered during construction of future development. This would ensure that important scientific information that could be provided by these resources regarding history or prehistory would not be lost.
4.4-16 City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR
Threshold Would the proposed project directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? Impact 4.4-3 Ground -disturbing activities associated with development under the proposed General Plan Update could result in damage to or destruction of unique paleontological resources within rock units or geologic features.
As described previously, paleontological resources may be present in fossil -bearing soils and rock formations below the ground surface. A number of localities 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. Therefore, any activities resulting from implementation of the proposed General Plan Update, including construction -related and earth -disturbing actions, could damage or destroy fossils in these rock units. As with archaeological resources, paleontological resources are generally considered to be historical resources, as defined in Section 15064.5(a)(3)(D) ("[h]as yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in history or prehistory"). Consequently, damage or destruction to these resources could cause a significant impact.
Policies within Goal HR 2 and NR 18 of the proposed General Plan Update are in place to protect paleontological resources. For example, Policy HR 2.1 and Policy NR 18.1 require any new development to protect and preserve archaeological resources from destruction, and that potential impacts to such resources be avoided and minimized through planning policies and permit conditions. These steps are in place to ensure that paleontological resources are preserved, and that any impact caused by development be mitigated in accordance with CEQA. As detailed in Impact 4.1-3, other policies under Goal HR 2 and Goal NR 18 ensure that information resources are maintained regarding these resources; grading and excavation activities where there is a potential to affect cultural or archaeological resources be monitored by a qualified archaeologist; cultural organizations, including Native American organizations, are notified of all developments that have the potential to adversely impact these resources; and that any new development donates scientifically valuable archaeological resources to a responsible public or private institution. The Newport Beach City Council has also established "Paleontological Guidelines (K-4)" requiring that the City prepare and maintain sources of information regarding paleontological sites.
Compliance with policies within Goal NR 18 and the policies under Goal HR 2 would reduce this impact to a less -than -significant level by ensuring paleontological resources would be subject to scientific recovery and evaluation, which would ensure that important scientific information that could be provided by these resources regarding prehistory is not lost.
City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 4.4-17
Threshold Would the proposed project disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries?
Impact 4.4-4 Ground -disturbing activities associated with development under the proposed General Plan Update could result in damage to or destruction of human burial grounds.
Archaeological materials, including human burials, have been found in the City. Human burials outside of formal cemeteries often occur in prehistoric archeological contexts. Particularly in the areas of the City that are still mostly underdeveloped for urban uses, such as the Banning Ranch area, the potential still exists for these resources to be present. It is the City's intent to preserve Banning Ranch, which has not been subject to substantial development and therefore has a higher potential to yield intact sites.
However if open space preservation is not feasible in Banning Ranch, the area will be developed for residential and commercial uses. Excavation during construction activities in the City would have the potential to disturb these resources, including Native American burials.
Human burials, in addition to being potential archaeological resources, have specific provisions for treatment in Section 5097 of the California Public Resources Code. Disturbing human remains would destroy the resources and could potentially violate the health code. The California Health and Safety Code (Sections 7050.5, 7051, and 7054) described in section 4.4.3, "Regulatory Framework" of this section, also has specific provisions for the protection of human burial remains. Existing regulations address the illegality of interfering with human burial remains, and protects them from disturbance, vandalism, or destruction, and established procedures to be implemented if Native American skeletal remains are discovered. Public Resources Code 55097.98 also addresses the disposition of Native American burials, protects such remains, and established the Native American Heritage Commission to resolve any related disputes.
Additionally, policies within Goal HR2 and Goal NR17 of the proposed General Plan Update are in place to protect archaeological resources, including human remains. Policies HR 2.1 and Policy NR 18.1 would require that any new development under the proposed General Plan Update protect and preserve archaeological resources from destruction, and that potential impacts to such resources be avoided and minimized through planning policies and permit conditions. Other policies under Goal HR2 and Goal NR 18 ensure that information resources are maintained regarding these resources, that all grading and excavation activities where there is a potential to affect cultural or archaeological resources be monitored by a qualified archaeologist; that cultural organizations, including Native American organizations, are notified of all developments that have the potential to adversely impact these resources; and that any new development donates scientifically valuable archaeological resources to a responsible public or private institution.
Consequently, compliance with existing Federal, State, and local policies would ensure that the impact of the proposed General Plan Update on human burial grounds would be reduced to a less -than - significant level by ensuring appropriate examination, treatment, and protection of human remains, as required by law.
4.4-18 City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR
I Cumulative Impacts
The geographic context for the analysis of cumulative cultural resources impacts is Orange County, which includes all cumulative growth within the County. This cumulative impact analysis considers implementation of the proposed General Plan Update, in conjunction with other development in the vicinity of the City of Newport Beach, as represented by full implementation of the proposed General Plan Update.
Historical Resources
Potential future development in the City of Newport Beach and the SOI could include the demolition or destruction of historic resources. Though historic resources may be listed in the NRHP or CRHR, or otherwise listed as historic or potentially historic in the CHRIS maintained by the Office of Historic Preservation, the listing itself often grants little or no inherent protection. Development in the City of Newport Beach would be subject to the requirements of CEQA. However, even with these requirements, full mitigation of impacts to every historical resource in the City could be considered infeasible and the impact overridden to allow for future project approval. It is therefore possible that cumulative development in the vicinity of the City of Newport Beach could result in the adverse demolition or destruction of historic buildings, which could contribute to the erosion of the historic and architectural fabric of the City. The cumulative impact of development under the proposed General Plan Update would, therefore, be considered significant and unavoidable.
Archaeological and Paleontological Resources
Potential future development in the City of Newport Beach and the SOI could include excavation and grading that could potentially impact the archaeological and paleontological resources and human remains. The cumulative effect of this future development is the continued loss of these resources. The potential loss of paleontological and archaeological resources with this future development would contribute to the degradation of the historic fabric of the City of Newport Beach. However, policies under the proposed General Plan Update and assigned mitigation measures would be implemented as appropriate to reduce the effect of this development by ensuring the evaluation and — where appropriate — scientific recovery and study of any resources encountered. CEQA requirements for the protection of archaeological and paleontological resources and human remains are applicable to development in the City of Newport Beach. If subsurface cultural resources are protected as they are discovered — as is required by law — impacts to these resources would be less than significant. As indicated above, given the mitigation measures that would be imposed and enforced throughout construction, the contribution of potential impacts from the proposed General Plan Update to the cumulative destruction of subsurface cultural resources throughout Newport Beach would not be cumulatively considerable, and would, therefore, be less than significant.
City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 4.4-19
t Proposed General Plan Update Policies
The Historical Resources and Natural Resources Elements of the proposed General Plan Update include policies that would address issues related to historical resources within the City of Newport Beach. The policies that are applicable to the project are included below.
Goal HR 1 Recognize and protect historically significant landmarks, sites, and structures.
Policy HR 1.1 Historical Resources Inventory
Maintain and periodically update the Newport Beach Register of Historical Property for buildings, objects, structures, and monuments having importance to the history or architecture of Newport Beach and require photo documentation of inventoried historic structures prior to demolition.
Policy HR 1.2 Preservation or Re -Use of Historical Structures Encourage the preservation of structures listed on the National Register of Historic Places and/or the list of California Historical Landmarks, and/or the Newport Beach Register of Historical Property. Provide incentives, such as grading reductions or waivers of application fees, permit fees, and/or any liens placed by the City to properties listed in the National or State Register or the Newport Beach Register of Historical Property in exchange for preservation easements.
Policy HR 1.3 Historical Landmarks
Encourage the placement of historical landmarks, photographs, markers, or plaques at areas of historical interest or value. Create a Landmark Plan that will recognize and designate culturally important heritage sites that are eligible for the placement of historical landmarks or plaques. The Plan will also identify funding opportunities to support the program such as development fees, corporate or civic sponsorships, donations, or utilizing General Funds.
Policy HR 1.4 Adaptive Re -use
Encourage alternatives to demolition of historical sites or structures by promoting architecturally compatible rehabilitation or adaptive re -use. Provide incentives such as permit and application fee waivers, flexible building requirements and free technical advice by person(s) qualified in historical preservation.
Policy HR 1.5 Historical Elements within New Projects
Require that proposed development that is located on a historical site or structure incorporate a physical link to the past within the site or structural design, if preservation or adaptive reuse is not a feasible option. For example, incorporate historical photographs or artifacts within the proposed project or preserve the location and structures of existing pathways, gathering places,
4.4-20 City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR
seating areas, rail lines, roadways, or viewing vantage points within the proposed site design.
Policy HR 1.6 Documentation
Require that, prior to the issuance of a demolition or grading permit, developers of a property that contains an historic structure as defined by CEQA retain a qualified consultant to record the structure in accordance with U.S. Secretary of Interior guidelines (which includes drawings, photographs, and written data) and submit this information to the Newport Beach Historical Society, Orange County Public Library, and City Planning Department.
Policy HR 1.7 Offer for Relocation of Historic Structure Require that, prior to the demolition of a historic structure, developers offer the structure for relocation by interested parties.
Goal HR 2 Identification and protection of important archeological and paleontological resources within the City.
Policy HR 2.1 New Development Activities
Require new development to protect and preserve paleontological and archaeological resources from destruction, and avoid and minimize mitigate impacts to such resources in accordance with the requirements of CEQA.
Through planning policies and permit conditions, ensure the preservation of significant archeological and paleontological resources and require that the impact caused by any development be mitigated in accordance with CEQA.
Policy HR 2.2 Grading and Excavation Activities
Maintain sources of information regarding paleontological and archeological sites and the names and addresses of responsible organizations and qualified individuals, who can analyze, classify, record, and preserve paleontological or archeological findings.
Require a qualified paleontologist/archeologist to monitor all grading and/or excavation where there is a potential to affect cultural, archeological or paleontological resources. If these resources are found, the applicant shall implement the recommendations of the paleontologist/archeologist, subject to the approval of the City Planning Department.
Policy HR 2.3 Cultural Organizations
Notify cultural organizations, including Native American organizations, of proposed developments that have the potential to adversely impact cultural resources. Allow representatives of such groups to monitor grading and/or excavation of development sites.
City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 4.4-21
Policy HR 2.4 Paleontological or Archaeological Materials Require new development to donate scientifically valuable paleontological or archaeological materials to a responsible public or private institution with a suitable repository, located within Newport Beach, or Orange County, whenever possible.
Goal LU 6.8 A series of commercial, visitor -serving, marine related, civic, and residential neighborhoods that are vibrant throughout the year, differentiated by their historic and functional characteristics, and architectural style, yet integrated by streetscape amenities.
Policy LU 6.8.6 Historic Character
Preserve the historic character of Balboa Peninsula's districts by offering incentives for the preservation of historic buildings and requiring new development to be compatible with the scale, mass, and materials of existing structures, while allowing opportunities for architectural diversity.
Goal NR 18 Protection and preservation of important paleontological and archaeological resources.
Policy NR 18.1 New Development
Require new development to protect and preserve paleontological and archaeological resources from destruction, and avoid and minimize impacts to such resources in accordance with the requirements of CEQA. Through planning policies and permit conditions, ensure the preservation of significant archeological and paleontological resources and require that the impact caused by any development be mitigated in accordance with CEQA.
Policy NR 18.2 Maintenance of Database Information
Prepare and maintain sources of information regarding paleontological or archaeological sites and the names and addresses of responsible organizations and qualified individuals who can analyze, classify, record, and preserve paleontological and archaeological findings. [Council Policy Manual] Policy NR 18.3 Potential for New Development to Impact Resources Notify cultural organizations, including Native American organizations, of proposed developments that have the potential to adversely impact cultural resources. Allow qualified representatives of such groups to monitor grading and/or excavation of development sites.
Policy NR 18.4 Donation of Materials
Require new development, where in situ preservation and avoidance are not feasible, to donate scientifically valuable paleontological or archaeological
4.4-22 City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR
materials to a responsible public or private institution with a suitable repository, located within Newport Beach or Orange County, whenever possible.
. Impacts and Mitigation Measures
No feasible mitigation measures beyond what the proposed General Plan Update policies require are available as the desired result (no demolition of historic resources) cannot be ensured and even if the structure were moved, the integrity of setting and location of the structure would still be lost, because the structure would be removed from its original site.
Level of Significance After Policies/Mitigation Measures Development under the proposed General Plan Update could include the modification, demolition or destruction of historical resources. As no additional feasible mitigation measures are available to ensure the complete protection of historical resources from future development, the impact would be significant and unavoidable. However, all other project impacts associated with historic, archeological, paleontological resources, and human remains would be less than significant under the proposed Newport Beach General Plan Update. Policies in the General Plan would protect and preserve important paleontological and archaeological resources by requiring that new development under the proposed General Plan Update protects and preserves these resources from destruction. Through protections such as planning policies, permit conditions, maintenance of information resources, and the inclusion of cultural organizations in any development projects that have the potential to adversely impact these resources, the overall impacts to historic, archeological, and paleontological resources, and human remains would be less than significant.
