11 & 12 - Attachment A - Exhibit C-J - Housing Element Update (2008-2014) - Addendums 1-8 — Newport Beach City Council, April 9, 2024 (part 3 of 33)

NNCPC Development Plan Amendment and Related Actions June 2012 Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach Page 4-24

No
01-1 Initial Study and General Plan Program EIR Addendum No. 2 Summary Analysis
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
There are no Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zones within the City of Newport Beach.36 Accordingly, and consistent with the findings of the General Plan EIR, the proposed Project would not result in any significant impacts due to the rupture of an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone.

However, and as also noted in the General Plan EIR, 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, including the proposed Project site.37
As concluded in the General Plan EIR, policies contained in the General Plan's Safety Element would attenuate impacts associated with strong seismic ground shaking. Specifically, Policy S 4.1 requires the City to conduct regular updates to the building and fire codes to address fire safety and design. Policy S

4.7 requires further seismic studies for new development in areas where potentially active faults may occur. In addition, the construction of new residential buildings in San Joaquin Plaza that could occur to implement the residential development intensity proposed by the Project would be required to comply with the seismic safety standards of the California Building Code, which requires compliance with special structural design standards to attenuate hazards associated with credible seismic ground shaking events that are anticipated in the Project area. Accordingly, with mandatory compliance with General Plan Goal S4 and the California Building Code, impacts associated with strong seismic ground shaking would not be significant.

Areas within the City of Newport Beach subject to strong seismic ground shaking associated with liquefaction hazards are limited to West Newport, Balboa Peninsula, the harbor islands, and lands adjacent to these areas. The proposed Project site is located in the Newport Center portion of the General Plan, and is not identified as being subject to liquefaction hazards.38 Accordingly, a significant impact associated with seismic -related ground failure, including liquefaction, would not occur.

The proposed Project site consists of a fully developed parcel that does not contain significant areas of slopes. The General Plan EIR notes that landslide conditions are possible in the area between Los Trancos Canyon and the Crystal Cove State Park boundary, the sedimentary bedrock that crops out in the San Joaquin Hills, along stream banks and coastal bluffs (e.g., Big Canyon), around San Joaquin " General Plan EIR, Page 4.5-13.
31 Ibid, Page 4.5-3.
38 Ibid, Page 4.5-14 and Figure 4.5-2.

NNCPC Development Plan Amendment and Related Actions June 2012 Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach Page 4-25

No
01-1 Initial Study and General Plan Program EIR Addendum No. 2 Reservoir, Newport and Upper Newport Bays, and Corona del Mar.39 The proposed Project site is located in Newport Center and is not located in any of the areas that are identified as having the potential for hazards associated with landslides. Accordingly, a significant impact due to landslide hazards would not occur.

As concluded in the General Plan EIR, "With compliance of applicable regulations as well as policies identified in the General Plan Update, impacts would be less than significant." The proposed Project is consistent with the assumptions made in the General Plan EIR with respect to seismic -related hazards.

Therefore, implementation of the proposed Project would not result in any new impacts or increase the severity of a previously identified significant impact as previously analyzed in the General Plan EIR.

Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil Soil erosion and the loss of topsoil can occur when soils are exposed to erosive elements (i.e., wind and water) and in the absence of stabilizing vegetation. Under existing conditions, substantial soil erosion and/or the loss of topsoil does not occur in San Joaquin Plaza because the proposed Project site is developed with commercial office buildings, parking lots, and ornamental landscaping.

Construction activities that could be associated with the proposed Project to implement the residential development intensity proposed in San Joaquin Plaza would be subject to compliance with state, regional, and local regulations that would serve to minimize the potential for erosion of topsoil, including, but not necessarily limited to, California Building Code (CBC) standards, the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) General Construction Activity Stormwater Permit and associated Best Management Practices (BMPs), and the provisions of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) regulations concerning the discharge of eroded materials and pollutants from construction sites.

Additionally, any future construction activities would be subject to compliance with General Plan Policies NR 3.1 through NR 3.22, and Policies NR 4.1 through NR 4.4, which address water quality and soil erosion and would further serve to prevent substantial erosion or the loss of topsoil during Project construction. Near -term impacts due to substantial soil erosion and/or the loss of topsoil would be consistent with the findings of the General Plan EIR, which concluded that such impacts would be less than significant. Therefore, implementation of the proposed Project would not result in any new impacts or increase the severity of a previously identified significant impact as previously analyzed in the General Plan EIR.

Under long-term operating conditions, the Project site would continue to be fully developed with buildings, parking lots, and ornamental landscaping, and would not be subject to substantial amounts of soil erosion or the loss of topsoil. As such, a significant impact associated with erosion would have no potential to occur. Therefore, long-term operation of the proposed Project would not result in any new impacts or increase the severity of a previously identified significant impact as previously analyzed in the General Plan EIR.
39 Ibid, Pages 4.5-9 and 4.5-15.

NNCPC Development Plan Amendment and Related Actions June 2012 Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach Page 4-26

No
01-1 Initial Study and General Plan Program EIR Addendum No. 2 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 offsite 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
Potential impacts associated with liquefaction hazards are addressed above under the analysis of the first threshold under Geology, Soils, and Mineral Resources, which concludes that such impacts would not be significant.

Construction activities that could be associated with the proposed Project to implement the residential development intensity proposed in San Joaquin Plaza would be required to comply with California Building Code (CBC) requirements for soil stability and grading plans are required to incorporate remediation measures for any expansive or compressible materials (e.g., replacement, grouting, compaction, drainage control, etc.). Additionally, the design of structures must conform to CBC criteria for foundational design and support. Furthermore, the City's Municipal Code requires the provision of a detailed site -specific soils engineering report and engineering geology report prior to the issuance of grading permits and further requires that measures be incorporated into the grading plans to address potential unstable soil conditions such as landslide, lateral spreading, liquefaction, or collapse.

Construction activities that could be associated with the proposed Project to implement the residential development intensity proposed in San Joaquin Plaza would be consistent with the assumptions in the General Plan EIR, which concluded that with compliance with the CBC and Municipal Code requirements, impacts due to unstable geologic units or soils (including expansive soils) would be less than significant. Therefore, implementation of the proposed Project would not result in any new impacts or increase the severity of a previously identified significant impact as previously analyzed in the General Plan EIR.

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 proposed Project site is fully developed under existing conditions and is served by a sanitary sewer system.40 Future residential development that could occur in San Joaquin Plaza resulting from approval of the proposed Project would not require the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems. As such, and consistent with the findings of the General Plan EIR, a significant impact would not occur. Therefore, implementation of the proposed Project would not result in any new impacts or increase the severity of a previously identified significant impact as previously analyzed in the General Plan EIR.

Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents o f the State
The California Geological Survey (CGS) classifies the proposed Project site as Mineral Resource Zone 3 (MRZ-3), which is applied to areas containing known mineral occurrences of undetermined mineral resource significance.41 Although portions of the City contain active oil wells and oil fields, these areas are concentrated in the western portions of the City within the Banning Ranch subarea. Although General Plan EIR Figure 4.5-3 identifies one existing oil well near the proposed Project site (near the 40 Ibid, Figure 4.14-2.
41 Ibid, Figure 4.5-4.

NNCPC Development Plan Amendment and Related Actions June 2012 Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach Page 4-27

No
M 1-1 Initial Study and General Plan Program EIR Addendum No. 2 intersection of Newport Center Drive and Corporate Plaza Drive), there are no active oil wells present within San Joaquin Plaza and the Project site is not located in an identified oil field.

General Plan policies related to oil fields generally encourage continued oil production within the Banning Ranch portion of the City, while General Plan Policy NR 19.1 and Section 1401 of the City's Charter prohibit any new drilling for exploration or extraction of oil resources within the City 42 Accordingly, and as concluded in the General Plan EIR, implementation of the proposed Project would not result in the loss of the availability of any known mineral resources that would be of value to the region and the residents of the State, and a significant impact would not occur. Therefore, implementation of the proposed Project would not result in any new impacts or increase the severity of a previously identified significant impact as previously analyzed in the General Plan EIR.

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 City of Newport Beach General Plan indicates that the only important mineral resources within the City are related to oil; however, Section 1401 of the City's Charter does not allow new drilling or production or refining of oil, gas, or other hydrocarbon substances within the City.43 Additionally, the discussion on the previous threshold regarding the lack of impact to known mineral resources would be equally applicable to locally important mineral resource recovery sites. As such, the proposed Project would not result in any significant impacts to any locally important mineral resource recovery sites, and a significant impact would not occur. Therefore, implementation of the proposed Project would not result in any new impacts or increase the severity of a previously identified significant impact as previously analyzed in the General Plan EIR.

Level of Significance After Mitigation
The proposed Project is consistent with the findings of the General Plan EIR, which identifies that impacts to geology and soils could be mitigated to a level considered less than significant. No impacts to mineral resources were identified.

Finding of Consistency with General Plan EIR
Pursuant to Section 15162 of the CEQA Guidelines, the City of Newport Beach has determined, on the basis of substantial evidence in the light of the whole record, that the proposed Project would not involve new significant impacts or a substantial increase in previously identified impacts to geology, soils, and mineral resources. Additionally, there are no substantial changes to the circumstances under which the Project will be undertaken, and no new information of substantial importance which was not known and could not have been known when the General Plan EIR was certified has since been identified.

Therefore, the proposed Project does not meet the standards for a subsequent or supplemental EIR with regards to geology, soils, and mineral resources, as provided pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15162.
" City of Newport Beach General Plan, Page 10-16.
as Ibid.

NNCPC Development Plan Amendment and Related Actions June 2012 Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach Page 4-28

No
01-1 Initial Study and General Plan Program EIR Addendum No. 2

4.3.7 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Since certification of the General Plan EIR in 2006, Appendix G to the State CEQA Guidelines was revised to include thresholds of significance related to greenhouse gas emissions, as follows:
"Would the project:
• Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment?
• Conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?"
No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. Although climate change impacts due to greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions were not specifically evaluated as part of the 2006 General Plan EIR, the General Plan EIR analyzed air quality impacts associated with buildout of the City, inclusive of carbon dioxide (CO2) and other GHG emissions. The General Plan EIR also addressed vehicle emissions (both construction and operational) and operational emissions from energy consumption, which are the most common sources of greenhouse gas emissions.

As such, GHG emissions and the issue of global climate change (GCC) do not represent new information of substantial importance which was not known and could not have been known at the time that the General Plan EIR was certified. Information on the effect of GHG emissions on climate was known long before the City certified the General Plan EIR. GCC and GHG emissions were identified as environmental issues since as early as 1978 when the U.S. Congress enacted the National Climate Program Act (Pub L 95-367, 92 Stat 601). In 1979 the National Research Council published "Carbon Dioxide and Climate: A Scientific Assessment," which concluded that climate change was an accelerating phenomenon partly due to human activity. Numerous studies conducted before and after the National Research Council report reached similar conclusions. Information also was widely published in a series of reports by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPPC) dating back to the 1990s, including IPPC's "2001 Third Assessment Report." California adopted legislation in 2002 requiring the California Air Resources Board to develop regulations limiting greenhouse gas emissions from automobiles. As such, information about GCC and GHG emissions was available with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the General Plan EIR was certified in 2006. During the public review period and public hearings associated with the General Plan EIR, no objections or concerns were raised regarding the EIR's analysis of GHG emissions, and no legal challenge was filed within the statute of limitations period established by Public Resources Code §21 167(c). Similarly, no objections were raised on the topics of GHG emissions and GCC as part of Addendum No. I to the General Plan EIR in 2007. Pursuant to CEQA case Iaw44 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15162(a)(3), the issue of project -related GHG emissions does not provide new information of substantial importance or substantial evidence of a new impact to the environment that was not or could not have been known at the time General Plan EIR was certified; thus, minor additions are needed to make the previous document adequate to cover the actions that are currently proposed, which are documented below and serve as an Addendum to the General Plan EIR.

Summary Analysis
In order to evaluate whether the proposed Project would result in GHG impacts that were not examined in the General Plan EIR, a GHG analysis was prepared for the proposed Project by Urban Crossroads, Inc. This study, entitled, North Newport Center Planned Community Greenhouse Gas Analysis, and dated May 29, 2012, is provided as Appendix B. Refer to Appendix B for a detailed discussion of as See Citizens for Responsible Equitable Environmental Development v. City of San Diego, 196 Cal. App. 4`h 515 (201 1).

NNCPC Development Plan Amendment and Related Actions June 2012 Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach Page 4-29

No
E 1-1 Initial Study and General Plan Program EIR Addendum No. 2 GHGs, the regulatory context for GHG emissions, and for a description of the methodology utilized to calculate the proposed Project's GHG emissions.

Would the Project generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment?
Introduction to Global Climate Change and Greenhouse Gases GCC is defined as the change in average meteorological conditions on the earth with respect to temperature, precipitation, and storms. Scientific evidence suggests that GCC is the result of increased concentrations of greenhouse gases in the earth's atmosphere, including CO, methane (CH4), NOx, and fluorinated gases. Many scientists believe that this increased rate of climate change is the result of GHGs resulting from human activity and industrialization over the past 200 years.

Gases that trap heat in the atmosphere are often referred to as GHGs. GHGs are released into the atmosphere by both natural and anthropogenic (human) activity. Without the natural greenhouse gas effect, the Earth's average temperature would be approximately 61 ° Fahrenheit (F) cooler than it is currently. The cumulative accumulation of these gases in the earth's atmosphere is considered to be the cause for the observed increase in the earth's temperature.

GHGs have varying global warming potential (GWP) values; GWP values represent the potential of a gas to trap heat in the atmosphere. Carbon dioxide is utilized as the reference gas for GWP, and thus has a GWP of I. The atmospheric lifetime and GWP of selected greenhouse gases are summarized in Table 3, Global Warming Potentials and Atmospheric Lifetime of Select GHGs. As shown in Table 3, GWP range from I for carbon dioxide to 23,900 for sulfur hexafluoride. For the purposes of this analysis, emissions of CO, CH4, and NOx are evaluated because these gasses are the primary contributors to GCC from development projects. Although other substances such as fluorinated gases also contribute to GCC, sources of fluorinated gases are not well defined and no accepted emissions factors or methodology exist to accurately calculate these gases. A detailed description of GHGs and their associated health effects is provided in Sections 2.4 and 2.6 of the Project's Greenhouse Gas Analysis (Appendix B).

Regulatory Setting
The State of California, through its Governor and its legislature, has established a comprehensive framework for the substantial reduction of GHG emissions over the next 40-plus years, primarily through the implementation of Assembly Bill (AB 32) and Senate Bill (SB 375), which address GHG emissions on a statewide cumulative basis. AB 32 requires that statewide GHG emissions be reduced to 1990 levels by the year 2020. SB 375 aligns regional transportation planning efforts, regional GHG reduction targets, and land use and housing allocation. SB 375 requires metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs) to adopt a sustainable communities strategy (SCS) or alternative planning strategy (APS) that will prescribe land use allocation in that MPO's regional transportation plan. Other statewide and federal regulations related to GCC and GHG emissions are discussed in detail in the Project's Greenhouse Gas Analysis (Appendix B).