4.4.6 References
Ad Hoc Historic Preservation Advisory Committee (AHHPAC). 1992. Historic Resource Inventory 1992. Report to City Council, May
California. Office of Historic Preservation. 2003. California Historic Resources Information System records check, December
EIP Associates. 1998. Dana Point Headlands Draft Environmentallmpact Report, 4.12-5 2004. Technical Background Report
2005. Historical Resources General Plan Element
History of Newport Beach. Newport Beach Real Estate. Webpage:
http://www.realestatenewportbeach.com/relocation/history.php Keeton Kreitzer Consulting. 2000. Screencheck Program Environmentallmpact Report: Nenport Banning Ranch Local Coastal Program, 28 April. Prepared for the County of Orange Planning and Development Services Department.
City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 4.4-23
2000. Screencheck Program Environmental Impact Report• Neavport Banning Ranch Local Coastal Program, 28 April, 4.4-2 and 4.4-3
LSA Associates. 1998. Environmental Impact Report, Phase IV-2 of the Ngport Coast Planned Community, Newport Coast Planning Areas 3A-2, 3B, 14, MCDP Sixth Amendment and Coastal Development Permit. EIR No. 568, 10 February, 4.10-3
Newport Beach, City of. 1974. Newport Beach General Plan Conservation of Natural Resources Element, 14 January, 34-35.
1974. Newport Beach General Plan Conservation of Natural Resources Element, 14 January, 34-35 1981. Newport Beach 75 1906-1981: A Diamond Jubilee History. Edited by James P. Felton. 1996. Newport Coast LCP Second Amendment, 3 December, 7 2003. Draft Local Coastal Program Coastal Land Use Plan, 20 January, 4 - 5 8 2005. Local Coastal Program —Coastal Land Use Plan, 20 January, 4-83. 2005. Local Coastal Program —Coastal Land Use Plan. Adopted 13 December. 2006. City Council Policy Manual. Webpage http://www.city.newport- beach. ca. us / Councilpolicies /toc.htm
Orange, County of. 2003. Brief History of Orange County. Webpage: http://www.oc.ca.gov/history/ oc_history.asp
4.4-24 City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR
4.5 GEOLOGY, SOILS, AND MINERAL RESOURCES
4.5.1 Introduction
This section of the EIR analyzes the potential physical environmental effects related to seismic hazards, underlying soil characteristics, slope stability, erosion, and existing mineral resources in the Planning Area, within the City of Newport Beach from implementation of the General Plan Update. Data used to prepare this section was taken from the Hazards Assessment Study prepared for the Technical Background Report, the California Geological Survey (CGS) (formerly known as the Division of Mines and Geology), and previous environmental documentation prepared for the Planning Area.
The Initial Study prepared for the proposed project identified the potential for the project area to expose people or structures to risks from seismic effects (such as fault rupture, groundshaking, liquefaction, and landslides), soil erosion and loss of topsoil, geologically unstable soils, and geologically expansive soils.
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. Therefore, issues related to the use of alternative waste disposal systems are not included in the detailed analysis presented in this EIR. Full bibliographic entries for all reference materials are provided in Section 4.5.10 (References) of this section.
The Initial Study also identified the potential for impacts related to loss of a availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and residents, or loss of availability of a locally - important mineral resource recovery site.
One comment letter associated with geology, soils, and mineral resources was received in response to the IS/NOP circulated for the General Plan Update. The Department of Conservation (DOC)—Division of Oil, Gas, and Geothermal Resources requested that the DEIR include an analysis of potential impacts of building over, or in the proximity to, the plugged and abandoned wells located within the administrative boundaries of the West Newport and Newport oil fields. Section 4.5.5 (Project Impacts, Mitigation Measures, and Proposed Policies) provides such an analysis. The DOC also requests that these wells be plotted on future project maps.
4.5.2 Geology and Soils
Existing Conditions
Physiographic Setting
The Planning Area is located in an area of widely diverse terrain at the southern margin of the Los Angeles Basin. The Planning Area's landscape can best be described by geographic area, each reflective of its distinct topographic features. The central and northwestern portions of the Planning Area are situated on a broad mesa that extends southeastward to join the San Joaquin Hills. Commonly known as Newport Mesa, this upland has been deeply dissected by stream erosion, resulting in moderate to steep City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 4.5-1
bluffs along the Upper Newport Bay estuary, one of the most biologically diverse natural features in Orange County. The nearly flat-topped mesa rises from about 50 to 75 feet above mean sea level at the northern end of the estuary in the Santa Ana Heights area, to about 100 feet above sea level in the Newport Heights, Westcliff, and Eastbluff areas.
Along the southwestern margin of the Planning Area, sediments flowing from the two major drainage courses that transect the mesa have formed the beaches, sandbars, and mudflats of Newport Bay and West Newport. These lowland areas were significantly modified during the last century in order to deepen channels for navigation and form habitable islands. Balboa Peninsula, a barrier beach that protects the bay, was once the site of extensive low sand dunes. In the southern part of the Planning Area, the San Joaquin Hills rise abruptly from the sea, separated from the present shoreline by a relatively flat, narrow shelf. Originally formed by wave abrasion, this platform (also called a terrace) is now elevated well above the water and is bounded by steep bluffs along the shoreline. The coastal platform occupied by Corona Del Mar ranges from about 95 to 100 feet above sea level, and the San Joaquin Hills, site of the Newport Coast development area, rise to an elevation of 1,164 feet at Signal Peak.
The two major drainages that have contributed greatly to the development of the City's landforms are the Santa Ana River and San Diego Creek. North of the Planning Area, numerous streams draining the foothills, including Peters Canyon Wash, Rattlesnake Wash, Hicks Canyon, Agua Chinon, and Serrano Creek, merged with San Diego Creek and collectively cut a wide channel through the mesa, later filling it with sediment (Upper Newport Bay and the harbor area). The collected drainages are now contained in the man-made San Diego Creek Channel, and directed into Upper Newport Bay near the intersection of Jamboree Road and University Drive. The Bay also receives water from the Santa Ana Delhi Channel near Irvine Avenue and Mesa Drive.
Regional and Local Faults
The faulting and seismicity of Southern California is dominated by the San Andreas Fault System. The zone separates two of the major tectonic plates that comprise the earth's crust. The Pacific Plate lies west of the fault zone. This plate is moving in a northwesterly direction relative to the North American Plate, which lies east of the fault zone. The relative movement between the two plates is the driving force of fault ruptures in western California. The San Andreas Fault System generally trends northwest -southeast; however, north of the Transverse Ranges Province, the fault trends more in an east/west direction, causing a north/south compression between the two plates. North/south compression in Southern California has been estimated from five to twenty millimeters per year.30 This compression has produced rapid uplift of many of the mountain ranges in Southern California and is responsible for most of the seismic activity in the region.
There are numerous faults in Southern California that are categorized by the CGS as active, potentially active, and inactive. A fault is classified as active by the State if it has moved during the Holocene epoch (during the last 11,000 years) or is included in an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone (as established by 30 Southern California Earthquake Data Center (SCEDC), Alpbabetical Fault Index. 2005. www.dta.scec.org , Accessed October 2005.
4.5-2 City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR
the CGS). A fault is classified as potentially active if it has experienced movement during the Quaternary period (the last 1.6 million years). Faults that have not moved in the last 1.6 million years generally are considered inactive. Surface displacement can be recognized by the existence of cliffs in alluvium, terraces, offset stream courses, fault troughs and saddles, the alignment of depressions, sag ponds, and the existence of steep mountain fronts.
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 Park fault zone, each with the potential to cause moderate to large earthquakes that would cause ground shaking in Newport Beach and nearby communities. Figure 4.5-1 illustrates the regional faults in the vicinity of the Planning Area.
■ Historic Seismicity
Generally defined, an earthquake is an abrupt release of accumulated energy in the form of seismic waves created when movement occurs along a fault plane. The specific faulting characteristics of the Los Angeles Basin are governed by regional north/south compression, a product of the continued motion between the Pacific and North American Plates.31 More than half the energy produced by this motion is stored by the San Andreas Fault, the main boundary between the Pacific and North American Plates.
The remaining energy is distributed through movement on two principal fault systems: the northwest/southeast—trending faults subparallel to the San Andreas system and the east/west—trending faults of the Transverse Ranges.
The severity of an earthquake generally is expressed in two ways —magnitude and intensity. The energy released, measured on the Moment Magnitude (MW) scale, represents the "size" of an earthquake. The Richter Magnitude (M) scale has been replaced in most modern building codes by the MW scale because the MW scale provides more useful information to design engineers. The intensity of an earthquake is measured by the Modified Mercalli Intensity (MMI) scale, which emphasizes the current seismic environment at a particular site and measures ground shaking severity according to damage done to structures, changes in the earth surface, and personal accounts. Table 4.5-1 (Modified Mercalli Intensity Scale) identifies the level of intensity according to the MMI scale and describes that intensity with respect to how it would be received or sensed by its receptors.
The terms Maximum Credible Earthquake (MCE) and Maximum Probable Earthquake (MPE) have been used for many years to describe the largest earthquake that would be likely to occur along a particular fault and within a given timeframe, respectively. Recent revisions incorporated by California into the California Building Code (CBC), based on recommendations identified by the Seismology Committee of the Structural Engineers Association of California, have eliminated the use of these terms. The 2001 CBC revisions require that the MW of the "characteristic earthquake" be used in geotechnical 31 Yerkes, R.F. 1985. Geologic and Seismologic Setting, in, Evaluating Earthquake Ha.Zards in the Los Angeles Region An Earth - Science Perspective. United States Geological Survey Professional Paper 1360.
City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 4.5-3
♦''''••'R••F�SFq
• UST
so
♦e
♦♦ A%
♦♦'�� • • • Palmdale
.♦♦ ♦♦: 44,♦
.♦
Newhall 4*♦ ♦♦♦ ♦♦
14 ''N♦•4.►S� tNFERN_Atyp • ♦♦3S ♦♦
5� . �• ♦♦pq ♦♦♦
"•�'F '♦♦ ♦♦?'
Woodla0nd Hills r ancPNyo:O = ;e FA::T::N� VGp� �i0� �V�T. -' '♦♦♦ ♦♦♦♦♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ D ♦ C
OENE ♦ N� • .' RAYMOND NILL FAULT ♦ ♦ �tLL
♦♦ ♦♦♦ Los Angeles♦♦♦•♦05�� Rf0 ♦'♦
pSante Monica ♦ j ♦♦
... '► Santa ♦ ♦ Montebello 0 ♦ 4 Riverside ♦♦
♦♦ Monica Bay �♦ ♦; ♦yam C• ♦ O
♦♦
REDOC:DO.
S�♦;• • ♦ CANYON
A�
♦♦ o� ♦ ♦♦.
�9sy
9♦
T
Pacific Ocean l0�
F
♦♦;o Whittier •♦♦ ♦ ♦♦
per♦ ♦♦riyc OLynwood ♦♦♦ ' ' ♦ •W ♦���Y
4♦♦ ♦'F, ,y♦♦♦ ♦4* ♦o
Redondo ♦♦0°O OCompton ORWALK .. ♦♦<%
♦°R ♦ Corona
Beach ♦ �q • F( F ♦ O
~ Carson0♦�!T;
4,°OF♦♦♦♦
♦♦ ♦♦ ♦'q ��9
♦ 0 ♦Oti!' Westminster ♦ ♦G
• ♦♦ Long ♦ O ra ♦;r�0
♦♦♦ ♦ Beach O Seal Santa Ana ♦�cc
A,9 ♦♦ Beach Costa
G�� O♦♦♦ _ _ Mesa Irvine NEWPORT ♦�♦
' ♦♦ti° °O BEACH �.
A ; •...9i ♦ ♦♦
9� ♦ ♦ •• 14
s
9 r
♦♦ �ql��Y Santa
♦ 1 Catalina
♦� 7OG, Island
F
U
T
♦ ♦ ♦ i oNE
••....
0 sL♦ ♦♦♦ , Mission Viejo
ox
♦! .
9` ; ♦'♦♦ ♦♦♦ Dana Point
o ♦♦ . �♦
CITY of NEWPORT BEACH
GENERAL PLAN UPDATE EIR
Figure 4.5-1
REGIONAL
FAULTS
Legend
••••••••• City Boundary
City of Newport Beach
l"J
0 5 10 20
Miles
Source: EIP Associates, 2006
Project No, 10579-03
E I P
Moci fled Mercalli
Intensity
Table 4.5-1 Modified Mercalli Intensity Scale
Description
I
Detected by only sensitive instruments
11 Felt by a few people at rest
III
Felt noticeably indoors, but not always recognized as a quake; vibration like a passing truck IV
Felt indoors by many and outdoors by few
V
Felt by most people. Some breakage of windows, dishes, and plaster VI
Felt by all; falling plaster and chimneys; damage small VII
Damage to buildings varies; depends on quality of construction Vill
Walls, monuments, chimneys fall; panel walls thrown out of frames IX
Buildings shift off foundations; foundations crack; ground cracks; underground pipes break X
Most masonry and frame structures destroyed; ground cracks; landslides XI
Ground fissures; pipes break; landslides; rails bent; new structures remain standing XII
Damage total; waves seen on ground surface; objects thrown into the air SOURCE: Nuclear Reactors and Earthquakes, Atomic Energy Commission, TID7024 calculations for design purposes. The new criterion for describing the energy release (i.e., the "size" of an earthquake along a particular fault segment) was determined by the Seismology Committee to represent a more reliable descriptor of future fault activity than the MCE or the MPE. Although the Mw value may differ slightly from the MCE or MPE values reported in some of the older documents cited in this EIR, this current method for describing future fault activity does not alter the assumptions or conclusions of this EIR.
The maximum historic site acceleration in the project region was estimated to be 0.4 9 32 in 1933, caused
by an earthquake of 6.3MW on the Newport -Inglewood Fault. Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone mapping has been completed for the City of Newport Beach by the State Geologist concluding that the highest risk originates from the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone for the Newport -Inglewood fault which terminates about two miles northwest of the City limits.33 ■ Seismic Hazards
The geologic diversity of Newport Beach is strongly related to tectonic movement along the San Andreas Fault and its broad zone of subsidiary faults. This, along with sea level fluctuations related to changes in climate, has resulted in a landscape that is also diverse in geologic hazards. Geologic hazards are generally defined as surficial earth processes that have the potential to cause loss or harm to the community or the 32 Ground Acceleration: The speed at which soil or rock materials are displaced by seismic waves. It is measured as a percentage of "g,"the acceleration of gravity (0.5g = 50 percent of 32 feet per second squared, expressed as a vertical or horizontal force). Peak ground acceleration is the maximum acceleration expected from the characteristic earthquake predicted to affect a given area. Repeatable acceleration refers to the acceleration resulting from multiple seismic shocks.
Sustained acceleration refers to the acceleration produced by continuous seismic shaking from a single, long -duration event 33 Seismic Hazards, Hazards Assessment Study, Earth Consultants International, 2003, page 2-12, City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 4.5-5
environment. Earthquake -triggered geologic effects also include surface fault rupture, landslides, liquefaction, subsidence, and seiches. Earthquakes can also lead to urban fires, dam failures, and toxic chemical releases, all man -related hazards. Figure 4.5-2 shows areas within Newport Beach that are subject to liquefaction and landslides.
Ground Shaking
Seismic shaking is the geological hazard that has the greatest potential to severely impact the Planning Area, given that the City is located on and near several significant faults that have the potential to cause moderate to large earthquakes. Some of the faults caused moderate sized earthquakes in the last century.
Given the length of the faults, they are thought capable of generating even larger earthquakes in the future that would cause strong ground shaking in Newport Beach and nearby areas.
Numerous other active faults, both onshore and offshore, have the potential to generate earthquakes that would cause strong ground shaking in Newport Beach. A number of historic earthquakes have caused strong ground shaking in Newport Beach. The 1933 Long Beach earthquake caused significant damage in the City.
The Newport Beach area has a ten percent chance of experiencing ground acceleration greater than 43 to 52 percent the force of gravity in 50 years. These probabilistic ground motion values for the City of Newport Beach are in the high to very high range for southern California and are the result of the City's proximity to major fault systems with high earthquake recurrence rates. These levels of shaking can be expected to cause damage particularly to older and poorly constructed buildings.34 Liquefaction and slope failure are destructive secondary effects of strong seismic shaking.
Liquefaction
Strong ground shaking can result in liquefaction. Liquefaction, a geologic process that causes ground failure, typically occurs in loose, saturated sediments primarily of sandy composition. 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, other structures (such as bridges, roadways, major utility lines, and park improvements) that occupy these areas are vulnerable to damage from liquefaction if not designed in accordance with current regulations and codes.
34 Seismic Hazards, Hazards Assessment Study, Earth Consultants International, 2003, page 2-23.
4.5-6 City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR
CITY of NEWPORT BEACH
GENERAL PLAN UPDATE EIR
Figure 4.5-2
SEISMIC
HAZARDS
Legend
y Ar03[]s with Ilquafoofion poWMid
Areas I th Iandsllde poteM%a
woi--c sore Pima, zone e, —, veer.
Ciry of Newport Beach
g
0 0,5 1
Mile$
Sou - City of Newts Beach, City Bouitl hfo/—, Bootle, Ocloba 003,-1. Hazams, EvttiCmwttairts,=03.
Nogcr No. 10579 03
Slope Failures
Strong ground motions can also worsen existing unstable slope conditions, particularly if coupled with saturated ground conditions. Seismically induced landslides can overrun structures, people or property, sever utility lines, and block roads, thereby hindering rescue operations after an earthquake. 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 of 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.
Seismically Induced Settlement
Settlement occurs in areas that are prone to different rates of surface settling and densification (differential compaction), and are underlain by sediments that differ laterally in composition or degree of existing compaction. Differential settlement can damage structures, pipelines, and other subsurface entities. Strong ground shaking can cause soil settlement by vibrating sediment particles into more tightly compacted configurations, thereby reducing pore space. Unconsolidated, loosely packed alluvial deposits and sand are especially susceptible to this phenomenon. Poorly -compacted artificial fills also may experience seismically induced settlement. Those portions of the Newport Beach area that may be susceptible to seismically induced settlement are those underlain by late Quaternary unconsolidated sediments. These areas are geographically similar to the liquefaction -susceptible areas shown on Figure 4.5-2.
■ Soil and Groundwater Conditions
The Planning Area is underlain by Holocene -age alluvial sediments present in active and recently active stream channels throughout the area, in addition to beach, marshland, and intertidal deposits of Newport Harbor and Upper Newport Bay. Newport Mesa is underlain by primarily shallow marine sediments ranging in age from early to late Pleistocene.
Shallow ground water levels (less than 50 feet from the ground surface) are known to occur along the coast, around Newport Bay, and along the major drainages in the Newport Beach area. Shallow ground water perched on bedrock may also be seasonally present in the canyons draining the San Joaquin Hills.
Soil Erosion
Soil erosion is the process by which soil particles are removed from a land surface by wind, water, or gravity. Topsoil is the uppermost layer of soil, usually the top six to eight inches. Topsoil has the highest City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 4.5-9
concentration of organic matter and microorganisms, and is where most biological soil activity occurs.
Plants generally concentrate their roots in, and obtain most of their nutrients from, this layer. Topsoil erosion is of concern when the topsoil layer is blown or washed away, which makes plant life or agricultural production impossible. Most natural erosion occurs at slow rates; however, the rate of erosion increases when land is cleared or altered and left in a disturbed condition. In Newport Beach, erosion is a significant concern, especially along the shoreline (beach sediments and coastal bluffs are susceptible to erosion by wave action), including bluffs along the Upper Newport Bay, and slopes and canyons within the San Joaquin Hills.
Compressible Soils
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.
Expansive Soils
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.
Subsidence
Land subsidence is the condition where the elevation of a land surface decreases due to the withdrawal of fluid. The location of major oil drilling areas and state -designated oil fields are areas with subsidence potential in the City of Newport Beach. However, according to the City's General Plan, the site is not within an area that has been impacted by long-term subsidence due to local oil extraction.
4.5.3 Regulatory Framework
Federal
Uniform Building Code
The Uniform Building Code (UBC) is published by the International Conference of Building Officials. It forms the basis of about half the State building codes in the United States, including California's, and has been adopted by the State legislature together with Additions, Amendments, and Repeals to address the specific building conditions and structural requirements in California.
4.5-10 City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR
State
California Building Code
California Code of Regulations (CCR), Title 24, Part 2, the California Building Code (CBC), provides minimum standards for building design in the State, consistent with or more stringent than UBC requirements. Local codes are permitted to be more restrictive than Title 24, but are required to be no less restrictive. Chapter 16 of the CBC deals with General Design Requirements, including (but not limited to) regulations governing seismically resistant construction (Chapter 16, Division M and construction to protect people and property from hazards associated with excavation cave-ins and falling debris or construction materials. Chapters 18 and A33 deal with site demolition, excavations, foundations, retaining walls, and grading, including (but not limited to) requirements for seismically resistant design, foundation investigations, stable cut and fill slopes, and drainage and erosion control.
Construction activities are subject to occupational safety standards for excavation, shoring, and trenching as specified in Cal -OSHA regulations (CCR, Title 8).
Seismic Hazards Mapping Act
The CGS provides guidance with regard to seismic hazards. Under CGS Seismic Ha.Zards Mapping Act, seismic hazard zones are identified and mapped to assist local governments in land use planning. The intent of this Act is to protect the public from the effects of strong ground shaking, liquefaction, landslides, ground failure, or other hazards caused by earthquakes. In addition, CGS Special Publication 117, Guidelines for Evaluating and Mitigating Seismic Hazards in California, provides guidance for the evaluation and mitigation of earthquake -related hazards for projects within designated zones of required investigations.
National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) NPDES Phase 1 Permit (General Construction Activity Stormwater Permit) A Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) prepared in compliance with an National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Phase I Permit describes the project area, erosion and sediment controls, runoff water quality monitoring, means of waste disposal, implementation of approved local plans, control of post -construction sediment and erosion control measures and maintenance responsibilities, and non-Stormwater management controls. Dischargers are also required to inspect construction sites before and after storms to identify stormwater discharge from construction activity, and to identify and implement controls where necessary.
Additionally, Newport Beach operates a municipal separate storm sewer system (MS4) permit under the NPDES. MS4 permits require an aggressive water quality ordinance, specific municipal practices, and the use of best management practices (BMPs) in many development -related activities to further reduce the amount of contaminants in urban runoff. MS4 permits also require local agencies to cooperatively develop a public education campaign to inform people about what they can do to protect water quality.
City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 4.5-11
4.5.4 Thresholds of Significance
Implementation of the proposed General Plan Update would result in a significant impact if the project would:
■ Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:
> 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
> Strong seismic ground shaking
> Seismic -related ground failure, including liquefaction > Landslides
■ Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil ■ 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
■ 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
■ 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
4.5.5 Project Impacts, Mitigation Measures, and Proposed Policies
Effects Not Found to Be Significant
Threshold Would the project 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?
The Initial Study determined that 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, no further analysis of this impact is included in this EIR.
4.5-12 City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR
Project Impacts
Threshold Would the project expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving 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?
Implementation of the General Plan Update would not expose people or structures to adverse effects involving rupture of a fault located in an Alquist-Priolo Fault Zone.
As previously discussed, 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 Park fault zone, each with the potential to cause moderate to large earthquakes that would cause ground shaking in Newport Beach and nearby communities. However, none of these faults has been zoned under the guidelines of the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act. Consequently, there are no Alquist-Priolo zones in the Planning Area and no impact would result. Impacts related to strong seismic ground shaking are further discussed under Impact 4.5-1.
Threshold Would the project expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving strong seismic ground shaking?
Impact 4.5-1 Implementation of the General Plan Update could expose people or structures to adverse effects involving strong seismic ground shaking.
The proposed General Plan Update would allow infill development throughout the Planning Area, consistent with existing land use patterns, intensities, and building types. The Update would concentrate new development and redevelopment in several specified subareas: Newport Center/Fashion Island, Balboa Village, Balboa Peninsula, West Newport Mesa, West Newport Highway, Mariners' Mile, and the 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. The General Plan Update would conserve much of the City's existing pattern of uses. As mentioned above, the fault zones located within the Planning Area each have the potential to cause moderate to large earthquakes that would cause ground shaking in the areas specified above.
Policies contained in the General Plan Update would ensure that adverse effects caused by seismic and geologic hazards such as strong seismic ground shaking are minimized. For example, Policy S 4.1 requires regular update to building and fire codes to provide for seismic safety and design; Policy S 4.2 encourages the seismic retrofitting and strengthening of essential facilities such as hospitals and schools to minimize damage; and Policies S 4.4 and S 4.5 ensure that new development is not located in areas that would be affected by seismic hazards. Additionally, new development would be required to comply with the City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 4.5-13
building design standards of the CBC Chapter 33 for the construction of new buildings and/or structures, specific engineering design and construction measures would be implemented to anticipate and avoid the potential for adverse impacts. Compliance with applicable regulations and the policies contained in the General Plan Update would ensure that impacts related to strong seismic ground shaking remain at a less -than -significant level. No mitigation is required.
Threshold Would the project expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:
—Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction, or —Landslides?
Impact 4.5-2 Implementation of the General Plan Update could expose people or structures to adverse effects involving seismic -related ground failure or landslides.
Strong ground shaking can result in liquefaction. 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. Additionally, sediments lining streams flowing southwest off Pelican Hill may be susceptible to liquefaction and landslide. As mentioned earlier, residential or commercial developments are likely not to occur in many of the other liquefiable areas, such as Upper Newport Bay, the Newport Coast beaches. However, other structures (such as bridges, roadways, major utility lines, and park improvements) that occupy these areas are vulnerable to damage from liquefaction.
A considerable part of the City's mapped liquefiable areas (West Newport, Balboa Peninsula, the harbor islands and vicinity) are already built upon, mostly with residential and commercial development. A portion of the City's active oil field is also built on liquefiable soils. It is likely that a nearby moderate to strong earthquake will cause extensive damage to buildings and infrastructure in these areas.35 Those portions of the Newport Beach area that may be susceptible to seismically induced settlement are the alluvial surfaces and larger drainages that are underlain by late Quaternary alluvial sediments (similar to the liquefaction -susceptible areas). Sites in the San Joaquin Hills along the margins of the larger drainage channels and west of the Santa Ana River outlet may be particularly vulnerable. However, liquefaction potential does not necessarily limit development potential, as site -specific geotechnical studies would be required to determine the soil properties and specific potential for liquefaction in a specific area prior to development.