Threshold of Significance for Evaluating Project -Related GHG Emissions GCC is not confined to a particular project area and is generally accepted as the consequence of global industrialization over the last 200 years. A typical development project, even a very large one, does not generate enough greenhouse gas emissions on its own to influence global climate change significantly; hence, the issue of global climate change is, by definition, a cumulative environmental impact. However, development activities may participate in the potential for GCC by incremental contribution of GHGs NNCPC Development Plan Amendment and Related Actions June 2012 Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach Page 4-30

No
01-1 Initial Study and General Plan Program EIR Addendum No. 2 combined with the cumulative increase of all other sources of greenhouse gases, which when taken together constitute potential influences on GCC.

Table 3 Global Warming Potentials and Atmospheric Lifetime of Select GHGs Gas
Atmospheric Lifetime
(years)
Global Warming Potential
(100 year time horizon)
Carbon Dioxide
50-200
1 Methane
12 ± 3
21 Nitrous Oxide
120
310
HFC-23
264
11,700
HFC-134a

14.6 1,300
HFC-152a

1.5 140
PFC: Tetraflucromethane (CH4)
50,000
6,500
PFC: Hexaflucroethane (C2F6)
10,000
9,200
Sulfur Hexafluoride (SF6)
3,200
23,900
Source: EPA 2006 (URL: http:ll www.epa.gov/nonco2/econ-inv/table.html) Note: HFC = Hydrofluorocarbon; PFC = Perfluorocarbon.

For purposes of analyzing the cumulative significance of the proposed Project's GHG emissions, the City relies on guidance from the SCAQMD. Currently, the SCAQMD has not adopted thresholds for GHG emissions for residential development projects within the SCAQMD region. However, the SCAQMD has convened a Working Group to identify GHG thresholds for use by jurisdictions in the SCAB. For projects where the SCAQMD is serving as the CEQA Lead Agency and that are not exempt from CEQA, or where no qualifying GHG reduction plans are directly applicable, SCAQMD applies a screening level threshold of 3,000 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (MTCO2e) annually for all land use types. This threshold is based on a review of the Governor's Office of Planning and Research database of CEQA projects. Based on their review, 90 percent of CEQA projects would exceed 3,000 MTCO2e per year and require additional technical analysis to determine the level of significance.

Although the City is not required to utilize the SCAQMD screening threshold, the SCAQMD screening threshold is used in this analysis to determine whether the proposed Project's GHG emissions require additional analysis.45 If the proposed Project's GHG emissions are below 3,000 MTCO2e, then such emissions do not represent a substantial increase as compared to the level of GHG emissions that would otherwise occur from implementation of the City's General Plan.

Analysis of Project Impacts due to GHG Emissions
As discussed in detail in Section 2.0, the Project proposes to vest 524 multi -family units to the San Joaquin Plaza portion of the NNCPC. The General Plan EIR assumed that 430 of those units would be constructed within the NNCPC, and also assumed that an additional 15 multi -family units would be constructed within the Newport Center Statistical Area. The remaining 79 units were assumed by the General Plan EIR to consist of hotel units. Therefore, the conversion of 79 hotel units to multi -family residential units represents the Project's only potential to change the level of greenhouse gas emissions that would otherwise occur from implementation of the General Plan, since the remaining 445 multi- family units were assumed by the General Plan EIR. In order to provide consistency with the Project's as Citizens for Responsible Equitable Environmental Development v. City of Chula Vista, 197 Cal. App. 4th 327 (2011).

NNCPC Development Plan Amendment and Related Actions June 2012 Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach Page 4-31

No
M 1-1 Initial Study and General Plan Program EIR Addendum No. 2 traffic study (Appendix D) that was prepared in accordance with the City's TPO, the greenhouse gas analysis (Appendix B) assumes that the Project would result in a net increase of 94 multi -family units, which represents a "worst case" (conservative) assumption of potential impacts to the environment because no credit is taken for the reduction of 79 hotel rooms or for the 15 units already allowed by the General Plan.

No specific residential development project is proposed in San Joaquin Plaza at this time; therefore, it is not possible to calculate GHG emissions that may be associated with future construction activities.

However, construction -related emissions associated with the assignment of 524 multi -family residential units to San Joaquin Plaza clearly fall within the scope of the analysis provided in the General Plan EIR because the General Plan EIR assumed 430 multi -family units within the NNCPC, 15 multi -family units within the Newport Center Statistical Area, and 79 hotel units at General Plan Anomaly Location 43.

There would be no substantial difference in GHG emissions when comparing buildout of the General Plan with and without the proposed Project. The types of construction equipment, material use, and duration of construction activities for hotel units and multi -family units are similar. Also, GHG contributions to GCC are cumulative in nature and thus the specific location of the emissions source, whether it be Newport Center generally or San Joaquin Plaza specifically, has no material bearing.

Accordingly, construction -related emissions of GHGs would not represent new information of substantial importance which was not known and could not have been known at the time that the General Plan EIR was certified. There would be no new or more severe construction related GHG emissions impact than would otherwise occur with implementation of the City's General Plan, as analyzed in the General Plan EIR.

GHG emissions generated by long-term operation of the Project would be associated with area sources (natural gas use, landscape equipment, etc.) to serve residential units, transportation emissions associated with vehicles traveling to and from the Project site, and indirect emissions associated with purchased energy, energy associated with water (conveyance, treatment, distribution, and treatment of wastewater), and waste disposal. GHG emissions from Project -related operational activities are summarized in Table 4, Total Annual Project GHG Emissions. As noted above, Table 4 reflects a conservative analysis and depicts future GHG emissions associated with the implementation of 94 multi- family units. As shown in Table 4, the proposed Project would generate approximately 935.04 MMTCO2e per year. Because the GHG emissions associated with the Project would be below the SCAQMD's proposed screening threshold of 3,000 MMTCO2e, the proposed Project's cumulative contribution to GHG emissions would be less than significant and would not comprise a new significant environmental effect. Additionally, because the Project's GHG emissions would be below SCAQMD's screening threshold, the Project's GHG emissions would not represent a significant increase as compared to the level of GHG emissions that would otherwise occur from implementation of the City's General Plan.

In conclusion, implementation of the proposed Project would not result in any new impacts or increase the severity of a previously identified significant impact as previously analyzed in the General Plan EIR.

Would the Project conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?"
CARB adopted a Scoping Plan on December 11, 2008, which is California's GHG reduction strategy to achieve the state's GHG emissions reduction target established by AB 32 (i.e., 1990 levels of GHG emission by year 2020). Statewide strategies to reduce GHG emissions include the Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS), California Appliance Energy Efficiency regulations, California Renewable Energy Portfolio standard, changes in the corporate average fuel economy (CAFE) standards, and other early action measures that would ensure the state is on target to achieve the GHG emissions reduction goals NNCPC Development Plan Amendment and Related Actions June 2012 Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach Page 4-32

No
■ 1-1 Initial Study and General Plan Program EIR Addendum No. 2 of AB 32. GHG emissions in the City, including development activities on the Project site, would be thereby reduced from mandatory compliance with these statewide measures.

Table 4
Total Annual Project GHG Emissions
Emissions (metric tons per year)
Emission Source
CO, CH, N20
Total CO2E
Area Source Emissions

69.88 0.03

71.00 Energy
244.28 0.01
245.79
Mobile Sources
556.77 0.02
557.25
Waste

8.78 0.52

19.67 Water Usage

35.74 0.19 0.01

41.33 Total CO2E (All Sources)
935.04
Threshold MTCO2E/Yr
3,000
Significant?
NO
Source: CalEEModTM model output, See Appendix
"A" to the Greenhouse Gas Analysis (Appendix B) for detailed model outputs.

Note: Totals obtained from Ca1EEModTm and may not total 100% due to rounding.

Development activities in the state of California are currently regulated by the 2008 Building and Energy Efficiency Standards and the 2010 Green Building Code, which require a greater degree of energy efficiency than the 2005 version of the state building code that was in effect when the General Plan EIR was certified in 2006. Although no specific development project is proposed at San Joaquin Plaza at this time, future construction activities would be required to comply with all applicable building codes.

Currently, development activities are required to achieve the energy efficiency standards of the 2008 Building and Energy Efficiency Standards. The 2008 Standard is 15 percent more energy efficiency compared to the 2005 Building and Energy Efficiency Standards (which were the standards in place at the time the General Plan EIR was certified). CARB and the EPA have also adopted new vehicle fuel efficiency standards for model years 2012 through 2016. The CARB Scoping Plan also calls for more stringent fuel efficiency standards model years 2016 through 2020 under Pavley 11.

Because the proposed Project would not exceed the SCAQMD's proposed screening threshold for GHG emissions (refer to Table 4) and residential development in San Joaquin Plaza would be required to achieve efficiency standards mandated as part of the state building code in effect at the time of future construction, the proposed Project would not have the potential to interfere with the State's ability to achieve GHG reduction goals and strategies. Furthermore, the proposed Project would result in fewer GHG emissions than would have been assumed in the General Plan EIR since the 2008 efficiency standards and other statewide measures to reduce GHG emissions were not in place at the time the General Plan EIR was certified.

Various characteristics of the Project serve to render its contribution to GCC less than cumulatively considerable. One of the main issues raised by those concerned about the effect of greenhouse gases on climate change is that "leap frog" -type development would potentially increase the number of vehicle miles traveled and consequently increase vehicular emissions (i.e., CO2 that contributes to GCC). The Project is an infill, mixed use development in an urbanized setting, thereby providing opportunities to reduce vehicle trips.

NNCPC Development Plan Amendment and Related Actions June 2012 Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach Page 4-33

No
01-1 Initial Study and General Plan Program EIR Addendum No. 2 Mitigation Program
As noted, the General Plan EIR analyzed air quality impacts associated with the buildout of future development in the City, inclusive of the NNCPC area. The analysis included carbon dioxide (CO2) and other GHG emissions. No mitigation measures specifically related to GHG emissions were identified in the General Plan EIR. However, the General Plan includes several policies that would serve to reduce GHG emissions, including, but not limited to, the following Policies: LU 6.4.6 (Approaches for a Livable Neighborhood); LU 6.15.19 (Walkable Streets); LU 6.15.20 (Connected Streets); NR 6.1 (Walkable Neighborhoods); NR 6.2 (Mixed -Use Development); NR 6.3 (Vehicle -Trip Reduction Measures); NR 6.4 (Transportation Demand Management Ordinance); NR 6.5 (Local Transit Agency Collaboration); NR 6.6 (Traffic Signal Synchronization); NR 6.7 (City Fleet Vehicles); NR 6.8 (Accessible Alternative Fuel Infrastructure); NR 6.9 (Education on Mobile Source Emission Reduction Techniques); NR 7.1 (Fuel Efficient Equipment); NR 7.2 (Source Emission Reduction Best Management Practices); NR 7.3 (Incentives for Air Pollution Reduction); NR 7.4 (Use of Blowers); NR 8.1 (Construction Equipment); NR 8.2 (Maintenance of Construction Equipment); NR 8.3 (Construction Equipment Operation); NR 9.1 (Efficient Airport Operations); NR 9.2 (Aircraft and Equipment Emission Reduction); CE 1.1.1 (Comprehensive Transportation System); CE 1.2.2 (Shuttle Service); CE 1.2.4 (Public Transit); CE 4.1.1 (Public Transit Efficiency); CE 4.1.4 (Land Use Densities Supporting Public Transit); CE 4.1.5 (Airport Shuttles); CE 4.1.6 (Transit Support Facilities); CE 5.1.1 (Trail System); CE 5.1.2 (Pedestrian Connectivity); CE 5.1.3 (Pedestrian Improvements in New Development Projects); CE 5.1.4 (Linkages to Citywide Trail System and Neighborhoods); CE 5.1.5 (Bikeway System); CE 5.1.6 (Bicycle Supporting Facilities); CE 5.1.9 (Integrated Bicycle Improvements); CE 5.1.1 1 (School Access); CE 5.1.12 (Pedestrian Street Crossings); CE 5.1.14 (Newport Harbor Trails and Walkways); CE 6.1.1 (Traffic Signals); CE 6.1.2 (Intelligent Transportation Systems); CE 6.2.1 (Alternative Transportation Modes); CE 6.2.2 (Support Facilities for Alternative Modes); and CE 6.2.3 (Project Site Design Supporting Alternative Modes).

Additionally, and although the proposed Project would not create a new GHG impact or increase the level of GHG emissions that would otherwise occur from buildout of the City's General Plan, the Project would be required to comply with all mandatory regulatory requirements imposed by the State of California and the SCAQMD aimed at the reduction of air quality emissions. Those that are particularly applicable to the Project and that would assist in the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions are:
• Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (AB32)
• Regional GHG Emissions Reduction Targets/Sustainable Communities Strategies (SB 375) • Pavley Fuel Efficiency Standards (AB 1493). Establishes fuel efficiency ratings for new vehicles. • Title 24 California Code of Regulations (California Building Code). Establishes energy efficiency requirements for new construction.
• Title 20 California Code of Regulations (Appliance Energy Efficiency Standards). Establishes energy efficiency requirements for appliances.
• Title 17 California Code of Regulations (Low Carbon Fuel Standard). Requires carbon content of fuel sold in California to be 10% less by 2020. • California Water Conservation in Landscaping Act of 2006 (AB 1881). Requires local agencies to adopt the Department of Water Resources updated Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance or equivalent by January I, 2010 to ensure efficient landscapes in new development and reduced water waste in existing landscapes. • Statewide Retail Provider Emissions Performance Standards (SB 1368). Requires energy generators to achieve performance standards for GHG emissions.

NNCPC Development Plan Amendment and Related Actions June 2012 Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach Page 4-34

No
01-1 Initial Study and General Plan Program EIR Addendum No. 2 • Renewable Portfolio Standards (SB 1078). Requires electric corporations to increase the amount of energy obtained from eligible renewable energy resources to 20 percent by 2010 and 33 percent by 2020.

Level of Significance After Mitigation
The General Plan OR did not include any mitigation measures related specifically to GHG emissions.

However, policies of the 2006 General Plan were adopted as a mitigation program that minimized impacts associated with buildout of the City. Mandatory compliance with the General Plan policies and regulatory requirements summarized above would ensure that Project -related emissions would not create a new GHG impact or increase the level of GHG emissions that would otherwise occur from buildout of the City's General Plan.