In addition, as previously mentioned, strong ground motions can also worsen existing unstable slope conditions, particularly if coupled with saturated ground conditions. Seismically -induced landslides can overrun structures, people or property, sever utility lines, and block roads, thereby hindering rescue operations after an earthquake. Slope stability depends on many factors and their interrelationships. Rock
4.5-14 City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR
type and pore water pressure are arguably the most important factors, as well as slope steepness due to natural or human -made undercutting. Where slopes have failed before, they may fail again.
Many of the areas in central and eastern Newport Beach have been identified as vulnerable to seismically induced slope failure, due to steep terrain. Approximately 90 percent of the land from Los Trancos Canyon to Crystal Cove State Park boundary is mapped as susceptible to landsliding by the CGS.
Additionally, the sedimentary bedrock that crops out in the San Joaquin Hills is locally highly weathered.
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.
Compliance with the standards set forth in the current CBC would also require an assessment of hazards related to landslides and liquefaction and the incorporation of design measures into structures to mitigate this hazard if development were considered feasible. The City has included policies in its Safety Element to achieve the goal of minimizing the risk of injury, loss of life, and property damage caused by earthquake hazards or geologic disturbances. Specifically, Policies S 4.1 through S 4.6 include requiring new development to be in compliance with the most recent seismic and other geologic hazard safety standards, and the protection of community health and safety through the implementation of effective, state of the art standards for seismic design of structures in the City. Additionally, if any development on steep terrain were to occur upon implementation of the General Plan Update, site -specific slope stability design would be required to ensure adherence to the standards contained in Appendix Chapter A33, Excavation and Grading, of the City Building Code, as well as by California Division of Occupational Safety and Health (DOSH, CAL/OSHA) requirements for shoring and stabilization. With compliance of applicable regulations as well as policies identified in the General Plan Update, impacts would be less than significant and no mitigation is required.
Threshold Would the project result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? Impact 4.5-3 Implementation of the proposed General Plan Update could result in substantial soil erosion and the loss of topsoil.
Topsoil is the uppermost layer of soil, usually the top six to eight inches. It has the highest concentration of organic matter and microorganisms, and is where most biological soil activity occurs. Plants generally concentrate their roots in, and obtain most of their nutrients from, this layer. Topsoil erosion is of concern when the topsoil layer is blown or washed away, which makes plant life or agricultural production impossible. Much of the City is built out and topsoil erosion is, thus, not an issue as there is no existing and exposed topsoil or any agricultural or biological production that would be affected.
Underdeveloped areas such as Banning Ranch could be affected by loss of topsoil if the area is developed.
Soil 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 35 Seismic Hazards, Hazards Assessment Study, Earth Consultants International, 2003, page 2-36 City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 4.5-15
slopes (both natural and man-made) within the San Joaquin Hills are also susceptible to the impacts from precipitation, stream erosion, and man's activities.
All demolition and construction activities within the City would be required to comply with CBC Chapter 70 standards, which would ensure implementation of appropriate measures during grading activities to reduce soil erosion. In addition, all new developments would also be subject to regional and local regulations pertaining to construction activities. Specifically, development that is greater than five acres would be required to comply with the provisions of the General Construction Activity Stormwater Permit adopted by the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), which would require the employment of Best Management Practices (BMPs) to limit the extent of eroded materials from a construction site. All development that is between one and five acres would be required to comply with the provisions of the NPDES Phase II regulations concerning the discharge of eroded materials and pollutants from construction sites.
Compliance with policies contained in the General Plan Update would further ensure that new development would not result in substantial soil erosion or loss of topsoil. Specifically, Policies NR 3.11, NR 3.12, and NR 3.13 would require compliance with applicable local, State, or Federal laws. This would ensure maximum practicable protection available for soils excavated during the construction and building associated with infrastructure. Compliance with the CDC and the NPDES permits would minimize effects from erosion and ensure consistency with the RWQCB Water Quality Control Plan. In view of these policies, implementation of the General Plan Update would have a less -than -significant impact associated with soil erosion or topsoil. No mitigation is required.
Threshold Would the project 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 landscape, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse? Impact 4.5-4 Implementation of the proposed General Plan Update could subject people and structures to hazards associated with lateral spreading, subsidence, collapse, differential settlement, or heaving.
Impacts related to landslides and liquefaction are addressed in Impact 4.5-2. This analysis addresses impacts related to unstable soils, or compressible and expansive soils, as a result of collapse, subsidence, differential settlement, lateral spreading, or heaving. As discussed above in Section 4.5.1 (Existing Conditions), compressible soils underlie a significant part of the City. 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 to the effects of liquefaction during a moderate to strong earthquake. Also, 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. Using unsuitable materials for fill and/or foundation support would have the potential to create future heaving, subsidence, spreading, or collapse problems leading to building settlement and/or utility line and pavement disruption.
4.5-16 City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR
An acceptable degree of soil stability can be achieved for expansive or compressible material by the Building Code required incorporation of soil treatment programs (replacement, grouting, compaction, drainage control, etc.) in the excavation and construction plans to address site -specific soil conditions. A site -specific evaluation of soil conditions is required by the City Building Code and must contain recommendations for ground preparation and earthwork specific to the site, that become an integral part of the construction design.
As part of the construction permitting process, the City requires completed reports of soil conditions at specific construction sites to identify potentially unsuitable soil conditions including liquefaction, subsidence, and collapse. The evaluations must be conducted by registered soil professionals, and measures to eliminate inappropriate soil conditions must be applied. The design of foundation support must conform to the analysis and implementation criteria described in CBC Chapter 15.
Adherence to the City's codes and policies contained in the General Plan Update would ensure the maximum practicable protection available for users of buildings and infrastructure and associated trenches, slopes, and foundations. Compliance with Policies S 4.4 and S 4.6 would ensure that development is not located on unstable soils or geologic units. In view of these requirements, the proposed project would have a less -than -significant impact associated with the exposure of people or structures to hazards associated with unstable geologic units or soils. No mitigation is required.
Threshold Would the project be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-A of the California Building Code (2001), creating substantial risks to life or property? Impact 4.5-5 Implementation of the proposed General Plan Update could result in the construction of facilities on expansive soils, creating substantial risk to people and structures.
As discussed above in Section 4.5.1 (Existing Conditions), fine-grained soils, such as silts and clays, may contain variable amounts of expansive clay minerals. Most of the Newport Mesa and Corona Del Mar areas are underlain by marine terrace deposits and young alluvial fan sediments that are composed primarily of granular soils (silty sand, sand, and gravel). Such units are typically in the low to moderately low range for expansion potential. However, thick soil profiles developed on the older marine deposits exposed west of Newport Bay are typically clay -rich and will probably fall in the moderately expansive range. Areas underlain by beach and dune sands have very little expansion potential.
Development under the General Plan Update would be required to comply with applicable provisions of the CBC with regard to soil hazard -related design. Even the slight potential for the existence of expansive soils within the project area raises the possibility that foundation stability for dwellings, roads, and utilities could be compromised. The City's Building Code requires a site -specific foundation investigation and report for each construction site that identifies potentially unsuitable soil conditions and contains appropriate recommendations for foundation type and design criteria that conform to the analysis and implementation criteria described in the City's Building Code, Chapters 16, 18, and A33.
This regulatory framework exists to address weak soils issues, including expansion. Additionally, policies contained in the General Plan Update would further reduce impacts related to expansive soils.
City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 4.5-17
Specifically, Policies S 4.4 and S 4.6 would require that development not be located on unstable soils or geologic units. This impact is considered less than significant and no mitigation is required. ■ Cumulative Impacts
The geographic context for the analysis of impacts resulting from geologic hazards generally is site - specific, rather than cumulative in nature, because each project area has unique geologic considerations that would be subject to uniform site development and construction standards. As such, the potential for cumulative impacts to occur is limited.
Impacts associated with potential geologic hazards related to soil or other conditions occur at individual building sites. These effects are site -specific, and impacts would not be compounded by additional development. Development that would occur under the General Plan Update would be sited and designed in accordance with appropriate geotechnical and seismic guidelines and recommendations consistent with the CBC. Adherence by future projects developed pursuant to the General Plan to all relevant plans, codes, and regulations with respect to project design and construction would provide adequate levels of safety, which would ensure that the proposed project would not result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to cumulative impacts regarding geologic hazards, and the cumulative impact of the project would, therefore, be less than significant. ■ Proposed General Plan Update Policies
The Safety and Natural Resources Elements of the proposed General Plan Update include policies that would address issues related to geology and soils. The policies that are applicable to the project are included below. Policies identified below also contained in the Harbor and Bay Element are denoted with a "HB".
Safety Element
Goal S 4 Adverse effects caused by seismic and geologic hazards are minimized by reducing the known level of risk to loss of life, personal injury, public and private property damage, economic and social dislocation, and disruption of essential services.
Policy S 4.1 Updating of Building and Fire Codes
Continue to regularly update building and fire codes to provide for seismic safety design.
Policy S 4.2 Retrofitting of Essential Facilities
Support and encourage the seismic retrofitting and strengthening of essential facilities such as hospitals and schools to minimize damage in the event of seismic or geologic hazards.
4.5-18 City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR
Policy S 4.3 Unreinforced Masonry Buildings
Continue to require the retrofitting of unreinforced masonry buildings during remodels to minimize damage in the event of seismic or geologic hazards. (Imp 36.1)
Policy S 4.4 New Essential Facility Siting
Regulate the location of new essential facilities within areas that would directly be affected by seismic or geologic hazards, in accordance with State law.
Policy S 4.5 New Essential Facility Siting
Regulate the location of new sensitive facilities such as schools, hospitals, and facilities for the elderly population, within 500 feet to active and potentially active faults, in accordance with state law.
Policy S 4.6 Maintenance of Existing Essential Facilities Ensure that existing essential facilities that have been built in or on seismic and geological hazards are upgraded and maintained in order to prevent and reduce loss.
Natural Resources Element
Water Quality
Goal NR 3 Enhancement and protection of water quality of all natural water bodies, including coastal waters, creeks, bays, harbors, and wetlands. (Goal HB8) Policy NR 3.1 Information and Education on Water Quality Issues Support the development of a model (physical and/or mathematical) of the Bay and coastline that provides information regarding the nature and extent of the water quality problem and enables prediction of the effects of changes on the entire system. (Policy HB8.1)
Policy NR 3.2 Chemical Use Impacts
Support regulations limiting or banning the use insecticides, fertilizers, and other chemicals which are shown to be detrimental to water quality. (Policy HB8.2)
Policy NR 3.3 Water Pollution Prevention
Promote pollution prevention and elimination methods that minimize the introduction of pollutants into natural water bodies. (Policy HB8.3) City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 4.5-19
Policy NR 3.4 Ground Water Contamination
Suspend activities and implement appropriate health and safety procedures in the event that previously unknown groundwater contamination is encountered during construction. Where site contamination is identified, implement an appropriate remediation strategy that is approved by the City and the state agency with appropriate jurisdiction. (Policy HB8.4)
Policy NR 3.5 Storm Sewer System Permit
Require all development to comply with the regulations under the City's municipal separate storm sewer system permit under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System. (Policy H138.5)
Policy NR 3.6 Natural Water Bodies
Require that development not result in the degradation of natural water bodies. (Policy HB8.6)
Policy NR 3.7 Watershed Runoff Quality Control
Support and participate in watershed -based runoff reduction, water quality control, and other planning efforts with the California Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), the County of Orange, and upstream cities. (Policy HB8.7)
Policy NR 3.8 Newport Beach Water Quality Ordinance
Update and enforce the Newport Beach Water Quality Ordinance. (Policy HB8.8)
Policy NR 3.9 Permit Review Process
Develop and maintain a water quality checklist to be used in the permit review process to assess potential water quality impacts. (Policy HB8.9) Policy NR 3.10 Water Quality Management Plan
Require new development applications to include a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) to minimize runoff from rainfall events during construction and post -construction. (Policy H138.10)
Policy NR 3.11 Best Management Practices
Implement and improve upon Best Management Practices (BMPs) for residences, businesses, development projects, and City operations. (Policy HB8.11)
Policy NR 3.12 Site Design and Source Control
Include site design and source control BMPs in all developments. When the combination of site design and source control BMPs are not sufficient to
4.5-20 City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR
protect water quality as required by the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES), structural treatment BMPs will be implemented along with site design and source control measures. (Policy HB8.12) Policy NR 3.13 Reduction of Infiltration
Include equivalent BMPs that do not require infiltration, where infiltration of runoff would exacerbate geologic hazards. [LCP] (Policy HBS.13) Policy NR 3.14 Natural Wetlands
Promote the use of natural wetlands to improve water quality. (Policy H138.14) Policy NR 3.15 Runoff Reduction on Private Property
Retain runoff on private property to prevent the transport of pollutants into recreational waters, to the maximum extent practicable. (Policy H138.15) Policy NR 3.16 Street Drainage Systems
Require all street drainage systems and other physical improvements created by the City, or developers of new subdivisions, to be designed, constructed, and maintained to minimize adverse impacts on water quality. Investigate the possibility of treating or diverting street drainage to minimize impacts to water bodies. (Policy H138.16)
Policy NR 3.17 Siting of New Development
Require that development be located on the most suitable portion of the site and designed to ensure the protection and preservation of natural and sensitive site resources that provide important water quality benefits. (Policy HB8.17) Policy NR 3.18 Parking Lots and Rights -of -Way
Require that parking lots, and public and private rights -of -way be maintained and cleaned frequently to remove debris and contaminated residue. (Policy HB8.18)
Policy NR 3.19 Water Quality Education
Effectively communicate water quality education to residents and businesses, including the development of a water quality testing lab and educational exhibits at various educational facilities. (Policy HB8.19) Policy NR 3.20 Natural Drainage Systems
Require incorporation of natural drainage systems and stormwater detention facilities into new developments, where appropriate and feasible, to retain stormwater in order to increase groundwater recharge. (Policy HB8.20) City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 4.5-21
Policy NR 3.21 Impervious Surfaces
Require new development and public improvements to minimize the creation of and increases in impervious surfaces, especially directly connected impervious areas, to the maximum extent practicable. Require redevelopment to increase area of pervious surfaces, where feasible. (Policy HB8.21) Goal NR 4 Maintenance of water quality standards through compliance with the total maximum daily loads (TMDLs) standards.