Finding of Consistencv with General Plan OR
Pursuant to Section 15162 of the CEQA Guidelines, the City of Newport Beach has determined, on the basis of substantial evidence in the light of the whole record, that the proposed Project would not involve new significant impacts or a substantial increase in previously identified impacts to greenhouse gas emissions. Additionally, there are no substantial changes to the circumstances under which the Project will be undertaken, and no new information of substantial importance which was not known and could not have been known when the General Plan EIR was certified has since been identified.

Therefore, the proposed Project does not meet the standards for a subsequent or supplemental EIR with regards to greenhouse gas emissions, as provided pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15162.

4.3.8 Hazards and Hazardous Materials
The following thresholds of significance are as set forth in the General Plan EIR, which states:
"For purposes of this EIR, implementation of the proposed project may have a significant adverse impact to the public or the environment through hazards and hazardous materials if it would result in any of the following:
• Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials
• 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 • Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one -quarter mile of an existing or proposed school • Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials site compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would create a significant hazard to the public or the environment
• For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been developed, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area
• For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area
• Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan
NNCPC Development Plan Amendment and Related Actions June 2012 Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach Page 4-35

No
01-1 Initial Study and General Plan Program EIR Addendum No. 2 • Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands" No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. Hazards and hazardous materials -related impacts have been previously analyzed as part of the General Plan EIR, which was prepared and certified pursuant to State and City CEQA Guidelines. Minor additions and/or clarifications are needed to make the previous document adequate to cover the actions that are currently proposed, which are documented below and serve as an Addendum to the General Plan EIR.

Summary Analysis
Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials
The General Plan EIR acknowledges the potential for increased transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials due to an increase in the amount of commercial development. However, although the Project is consistent with the scope of analysis in the General Plan EIR, the proposed Project consists of a proposal to increase the permitted residential development intensity in the NNCPC by 94units and to vest 524 total dwelling units to the San Joaquin Plaza (including the 94 additional units and 430 units already allocated to the NNCPC). Residential uses are not associated with the transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials. Furthermore, the transport, use, and disposal of hazardous materials is fully regulated by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), State, Orange County, and/or City of Newport Beach. Additionally, General Plan Policy S 7.3 provides for the education of City residents to reduce or eliminate their use of hazardous materials, which further serves to reduce the potential for significant health hazards associated with residential -generated hazardous materials. As such, and in conformance with the findings of the General Plan EIR, impacts associated with the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials would be less than significant. Therefore, implementation of the proposed Project would not result in any new impacts or increase the severity of a previously identified significant impact as previously analyzed in the General Plan EIR.

Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment No specific development project is proposed as part of the Project at this time. Nevertheless, it is recognized that construction effects would be expected to follow approval of the Project, which may include but not be limited to demolition, ground preparation, and new construction. Construction - related impacts associated with hazardous materials were previously evaluated as part of the General Plan EIR, which concluded that impacts would be less than significant.

Construction activity that could be associated with the proposed Project falls within the scope of analysis contained in the General Plan EIR, which concludes that impacts due to reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment would be less than significant. Of the 524 units proposed to be vested to San Joaquin Plaza, the General Plan EIR assumed that 430 of those units would be constructed within the NNCPC and also assumed that an additional 15 multi -family units would be constructed within the Newport Center Statistical Area. The remaining 79 units were assumed by the General Plan EIR to consist of hotel units. The General Plan EIR acknowledges that implementation of the General Plan Land Use Plan would require the demolition of existing structures, which could result in exposure of construction personnel and the public to hazardous substances such as asbestos or lead -based paints. The General Plan EIR also acknowledges the potential for exposing construction workers to contaminated soils, if present, during earthwork activities. The General Plan EIR concludes that compliance with existing regulations and General Plan NNCPC Development Plan Amendment and Related Actions June 2012 Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach Page 4-36

No
E 1-1 Initial Study and General Plan Program EIR Addendum No. 2 policies would ensure that such potential impacts are less than significant. Specifically, the General Plan EIR notes that demolition activities would be subject to:
"South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) Rules and Regulations pertaining to asbestos abatement (including Rule 1403), Construction Safety Orders 1529 (pertaining to asbestos), and 1532. I (pertaining to lead) from Title 8 of the California Code of Regulations, Part 61, Subpart M of the Code of Federal Regulations (pertaining to asbestos), and lead exposure guidelines provided by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development." 46
Since the certification of the General Plan EIR, revisions and additions were made to SCAQMD Rules and Regulations applicable to hazardous materials, which would apply to the proposed Project.

SCAQMD Rules and Regulations are standard regulatory requirements of all construction projects in the South Coast Air Basin, including the City of Newport Beach. Any potentially contaminated sites, including contamination that may be encountered during construction activities on the Project site are required to be remediated in accordance with federal, state, and regional standards.

The General Plan EIR also evaluated the potential for future impacts that may be associated with the operation of businesses that handle hazardous materials. However, the proposed Project involves an increase to the permitted residential development intensity in San Joaquin Plaza and does not involve any business operations. Operational characteristics associated with residential uses are not identified with upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment; accordingly, a significant operational impact would not occur.

In conclusion, the construction and operation of residential uses on the proposed Project would not result in any new impacts or increase the severity of a previously identified significant impact as previously analyzed in the General Plan EIR.

Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials site compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would create a significant hazard to the public or the environment The General Plan EIR identified and disclosed a number of hazardous materials sites in EIR Tables 4.6-1 through 4.6-5. None of the hazardous materials sites occur on the proposed Project site. Accordingly, because San Joaquin Plaza is not on a list of hazardous materials site compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5, future residential development on the property would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment, and a significant impact would not occur. Therefore, operation of the proposed Project would not result in any new impacts or increase the severity of a previously identified significant impact as previously analyzed in the General Plan EIR.

Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one - quarter mile of an existing or proposed school
The nearest school to the proposed Project site is the Corona Del Mar High School, which is located

0.5 mile to the north at 2101 Eastbluff Drive in the City of Newport Beach. The proposed Project consists of an application to increase the permitted residential development intensity in the NNCPC by 94 units and vest development rights for 524 units (the 94 additional units and 430 units already permitted in the NNCPC) to the San Joaquin Plaza. As such, the proposed Project does not involve the use or storage of any hazardous materials; and, the use, storage, and handling of hazardous materials are not typically associated with residential development projects. Furthermore, because the nearest school site is 0.5 miles away, the Project is not located within one -quarter mile of an existing or proposed " General Plan EIR, Page 4.6-20.

NNCPC Development Plan Amendment and Related Actions June 2012 Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach Page 4-37

No
01-1 Initial Study and General Plan Program EIR Addendum No. 2 school. Accordingly, the proposed Project would have no potential to emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one -quarter mile of an existing or proposed school, and a significant impact would not occur. Therefore, implementation of the proposed Project would not result in any new impacts or increase the severity of a previously identified significant impact as previously analyzed in the General Plan EIR.

For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been developed, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area
The proposed Project site is located within the Airport Environs Land Use Plan (AELUP) for the John Wayne Airport (JWA). Although the General Plan was previously reviewed by the Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC), the ALUC requires additional review whenever the City considers projects that require zoning (or planned community development plan) amendments that are located within the AELUP. Pursuant to standard City requirements, the proposed Project will be forwarded to the ALUC for a review of consistency with the AELUP prior to final Project approval by the Newport Beach City Council.

In addition, the proposed Project site is subject to notification requirements and height regulations pursuant to Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR) Part 77, Obstruction Imaginary Surfaces and Notification Area for jWA. The "notification surface" is defined by the AELUP by extending a slope at a gradient of 100:1 (horizontal to vertical) from the airport facility. If a development application would protrude into the notification surface, then notification to the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is required.

Although buildings that may be proposed on -site in the future have the potential to penetrate the Part 77 notification surface, a significant environmental effect would not result since notification to the FAA would be required pursuant to FAA FAR Part 77. In addition, a precise and definitive review and assessment will be provided when building plans are submitted, and if any buildings penetrate the notification surface then the required FAA notification would be assured by the City.

Based on a prior review of the NNCPC by the ALUC, the FAA FAR Part 77 Obstruction Imaginary Surface for the JWA is approximately 1,050 feet (North American Vertical Datum of 1988, hereafter "NAVD 88"). The maximum height of buildings allowed within the NNCPC would be 375 feet above finished grade, which equates to a maximum elevation of approximately 575 feet (NAVD 88).47 Furthermore, buildings within the San Joaquin Plaza are restricted by the NNCPC Development Plan to a maximum height of 65 feet, equating to a maximum elevation of approximately 265 feet (NAVD 88).48 Accordingly, future buildings on -site have no potential to penetrate the FAA FAR Part 77 Obstruction Imaginary Surface, and a significant impact would therefore not occur.

Based on the foregoing analysis, implementation of the proposed Project would not result in any new impacts or increase the severity of a previously identified significant impact as previously analyzed in the General Plan EIR.
4' Airport Land Use Commission for Orange County, 2007. City of Newport Beach: Request for Consideration of Proposed Planned Community Zoning Amendment. November 15, 2007. Available for review at the Newport Beach Planning Department, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, CA 92658-8915. 4' NNCPC Development Plan, Page 16.

NNCPC Development Plan Amendment and Related Actions June 2012 Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach Page 4-38

No
01-1 Initial Study and General Plan Program EIR Addendum No. 2 For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area
As concluded in the General Plan EIR, there are no existing private airstrips within the City of Newport Beach or within the immediate vicinity of the proposed Project site 49 Accordingly, the proposed Project would not expose people residing or working in the Project area to safety hazards associated with a private airstrip, and a significant impact would not occur. Therefore, implementation of the proposed Project would not result in any new impacts or increase the severity of a previously identified significant impact as previously analyzed in the General Plan EIR.

Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan
The Newport Beach Fire Department Emergency Services Office maintains the City of Newport Beach Emergency Management Plan, which was most recently updated in 2011. The Emergency Management Plan is intended to provide guidance for the City of Newport Beach's response to extraordinary emergency situations associated with natural disasters, technological incidents, and national security emergencies in or affecting the City of Newport Beach.50 According to the Emergency Management Plan, Jamboree Road is identified as an evacuation route for tsunami hazards.51 Although the proposed Project site is located near this evacuation route, there are no components of the proposed Project that would interfere with the use of Jamboree Road in the event of an evacuation. Additionally, the Project site is not identified within any of the primary hazard zones identified by the Emergency Management Plan (e.g., tsunami inundation zones, wildfire hazard zones, etc.).52 Accordingly, the proposed Project would have no potential to impair implementation of or physically interfere with the City of Newport Beach Emergency Management Plan. Therefore, implementation of the proposed Project would not result in any new impacts or increase the severity of a previously identified significant impact as previously analyzed in the General Plan EIR.

Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands The City of Newport Beach Emergency Management Plan includes a "Wildfire Susceptibility Map" that indicates areas of the City that are subject to wildland fires. According to this map, the proposed Project site is identified as having a "Low/None" susceptibility to wildfires.53 Accordingly, the proposed Project would not expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, and a significant impact would not occur.

Mitigation Program
Policies of the 2006 General Plan were adopted as a mitigation program that minimized impacts associated with buildout of the City of Newport Beach, including the implementation of future development in San Joaquin Plaza.
49 General Plan EIR, Page 4.6-1.
so City of Newport Beach Emergency Management Plan (2011), Page 3. Available on-line at:
http://www.newportbeachca.gov/index.aspx?page=506 . Accessed May 17, 2012. 51 Ibid, Page 101.
12 Ibid, Pages 41, 44, 45, 48, 50, 54, 55, 69, 70, and 100. sa Ibid, Page 50.

NNCPC Development Plan Amendment and Related Actions June 2012 Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach Page 4-39

No
01-1 Initial Study and General Plan Program EIR Addendum No. 2 Level of Significance After Mitigation
The proposed project is consistent with the findings of the General Plan EIR, which identifies that impacts to hazards and hazardous materials relevant to the Project could be mitigated to a level considered less than significant. No impacts to hazards and hazardous materials were identified for the proposed Project.

Finding of Consistencv with General Plan EIR
Pursuant to Section 15162 of the CEQA Guidelines, the City of Newport Beach has determined, on the basis of substantial evidence in the light of the whole record, that the proposed Project would not involve new significant impacts or a substantial increase in previously identified impacts to hazards and hazardous materials. Additionally, there are no substantial changes to the circumstances under which the Project will be undertaken, and no new information of substantial importance which was not known and could not have been known when the General Plan EIR was certified has since been identified.

Therefore, the proposed Project does not meet the standards for a subsequent or supplemental EIR with regards to hazards and hazardous materials, as provided pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15162.

4.3.9 Hydrology and Water Quality
The following thresholds of significance are as set forth in the General Plan EIR, which states:
"For purposes of this EIR, implementation of the proposed project may have a significant adverse impact on hydrology and water quality if it would result in any of the following. • Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements • Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted) • Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off -site
• Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off -site
• Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff f
• Require or result in the construction and/or expansion of new storm drain infrastructure that would cause significant environmental effects
• Otherwise substantially degrade water quality
• Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a Federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map • Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flows • Expose people or structures to a significant risk or loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of a levee or dam
NNCPC Development Plan Amendment and Related Actions June 2012 Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach Page 4-40

No
01-1 Initial Study and General Plan Program EIR Addendum No. 2 • Expose people or structures to significant risk or loss, injury or death involving inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mud flow"
No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. Hydrology and water quality -related impacts have been previously analyzed as part of the General Plan EIR, which was prepared and certified pursuant to State and City CEQA Guidelines. Minor additions and/or clarifications are needed to make the previous document adequate to cover the actions that are currently proposed, which are documented below and serve as an Addendum to the General Plan EIR.

Summary Analysis
Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements Otherwise substantially degrade water quality
The General Plan EIR acknowledges that buildout of the City in accordance with the General Plan would increase the potential for degradation of water quality during both construction and long-term operation of planned land uses.

Construction activities throughout the City are required to comply with state, regional, and local regulations, including, but not limited to, the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Construction General Permit 99-08-DWQ, which requires preparation of and compliance with a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) and/or a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) and the incorporation of best management practices (BMPs) to help reduce the potential for polluted runoff exiting construction sites. The mandatory SWPPPs also are required to incorporate an erosion control plan to prevent runoff of excessive amounts of sediment from construction sites. Additionally, construction activities that could be associated with the proposed Project to implement the residential development intensity proposed in San Joaquin Plaza would be subject to Chapter 14.36 of the City's Municipal Code, which prohibits the discharge of any runoff that would contribute to degradation of water quality. Construction activities also would be subject to compliance with the 2003 Orange County Drainage Area Master Plan (DAMP), which sets forth management strategies (including the incorporation of BMPs) to protect the beneficial uses of the receiving waters in the Santa Ana drainage area. Finally, the City's General Plan includes policies that are designed to minimize stormwater and erosional impacts during construction, including Policies NR 3.10, NR 3.1 1, NR 3.12, and NR 4.4, which require the preparation and enforcement of WQMPs and the incorporation of BMPs to prevent or minimize erosional hazards. Compliance with the regulations and policies described above would ensure that construction -related water quality impacts are less than significant, when and if construction activities occur in San Joaquin Plaza to implement permitted residential development intensity. Such activities would be consistent with the construction -related water quality effects identified and disclosed by the General Plan EIR. Therefore, implementation of the proposed Project would not result in any new impacts or increase the severity of a previously identified significant impact as previously analyzed in the General Plan EIR.

Under long-term operating conditions, the potential development of residential uses in San Joaquin Plaza is not anticipated to substantially increase the amount of impervious surfaces relative to existing conditions; however, no specific development project is proposed at this time so the coverage percentage is unknown. As disclosed in the General Plan EIR, the potential for infill development (such as the proposed Project) to contribute to polluted runoff "...would be minimal."54 14 General Plan EIR, Page 4.7-30.

NNCPC Development Plan Amendment and Related Actions June 2012 Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach Page 4-41

No
E 1-1 Initial Study and General Plan Program EIR Addendum No. 2 With implementation of the proposed Project and the residential development intensity that would be permitted in San Joaquin Plaza, there would be an increase in residential population producing a concomitant increase in the amount of wastewater contaminated with household chemicals.

Wastewater conveyed from San Joaquin Plaza is treated by the Orange County Sanitation District (OCSD) Treatment Plan No. 2, which treats the collected effluent as required to meet applicable State and Federal standards prior to being discharged into the Pacific Ocean. Furthermore, all development in the City of Newport Beach is subject to Municipal Code Chapter 14.36 (Water Quality), which prohibits discharge that would contribute to the degradation of water quality. Operation of residential uses in San Joaquin Plaza would be subject to the provisions of the DAMP, including requirements to incorporate nonstructural BMPs to control typical runoff pollutants. General Plan policies also are established to promote water quality, including General Plan Policies NR 3.1 through 5.4. Mandatory compliance with the Orange County DAMP, the City's Municipal Code, and General Plan policies would ensure that operational impacts to water quality are less than significant, and such effects would be consistent with the water quality effects identified and disclosed by the General Plan EIR. Therefore, implementation of the proposed Project would not result in any new operational impacts or increase the severity of a previously identified significant impact as previously analyzed in the General Plan EIR.

Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)
The proposed Project would be served by a potable water system and would not involve the use of any groundwater wells, and would have no effect on groundwater supplies.

General Plan EIR Figure 4.7-1 depicts areas within the City that are underlain by the Coastal Plain of Orange County Groundwater Basin (Basin), which provides groundwater for much of central and north Orange County, including the City of Newport Beach. According to Figure 4.7-1, the proposed Project site is not located above the Basin, indicating that water infiltrating the Project site does not substantially contribute to groundwater resources. In addition, the General Plan EIR notes that "...the City of Newport Beach is in the pressure area of the Basin, which is an area that is not used for recharge.

There are no designated recharge areas in the City." ss The proposed Project could involve an increase in the City's population should the residential development intensity proposed by the Project and vested to San Joaquin Plaza be implemented. As such, the proposed Project could result in an increased demand for potable water (including domestic water received from local groundwater resources). The City's 2010 Urban Water Management Plan indicates that the projected use of groundwater supplies, combined with imported and recycled domestic water supplies, will meet projected water demand throughout the City through the Plan's horizon year of 2035.56 The Water Supply Assessment prepared for the proposed Project (refer to Appendix E of this document) similarly concludes that sufficient water supplies are available and the implementation of the proposed Project would not have an adverse effect on local groundwater. In addition, the General Plan includes several goals and related policies addressing water conservation (Goal NR 1) and water supplies (Goal NR 2) that will help ensure that future demand for potable water does not result in a deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level.

Accordingly, implementation of the proposed Project would not substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in ss ibid, Page 4.7-7.
56 City of Newport Beach 2010 Urban Water Management Plan, Section 3.3 NNCPC Development Plan Amendment and Related Actions June 2012 Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach Page 4-42

No
M 1-1 Initial Study and General Plan Program EIR Addendum No. 2 aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level. Therefore, implementation of the proposed Project would not result in any new impacts or increase the severity of a previously identified significant impact as previously analyzed in the General Plan EIR.

Require or result in the construction and/or expansion of new storm drain infrastructure that would cause significant environmental effects
Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff f
The proposed Project site is fully developed with commercial office buildings, parking areas, and ornamental landscaping. Under existing conditions, the existing storm drain infrastructure is adequate to handle runoff from the site during periods of heavy rainfall.

Pursuant to the Residential Open Space Requirements set forth in the NNCPC Development Plan, future residential development on the Project site to implement permitted residential development intensity would be required to provide for common outdoor open space comprising 5 percent of the residential lot area, of which 10 percent must comprise landscaped areas. Additionally, the NNCPC Landscaping Development Standards require that surface parking lots must contain a minimum of one 24-inch box tree for each five parking spaces.57 Compliance with the NNCPC Development Plan requirements for landscaping would ensure that impervious surfaces do not substantially increase, thereby ensuring that peak runoff from the site does not substantially increase as compared to existing conditions. As such, implementation of the proposed Project would not require new or expanded storm drain infrastructure beyond that assumed by the General Plan EIR.

The General Plan EIR acknowledges that new stormwater infrastructure may be needed to support new development within the City. Policies contained in the General Plan would ensure that residential development, when and if implemented in San Joaquin Plaza, can be adequately supported by utilities such as storm drainage infrastructure. The General Plan EIR concludes that although the installation of storm drain facility upgrades could result in short-term construction impacts, construction of storm drainage upgrades in and of itself would not result in impacts not already identified in association with buildout of the General Plan Land Use Plan. As such, the General Plan EIR concludes that such impacts would be less than significant. The proposed Project is consistent with the assumptions made in the General Plan EIR with respect to hydrology and water quality impacts. Therefore, implementation of the proposed Project would not result in any new impacts or increase the severity of a previously identified significant impact as previously analyzed in the General Plan EIR. 57 NNCPC Development Plan, Pages 19 and 24.

NNCPC Development Plan Amendment and Related Actions June 2012 Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach Page 4-43

No
01-1 Initial Study and General Plan Program EIR Addendum No. 2 Place housing within a I00-year flood hazard area as mapped on a Federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map Place within a I00-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flows Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off -site Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off -site
The City of Newport Beach Emergency Operations Plan identifies areas subject to flood hazards as part of the Flood Hazard Areas and Local Flooding Map exhibits. The proposed Project site is not identified as an area subject to regional or local flood hazards. In addition, according to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), the proposed Project site is located within Flood Zone X, which is defined as "Areas determined to be outside the 0.2% annual chance floodplain." 58 Accordingly, the proposed Project would not have the potential to place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area, nor would the Project place structures within a 100-year flood hazard area that would impede or redirect flows.

Impacts due to flood hazards would not occur.

Under existing conditions, the proposed Project site is fully developed with commercial office buildings, parking, and ornamental landscaping. With implementation of residential development in San Joaquin Plaza as would be permitted by the proposed Project, it is not anticipated that the site's existing drainage pattern would be substantially altered, and any such alterations would not affect the course of any streams or rivers. In addition, and as discussed under the analysis of the previous thresholds, any future residential development associated with the proposed Project would be required to maintain landscaped areas that would ensure that runoff from the site does not substantially increase over existing conditions, thereby preventing any potential for substantial increases to long-term erosion hazards off -site. Furthermore, all runoff from the site is diverted to the City's storm drain system.

Accordingly, the proposed Project would not alter the existing drainage pattern of the site in a manner that increases the potential for flooding either on- or off -site, nor would the revised drainage pattern result in substantial erosion or siltation either on- or off -site; accordingly, a significant impact would not occur.

Expose people or structures to a significant risk or loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of a levee or dam
The City of Newport Beach Emergency Management Plan includes a Dam Failure Inundation Map that identifies areas within the City that are subject to inundation in the event of a dam failure. According to this exhibit, the proposed Project site is located south of the Big Canyon Reservoir Inundation Pathway and east of the Prado Dam Inundation Pathway.59 Accordingly, the proposed Project site is not subject to flooding associated with any levees or dams, and a significant impact to people or structures would not occur. Therefore, implementation of the proposed Project would not result in any new impacts or 58 FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) No. 06059C0382J, December 3, 2009. Available on-line at www.fema.gov . Accessed May 16, 2012.
s9 City of Newport Beach Emergency Management Plan, Page 69.

NNCPC Development Plan Amendment and Related Actions June 2012 Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach Page 4-44

No
E 1-1 Initial Study and General Plan Program EIR Addendum No. 2 increase the severity of a previously identified significant impact as previously analyzed in the General Plan EIR.

Expose people or structures to significant risk or loss, injury or death involving inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow
The City of Newport Beach Emergency Management Plan includes an exhibit entitled, Tsunami Inundation Map for Newport Beach, which indicates that the proposed Project site is not subject to tsunami hazards, nor would future residents of the Project be subject to evacuation in the event of a tsunami hazard.60 Seiche hazards are associated only with enclosed bodies of water. The only enclosed bodies of water located upstream from the proposed Project site is the Big Canyon Reservoir; as noted in the previous threshold, the proposed Project site is not located within the inundation pathway for the Big Canyon Reservoir. Furthermore, mudflow hazards are primarily associated with steep slopes, which are not prevalent in the Project area. Accordingly, the proposed Project would not expose people or structures to significant risk or loss, injury or death involving inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow.

Level of Significance After Mitigation
The proposed Project is consistent with the findings of the General Plan EIR, which identifies that impacts to hydrology and water quality could be mitigated to a level considered less than significant.

Finding of Consistency with General Plan EIR
Pursuant to Section 15162 of the CEQA Guidelines, the City of Newport Beach has determined, on the basis of substantial evidence in the light of the whole record, that the proposed Project would not involve new significant impacts or a substantial increase in previously identified impacts to hydrology and water quality. Additionally, there are no substantial changes to the circumstances under which the Project will be undertaken, and no new information of substantial importance which was not known and could not have been known when the General Plan EIR was certified has since been identified.

Therefore, the proposed Project does not meet the standards for a subsequent or supplemental EIR with regards to hydrology and water quality, as provided pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15162.

4.3.10 Land Use and Planning
The following thresholds of significance are as set forth in the General Plan EIR, which states:
"For purposes of this EIR, implementation of the proposed project may have a significant adverse impact on land use and planning if it would result in any of the following. • Intensify development within the Planning Area that creates incompatibilities with adjacent land uses • Physically divide an established community
bo Ibid, Page 100.

NNCPC Development Plan Amendment and Related Actions June 2012 Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach Page 4-45

No
01-1 Initial Study and General Plan Program EIR Addendum No. 2 Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect • Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan" No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. Land use and planning -related impacts have been previously analyzed as part of the General Plan EIR, which was prepared and certified pursuant to State and City CEQA Guidelines. Minor additions and/or clarifications are needed to make the previous document adequate to cover the actions that are currently proposed, which are documented below and serve as an Addendum to the General Plan EIR.

Summary Analysis
Intensify development within the Planning Area that creates incompatibilities with adjacent land uses The proposed Project has the potential to intensify residential development in the NNCPC and would vest development rights for an additional 94 residential units in the San Joaquin Plaza where only commercial office, parking lots, and ornamental landscaping exist today. With the addition of 94 units of residential development intensity and allocation of 430 units of residential development intensity already permitted in the NNCPC to San Joaquin Plaza, the Project site would have the maximum development potential of 524 multi -family residential units. Property surrounding the Project site has a mixed -use character. Residential uses occur immediately to the southwest and to the northeast of the San Joaquin Plaza, with additional residential uses located westerly of Jamboree Road. Other land uses in the area include office, commercial retail, public facility, and commercial lodging (hotel). As concluded in the General Plan EIR's discussion of Newport Center/Fashion Island:
"Residential units have existed in this area since the 1970s, and increased through the 1990s. No conflicts of use between the residential and commercial uses have existed previously in this area, as evidenced by the lack of complaints by area residents." 61 Although the proposed Project would incrementally increase the number of residential units allowed within North Newport Center and consolidate those units to San Joaquin Plaza, such an increase would not result in any incompatibilities with adjacent land uses. Accordingly, a significant impact due to incompatible adjacent land uses would not occur. Therefore, implementation of the proposed Project would not result in any new impacts or increase the severity of a previously identified significant impact as previously analyzed in the General Plan EIR.

Physically divide an established community
The proposed Project site is located within the Newport Center portion of the City of Newport Beach, which consists of an existing, established mixed use district. The proposed Project involves an increase in the permitted residential development intensity for San Joaquin Plaza (from 430 units to 524 units).

Under existing conditions, San Joaquin Plaza contains a multi -tenant commercial office development with parking and landscaping. No residential units are currently constructed on the Project site. San Joaquin Plaza is approximately 23 acres in size and no major public roadways traverse the site. It is generally bounded on the south by San Clemente Drive, on the east by Santa Cruz Drive, on the northeast by San Joaquin Hills Road, and is located just southeasterly of Jamboree Road. On the opposite sides of these roadways, an established apartment complex occurs to the south and an established residential neighborhood occurs to the northeast. The proposed Project would not physically divide either of 61 General Plan EIR, Page 4.8-1 I.

NNCPC Development Plan Amendment and Related Actions June 2012 Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach Page 4-46

No
E 1-1 Initial Study and General Plan Program EIR Addendum No. 2 these residential areas, nor any other established community. Accordingly, a significant impact would not occur. Therefore, implementation of the proposed Project would not result in any new impacts or increase the severity of a previously identified significant impact as previously analyzed in the General Plan EIR.

Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect The proposed Project site is located within the NNCPC and the NNCPC Development Plan, which serves as the controlling zoning ordinance for properties within its boundaries, is proposed to be amended as part of the Project to increase permitted residential development intensity by 94 units.

There would be no change to the boundaries of the NCCPC Development Plan area or any constituent blocks or sub -districts, and there would be no change in the permitted types of land uses, development regulations, or design guidelines resulting from approval of the proposed NCCPC Development Plan Amendment. Future residential development within San Joaquin Plaza, if and when it occurs, would be required to demonstrate consistency with the NNCPC Development Plan; accordingly, no conflict with the NNCPC Development Plan would occur with implementation of the proposed Project.

The NNCPC Development Plan was previously evaluated as part of Addendum No. I to the General Plan EIR (dated November 2007), which included an extensive analysis demonstrating how existing and planned development in the NNCPC is consistent with all applicable land use plans, policies, and regulations of other agencies with jurisdiction over the NNCPC area. Provided below is a consistency analysis for the proposed Project.