Policy NR 4.1 Total Maximum Daily Loads
Develop and implement the TMDLs established by the RWQCB, Santa Ana Region and guided by the Newport Bay Watershed Executive Committee (WEC).
Policy NR 4.2 Funding for Restoration and Dredging Projects Secure funding for the Upper Newport Bay Ecosystem Restoration Project and long-term funding for successor dredging projects for Upper and Lower Newport Bay.
Policy NR 4.3 Restore Natural Hydrologic Conditions
Preserve, or where feasible, restore natural hydrologic conditions such that downstream erosion, natural sedimentation rates, surface flow, and groundwater recharge function near natural equilibrium states.
Policy NR 4.4 Erosion Minimization
Require grading/erosion control plans with structural BMPs that prevent or minimize erosion during and after construction for development on steep slopes, graded, or disturbed areas.
Goal NR 5 Sanitary Sewer Outflows —Minimal adverse effects to water quality from sanitary sewer outflows.
Policy NR 5.1 City Sewer Management and Master Plans
Implement the Sewer System Management Plan and the Sewer Master Plan.
Policy NR 5.2 Waste Discharge Permits
Require waste discharge permits for all food preparation facilities that produce grease.
Policy NR 5.3 Sewer Pump Stations
Renovate all older sewer pump stations and install new plumbing according to most recent standards.
4.5-22 City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR
Policy NR 5.4 Waste Discharge Permits
Comply with the RWQCB's Waste Discharge Requirements (WDRs) associated with the operation and maintenance of the City's sewage collection system.
■ Mitigation Measures
With implementation of the proposed General Plan Update policies listed above, no mitigation measures would be required.
Level of Significance After Policies/Mitigation Measures Impacts associated with geologic and seismic hazards within the City would be less than significant.
4.5.6 Mineral Resources
b Existing Conditions
Oil and gas seeps are common occurrences in many parts of California, including in and around the Planning Area. Historically, drilling for oil in this part of Orange County began as early as 1904, and subsequently, oil production became the primary mineral extraction activity in and around the City.
Oil and Gas Production
According to the California Department of Oil, Gas, and Geothermal Resources, 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. Located in the western tip of the Planning Area, the West Newport oil field 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. Figure 4.5-3 illustrates the location of active, abandoned, and shut-in oil wells in the Planning Area. As shown, the concentration of active wells lies within the West Newport and Newport production areas. Approximately three active gas wells (out of 68 total oil and gas wells) are located in the Newport production area, while there are approximately 65 active oil and four active injection wells (out of 862 total wells) located in the West Newport production area. Of those 65 wells in the West Newport area, approximately 16 are directionally drilled from onshore to off -shore, and an additional 29 wells are currently not used for production but have not been abandoned (classified as "shut-in"). Thus, as of 2002, there were approximately 68 wells (plus four injection wells) producing oil and natural gas within the City, which includes wells from both the Newport and the West Newport oil fields. Fifteen (not counting one injection well) of the 68 producing wells are operated by the City; 48 are operated by West Newport Oil City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 4.5-23
Company, three by Hoag Memorial Hospital, and two by South Coast Oil.36 Thirty-three abandoned oil wells are located in numerous sites throughout the City, concentrated along the northwest boundary.
However, there are no other known active oil or gas wells located in any other areas outside of the identified oil fields.
Newport Oil Field
The Newport Oil Field is located in the western portion of Newport Beach. The field was divided into two areas known as the Cagney and Beach areas. The discovery well in this field was drilled in 1922 by Gilbert H. Beesemyer in the Beach Area. The well was completed at a depth of 1,750 feet, and peak production from this well was 28,946 barrels (bbl) of oil in 1925. The first well in the Cagney Area was developed by the California Exploration Co. in June 1947. This well, drilled to a total depth of 1,906 feet, had a peak production of 4,270 bbl in 1948. The deepest well in this area was developed by Jergins Oil Co. to a depth of 3,878 feet. According to the California Division of Oil and Gas (1997), the Beach Area of this field has been abandoned. As of December 2001, there were still three gas producing wells in the Cagney area, and this field was estimated to have oil reserves of 35 million bbl (Division of Oil, Gas and Geothermal Resources, 2001 Annual Report). In the most recent map of the Division of Oil, Gas and Geothermal Resources (2003) only two active wells are shown in this field.
West Newport Oil Field
The West Newport Oil Field, located to the west of the older Newport Field, was discovered in April 1943, when the discovery well "Banning" 1 was completed by D.W. Elliott to a depth of 2,404 feet.
Initial production of this well was 40 bbl a day. Another well was drilled about 1,000 feet to the northeast in November 1943. This well, "Banning" 2, was completed at a depth of 2,497 feet, and produced 12 bbl of oil a day. No new wells were drilled after that until 1945. Since then, hundreds of wells have been drilled in the area, the deepest completed at a depth of 7,889 feet. At the end of 2001, there were 66 producing wells in this field, including several offshore, and 30 shut-in wells (idle but not abandoned). At least one new well was being drilled in this field in 2002. Fifteen of the producing wells are owned by the City of Newport Beach. In 2001, the 66 wells produced 131,831 bbl of oil and condensate; and the field was estimated to have 847 millions bbl of oil in reserves. In 2002, the West Newport oil field produced approximately 20.5 billion cubic feet of gas with a daily production per oil well of approximately 5 bbl.
Estimated reserves within this field are approximately 728 million bbl.
Surface Mining Resources
Mining activities within the State are regulated by the Surface Mining and Reclamation Act, which is discussed further below in Section 4.5.3 (Regulatory Framework). This Act provides for the reclamation of mined lands and directs the State Geologist to classify (identify and map) the non -fuel mineral resources of the State to show where economically significant mineral deposits occur and where they are likely to occur based upon the best available scientific data. Based on guidelines adopted by the CGS, areas known as Mineral Resource Zones (MRZ) are classified according to the presence or absence of 36 Dave Sanchez, California Division of Oil, Gas, and Geothermal Resources, December 11, 2003.
4.5-24 City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR
CO5TA MESA
■
• 4 �anS• .e,e
■ Mii� DL�rL.� ■
�af .11 f. � • ■ � �
IALIGA IILAND
■
■ ■
IRYPNE
LfitF .AUL
CITY of NEWPORT BEACH
GENERAL PLAN UPDATE EIR
Figure 4.5-3
OIL PRODUCTION
AREAS
Legend
..-..-.. cnvaounday
oil Infrosfix1ur@
Newport 011 Field
Writ Newport o11 Field
■ oil Well
WdrogFdphY
TMlands and SuN nerged Lords
Waterway
Roads
State and Federal Highway
Streels
Prolecnon-CH Stole Plare, tore 6, W+DB3. Feel.
Gq of Newport Beach
g
0 0,5 1
Miles
Sources: Clry of I'� MC.
B2Oob, General Plop, JuN ]003, Clly SOurdOry,
tvtoy]033, Count) ,e, 2003: E0rIF 2—, uN]00.5; OS
er Ciryawtwares20 raootls. February
]00]uEIPAcsoci0les, GIS Program, DecembeE32003�io
Rogct No. 10579 03
significant deposits, as defined below. These classifications indicate the potential for a specific area to contain significant mineral resources:
■ MRZ-1—Areas where available geologic information indicates there is little or no likelihood for presence of significant mineral resources
■ MRZ-2—Areas underlain by mineral deposits where geologic data indicate that significant measured or indicated resources are present or where adequate information indicates that significant mineral deposits are present or where it is judged that a high likelihood for their presence exists
■ MRZ-3—Areas containing known mineral occurrences of undetermined mineral resource significance
■ MRZ4—Areas of no known mineral occurrences where geologic information does not rule out the presence or absence of significant mineral resources According to the CGS, the Planning Area does not have any land classified as MRZ-2; rather, it is classified by mineral resource zones MRZ-1 and MRZ-3 as shown in Figure 4.5-4. Generally, areas along the coast within the Planning Area are located in MRZ-1 areas, indicating that little or no likelihood for the presence of significant mineral resources exist. The remaining portion of the Planning Area is in MRZ-3 where areas that contain mineral resources are of undetermined significance. Other than oil and gas resources, there is no active mining within the Planning Area.
4.5.7 Regulatory Framework
State Regulations
Surface Mining and Reclamation Act (SMARA) of 1975
As previously discussed, mining activities are regulated by SMARA. The purpose of this act is to create and maintain an effective and comprehensive surface mining and reclamation policy with regulation of surface mining operations so as to assure that (1) adverse environmental effects are prevented or minimized and that mined lands are reclaimed to a usable condition which is readily adaptable for alternative land uses; (2) the production and conservation of minerals are encouraged, while giving consideration to values relating to recreation, wildlife, range and forage, and aesthetic enjoyment; and (3) hazards to the public health and safety are eliminated. These goals are achieved through land use planning by allowing a jurisdiction to balance the economic benefits of resource reclamation with the need to provide other land uses.
Local Regulations
Charter of the City of Newport Beach
Section 1401, Oil Well Drilling, prohibits the drilling of, production, or refining of oil, gas, or other hydrocarbon substances within the City boundaries, as defined by the effective date of this Charter section. Areas annexed to the City after the effective date of this Charter section, if such activities were being conducted in such areas at the date of annexation, can continue to occur.
City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 4.5-27
City of Newport Beach Municipal Code
Chapter 20.81, Oil Wells, of the City of Newport Beach Municipal Code contains ordinances that address oil wells and related issues within the City. Specifically, this chapter regulates the restricted and designated drilling areas throughout the City, states the required approval process necessary for permitted area alteration, contains fire prevention regulations, prohibits the creation of nuisance associated with drilling activities, and requires appropriate watchmen to be in charge of oil fields.
4.5.8 Thresholds of Significance
The following thresholds of significance are based on Appendix G of the 2005 CEQA Guidelines. For purposes of this EIR, implementation of the proposed General Plan Update may result in a significant impact if the project would do either of the following:
■ 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
■ 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
4.5.9 Project Impacts, Mitigation Measures, and Proposed Policies
■ Effects Not Found to Be Significant
The IS/NOP prepared for the proposed project did not identify any effects not found to be significant associated with Mineral Resources. Therefore, all thresholds are addressed in this section. ■ Project Impacts
Threshold Would the proposed project 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? Implementation of the proposed General Plan Update Update would not result in the loss of the availability of known mineral resources that would be of value to the region and the residents of the State.
Based on guidelines adopted by the CGS, areas known as MRZs are classified according to the presence or absence of significant deposits, as defined below. The City is required to respond to mineral resource recovery areas that have been designated by the State as MRZ-2 (significant existing or likely mineral deposits). These classifications indicate the potential for a specific area to contain significant mineral resources. As previously mentioned, according to the CGS, the Planning Area does not have any land classified as MRZ-2; rather, it is classified by mineral resource zones MRZ-1 and MRZ-3.
4.5-28 City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR
CITY of NEWPORT BEACH
GENERAL PLAN UPDATE EIR
Figure 4.5-4
MINERAL RESOURCE
ZONES
Legend
m 1 Cary Boundary [g4xoltlmalej
Nw*tol fba"ce Zones
Brea wtm No ulgnAcont Wreml
Mf72-1
Depash
- 2 Amu wKh Slgnlfloonl Mhoml Deposlfs
El
R2� Areas Contalring Mineral Depcans
of lxidefe nnin d SWVlconce
7 .4 Areas wtlh Inodegwte Infom crMon
Ciry of Newport Beach
g
'Otto S_1
ee� oepommenra corsenono� oMs�o� or runes end �eobev, Done pen Flle Repw19415, 1994.
EIP
Most of the active oil wells are currently located in the West Newport and Newport production areas.
Generally, these areas overlap with the Banning Ranch subarea, with a smaller portion of the Newport Oil Field within the Balboa Peninsula subarea. As previously discussed, in 2002, there were a total of approximately 68 wells producing oil and natural gas within the City, including within these two production areas. However, there are no other known active oil or gas wells located in any other areas outside of the identified oil fields. Development under the proposed General Plan Update, particularly if the Banning Ranch subarea is not retained as open space, could affect the availability of oil and gas produced in these areas.
Policy NR 19.4 in the General Plan Update encourages consolidation of existing oil and gas activities.