As part of the proposed Project, 79 un-built hotel rooms presently allocated to General Plan Anomaly Location 43 would be converted to residential units and then transferred to the San Joaquin Plaza portion of the NNCPC. In addition, the Project proposes to assign 15 un-built and unassigned multi- family residential units permitted in the MU-H3 designation of the Newport Center Statistical Area to the San Joaquin Plaza portion of the NNCPC. Pursuant to General Plan Policy LU 4.3(d) (Transfer of Development Rights), transfers of development rights or development intensity in Newport Center are governed by Policy 6.14.3. General Plan Policy LU 6.14.3 allows development rights or development intensity to be transferred within Newport Center, subject to a finding that the transfer is consistent with the intent of the General Plan and that the transfer will not result in any adverse traffic impacts.

The proposed Project would be consistent with General Plan Policy LU 6.14.3 as follows:

LU 6.14.3 Development rights may be transferred within Newport Center, subject to the approval of the City with the finding that the transfer is consistent with the intent of the General Plan and that the transfer will not result in any adverse traffic impacts.

Project Consistency: Consistent. The Newport Beach Marriott site (General Plan Anomaly 43) has a General Plan Land Use designation of CV (Visitor Serving Commercial) and the reduction of allowable development intensity by 79 hotel units would not result in any physical changes at the Newport Beach Marriott site nor would it result in a change in land use. With approval of the proposed Project, the hotel would continue operating with 532 rooms and serve visitors to the City consistent with the intent of the General Plan's CV land use designation. The San Joaquin Plaza sub -area of NNCPC is designated MU-H3 (Mixed Use Horizontal), which allows residential uses. Both the General Plan and the NNCPC Development Plan identify the San Joaquin Plaza for potential development with multi -family residential uses. The Project's proposal to assign additional multi -family units to the San Joaquin Plaza would not result in a conflict with the General Plan's MU-H3 land use designation. Although the proposed Project NNCPC Development Plan Amendment and Related Actions June 2012 Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach Page 4-47

No
E 1-1 Initial Study and General Plan Program EIR Addendum No. 2 would allow for the development of 79 more multi -family units than currently anticipated in that location by the General Plan and 94 multi -family units more than anticipated in the NNCPC Development Plan, this increase in the number of permitted multi -family units would be consistent with General Plan allowed intensity, goals and policies, including, but not limited to, the following:
• General Plan Policy LU 3.3, which encourages the provision of residential uses in proximity to jobs and services.
• General Plan Policy LU 5.3.4, which encourages the provision of appropriate acreage for the mixture of residential and nonresidential uses.
• General Plan Policy 6.14.2 which encourages provisions for limited residential development in accordance with General Plan Tables LU I and LU2.
• General Plan Goal H 2.2, which encourages the provision of housing units that assist in achieving the Regional Housing Needs Assessment construction goals. • General Plan Goal H 2.3, which encourages mixed residential and commercial use developments that improve the balance between housing and jobs. • General Plan Housing Program Policy 3.2.1, which directs the City to make appropriate provisions for the development of housing within the Newport Center.

Furthermore, and as concluded in Section 4.3.15, no significantly adverse traffic impacts would result from implementation of the proposed Project.

Additionally, and as indicated under the analysis of Hazards and Hazardous Materials in Section 4.3.8, mandatory compliance with the development standards included in the NNCPC Development Plan and Design Regulations and review of the Project by the ALUC would ensure that the proposed Project is fully consistent with the AELUP for the John Wayne Airport.

Based on the foregoing analysis and the analysis contained in Addendum No. I to the General Plan EIR, the proposed Project would not conflict with any applicable plans, policies, and/or regulations, and a significant impact would not occur. Therefore, implementation of the proposed Project would not result in any new impacts or increase the severity of a previously identified significant impact as previously analyzed in the General Plan EIR.

Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan As indicated under the analysis of Biological Resources in Section 4.3.4, the proposed Project would not conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan. Accordingly, a significant impact would not occur. Therefore, implementation of the proposed Project would not result in any new impacts or increase the severity of a previously identified significant impact as previously analyzed in the General Plan EIR.

Mitigation Program
Policies of the 2006 General Plan were adopted
associated with buildout of the City of Newport
development in the San Joaquin Plaza.

Level of Significance After Mitigation
as a mitigation program that minimized impacts
Beach, including the implementation of future
The proposed Project is consistent with the findings of the General Plan EIR, which identifies that land use and planning impacts could be mitigated to a level considered less than significant.

NNCPC Development Plan Amendment and Related Actions June 2012 Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach Page 4-48

No
01-1 Initial Study and General Plan Program EIR Addendum No. 2 Finding of Consistency with General Plan EIR
Pursuant to Section 15162 of the CEQA Guidelines, the City has determined, on the basis of substantial evidence in the light of the whole record, that the proposed Project would not involve new significant impacts or a substantial increase in previously identified impacts to land use and planning. Additionally, there are no substantial changes to the circumstances under which the Project will be undertaken, and no new information of substantial importance which was not known and could not have been known when the General Plan EIR was certified has since been identified. Therefore, the proposed Project does not meet the standards for a subsequent or supplemental EIR with regards to land use and planning, as provided pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15162.

4.3.11 Noise
The following thresholds of significance are as set forth in the General Plan EIR, which states:
"For purposes of this EIR, implementation of the proposed project may have a significant adverse noise impact if it would result in any of the following.
• Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies • Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels • A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project
• A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project
• For a project located within an airport land use plan, or where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, exposure of people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels
• For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, exposure of people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels"
No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. Noise impacts have been previously analyzed as part of the General Plan EIR, which was prepared and certified pursuant to State and City CEQA Guidelines.

Minor additions and/or clarifications are needed to make the previous document adequate to cover the actions that are currently proposed, which are documented below and serve as an Addendum to the General Plan EIR.

Summary Analysis
In order to evaluate whether the proposed Project would result in noise impacts that were not examined in the General Plan EIR, a noise impact analysis was prepared for the proposed Project by Urban Crossroads, Inc. This study, entitled, North Newport Center Planned Community Noise Impact Analysis, and dated May 29, 2012, is provided as Appendix C. Refer to Appendix C for a discussion of noise fundamentals, noise standards, and for a detailed description of the methodology utilized to calculate the proposed Project's traffic -related noise.

NNCPC Development Plan Amendment and Related Actions June 2012 Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach Page 4-49

No
■ 1-1 Initial Study and General Plan Program EIR Addendum No. 2 Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project
Methods and Procedures
In evaluating the proposed Project's potential for impacts due to noise from vehicular traffic, the projected roadway noise impacts were calculated using a computer program that replicates the FHWA Traffic Noise Prediction Model. The FHWA Model arrives at a predicted noise level through a series of adjustments to the Reference Energy Mean Emission Level (REMEL). Adjustments are then made to the REMEL to account for: the roadway classification (e.g., collector, secondary, major or arterial), the roadway active width (i.e., the distance between the center of the outermost travel lanes on each side of the roadway), the total average daily traffic (ADT), the travel speed, the percentages of automobiles, medium trucks, and heavy trucks in the traffic volume, the roadway grade, the angle of view (e.g., whether the roadway view is blocked), the site conditions ("hard" or "soft" relates to the absorption of the ground, pavement, or landscaping), and the percentage of total ADT which flows each hour throughout a 24-hour period. Please refer to Section 5.1 of the Project's Noise Impact Analysis (Appendix C) for a description of the noise prediction model inputs used in the analysis.

Threshold of Significance for Evaluating Noise Impacts
Noise standards within the City are established by the General Plan Noise Element and the City's Noise Ordinance (Municipal Code Chapter 10.26, Community Noise Control, and Municipal Code Section

10.28.040, Construction Activity — Noise Regulations).

Project -related construction activities would be required to comply with General Plan Policy N 4.6 (Maintenance or Construction Activities) and Policy N 5.1 (Limiting Hours of Activity). Policy N 4.6 directs the City to enforce the City's Noise Ordinance limits on hours of maintenance or construction activity in or adjacent to residential areas, while Policy N 5.1 directs the City to enforce the limits on hours of construction activity. Municipal Code Section 10.28.040 restricts the timing of construction activities within the City to weekdays between 7:00 a.m. and 6:30 p.m., Saturdays between 8:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m., and prohibits "loud noise that disturbs, or could disturb, a person of normal sensitivity" on Sundays and holidays.

Land use compatibility for noise is governed by General Plan Goal NI, which requires analysis of new development to ensure compatibility with existing land uses. General Plan Policy N 1.5, which addresses "Infill Projects" such as the proposed Project, establishes an interior noise level standard of 45 dBA CNEL.

General Plan Noise Policy N 1.8 requires the employment of noise mitigation measures for existing sensitive uses when a significant noise impact is identified. A significant noise impact occurs when there is a substantial increase in the ambient CNEL produced by new development impacting existing sensitive uses. Due to the nature of the proposed Project (i.e., multi -family residential uses), only future traffic generated by the proposed Project warrants analysis for compliance with Policy N 1.8 since multi -family residential development is not anticipated to result in any stationary noise sources that could exceed the noise level limits established by the policy. For purposes of analysis (and as required by General Plan Policy N 1.8), off -site transportation -related noise increases would be considered "substantial" if Project -related traffic results in any of the following: a noise level increase of 3 dBA CNEL where the existing without project ambient noise levels range from 55 to 60 dBA CNEL; a noise level increase of 2 dBA CNEL where the existing without project ambient noise levels range from 60 to 65 dBA CNEL; a NNCPC Development Plan Amendment and Related Actions June 2012 Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach Page 4-50

No
01-1 Initial Study and General Plan Program EIR Addendum No. 2 noise level increase of I dBA CNEL where the existing without project ambient noise levels range from 65 to 75 dBA CNEL; and/or any off -site transportation project related noise level increase where the existing without project ambient noise levels are over 75 dBA CNEL. If the Project's transportation - related noise increases are substantial and impact sensitive receptors that were previously identified by the General Plan EIR as being impacted by traffic -related noise, then the Project's contribution would be considered to comprise a substantial increase in the severity of a significant effect (CEQA Guidelines § 15162(3)(b)). If the Project's transportation -related noise increases are substantial and impact sensitive receptors that were not previously identified by the General Plan EIR as being impacted by traffic -related noise, then the Project's noise contribution would be considered a significant effect not discussed in the General Plan EIR (CEQA Guidelines § 15162(3)(a)).

Municipal Code Section 10.26.025 (Exterior Noise Standards) establishes allowable exterior noise standards for sensitive land uses, as shown in Table 5, Allowable Exterior Noise Levels. In cases where ambient noise levels exceed the allowable exterior noise level shown in Table 5, then the ambient noise level is the exterior noise standard.

Municipal Code Section 10.26.030 (Interior Noise Standards) establishes allowable interior noise level, as presented in Table 6, Allowable Interior Noise Levels. In cases where ambient noise levels exceed the allowable interior noise levels presented in Table 6, then the ambient noise level is the interior noise standard.

Table 5 Allowable Exterior Noise Levels
Land Use
Allowable Exterior Noise Level (Leq)
7 a.m. to 10 p.m.
10 p.m. to 7 a.m.

Single- two- or multiple family
55 dBA
50 dBA
residential
Commercial
65 dBA
60 dBA
Residential portions of mixed-
60 dBA
50 dBA
use properties
Industrial or manufacturing
70 dBA
70 dBA
Source: Municipal Code Section 10.26.025.

Table 6 Allowable Interior Noise Levels
Land Use
Allowable Interior Noise Level (Leq)
7 a.m. to 10 p.m.
10 p.m. to 7 a.m.

Residential
55 dBA
50 dBA
Residential portions of mixed-
use properties
60 dBA
50 dBA
11 Source: Municipal Code Section IU.)6.USU.

Impact Analysis
Since no specific development project is proposed at this time, it is not possible to calculate noise levels that would be associated with future construction activities at the proposed Project site. However, construction activity is an expected secondary effect of the Project and therefore considered in this analysis (see CEQA Guidelines Section IS 146). Consistent with the conclusions of the General Plan EIR for construction impacts, mandatory compliance with Municipal Code Section 10.28.040 would ensure that construction activities on the proposed Project site do not result in a significant noise impact that would exceed any established and applicable standards governing construction -related noise. Furthermore, NNCPC Development Plan Amendment and Related Actions June 2012 Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach Page 4-51

No
01-1 Initial Study and General Plan Program EIR Addendum No. 2 construction -related noise that may be associated with the proposed allocation of 524 multi -family residential units to San Joaquin Plaza clearly fall within the scope of analysis provided in the General Plan EIR because the General Plan EIR assumed future construction in Newport Center, inclusive of the proposed Project site. Of the 524 units proposed to be vested to San Joaquin Plaza, the General Plan EIR assumed that 430 of those units would be constructed within the NNCPC and also assumed that an additional 15 multi -family units would be constructed within Statistical Area L1. Therefore, constructing 79 residential units instead of 79 hotel units and the construction of an additional 94 units in the San Joaquin Plaza portion of the NNCPC represent the Project's only potential to create construction - related noise impacts beyond the level previously disclosed in the General Plan EIR.

However, the construction of additional multi -family residential units at the San Joaquin Plaza would not result in a substantial increase in the amount of construction -related noise as compared to what was assumed in the General Plan EIR. As noted in the General Plan EIR, construction activities would be subject to compliance with Municipal Code Section 10.28.040, which regulates the allowable days and hours of construction. Any construction noise generated during the days and hours permitted by Municipal Code Section 10.28.040 would otherwise be exempt from the Noise Ordinance requirements, and thereby has no potential to result in any new or more severe impacts as compared to what was assumed in the General Plan EIR's analysis. Furthermore, the construction of 94 additional units at the San Joaquin Plaza would only increase the duration of construction activities and would not measurably increase the intensity of construction -related noise, as it is reasonable to conclude that residential units would be constructed using the same types of construction equipment and building materials. Since the General Plan EIR concludes that mandatory compliance with Municipal Code Section 10.28.040 would result in less than significant construction -related noise impacts, future Project - related construction noise would not result in any new noise impacts or substantially increase the severity of construction -related noise impacts previously disclosed in the General Plan EIR.

Operational noise impacts associated with implementation of the General Plan were previously evaluated as part of the General Plan EIR, which identified significant and unavoidable impacts due to the exposure of existing development to future traffic related noise that would exceed the General Plan noise standards and/or would represent a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels. The General Plan EIR notes that compliance with General Plan Goal N-2 (Transportation Noise) would reduce this impact, but not to a level below significant.62 Although the proposed Project would involve the allocation of 94 additional units to the San Joaquin Plaza, implementation of the proposed Project would not result in a net increase in the amount of traffic beyond what was assumed in the General Plan EIR.63
To substantiate this conclusion, future noise conditions for study area roadway segments were calculated based on the Project's Traffic Impact Analysis (Appendix D) to determine whether traffic generated by the Project would cause or contribute to transportation -related noise levels that could exceed the General Plan standards and/or result in a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the Project vicinity above levels existing without the Project. Under existing entitlements, the proposed Project site could be developed with up to 430 multi -family residential units. Accordingly, the analysis presented herein focuses on the Project's proposal to allocate an additional 94 dwelling units to the San Joaquin Plaza (as was done for the Project's traffic study prepared in accordance with the City's TPO; see Appendix D).
62 Ibid, Page 4.9-42.
63 Stantec Consulting Services, 2012. San Joaquin Plaza Trip Generation. May 16, 2012. Available for review at the City of Newport Beach Planning Division; 3300 Newport Boulevard; Newport Beach CA 92663.

NNCPC Development Plan Amendment and Related Actions June 2012 Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach Page 4-52

No
E 1-1 Initial Study and General Plan Program EIR Addendum No. 2 Existing noise contours without the addition of Project traffic are presented in Table 6-1 of the Noise Impact Analysis (Appendix C), while Noise Impact Analysis Table 6-2 presents the existing plus Project traffic noise contours. Table 6-3 of the Noise Impact Analysis presents the year 2016 without Project noise contours, while Table 6-4 presents the year 2016 noise contours with the addition of Project traffic. It should be noted that noise contours presented in the Noise Impact Analysis do not take into consideration the noise reducing effect of any existing noise barriers or topography that may affect ambient or projected noise levels.

Table 7, Existing Off Site Project -Related Traffic Noise Impacts, presents a comparison of the existing conditions noise levels for study area road segments for with and without the addition of Project traffic associated with adding 94 residential dwelling units to San Joaquin Plaza. Table 8, Year 2016 Off Site Project -Related Traffic Noise Impacts, presents a comparison of year 2016 conditions noise levels for study area road segments for with and without the addition of Project traffic.

As previously noted, a significant noise impact occurs when there is a substantial increase in the ambient CNEL produced by new development impacting existing sensitive land uses. According to the significance thresholds specified by Noise Element Policy N 1.8 and shown in Table 7 and Table 8, 72 of the 73 roadway segments within the Project's study area are not expected to be significantly impacted by off -site transportation related noise. According to the noise impact analysis, the Newport Center segment north of San Miguel is the only roadway identified with a potentially significant impact.

However, the land uses neighboring this roadway segment consist primarily of commercial retail and office uses that are not considered existing sensitive uses that would require additional off -site noise mitigation. As such, a significant impact for this roadway segment does not exist for future Year 2016 conditions (as shown in Table 8).

For all of the 73 study area roadway segments, Project -related noise level increases are expected to be less than 1.0 to 3.0 dBA CNEL in year 2016, which is considered "barely perceptible." All noise level increases attributable to Project -related traffic are also below the thresholds established by General Plan Policy N 1.8, or the projected increase would not impact a sensitive receptor. As such, the proposed Project's contributions to off -site roadway noise increases for both existing and year 2016 conditions would not result in the exposure of persons to or result in the generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the General Plan, City Noise Ordinance, or applicable standards of any other agencies. Additionally, Project -related traffic would not result in a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the Project vicinity above levels existing without the Project.

For General Plan buildout conditions, noise level increases attributable to Project -related traffic would be less than the noise level increases presented in Table 8. This is because buildout of the General Plan would result in an overall increase in background traffic volumes, which would thereby result in an increase in background noise levels as compared to year 2016 conditions. As background traffic -related noise levels increase, noise increases attributable to Project traffic would decrease. Therefore, since Project -related noise increases would be less than the values presented in Table 8, Project -related traffic under General Plan buildout conditions would not result in the generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the General Plan, City Noise Ordinance, or applicable standards of any other agencies, nor would it result in a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the Project vicinity above levels existing without the Project.

Based on the analysis presented above, traffic associated with the proposed project would not result in any new significant effects not discussed in the General Plan EIR, nor would Project traffic result in a NNCPC Development Plan Amendment and Related Actions June 2012 Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach Page 4-53

No
■ ❑ Initial Study and General Plan Program EIR Addendum No. 2 Table 7 Existing Off -Site Project -Related Traffic Noise Impacts Roadway
Segment
CNEL at 100 Feet (dBA)
Signifcance
Threshold
dBA
Potential
Significant
Im act72
No
Project
With
Project
Project
Addition
Jamboree
North ofEastbluff

68.8 68.9

0.0 1,0
No
Jamboree
Eastbluffto San Joaquin Hills
69 8
69 8
00 1 0
No
Jamboree
South of San Joaquin Hills

68.0 68.0

0.0 1.0
No
Jamboree
North of Santa Barbara
68 3
68 3
00 1 0
No
Jamboree
South of Santa Barbara

67.8 67.8

0.0 1.0
No
Jamboree
North of Coast Highway
67 5
67 5
00 1 0
No
Jamboree
South of Coast Highway

63.3 63.3

0.0 1.0
No
Santa Cruz
North of San Joaquin Hills

54.5 54.5

0.0 3.0
No
Santa Cruz
Souh of San Joaquin Hills

63.0 63.4

0.4 1.0
No
Santa Cruz
North of San Clemente

62.9 62.9

0.0 1.0
No
Santa Cruz
South of San Clemente
61 9
61 9
00 1 0
No
Santa Cruz
North of Newport CTR

61.7 61.7

0.0 1.0
No
Santa Cruz
South of Newport CTR

58.5 58.5

0.0 2.0
N.o
Newport CTR
West of Newport CTR

60.9 60.9

0.0 1.0
No
Newport CTR
South of Santa Barbara

61.3 61.3

0.0 1..0
No
Newport CTR
North of Santa Barbara

60.6 60.5

0.0 1 .0
No
Newport CTR
South of Santa Cruz

60.2 60.2

0.0 1.0
No
Newport CTR
North of Santa Cruz
59 9
59 9
00 2 0
No
Newport CTR
North of Santa Rosa

60.6 60.5

0.0 1.0
No
Newport CTR
South of Santa Rosa

62.0 62.1

0.0 1.0
No
Newport CTR
North of San Miguel

61.0 62.1

1.1 1.0
Yes
Newport CTR
South of San Miguel

62.7 62.7

0.0 1 ,6
No
Newport CTR
East of Newport CTR

61.9 61.9

0.0 1.0
N.o
Newport CTR
South of Newport CTR (Circle

63.6 63.5

0.0 1.0
No
Newport CTR
North of Coast Highway
642
642
00 1 0
No
Santa Rosa
North of San Joaquin Hills

58.0 58.0

0.0 2.0
No
Santa Rosa
South of San Joaquin Hills
63 8
63 8
00 1 0
No
Santa Rosa
North of Newport CTR

63.0 63.0

0.0 1.0
No
Santa Rosa
South of Newport CTR

60.5 60.5

0.0 1.0
No
Avocado
North of San Miguel
57 0
57 0
00 2 0
No
Avocado
South of San Miguel

62.0 62.0

0.0 1.0
No
Avocado
North of Coast Highway
604
604
00 1 0
No
Macarthur
North of Bonita Canyon

71.1 71.1

0.0 1.0
No
Macarthur
South of Bonita Canyon

70.3 70.3

0.0 1 :0
No
Macarthur
North of San Joaquin Hills
1 70.3
1 70.3

0.0 1.0
No
NNCPC Development Plan Amendment and Related Actions June 2012 Lead Agency, City of Newport Beach Page 4-54

No
■ ❑ Initial Study and General Plan Program EIR Addendum No. 2 Table 7 Existing Off -Site Project -Related Traffic Noise Impacts (Cont'd) Roadway
Segment
CNEL at 100 Feet (dBA)
Signifcance
Threshold
dBA'
Potential
Significant
Impact?
No
Project
With
Project
Project
Addition
Macarthur
South of San Joaquin Hills

68.3 6m

0.0 1.0
No
Macarthur
North of San Miguel
67 9
679
0 0
1 0
No
Macarthur
South of San Miguel

67.0 67.0
0:0

1.0 No
Macarthur
North of Coast Highway

67.0 67.0

0.0 1:0
No
Eastbluff/Ford/Bonita Cyn
West of.Jamboree
63 8
638
0 0
1 0
No
Eastbluff/Ford/Bonita Cyn
East of Jamboree

62.8 62.8

0.0 1.0
No
Eastbluff/Ford/Bonita Cyn
West of Bonita Canyon

62.1 62.2

0.0 1.0
No
Fastbluff/Ford/Bonita Cyn
Fast of Bonita Canyon
67 9
679
0 0
1 0
No
San Joaquin Hills
West of Jamboree

59.3 59.3

0.0 2.0
No
San Joaquin Hills
East. of Jamboree

64.9 65.0

0.0 1.0
No
San Joaquin Hills
West of Santa Cruz
65 9

65.9 0 0
1 0
No
San Joaquin Hills
East of Santa Cruz

63.8 68.9

0.0 1.0
No
San Joaquin Hills
West of Santa Rosa

64.4 64.4

0.0 1.6
No
San Joaquin Hills
Fast of Santa Rosa
65 8
658
0 0
1 0
No
San Joaquin Hills
West of Macarthur

65.7 65.7

0.0 1.0
No
San Joaquin Hills
East of Macarthur

65.6 65.6

0.0 1.0
No
San Clemente
East of Santa Barbara

58.3 58.3

0.1 2.0
No
San Clemente
West of Santa Cruz

58.4 58.5

0.1 2.0
No
Santa Barbara
West of Jamboree

54.0 54.0

0.0 3.0
No
Santa Barbara
East of Jamboree
61 6

61.7 0.0

1.0 No
Santa Barbara
North of San Clemente
61 6
61 6
0 0
1 0
No
Santa Barbara
South of San Clemente
594

59.4 0.0

2.0 No
Santa Barbara
West of Newport. CTR
58 8
588
0 1
2 0
No
Santa Barbara
East of Newport CTR

56.0 56.0

0.0 2.0
No
San Miguel
West of Newport CTR
61 1

61.1 0.0

1.0 No
San Miguel
East of Newport CTR

63.2 63.2

0.0 1.0
No
San Miguel
West of Avacado

64.3 64.3

0.0 1.0
No
San Miguel
East of Avacado

66.0 66.0

0.0 1.0
No
San Miguel
West of Macarthur

65.6 65.6

0.0 1.0
No
San Miguel
Fast of Macarthur
62 9
629
0 0
1 0
No
Coast Highway
West of Jamboree

70.2 70.2

0.0 1.0
No
Coast.Highway
East of Jamboree

69.2 69.2

0.0 1.0
No
Coast Highway
West of Newport CTR
68 9
689
0 0
1 0
No
Coast Highway
Fast of Newport CTR
68 0
680
0 0
1 0
No
Coast Highway
West of Avacado

67.8 67.8

0.0 1.0
No
Coast Highway
East of Avacado

68.1 68.1

0.0 1.0
No
Coast Highway
West of Macarthur

68.1 68.1

0.0 1.0
No
Coast.Highway
East of Macarthur

69.5 1

69.5 0.0

1.0 No
I. Significant noise impact threshold defined by the City of Newport Beach Policy N 1.8.

2. Potential noise impact for existing noise sensitive uses.

NNCPC Development Plan Amendment and Related Actions June 2012 Lead Agency, City of Newport Beach Page 4-55

No
01-1 Initial Study and General Plan Program EIR Addendum No. 2 Table 8 Year 2016 Off -Site Project -Related Traffic Noise Impacts Roadway
Segment
CNEL at 100 Feet (dBA)
Signifcance
Threshold
dBA'
Potential
Significant
Im act?2
No
Project
With
Project
Project
Addition
Jamboree
North of Eastbluff

69.6 69.7

0.0 1.0
No
Jamboree
Eastbluff to San Joaquin Hills

70.5 70.5

0.0 1.0
No
Jamboree
South of.San Joaquin Hills

68.8 68.8

0.0 1.0
No
Jamboree
North of Santa Barbara

69.0 69.0

0.0 1.0
No
Jamboree
South of Santa Barbara

68.6 68.6

0.0 1.0
No
Jamboree
North of Coast Highway

68.3 68.3

0.0 1.0
No
Jamboree
South of Coast Highway
63 6
636
0 0
1 0
No
Santa Cruz
North of SanJoaquin Hills

54.5 54.5

0.0 3.0
No
Santa Cruz:

Souh of San Joaquin Hills

63.1 63.2

0.1 1.0
No
Santa Cruz
North of San Clemente

63.1 63.1

0.0 1.0
No
Santa Cruz
South of San Clemente

62.1 62.2

0.0 1.0
No
Santa Cruz
North of Newport CTR

62.0 62.0

0.0 1.0
No
Santa. Cruz.

South of Newport CTR

58.8 58.8

0.0 2.0
No
Newport CTR
West of Newport CTR
61 1
61 1
00 1 0
No
Newport CTR
South of Santa Barbara
61 4

61.4 0.0

1.0 No
Newport C.TR
North of Santa Barbara

60.8 60.8

0.0 1.0
No
Newport CTR
South of Santa Cruz

60.5 60.5

0.0 1.0
No
Newport CTR
North of Santa Cruz
60 1

60.1 0.0
1:0
No
Newport CTR
North of Santa Rosa
61 1
61 1
0 0
1 0
No
Newport CTR
South of Santa Rosa

62.5 62.5

0.0 1.0
No
Newport .CTR
North of San Miguel
61 3

61.3 0.0

1.0 No
Newport CTR
South of San Miguel

62.8 62.8

0.0 1.0
No
Newport CTR
East of Newport CTR

62.0 62.0

0.0 1:0
No
Newport CTR
South of Newport CTR tCircle

64.0 64.0

0.0 1.0
No
Newport C.TR
North of Coast Highway

64.6 64.6

0.0 1.0
No
Santa Rosa
North of San Joaquin Hills
58 0
580
0 0
2 0
No
Santa Rosa
South of San Joaquin Hills

64.4 64.4

0.0 1.0
No
Santa Rosa
North of Newport CTR

63.7 63.7

0.0 1.0
No
Santa Rosa
South of Newport CTR
61 2

61.2 0.0

1.0 No
Avocado
North of San Miguel

57.8 57.8

0.0 2.0
No
Avocado
South of San Miguel

62.7 62.7

0.0 1.0
No
Avocado
North of Coast Highway
61 2

61.2 0.0

1.0 No
Macarthur
North of Bonita Canyon
71 5
71 5
0 0
1 0
No
Macarthur
ISouth of Bonita Canyon
1 70.9
1 70.9
1 0.0
1 1.0
F:NEo
Macarthur
North .of San Joaquin Hills

70.8 70.8

0.0 1.0
NNCPC Development Plan Amendment and Related Actions June 2012 Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach Page 4-56

No
■ Q Initial Study and General Plan Program EIR Addendum No. 2 Table 8 Year 2016 Off -Site Project -Related Traffic Noise Impacts (Cont'd) Roadway
Segment
CNEL at 100 Feet (dBA)
Signifcance
Threshold
dBA'
Potential
Significant
Im act?2
No
Project
Wth
Project
Project
Addition
Macarthur
South of San Joaquin Hills