Implementation of this policy would help ensure that access to these resources would not be altered, which could potentially alter the projected aggregate production or consumption for the area. Policies contained in the Land Use Element consolidation and/or relocation for the oil and gas operations on Banning Ranch where, as previously discussed, a significant portion of the Planning Area's production areas are currently located. Policy 6.5.1 specifies that oil operations on Banning Ranch should be relocated or clustered. With regard to the two land use options for Banning Ranch, the Policies 3.4 and
6.4.11 ensure that under either option, loss of availability would not be altered by encouraging consolidation of oil operations. Finally, Policy 6.5.1, which applies to both Land Use Options for Banning Ranch, encourages that this subarea's oil operations are relocated and clustered. With respect to future oil and gas production, the General Plan Update does not require existing to operations to cease production but does contain policies (NR19.1 through 19.4) that prohibit additional, future oil extraction within the City and oppose new offshore oil and gas drilling activities. As a result, implementation of the proposed General Plan Update would not result in the loss of the availability of known mineral resources that would be of value to the region and the residents of the State. No impact would occur.
Threshold 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.
Implementation of the proposed General Plan Update would not 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.
The discussion in the previous threshold of the lack of impacts to known mineral resources that would be of value to the region and the residents of the State applies equally to locally important mineral resource recovery sites. Consequently, implementation of the General Plan Update would not substantially alter the projected production or consumption of the City, County, or State and no impact would occur.
= Cumulative Impacts
The geographic context for cumulative mineral resources impacts that would occur under the proposed General Plan Update is the Orange County, which includes all cumulative growth within the County.
This cumulative impact analysis considered implementation of the proposed General Plan Update, in City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 4.5-31
conjunction with other development in the City of the City of Newport Beach, as represented by bull implementation of the General Plan Update. Development under the General Plan Update, in combination with all other development in the area, could the availability of a known mineral resource.
However, since proposed General Plan Update policies do not prohibit existing oil and gas production and, in fact, encourages that existing operations be clustered and/or relocated so as to not alter production, contributions to adverse impacts to mineral resources as a result of the General Plan Update would not be cumulatively considerable. Therefore, in this regard, the General Plan Update's impact would be less than significant.
■ Proposed General Plan Update Policies
The Land Use and Natural Resources elements of the proposed Newport Beach General Plan Update would directly or indirectly minimize impacts related to mineral resources. The policies that are applicable to the project are included below. Policies identified below that are also contained in the Harbor and Bay Element are denoted with an "HB".
Natural Resources Element
Goal NR 19 Minimized impacts from oil and gas drilling activities Policy NR 19.1 New and Existing Extraction Activities
Prohibit additional oil, gas and other hydrocarbon extraction activities within the City limits but allow that existing wells be used, if needed, for water injection systems that increase oil extraction, and consolidated when necessary.
Policy NR 19.2 New Offshore Drilling Activities
Oppose new offshore oil, gas and other hydrocarbon drilling activities.
Policy NR 19.3 New On -Shore Drilling Activities
Prohibit on -shore support facilities for off -shore oil, gas and other hydrocarbon drilling.
Policy NR 19.4 Consolidation of Existing Uses
Encourage consolidation of existing oil, gas and other hydrocarbon activities.
4.5-32 City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR
Land Use Element
Goal LU 2 A living, active, and diverse environment that complements all lifestyles and enhances neighborhoods, without compromising the valued resources that make Newport Beach unique. It contains a diversity of uses that support the needs of residents, sustain and enhance the economy, provide job opportunities, serve visitors that enjoy the City's diverse recreational amenities, and protect its important environmental setting, resources, and quality of life.
Policy LU 2.7 Oil and Gas Facilities
Prohibit the construction of new onshore oil processing, refining or transportation facilities, including facilities designed to transport oil from offshore tracts, with the exceptions of slant drilling from onshore oil fields or for the consolidation and more efficient production of wells should Banning Ranch be annexed to the City.
Goal LU 3 A development pattern that retains and complements the City's residential neighborhoods, commercial and industrial districts, open spaces, and natural environment.
Policy LU 3.4 Banning Ranch
Prioritize the retention of Banning Ranch as an open space amenity for the City and region, consolidating oil operations, enhancing wetland and other habitats, and providing parkland amenities to serve nearby neighborhoods. If the property cannot be acquired in a timely manner, allow for the development of a compact residential village that preserves the majority of the site as open space and restores critical habitat in accordance with Policies 6.3.1 through
6.5.5. Goal LU 6.4 If acquisition for open space is not successful, a high -quality residential community with supporting uses that provides revenue to restore and protect wetlands and important habitats.
Policy LU 6.4.11 Comprehensive Site Planning and Design Require the preparation of a master development or specific plan for any development on the Banning Ranch specifying lands to be developed, preserved, and restored, land uses to be permitted, parcelization, roadway and infrastructure improvements, streetscape improvements, development regulations, architectural design and landscape guidelines, processes for oil operations consolidation, habitat preservation and restoration plan, sustainability practices plan, financial implementation, and other appropriate elements.
City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 4.5-33
Policies Pertaining to Both Land Use Options (Goals 6.3 and 6.4) Policy LU 6.5.1 Oil Operations
Relocate and cluster oil operations.
■ Impacts and Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures are necessary, as the proposed General Plan Update policies fully mitigate the impacts.
Level of Significance After Policies/Mitigation Measures No impacts are associated with mineral resources with implementation of the proposed General Plan Update.
4.5.10 References
Earth Consultants International, Hazards Assessment Study, Technical Background Report, 2003.
California Division of Oil, Gas, and Geothermal Resources, 2002 Annual Report —Production and Reserves
City of Newport Beach Municipal Code, http://ordlink.com/codes/newportb/_DATA/ TITLE 15/Chapter_15_04_BUILDING_CODE_/15_04_010 Adoption —of the_Cali.html Dave Sanchez, California Division of Oil, Gas, and Geothermal Resources, December 11, 2003.
4.5-34 City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR
4.6 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
4.6.1 Introduction
This section evaluates the potential impacts of the proposed General Plan Update on human health and the environment due to exposure to hazardous materials or conditions within the City of Newport Beach. The information presented in this section is summarized from the Hazards Assessment Study prepared for the City in 2003 by Earth Consultants International as well as the proposed General Plan Update Safety Element. In addition, information was also obtained from the City's Emergency Management Plan. A hazardous material is defined as any material that, due to its quantity, concentration, physical or chemical characteristics, poses a significant present or potential hazard to human health and safety or to the environment if released. Hazardous materials include, but are not limited to, hazardous substances, hazardous wastes, and any material that a business or local implementing agency has a reasonable basis for believing would be injurious to the health and safety of persons, or harmful to the environment if released.
During the Initial Study process, it was determined that the proposed project would have potential impacts for seven of the eight hazards and hazardous materials that CEQA Guidelines include as criteria for determining significance. It was determined that no safety hazard associated private airstrips would occur upon implementation of the proposed General Plan Update because there are no existing private airstrips within the City. Therefore, this impact is not further analyzed in the EIR. Full bibliographic entries for all reference materials are provided in Section 4.6.6 (References) of this section.
Four comment letters associated with hazards and hazardous materials were received in response to the IS/NOP circulated for the proposed General Plan Update. The Environmental Quality Affairs Citizens Advisory Committee for the City of Newport Beach requested that the DEIR address potential impacts caused by the siting of school facilities or residential developments on hazardous materials sites, as well as the possible mitigation of these impacts. The Department of Toxic Substances Control requested that the DEIR identify and determine methods for adhering to all applicable Federal and State regulations governing hazards and hazardous materials. The John Wayne Airport QWA) requests that the DEIR identify measures intended to minimize the safety impacts from aircraft operations on existing and proposed residences. The Airport Land Use Commission also requests that the DEIR address height restrictions for buildings located in the vicinity of the JWA imposed by the Federal Aviation Administration, and suggests that the density and intensity limitations be consistent with those provided by the Airport Environs Land Use Plan Height Restriction Zone Map for JWA. Section 4.6.5 (Project Impacts, Mitigation Measures, and Proposed Policies) provides such an analysis.
Potential impacts related to toxic air contaminants and water quality are discussed in Section 4.2 (Air Quality) and Section 4.7 (Hydrology and Water Quality).
City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 4.6-1
4.6.2 Existing Conditions
■ Definitions
The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) defines a hazardous waste as a substance that 1) may cause or significantly contribute to an increase in mortality or an increase in serious, irreversible, or incapacitating reversible illness; and 2) that poses a substantial present or potential future hazard to human health or the environment when it is improperly treated, stored, transported, disposed of or otherwise managed. Hazardous waste is also defined as ignitable, corrosive, explosive, or reactive (Federal Code of Regulations—FCR-Title 40: Protection of the Environment, Part 261).
A material may also be classified as a hazardous material if it contains defined amounts of toxic chemicals. The EPA has developed a list of specific hazardous wastes that are in the forms of solids, semi -solids, liquids, and gases. Producers of such wastes include private businesses, and Federal, State, and local government agencies. The EPA regulates the production and distribution of commercial and industrial chemicals to protect human health and the environment. The EPA also prepares and distributes information to further the public's knowledge about these chemicals and their effects, and provides guidance to manufacturers in pollution prevention measures, such as more efficient manufacturing processes and recycling used materials.
The State of California defines hazardous materials as substances that are toxic, ignitable or flammable, reactive, and/or corrosive. The State also defines an extremely hazardous material as a substance that shows high acute or chronic toxicity, is carcinogenic (causes cancer), has bioaccumulative properties (accumulates in the body's tissues), is persistent in the environment, or is water reactive (California Code of Regulations, Title 22; California Health and Safety Code, Division 20, Chapter 6.5). ■ Hazardous Materials Use
Hazardous materials in the City are routinely used, stored, and transported in commercial/retail businesses as well as in educational facilities, hospitals, and households. Hazardous materials users and waste generators in the City include businesses, public and private institutions, and households. Federal, State, and local agency databases maintain comprehensive information on the locations of facilities using large quantities of hazardous materials, as well as facilities generating hazardous waste. Some of these facilities use certain classes of hazardous materials that require accidental release scenario modeling and risk management plans to protect surrounding land uses. ■ Transportation of Hazardous Materials
Newport Beach is closely bordered by the San Diego Freeway (1-405) to the north, the San Joaquin (73) Toll Road to the east, and Pacific Coast Highway (PCH) to the south. Newport Boulevard is a 6-lane primary arterial highway, which extends from the terminus of the Costa Mesa Freeway (SR 55), near the west side of the City. Many other four- and six -lane streets provide easy access to the north, northeast, and eastern portions of the City. Due to the volume of traffic and the nature of the materials transported
4.6-2 City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR
on these roadways, there is a heightened risk of a hazardous material leak or spill in the Newport Beach area. The transport of hazardous materials through the City of Newport Beach is regulated by the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) and California Highway Patrol (CHP).
The EPA lists the following four transporters of hazardous waste in the City:
■ Innovative Waste Control, Inc.-1300 Bristol Street N., Suite 100 ■ R.E. Mockett-1601 Antigua
■ Roadway Construction Company Inc.-4101 Westerly Place, Suite 101 ■ WBR Transportation, LLC-2240 Newport Boulevard
Because Newport Beach has limited industrial land uses, most transportation of hazardous materials on the portions of the freeways and major roads that extend through the City is most likely conducted by companies that are not based out of Newport Beach.
I Existing Hazardous Materials Sites
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Information System (CERCLIS)
The Comprehen ive Environmental Kesponse, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA) was developed to protect the water, air, and land resources from the risks created by past chemical disposal practices.
This act is also referred to as the Superfund Act, and the sites listed under it are referred to as Superfund sites. Under CERCLA, the EPA maintains a list, known as CERCLIS, of all contaminated sites in the nation that have in the past or are currently undergoing clean-up activities. CERCLIS contains information on current hazardous waste sites, potential hazardous waste sites, and remedial activities.
This includes sites that are on the National Priorities List (NPL) or being considered for the NPL.
According to the EPA, there are two CERCLIS sites in the City of Newport Beach (See Table 4.6-1), but neither of them is listed in the National Priority List (NPL). Furthermore, one of the sites is considered by the EPA as a "No Further Remedial Action Planned (NFRAP) site, while the other site has reportedly been cleaned up, although the EPA data is not yet reflecting this information. Given that both sites appear to no longer pose an environmental hazard to the area, they have not been included in the list of most significant hazardous sites in the City of Newport Beach.
Facitly Name I Facility Address I EPA ID I status
Caanev Trust I SW Corner of 32nd St. and Newport Blvd I CA0000187997 I Not on NPL—NFRAP Ford Aerospace Facility 13501 Jamboree Blvd. #500 1 CAD983623257 I Not on NPL—PA Ongoing SOURCES: www.epa.gov/superfund/sites/oresites/index/htm , http://ww.epa.gov/superfund/sites/cursites/index.htm , http://oaspu b.epa.gov/e nviro/multisys_we b.report
City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 4.6-3
Toxic Release Inventory
The Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) is an EPA database that contains information on toxic chemical releases and other waste management activities reported annually by certain industry groups as well as Federal facilities. TRI sites are known to release toxic chemicals into the air. The EPA closely monitors the emissions from these facilities to ensure that their annual limits are not exceeded. TRI reports provide accurate information about potentially hazardous chemicals and their uses to the public in an attempt to give communities more power to hold companies accountable for their actions and to make informed decisions about how such chemicals should be managed.