68.8 68.8

0.0 1.0
No
Macarthur
North of San Miguel
68 3
683
0 0
10 No
Macarthur
South of San Miguel

67.5 67.6

0.0 1.0
No
Macarthur
North of Coast Highway

67.5 67.6

0.0 1:0
No
Eastbluff/Ford/Bonita Cyn
West of Jamboree

64.0 64.0

0.0 1.0
No
Eastbluff/Ford/Bonita Cyn
East of Jamboree

63.0 63.1

0.0 1.0
No
Fastbluff/Ford/Bonita Cyn
West of Bonita Canyon
624
624
0 0

1.0 No
Eastbluff/Ford/Bonita Cyn
East of Bonita Canyon

68.1 68.1

0.0 1.0
No
San Joaquin Hills
West of Jamboree
594
594
0 0
2 0
No
San Joaquin Hills
East of Jamboree

65.5 65.6

0.0 1.0
No
San Joaquin.Hills
West of Santa Cruz

66.2 66.2

0.0 1.0
No
San Joaquin Hills
East of Santa Cruz

64.2 64.2

0.0 1.0
No
San Joaquin Hills
West of Santa Rosa

64.8 64.8

0.0 1.0
No
San Joaquin Hills
Fast of Santa Rosa
66 0
661
0 0
1:0
No
San Joaquin Hills
West of Macarthur

66.2 66.2

0.0 1.0
No
San Joaquin Hills
Fast of Macarthur
65 7
657
0 0
1 0
No
San Clemente
East of Santa Barbara

58.3 58.3

0.1 2.0
No
San Clemente
West of Santa Cruz

58.4 1 58.5

0.1 2.0
No
Santa Barbara
West of Jamboree

54.4 54.4

0.0 3.0
No
Santa Barbara
East of Jamboree

61.9 61.9

0.0 1.0
No
Santa Barbara
North of San Clemente

61.8 61.8

0.0 1.0
No
Santa Barbara
South of San Clemente

59.8 59.8

0.0 2.0
No
Santa Barbara
West of Newport CTR

59.2 1 59.2

0.0 2.0
No
Santa Barbara
East of Newport CTR

56.5 56.5

0.0 2.0
No
San Miguel
West of Newport CTR

61.8 61.8

0.0 1.0
No
San Miguel
East of Newport CTR

63.8 63.8

0.0 1.0
No
San Miguel
West of Avacado

64.8 64.8

0.0 1.0
No
San Miguel
East of Avacado

66.5 66.5

0.0 1.0
No
San Miguel
West of Macarthur

66.2 66.2

0.0 1.0
No
San Miguel
Fast of Macarthur
63 1
631
0 0
1:0
No
Coast Highway
West of Jamboree

71.0 71.0

0.0 1.0
No
Coast Highway
Fast of Jamboree
70 1
70 1
0 0
1 0
No
Coast Highway
West of Newport CTR

69.8 69.8

0.0 1.0
No
Coast Highway
East of Newport CTR

69.0 69.0

0.0 1.0
No
Coast Highway
West of Avacado

68.9 68.9

0.0 1.0
No
Coast Highway
Fast of Avacado
69 0
690
0 0
1 0
No
Coast Highway
West of Macarthur

68.7 69.0

0.3 1.0
No
Coast.Highway
East of Macarthur

70.4 70.4

0.0 1.0
No
I. Significant noise impact threshold defined by the City of Newport Beach Policy N 1.8.

2. Potential noise impact for existing noise sensitive uses.

NNCPC Development Plan Amendment and Related Actions June 2012 Lead Agency, City of Newport Beach Page 4-57

No
01-1 Initial Study and General Plan Program EIR Addendum No. 2 substantial increase in the severity of any noise impacts previously identified in the General Plan EIR.

Therefore, long-term operation of the proposed Project would not result in any new impacts or increase the severity of a previously identified significant impact as previously analyzed in the General Plan EIR.

Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels The General Plan EIR evaluated the potential for exposure of persons to or the generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels, which were considered significant if they exceeded 72 vibration decibels (VdB). Impacts associated with the exposure of existing residential developments to noise levels in excess of 72 VdB were disclosed in the General Plan EIR as a significant and unavoidable impact, and indicated that mitigation measures for such impacts are not available.

Table 9, Vibration Source Levels for Construction Equipment, presents the typical vibration levels for common types of construction equipment.64 Existing residential uses within close proximity to the proposed Project site include existing single-family residential uses to the west (across Jamboree Road), multi -family uses to the northwest (across Jamboree Road and San Joaquin Hills Road), single-family uses to the northeast (across San Joaquin Hills Road), and immediately south of the proposed Project site (across San Clemente Drive). Of theses existing residential land uses, and based on the values presented in Table 9, only the existing multi -family uses to the south of the site are located in close enough proximity to the Project site (i.e., approximately 90 feet) to be affected by vibration from future Project construction, as the remaining residential uses are located more than 150 feet from the proposed Project site. As shown in Table 9, the existing multi -family land uses located south of the site could be exposed to vibration -related noise levels approaching 77 VdB (which is the vibration level given for large bulldozers at a distance of 75 feet).

Table 9 Vibration Source Levels for Construction Equipment Equipment
oximate VdB
25 Feet
50 Feet
75 Feet
100 Feet
Large Bulldozer
87 81
77 75
Loaded Trucks
86 80
76 74
Jackhammer
79 73
69 67
Small Bulldozer
58 52
48 46
SOURCE: Federal Transit Administration 1995; EIP Associates 2006 Although future construction activities that may occur as a result of the proposed Project have the potential to expose the existing multi -family residential uses to the south to noise levels in excess of 72 VdB, construction activities that would result from implementation of the proposed Project fall within the scope of analysis presented in the General Plan EIR. The addition of up to 94 additional multi -family units on the Project site, in addition to the 430 multi -family units already assumed by the General Plan EIR, would not result in a substantial increase in the amount of construction equipment that would be required, and thus would not result in a substantial increase in vibration -related impacts as presented in the General Plan EIR.

With respect to long-term operating conditions, multi -family residential uses are not associated with the generation of vibration -related noise. As such, a significant impact would not occur. Therefore, implementation of the proposed Project would not result in any new impacts or increase the severity of a previously identified significant impact as previously analyzed in the General Plan EIR. 14 General Plan EIR, Table 4.9-7.

NNCPC Development Plan Amendment and Related Actions June 2012 Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach Page 4-58

No
01-1 Initial Study and General Plan Program EIR Addendum No. 2 A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project
Since no specific development is proposed at this time, it is not possible to calculate noise levels that may be associated with future construction activities at the proposed Project site. However, construction activities that may be associated with future development at the proposed Project site are within the scope of analysis for the General Plan EIR, since the General Plan EIR assumed future construction on the proposed Project site and because the construction of additional units on -site (i.e., 94 multi -family units) would not substantially increase daily noise levels. As concluded in the General Plan EIR, "...existing and future construction noise levels at individual construction sites may not substantially differ, but previously unexposed areas could experience new sources of construction noise.

Both existing and future noise would be exempt from the [Municipal Code] and when construction occurs, impacts would be considered less than significant." 65 Accordingly, since construction activities that may be associated with future construction activities allowed as a result of the proposed Project would be regulated by Municipal Code Section 10.28.040, and because impacts associated with construction activities at the proposed Project site were assumed in the General Plan EIR, construction activities would not result in a substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the Project.

Therefore, construction of the proposed Project would not result in any new impacts or increase the severity of a previously identified significant impact as previously analyzed in the General Plan EIR.

For long-term operating conditions, the General Plan EIR notes the following:

Other sources of noise that occur on a periodic or temporary noise could involve neighborhood or commercial landscape maintenance equipment, street and parking /at maintenance vehicles, loudspeakers, alarm systems, and automobiles and motorcycles with modified exhaust systems. Noise from these uses may be dealt with on a case -by -case basis through enforcement of the City Noise Ordinance provisions.66
The General Plan EIR concludes that such impacts would be less than significant. Operational characteristics that may be associated with future development pursuant to the proposed Project would be within the scope of the analysis provided in the General Plan EIR, since the long-term operation of 94 additional multi -family units on -site (in addition to the 430 multi -family units already allowed by the NNCPC Development Plan) would not result in a substantial increase in the need for landscape maintenance equipment, use of street and parking lot maintenance vehicles, loudspeakers, alarm systems, or automobiles with modified exhaust systems. Moreover, to the extent that the Project would result in an increase in these sources (e.g., increased vehicles with modified exhaust systems), such sources would be addressed through enforcement of the provisions of the City's Noise Ordinance.

Accordingly, long-term operation of the proposed Project would not result in a substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the Project. Therefore, long-term operation of the proposed Project would not result in any new impacts or increase the severity of a previously identified significant impact as previously analyzed in the General Plan EIR.
bs Ibid, Page 4.9-34.
66 Ibid, Page 4.9-35.

NNCPC Development Plan Amendment and Related Actions June 2012 Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach Page 4-59

No
01-1 Initial Study and General Plan Program EIR Addendum No. 2 For a project located within an airport land use plan, or where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, exposure of people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels
According to General Plan EIR Figures 4.9-5 and 4.9-6, and the John Wayne Airport Impact Zones exhibit contained in the AELUP,67 the proposed Project site is subject to airport -related noise levels that are less than 60 dB CNEL. As indicated in the AELUP, areas located outside of the 60 dB CNEL contour are not subject to significant airport -related noise levels.68 Accordingly, the proposed Project would not result in the exposure of people residing or working in the area to excessive airport -related noise levels. Therefore, implementation of the proposed Project would not result in any new impacts or increase the severity of a previously identified significant impact as previously analyzed in the General Plan EIR.

For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, exposure of people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels
As concluded in the General Plan EIR, there are no existing private airstrips within the City or the vicinity of the Project site.69 Accordingly, the proposed Project site would not expose people residing or working in the Project area to excessive noise levels associated with a private airstrip, and a significant impact would not occur. Therefore, implementation of the proposed Project would not result in any new impacts or increase the severity of a previously identified significant impact as previously analyzed in the General Plan EIR.

Level of Significance After Mitigation
The proposed Project is consistent with the findings of the General Plan EIR, which identifies that impacts to noise impacts related to John Wayne Airport and construction activities could be mitigated to a level considered less than significant. Groundborne construction vibrations and long-term exposure to increased noise levels were identified to remain significant and unavoidable.

Additionally, there are no substantial changes to the circumstances under which the Project will be undertaken, and no new information of substantial importance which was not known and could not have been known when the General Plan EIR was certified has since been identified. Therefore, the proposed Project does not meet the standards for a subsequent or supplemental EIR with regards to noise, as provided pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15162.
6' Airport Environs Land Use Plan for John Wayne Airport, Orange County Airport Land Use Commission (April 17, 2008), Appendix D (Impact Zones Map). Available on-line at:
http://www.ocair.com/commissions/aluc/docs/IWA_AELUP-April-17-2008.pdf . Accessed May 17, 2012. 68 Ibid, Page 12.
69 General Plan EIR, Page 4.6-1.

NNCPC Development Plan Amendment and Related Actions June 2012 Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach Page 4-60

No
01-1 Initial Study and General Plan Program EIR Addendum No. 2

4.3.12 Population and Housing
The following thresholds of significance are as set forth in the General Plan EIR, which states:
"For purposes of this EIR, implementation of the proposed project may have a significant adverse impact on biological resources [sic] if it would result in any of the following:
• Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure) • Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere
• Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere"
No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. Population and housing impacts have been previously analyzed as part of the General Plan EIR, which was prepared and certified pursuant to State and City CEQA Guidelines. Minor additions and/or clarifications are needed to make the previous document adequate to cover the actions that are currently proposed, which are documented below and serve as an Addendum to the General Plan EIR.

Summary Analysis
Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure) The Project's proposal to assign 15 un-built multi -family units to the San Joaquin Plaza would not result in an increase in the City's population beyond the projected population for North Newport Center previously evaluated and disclosed as part of the General Plan EIR. The conversion of 79 un-built hotel units to residential units would, however, result in an estimated increase in the City's permanent population by 173 persons (based on a person per household [pph] value of 2.19 cited in the General Plan EIR).70 It should be noted that the increase in the permanent population would be somewhat off- set by the reduction in transient population (i.e., hotel patrons) due to the reduction in the number of hotel units allowed within the City (79 units).

The General Plan EIR disclosed that buildout of the land uses allowed by the General Plan Land Use Plan would result in a future 2030 population of 103,753 persons, while SCAG projected a future 2030 population of only 94,167 persons, or a difference of approximately 9,586 persons. The General Plan EIR identified this increase in the City's population as compared to SCAG's 2030 forecast to be a significant and unavoidable impact of the 2006 General Plan. The future development of residential uses in San Joaquin Plaza as a result of implementing the proposed Project would result in an estimated increase in the City's projected population by 173 persons, which would be in addition to the projected population identified in the General Plan EIR. However, the increase in permanent population attributable to the proposed Project would not represent a substantial increase in the severity of the City's unavoidable cumulative impact to population and housing, considering the proposed Project's population increase of 173 persons would comprise less than two -tenths of one percent (0.17%) of the projected and estimated General Plan buildout population. Therefore, implementation of the proposed Project would not result in any new impacts or substantially increase the severity of a previously identified significant impact as previously analyzed in the General Plan EIR. 70 Ibid, Page 4.10-5
NNCPC Development Plan Amendment and Related Actions June 2012 Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach Page 4-61

No
01-1 Initial Study and General Plan Program EIR Addendum No. 2 Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere
Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere Under existing conditions, the San Joaquin Plaza is developed with commercial office land uses, and does not include any housing units or residents. Accordingly, the proposed Project would not displace substantial numbers of existing housing or people, and would not require the construction of replacement housing elsewhere. Therefore, implementation of the proposed Project would not result in any new impacts or increase the severity of a previously identified significant impact as previously analyzed in the General Plan EIR.

Mitigation Program
No policies were identified in the 2006 General Plan to reduce the substantial increase in growth in the City. Measures were adopted as a mitigation program that minimized impacts associated with resource impacts associated with buildout of the City of Newport Beach, including increases in population and the implementation of future development in the San Joaquin Plaza.

Level of Significance After Mitigation
The proposed Project is consistent with the findings of the General Plan EIR, which identifies that impacts to population and housing would remain significant and unavoidable.

Finding of Consistency with General Plan EIR
Pursuant to Section 15162 of the CEQA Guidelines, the City of Newport Beach has determined, on the basis of substantial evidence in the light of the whole record, that the proposed Project would not involve new significant impacts or a substantial increase in previously identified impacts to population and housing. Additionally, there are no substantial changes to the circumstances under which the Project will be undertaken, and no new information of substantial importance which was not known and could not have been known when the General Plan EIR was certified has since been identified.

Therefore, the proposed Project does not meet the standards for a subsequent or supplemental EIR with regards to population and housing, as provided pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15162.