According to the EPA records, there are two facilities in the Newport Beach area that are listed for year 2004 TRI (the most recently available data), as shown below in Table 4.6-2.
Facilly Name, Address EPA ID Chemicals
Ammonia, hydrogen fluoride, nitric acid.
Newport Fab LLC (DBA Jazz Semiconductor) 4321 Jamboree Road CAR000113233 A formal enforcement action was filed by the EPA for this site on 1/29/2003.
Hixson Metal Finishing
CAD008357295 Lead, nitric acid.
829 Production Place
SOURCES: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2004, TRI On -site and Off -site Reported Releases in Orange County, California; List of EPA -regulated Facilities in Envirofacts ( http://oaspub.gov/enviro/) . Accessed on 12/12/05.
Hazardous Waste Generators
Many types of businesses can be producers of hazardous waste. Small businesses such as dry cleaners, auto repair shops, medical facilities or hospitals, photo processing centers, and metal -plating shops are usually generators of small quantities of hazardous waste. Generally, small -quantity generators are facilities that produce between 100 and 1,000 kilograms (Kg) of hazardous waste per month (approximately equivalent to between 220 and 2,200 pounds, or between 27 and 275 gallons).
Larger businesses such as chemical manufacturers, large electroplating facilities, and petroleum refineries, can generate large quantities of hazardous waste. The EPA defines a large -quantity generator as a facility that produces over 1,000 Kg (2,200 pounds or about 275 gallons) of hazardous waste per month. As discussed later in the Regulatory Framework, large quantity generators are fully regulated under the Resources Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA).
According to the most recent EPA and City data available (2003), and as shown in Table 4.6-3, there were eight large quantity generators in the Newport Beach area. In addition, as of December 2005, there were approximately 87 small quantity generators in the City.37 37 EPA Envirofacts RCRAInfo website, accessed January 9, 2006.
4.6-4 City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR
Facility Name, Address
EPA ID
Hixson Metal Finishing
CAD008357295
829 Production Place
Hoag Memorial Hospital
CAD981388408
301 Newport Boulevard
Newport Fab LLC
CAR000113233
4311 Jamboree Road, Bldg. 503
Shell Service Station
CAD983663865
1600 Jamboree Road
Conexant Systems Incorporated
CAD008371437
4311 Jamboree Road
Ford Motor Company (now closed)
CAD041330077
1000 Ford Road
Jetronic Industries, Inc. — Transchem Division
CAD044338945
3767 Birch Street
The Koll Company KCN 4
CAR000015842
4910 Birch Street
SOURCES: List of Large Quantity Generators in the United States: The National Biennial RCRA Hazardous Waste Report (Based on 2003 Data);
List of EPA -Regulated Facilities in Envirofacts ( http://www.epa.gov/enviro/); Accessed 1/10/06.
In addition to the facilities listed in Table 4.6-3, Table 4.6-4 shows the businesses and facilities in Newport Beach that were reported as large quantity generators in years prior to 2003. However, some of these businesses, such as Loral Aeronutronics and Raytheon Systems Company, have ceased their operations in the City.
Facilities- ..Beach
Facility Name, Address Year Reported as LQG
Loral Aeronutronic
1996
1000 Ford Road Buildings 1, 2, 9, & 11
Newport Enterprises DBA Land Rover
1996
1540 Jamboree Road
Raytheon Systems Company
1999
500 Superior Avenue
Sterling Motors Ltd., DBA Sterling BMW
1996
3000 West Coast Hwy.
SOURCES: Earth Consultants International, 2003. Hazards Assessment Study, City of Newport Beach, page 6-17
City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 4.6-5
Leaking Underground Storage Tanks
Leaking underground storage tanks (LUSTS) are one of the greatest environmental concerns of the past several decades. According to data from the State Water Resources Control Board, 80 underground storage tank leaks have been reported in the Newport Beach area. Of these, 64 sites have been either cleaned up or deemed to be of no environmental consequence, leaving 16 cases that are still open and in various stages of the remediation process. These 16 sites are shown below in Table 4.6-5. None of the leaks that have been reported in the City have impacted a drinking source of ground water. However, several of the cases in Table 4.6-5 may be further along in the assessment and remediation process than the list indicates, and some of the cases may already be closed. The Orange County Environmental Health Department provides oversight and conducts inspections of all underground tank removals and installation of new tanks.
Table 4.6-5
Site Name
LUSTs Reported in
Address
the Newport Beach Area
Case No. Status, Contaminant
Report Date
Newport Beach Golf Course
3100 Irvine
083000295T
5R, G
5/20/1998
Newport Auto Center
445 Coast
n/a
8, **
12/22/2004
Chevron #20-1093
1240 Bison
083003036T
7, G
5/28/2004
Shell Oil (Former)
990 Coast
083002129T
8, G
6/29/2003
Shell Oil
1000 Irvine
083000358T
5R, G
6/25/1999
Ford Aerospace Corporation
3000 Ford Road
083001066T
5C, D
11/2/1988
Permalite Plastics Corporation
1537 Monrovia Avenue
083003609T
1, MEK
10/8/1999
Chevron #20-2016
2121 Bristol
083003460T
5R, **
7/23/2004
Beacon Bay Carwash
4200 Birch
083001459T
7, G
3/25/1997
Unocal #5310
3001 Newport
083000431T
7, G
8/19/1993
Shell Oil
1600 Jamboree
n/a
5C, G
12/22/2003
Hughes Aircraft Co -Solid Prod.
500 Superior Ave.
083000821T
5C, S
4/1/2005
Conexant Systems, Inc. (Former
Rockwell Intl Semi -Conduct Div.)
4311 Jamboree Road
083001040T
5R, A
3/1/2001
Newport Auto Center
445 Coast
083001744T
5R, G
4/16/2002
Four Seasons Hotel
690 Newport Center
083003073T
5R, D
2/26/2003
Newport Beach Police Department
870 Santa Barbara
083002849T
313, G
Unknown
SOURCE: Case Report For Santa Ana RWQCB (Region 8), 10/31/2005, https://geotracker.swrcb.ca.gov/casereports/results Abbreviations Used for Contaminant: G = Gasoline, UG = Unleaded Gasoline; D = Diesel, MO = Motor Oil; WO = Waste Oil; MEK = Methyl ethyl ketone; S=Solvent; A = Acetone.
Abbreviations Used for Status: 0 = No action taken; 1 = Leak being confirmed; 3A = Preliminary site assessment workplan submitted; 3B = Preliminary site assessment underway; 5C = Pollution characterization underway; 5R = Remediation plan submitted; 7= Remedial action underway; 8 = Post -remedial monitoring; 9 = Case closed / Remediation completed. ** contaminants not available
Household Hazardous Waste
The EPA defines household hazardous waste as "leftover products such as paints, cleaners, oils, batteries, and pesticides that contain potentially hazardous ingredients that could be corrosive, toxic, ignitable, or reactive." According to the EPA, Americans generate approximately 1.6 million tons of
4.6-6 City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR
household hazardous waste per year, while the average home can accumulate as much as 100 pounds of household hazardous waste in the basement and garage or in storage closets. Methods of improper disposal of household hazardous wastes commonly include pouring them down the drain, on the ground, into storm sewers, or in some cases putting them out with the trash. Though the dangers of such disposal methods might not be immediately obvious, improper disposal of these wastes can pollute the environment and pose a threat to human health.
The County of Orange operates four household hazardous waste collection centers in accordance with the California Integrated Solid Waste Management Act of 1989 (AB 939). These centers are located in the cities of Anaheim, Huntington Beach, Irvine, and San Juan Capistrano. The two locations closest to the City are the Huntington Beach center at 17121 Nichols Street and the Irvine location at 6411 Oak Canyon.
Methane Gas
Methane gas occurs in the shallow subsurface of some areas of the City. Methane is a naturally occurring gas that typically forms as a by-product of bacterial digestion of organic matter, and therefore occurs ubiquitously, although generally at very low concentrations in the air. Methane is colorless and odorless and, under normal conditions, does not pose a health hazard, as it is not poisonous. However, at high concentrations, methane is flammable and can cause asphyxiation due to oxygen displacement at very high levels. Methane is not toxic below levels that would lead to asphyxiation. However, the fact that it is colorless and odorless makes it especially hazardous, as it cannot be readily detected without special sensors.
Generally, methane forms in areas such as swamps, landfills, or areas associated with petroleum deposits.
Methane tends to migrate upwards and, under certain conditions, the gas can become trapped under an impermeable layer. As the gas accumulates under the impermeable layer, it can build up to high concentrations and pressures, which can lead to adverse physical effects. However, high concentrations of methane can be managed and mitigated effectively with the proper investigation and analysis so that development is protected from adverse impacts of methane.
Five methane gas mitigation districts have been identified in the City. Natural seepages of gas occur in the western and southwestern portions of the City. Special development regulations (City Code Chapter
15.55), intended to prevent gases from accumulating, apply to projects located in methane overlay districts. The Hazards Assessment Study prepared for the City also identifies the potential for methane gas seepage to be associated with the West Newport oil field even though it is not located within or next to a methane gas mitigation district. In addition, the City also associates methane gas seepage with an old abandoned landfill near the City's northwestern corner.
Oil Fields
Petroleum contains several components that are considered hazardous, such as benzene, a known carcinogen. Oil field activities often include the use of hazardous materials like fuels and solvents. In the past, day-to-day practices in oil fields were not environmentally sensitive. As a result, oil -stained soils and City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 4.6-7
other contaminants can often be found in and around oil fields. Remediation of these areas is generally required when the oil field is not longer economically productive. Comprehensive site investigations are required to accurately identify and characterize any soil and groundwater contamination.
Fire Hazards
Wildland Fires
The City of Newport Beach defines a wildland fire hazard area as any geographic area that contains the type and condition of vegetation, topography, weather, and structure density that potentially increases the possibility of wildland fires. The eastern portion of the City 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.
Urban Fires
Many factors contribute to an area being at risk of structural fire in terms of local fire departments' capabilities to control them, including the construction size and type, built-in protection, density of construction, street widths, and occupancy size. The City's daytime population levels may also add to the congestion and difficulty of ingress and egress of emergency response vehicles.
Many of the structures in the older portions of the City, some dating back to the 1930s, are susceptible to urban fires. These areas were built according to older building standards and fire codes, with no internal sprinklers and other fire safety systems in place, and made from non -fire -resistive construction materials.
These areas include Balboa Peninsula, Balboa Island, and Corona del Mar. Newport Beach has over 30 high-rise buildings that were constructed since the 1960s. Four of these buildings do not have sprinklers in place: 3121 West Coast Highway; 601 Lido Park Drive; 400 Newport Center Drive; and 611 Lido Park Drive.
Geography is also a factor for fire safety issues in the City. Upper and Lower Newport Bay essentially divide the City into two regions, with approximately one-third of the Newport Beach Fire Department (NBFD) assets located west of the bay, and the remaining assets east of the bay. Connection between these two sides is provided by only a limited number of roadways (Coast Highway in the south, Bristol Street and the 73 Freeway on the north), making it difficult for fire stations on both sides of the bay to support each other during multiple alarm emergencies. Failure of the bridge connectors on any of these roadways as a result of an earthquake, for example, would hinder emergency response from fire stations in east Newport Beach and Newport Coast into the densely populated areas of the City west and south of the bay.
Earthquake -induced fires have the potential to be the worst -case fire -suppression scenarios for a community because an earthquake can cause multiple ignitions distributed over a broad geographic area.
There are some older sections in Newport Beach where, due to ground failure, breaks in the gas mains and the water distribution system could lead to a significant fire -after -earthquake situation.
4.6-8 City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR
■ Aviation Hazards
John Wayne Airport QWA) generates nearly all aviation traffic above the City of Newport Beach. On an average business day, approximately 150 commercial and 20 regional flights arrive at and depart from JWA. Newport Beach borders the southeastern portion of JWA. More than 95 percent of all airplanes take off and ascend over the City. Accidents resulting in one or more fatalities involving commercial aircraft are rare events. However, in the event of an aviation hazard, pilots are instructed to follow Newport Bay away from residential or developed areas. Potential impacts will be significantly reduced by coordinated response operations of all available emergency services. The airport is protected by an on - site airport fire service as required by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) regulations. This service is provided by Orange County Fire Station No. 33. In addition, the Orange County Fire Services Area Plan Annex contains a Marine (Air/Sea) Disaster Response Plan that establishes protocols for marine disasters in the harbor or ocean from either aircraft or boating accidents. This plan includes a county -wide mutual aid response to a disaster.
Three areas of increased vulnerability to aviation hazards in the City are Balboa Peninsula, Balboa Island, and Upper Newport Bay. As previously discussed under Urban Fires, Balboa Island and Balboa Peninsula is susceptible to fire hazards due to the fact that structures were built prior to implementation of stringent fire codes. In the event of a fire caused by an aviation accident, it could spread quickly.
Additionally, ingress and egress is limited.
An aviation accident in Upper Newport Bay could create a significant ecological and economic hazard to the environment. The recreational value of the Newport Harbor with its more than 9,000 registered boats could be dramatically affected, and an aviation accident could significantly pollute the waterways. ■ Emergency Response
Any potential hazard in the City resulting from a manmade or natural disaster may result in the need for evacuation of few or thousands of citizens of Newport Beach. Homeland Security has brought disaster awareness to the forefront of the minds of the community, safety officials, and City staff. The City of Newport Beach is currently using the Standardized Emergency Management System (SEMS) for emergency response in the City, where depending on the type of incident, several different agencies and disciplines may be called upon to assist with emergency response. Agencies and disciplines that can be expected to be part of an emergency response team include medical, health, fire and rescue, police, public works, and coroner. Additionally, policies and plans from the Orange County Operational Area Mutual Aid Plan, the State's Mutual Aid Plan, and the State's Fire and Rescue Mutual Aid System would be implemented. The City is now also training its personnel in the National Incident Management System (NIMS), the Federal equivalent of SEMS.
Within the NBFD, the Disaster Preparedness Coordinator has updated the City's Emergency Management Plan, including the development and implementation of disaster training for employees.
The Emergency Management Plan describes the different levels of emergencies, the local emergency management organization, and the specific responsibilities of each participating agency, government City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 4.6-9
office, and City staff. A City-wide exercise, which involves implementation of the Plan, is conducted annually.
Currently, NBFD provides basic life support (BLS), advanced life support (ALS) and emergency transportation utilizing the fire engines and ladder trucks housed in the Department's eight fire stations, and utilizing the paramedics housed in three of those stations. While the NBFD has the immediate capability of providing ALS service at three simultaneous incidents, there is an occasional need for additional ALS units. Additional ALS service is provided by nearby and adjoining public agencies by means of cooperative automatic aid agreements. Emergency transportation beyond the capability of the department is provided by private ambulance companies.
Mass casualty incidents, which usually involve three or more critical patients, require the implementation of the Orange County Fire Services Operational Plan Annex "Multi -Casualty Incident Response Plan." This Plan is an organizational plan that aids in assigning treatment teams and quickly moving patients off -scene to appropriate receiving centers in an expeditious and organized manner. The multi -casualty plan is intended to be implemented during any multi -casualty incident, such as multiple vehicle accidents, aviation accidents, hazardous materials incidents, high-rise fires, and so forth. Although the system has been designed to be used with as few as three patients, it can be expanded as it becomes necessary.
Lastly, in the event of a disaster, the City's Emergency Operations Center can be opened. The center has undergone a series of upgrades and improvements. Training for residents and employees within the City continues through the Community Emergency Response Team (CERT) program.
4.6.3 Regulatory Framework
A number of Federal, State, and local laws have been enacted to regulate the management of hazardous materials. Implementation of these laws and the management of hazardous materials are regulated independently of the CEQA process through programs administered by various agencies at the Federal, State, and local levels. An overview of the key hazardous materials laws and regulations that apply to the proposed General Plan Update is provided below.
■ Federal
Several Federal agencies regulate hazardous materials. These include the EPA, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), and the DOT. Applicable Federal regulations are contained primarily in Titles 10, 29, 40, and 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). In particular, Title 49 of the CFR governs the manufacture of packaging and transport containers, packing and repacking, labeling, and the marking of hazardous material transport. Some of the major Federal laws and issue areas include the following statutes (and regulations promulgated thereunder):
■ Resources Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)—hazardous waste management ■ Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments Act (HSWA)—hazardous waste management ■ Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA)—cleanup of contamination
■ Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA)—cleanup of contamination
4.6-10 City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR
■ Emergency Planning and Community Right -to -Know (SARA Title III) —business inventories and emergency response planning
The EPA is the primary Federal agency responsible for the implementation and enforcement of hazardous materials regulations. In most cases, enforcement of environmental laws and regulations established at the Federal level is delegated to State and local environmental regulatory agencies.
In addition, with respect to emergency planning, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) is responsible for ensuring the establishment and development of policies and programs for emergency management at the Federal, State, and local levels. This includes the development of a national capability to mitigate against, prepare for, respond to and recover from a full range of emergencies. ■ State
Primary state agencies with jurisdiction over hazardous chemical materials management are the Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) and the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). Other State agencies involved in hazardous materials management are the Department of Industrial Relations (State OSHA implementation), Office of Emergency Services (OES—California Accidental Release Prevention implementation), Department of Fish and Game (DFG), Air Resources Board (ARB), Caltrans, State Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA— Proposition 65 implementation) and California Integrated Waste Management Board (CIWMB). The enforcement agencies for hazardous materials transportation regulations are the CHP and Caltrans.
Hazardous materials and waste transporters are responsible for complying with all applicable packaging, labeling, and shipping regulations.
Hazardous chemical and biohazardous materials management laws in California include the following statutes (and regulations promulgated thereunder):
■ Hazardous Materials ManagementAct—business plan reporting ■ Ha.Zardous Waste Control Act —hazardous waste management ■ Safe Drinking rater and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986 (Proposition 65)—releases of and exposure to carcinogenic chemicals
■ Ha.Zardous SubstancesAct—cleanupof contamination
■ Hazardous Waste Management Planning and Facility Siting (TannerAc6 ■ Hazardous Materials Storage and Emergency Response
■ California Medical Waste ManagementAct—medical and biohazardous wastes State regulations and agencies pertaining to hazardous materials management and worker safety which are applicable to the City and proposed General Plan Update are described below.
California Environmental Protection Agency
The California EPA (Cal/EPA) has broad jurisdiction over hazardous materials management in the state.
Within Cal/EPA, the DTSC has primary regulatory responsibility for hazardous waste management and cleanup. Enforcement of regulations has been delegated to local jurisdictions that enter into agreements City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 4.6-11
with DTSC for the generation, transport, and disposal of hazardous materials under the authority of the Hazardous Waste Control Law.
Along with the DTSC, the RWQCB is responsible for implementing regulations pertaining to management of soil and groundwater investigation and cleanup. RWQCB regulations are contained in Title 27 of the California Code of Regulations (CCR). Additional state regulations applicable to hazardous materials are contained in Title 22 of the CCR. Title 26 of the CCR is a compilation of those sections or titles of the CCR that are applicable to hazardous materials.
Department of Toxic Substances Control
RCRA of 1976 is the principal Federal law that regulates the generation, management, and transportation of hazardous materials and other wastes.
The DTSC regulates hazardous waste in California primarily under the authority of the Federal RCRA, and the California Health and Safety Code. Other laws that affect hazardous waste are specific to handling, storage, transportation, disposal, treatment, reduction, cleanup, and emergency planning. In addition, DTSC reviews and monitors legislation to ensure that the position reflects the DTSC's goals.
From these laws, DTSC's major program areas develop regulations and consistent program policies and procedures. The regulations spell out what those who handle hazardous waste must do to comply with the laws. Under RCRA, DTSC has the authority to implement permitting, inspection, compliance, and corrective action programs to ensure that people who manage hazardous waste follow State and Federal requirements. As such, the management of hazardous waste in the Planning Area would be under regulation by the DTSC to ensure compliance with State and Federal requirements pertaining to hazardous waste.
California law provides the general framework for regulation of hazardous wastes by the Hazardous Waste Control Law (HWCL) passed in 1972. DTSC is the State's lead agency in implementing the HWCL. The HWCL provides for State regulation of existing hazardous waste facilities, which include "any structure, other appurtenances, and improvements on the land, used for treatment, transfer, storage, resource recovery, disposal, or recycling of hazardous wastes," and requires permits for, and inspections of, facilities involved in generation and/or treatment, storage and disposal of hazardous wastes.
Tanner Act
Although there are numerous State policies dealing with hazardous waste materials, the most comprehensive is the Tanner Act (AB 2948) that was adopted in 1986. The Tanner Act governs the preparation of hazardous waste management plans and the siting of hazardous waste facilities in the State of California. The act also mandates that each county adopt a Hazardous Waste Management Plan. To be in compliance with the Tanner Act, local or regional hazardous waste management plans need to include provisions that define (1) the planning process for waste management, (2) the permit process for new and expanded facilities, and (3) the appeal process to the State available for certain local decision.
4.6-12 City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR
Hazardous Materials Management Plans
In January 1996, Cal EPA adopted regulations implementing a "Unified Hazardous Waste and Hazardous Materials Management Regulatory Program" (Unified Program). The six program elements of the Unified Program are hazardous waste generators and hazardous waste on -site treatment, underground storage tanks, above -ground storage tanks, hazardous material release response plans and inventories, risk management and prevention program, and Uniform Fire Code hazardous materials management plans and inventories. The program is implemented at the local level by a local agency —the Certified Unified Program Agency (CUPA). The CUPA is responsible for consolidating the administration of the six program elements within its jurisdiction. The CUPA that has jurisdiction in the City of Newport Beach is the Orange County CUPA.
State and Federal laws require detailed planning to ensure that hazardous materials are properly handled, used, stored, and disposed of, and, in the event that such materials are accidentally released, to prevent or to mitigate injury to health or the environment. California's Hazardous Materials Release Response Plans and Inventory Law, sometimes called the "Business Plan Act," aims to minimize the potential for accidents involving hazardous materials and to facilitate an appropriate response to possible hazardous materials emergencies. The law requires businesses that use hazardous materials to provide inventories of those materials to designated emergency response agencies, to illustrate on a diagram where the materials are stored on site, to prepare an emergency response plan, and to train employees to use the materials safely.
California Accidental Release Prevention Program (CaIARP) The CaIARP program (CCR Title 19, Division 2, Chapter 4.5) covers certain businesses that store or handle more than a certain volume of specific regulated substances at their facilities. The CaIARP program regulations became effective on January 1, 1997, and include the provisions of the Federal Accidental Release Prevention program (Title 40, CFR Part 68) with certain additions specific to the State pursuant to Article 2, Chapter 6.95, of the Health and Safety Code.
The list of regulated substances is found in Article 8, Section 2770.5 of the CaIARP program regulations.
The businesses that use a regulated substance above the noted threshold quantity must implement an accidental release prevention program, and some may be required to complete a Risk Management Plan (RMP). An RMP is a detailed engineering analysis of the potential accident factors present at a business and the mitigation measures that can be implemented to reduce this accident potential. The purpose of a RMP is to decrease the risk of an off -site release of a regulated substance that might harm the surrounding environment and community. An RMP includes the following components: safety information, hazard review, operating procedures, training, maintenance, compliance audits, and incident investigation. The RMP must consider the proximity to sensitive populations located in schools, residential areas, general acute care hospitals, long-term health care facilities, and child day-care facilities, and must also consider external events such as seismic activity.
City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 4.6-13
Worker and Workplace Hazardous Materials Safety
Occupational safety standards exist in Federal and State laws to minimize worker safety risks from both physical and chemical hazards in the workplace. The California Division of Occupational Safety and Health (Cal/OSHA) is responsible for developing and enforcing workplace safety standards and assuring worker safety in the handling and use of hazardous materials. Among other requirements, Cal/OSHA obligates many businesses to prepare Injury and Illness Prevention Plans and Chemical Hygiene Plans.
The Hazard Communication Standard requires that workers be informed of the hazards associated with the materials they handle. For example, manufacturers are to appropriately label containers, Material Safety Data Sheets are to be available in the workplace, and employers are to properly train workers.
Hazardous Materials Transportation
The California Highway Patrol (CHP) and California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) are the enforcement agencies for hazardous materials transportation regulations. Transporters of hazardous materials and waste are responsible for complying with all applicable packaging, labeling, and shipping regulations. The Office of Emergency Services (OES) also provides emergency response services involving hazardous materials incidents.
Investigation and Cleanup of Contaminated Sites
The oversight of hazardous materials release sites often involves several different agencies that may have overlapping authority and jurisdiction. The DTSC and RWQCB are the two primary State agencies responsible for issues pertaining to hazardous materials release sites. Air quality issues related to remediation and construction at contaminated sites are also subject to Federal and State laws and regulations that are administered at the local level.
Investigation and remediation activities that would involve potential disturbance or release of hazardous materials must comply with applicable federal, state, and local hazardous materials laws and regulations.
DTSC has developed standards for the investigation of sites where hazardous materials contamination has been identified or could exist based on current or past uses. The standards identify approaches to determine if a release of hazardous wastes/substances exists at a site and delineates the general extent of contamination; estimates the potential threat to public health and/or the environment from the release and provides an indicator of relative risk; determines if an expedited response action is require to reduce an existing or potential threat; and completes preliminary project scoping activities to determine data gaps and identifies possible remedial action strategies to form the basis for development of a site strategy.
Siting of Schools
The California Education Code (Section 17210 et seq.) outlines the requirements of siting school facilities near or on known or suspected hazardous materials sites, or near facilities that emit hazardous air emissions, handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste. The code requires that, prior to commencing the acquisition of property for a new school site, an environmental site investigation be completed to determine the health and safety risks (if any) associated with a site. Recent
4.6-14 City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR
legislation and changes to the Education Code identify DTSC's role in the assessment, investigation, and cleanup of proposed school sites. All proposed school sites that will receive state funding for acquisition and/or construction must go through a comprehensive investigation and cleanup process under DTSC oversight. DTSC is required to be involved in the environmental review process to ensure that selected properties are free of contamination, or if the property is contaminated, that it is cleaned up to a level that is protective of students and faculty who will occupy the new school. All proposed school sites must be suitable for residential land use, which is DTSC's most protective standard for children. ■ Local
Airport Environs Land Use Plan for John Wayne Airport
Land use within the planning area boundaries of the AELUP must conform to noise, safety, and height restriction standards. The General Policy identified below outlines the land use standards for the planning areas.