4.3.13 Public Services
The following thresholds of significance are as set forth in the General Plan EIR, which states:
"For purposes of this EIR, implementation of the proposed project may have a significant adverse impact on [public services] if it would result in any of the following. • Result in substantial adverse environmental impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered fire protection facilities, the need for new or physically altered fire protection facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives • Result in substantial adverse environmental impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered police protection facilities, the need for new or physically altered police protection facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives • Result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered schools, need for new or physically altered schools, the construction of which could cause significant NNCPC Development Plan Amendment and Related Actions June 2012 Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach Page 4-62

No
01-1 Initial Study and General Plan Program EIR Addendum No. 2 environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for schools.
• Result in substantial adverse environmental impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered libraries, the need for new or physically altered libraries, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios or other performance objectives for libraries."
It should be noted that impacts to parks, although included as a public service in Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, are analyzed separately in Section 4.3.14 (Recreation) of this Initial Study/EIR Addendum.

No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. Public service impacts have been previously analyzed as part of the General Plan EIR, which was prepared and certified pursuant to State and City CEQA Guidelines. Minor additions and/or clarifications are needed to make the previous document adequate to cover the actions that are currently proposed, which are documented below and serve as an Addendum to the General Plan EIR.

Summary Analysis
Result in substantial adverse environmental impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered fire protection facilities, the need for new or physically altered fire protection facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives
The proposed Project site is served by Newport Beach Fire Department (NBFD) Fire Station 3, which is located at 868 Santa Barbara Drive and immediately adjacent to the proposed Project site.71 The desired personnel to population ratio for fire protection services is 0.48 firefighters for each 1,000 residents.72 According to this standard, the Project's projected future population increase of 173 persons73 would result in the need for 0.08 new firefighters. However, as stated in the General Plan EIR, "irrespective of the personnel to population ratio, in the NBFD's estimation, the NBFD's current staffing level adequately suits the current needs of the City's residential population."74 In addition, NBFD's desired response time for emergency response (including a three- to four -person engine company) is five minutes for 90 percent of all structure fire calls within the City75. According to General Plan EIR Table 4.1 1-4, Fire Station 3 had a response time of 4 minutes 32 seconds in 2002, which meets the NBFD's five minute standard. It should be noted that given the San Joaquin Plaza's close proximity to Fire Station 3, service times to the proposed Project site would be substantially less than the average response time.

Furthermore, it should be noted that the construction of 1,201 dwelling units within Newport Center was assumed in the General Plan EIR (which assumed 751 units allocated to portions of the Newport Center designated as Multiple Residential [RM] and 450 units allocated to portions designated as MU- 113), and the General Plan EIR also assumed the construction of 79 more hotel units than were actually constructed at Anomaly Number 43 (Marriott Hotel). Thus, the construction of 524 multi -family dwelling units at the San Joaquin Plaza, which includes 445 of the 450 dwelling units allocated to the MU- 71 Ibid, Table 4.1 1-1.
72 Ibid, Page 4.1 1-5.
73 Ibid, Page 4.10-5. Based on a pph value of 2.19.
74 Ibid, Pages 4.1 1-5 and -6
75 Ibid, Page 4.1 1-6.

NNCPC Development Plan Amendment and Related Actions June 2012 Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach Page 4-63

No
■ 1-1 Initial Study and General Plan Program EIR Addendum No. 2 H3 portions of Newport Center and the conversion and transfer of 79 hotel units, would not represent a substantial increase in demand for fire protection services.

Accordingly, and consistent with the findings of the General Plan EIR, the proposed Project would not result in or require the provision of new or physically altered fire protection facilities, or new or physically altered fire protection facilities, the construction of which would result in substantial adverse environmental impacts. Therefore, implementation of the proposed Project would not result in any new impacts or increase the severity of a previously identified significant impact as previously analyzed in the General Plan EIR.

Result in substantial adverse environmental impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered police protection facilities, the need for new or physically altered police protection facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives
As discussed in the analysis of the previous threshold, implementation of the proposed Project could result in an increase in the City's projected permanent population by 173 persons as compared to what was estimated in the General Plan EIR; 76 however, it should be noted that this increase in the estimated permanent population would be partially off -set by a reduction in the City's transient population because the proposed Project also would result in a reduction of 79 hotel units allowed within Newport Center.

Nonetheless, the potential increase in the estimated permanent population would require additional police protection services.

The Newport Beach Police Department (NBPD) has a ratio of 1.7 officers per 1,000 residents77. When and if residential development occurs in San Joaquin Plaza to implement the proposed Project, there would be an estimated 173 person population increase, which would require an additional 0.29 officers to maintain the City's service ratio. Maintaining the NBPD's current ratio of 0.60 non -sworn personnel per sworn officer78 would require the addition of 0.18 non -sworn personnel. Although the General Plan EIR identified that buildout of the General Plan would require new or expanded police facilities, the Project -related demand for 0.29 sworn officers and 0.18 non -sworn officers would not result in or require any new or physically altered police protection facilities beyond what was evaluated and disclosed as part of the General Plan EIR.

Accordingly, the proposed Project would not result in nor require new or physically altered police protection facilities or the need for new or physically altered police protection facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts. Therefore, implementation of the proposed Project would not result in any new impacts or increase the severity of a previously identified significant impact as previously analyzed in the General Plan EIR.

Result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered schools, need for new or physically altered schools, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for schools.

The proposed Project is located within the Newport Mesa Unified School District (NMUSD), and any future school -age children residing in San Joaquin Plaza would attend the Lincoln Elementary School, Corona Del Mar Middle School, or the Corona Del Mar High School should they attend public schools. 76 Ibid, Page 4.10-5. Based on a pph value of 2.19.
77 Ibid, Page 4.1 1-16.
78 Ibid.

NNCPC Development Plan Amendment and Related Actions June 2012 Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach Page 4-64

No
M 1-1 Initial Study and General Plan Program EIR Addendum No. 2 Utilizing the ratios provided in the General Plan EIR, the conversion of 79 hotel rooms to 79 multi- family residential proposed by the Project would result in 35 more students than were assumed in the General Plan EIR (consisting of 17 elementary school students, 9 middle school students, and 9 high school students).79
As indicated in the General Plan EIR, implementation of the General Plan would result in approximately 4,347 total students within NMUSD, which would require the construction of new school facilities.80 However, the General Plan EIR concludes that adherence to policies contained in the General Plan would ensure that impacts related to the provision of new educational facilities would be less than significant. Furthermore, the 35 additional students generated by the proposed Project would not result in the need for additional school facilities beyond those assumed by the General Plan EIR.

Accordingly, demand for school facilities associated with the proposed Project in conjunction with the cumulative demand throughout the entire school district would be consistent with the level of impacts identified and disclosed as part of the General Plan EIR. Therefore, implementation of the proposed Project would not result in any new impacts or increase the severity of a previously identified significant impact as previously analyzed in the General Plan EIR.

Result in substantial adverse environmental impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered libraries, the need for new or physically altered libraries, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios or other performance objectives for libraries."
As concluded in the General Plan EIR, it is increasingly difficult to project the potential need for resources required to adequately serve the future population because the types of resources used at Newport Beach Public Library (NBPL) is changing (i.e., hardcopies vs. electronic documents). "...[I]ncreased development in the City does not necessarily immediately equate to an increase in total volumes or square feet of library space."81 Accordingly, although the proposed Project could result in an increase in the projected future population of the City by 173 persons as compared to what was assumed in the General Plan EIR,82 if and when residential development occurs in San Joaquin Plaza to implement the proposed Project, such population increase would not directly result in the need for new or expanded library facilities that would have a significant effect upon the environment. Therefore, implementation of the proposed Project would not result in any new impacts or increase the severity of a previously identified significant impact as previously analyzed in the General Plan EIR.

Mitigation Program
Policies of the 2006 General Plan were adopted as a mitigation program that minimized impacts associated with buildout of the City of Newport Beach, including increased public service demands associated with the City's projected population, including the implementation of future development in the San Joaquin Plaza.
79 Ibid, Page 4.11-23. The General Plan EIR assumes that the 14,215 dwelling unit increase associated with the General Plan Update would result in 6,230 new students, consisting of 3,115 elementary school students, 1,557 middle school students, and 1,558 high school students. This represents a ratio of 0.219135 elementary students

0.109532 middle school students, and 0.109603 high school students per household. 80 Ibid, Page 4.1 1-23.
81 Ibid, Pages 4.1 1-27 and 4.1 1-28.
12 Ibid, Page 4.10-5. Based on a pph value of 2.19.

NNCPC Development Plan Amendment and Related Actions June 2012 Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach Page 4-65

No
01-1 Initial Study and General Plan Program EIR Addendum No. 2 Level of Significance After Mitigation
The proposed Project is consistent with the findings of the General Plan EIR, which identifies that impacts to public services would be less than significant.

Finding of Consistency with General Plan EIR
Pursuant to Section 15162 of the CEQA Guidelines, the City of Newport Beach has determined, on the basis of substantial evidence in the light of the whole record, that the proposed Project would not involve new significant impacts or a substantial increase in previously identified impacts to public services. Additionally, there are no substantial changes to the circumstances under which the Project will be undertaken, and no new information of substantial importance which was not known and could not have been known when the General Plan EIR was certified has since been identified. Therefore, the proposed Project does not meet the standards for a subsequent or supplemental EIR with regards to public services, as provided pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15162.

4.3.14 Recreation and Open Space
The following thresholds of significance are as set forth in the General Plan EIR, which states:
"For purposes of this EIR, implementation of the proposed project may have a significant adverse impact on parks and recreational facilities if it would result in any of the following:
• Increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated • Include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities that might have an adverse physical effect on the environment
• Result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered government services, need for new or physically altered government facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios or other performance objectives for parks"
No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. Park and recreational facility impacts have been previously analyzed as part of the General Plan EIR, which was prepared and certified pursuant to State and City CEQA Guidelines. Minor additions and/or clarifications are needed to make the previous document adequate to cover the actions that are currently proposed, which are documented below and serve as an Addendum to the General Plan EIR.

NNCPC Development Plan Amendment and Related Actions June 2012 Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach Page 4-66

No
01-1 Initial Study and General Plan Program EIR Addendum No. 2 Summary Analysis
Increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated Include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities that might have an adverse physical effect on the environment
Result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered government services, need for new or physically altered government facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios or other performance objectives for parks
At the time the General Plan EIR was certified (2006), the City had a deficit of approximately 38.8 acres of park and beach acreage citywide. The proposed Project site is located within Service Area 9 (Newport Center), which is identified as having a projected need for 10.9 acres of parkland to serve the future population with buildout of the Service Area. The Service Area contains a total of 19 acres of existing parkland, which represents a surplus of 8.1 acres.83 Based on the standards provided in Municipal Code Section 19.52.040 (Parkland Standard), the City requires five acres of parkland for each 1,000 residents. Implementation of the proposed Project could result in an estimated increase of 173 persons as compared to what was projected by the General Plan.84 If and when residential development is constructed in San Joaquin Plaza to implement the proposed Project, the resulting increase of 173 persons beyond that previously assumed by the General Plan would result in a demand for 0.9 acres of parkland. With implementation of the Project, total demand for parkland within Service Area 9 would increase to 11.8 acres, which would be more than accommodated by the 19 acres of existing parkland within the Service Area.

Although the Project would not result in the need for new or expanded recreational facilities, per the General Plan Open Space policies, a Per -Unit Public Benefit Fee for Parks would be paid for each of the 94 additional units in exchange for vested development rights as stipulated in the Amendment to the Zoning Implementation and Public Benefit Agreement. The in -lieu fees would be used to maintain existing or acquire new parkland within the City.

Accordingly, because there is more than adequate parkland to serve the projected population within Service Area 9, and because a Per -Unit Public Benefit Fee for parks would be required to be paid as an additional public benefit to assist the City in maintaining or expanding parkland within the City should residential development occur in San Joaquin Plaza, the proposed Project would not increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated. Additionally, the proposed Project would not require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities that might have an adverse effect on the environment. The proposed Project also would not result in any substantial adverse physical impacts to the environment associated with the provision of, or need for, new or physically altered government facilities. Therefore, implementation of the proposed Project would not result in any new impacts or increase the severity of a previously identified significant impact as previously analyzed in the General Plan EIR.
83 Ibid, Table 4.12-1 (Parkland Acreages).
84 Ibid, Page 4.10-5. Based on a pph value of 2.19.

NNCPC Development Plan Amendment and Related Actions June 2012 Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach Page 4-67

No
01-1 Initial Study and General Plan Program EIR Addendum No. 2 Mitigation Program
Policies of the 2006 General Plan were adopted as a mitigation program that minimized impacts associated with buildout of the City of Newport Beach, including increases in parkland and the implementation of future development in the San Joaquin Plaza.

Level of Significance After Mitigation
The proposed Project is consistent with the findings of the General Plan EIR, which identifies that impacts to parks and recreational facilities would be less than significant.

Finding of Consistency with General Plan EIR
Pursuant to Section 15162 of the CEQA Guidelines, the City of Newport Beach has determined, on the basis of substantial evidence in the light of the whole record, that the proposed Project would not involve new significant impacts or a substantial increase in previously identified impacts to recreation and open space. Additionally, there are no substantial changes to the circumstances under which the Project will be undertaken, and no new information of substantial importance which was not known and could not have been known when the General Plan EIR was certified has since been identified. Therefore, the proposed Project does not meet the standards for a subsequent or supplemental EIR with regards to recreation and open space, as provided pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15162.

4.3.15 Transportation/Traffic
The following thresholds of significance are as set forth in the General Plan EIR, which states:
"For purposes of this EIR, implementation of the proposed project may have a significant adverse impact on transportation or circulation if it would result in any of the following. • Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e. result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections) • Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways • Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in locations that results in substantial safety risks
• Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)
• Result in inadequate emergency access
• Result in inadequate parking capacity
• Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)"
No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. Transportation impacts have been previously analyzed as part of the General Plan EIR, which was prepared and certified pursuant to State and City CEQA Guidelines. Minor additions and/or clarifications are needed to make the previous document adequate to cover the actions that are currently proposed, which are documented below and serve as an Addendum to the General Plan EIR.

NNCPC Development Plan Amendment and Related Actions June 2012 Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach Page 4-68

No
01-1 Initial Study and General Plan Program EIR Addendum No. 2 Summary Analysis
Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e. result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)
As required by the City of Newport Beach Traffic Phasing Ordinance (TPO), a TPO traffic analysis was prepared for the proposed Project. This study, entitled, North Newport Center San Joaquin Plaza TPO Traffic Analysis, and dated May 2012, is provided as Appendix D. The TPO traffic analysis includes an analysis pursuant to the TPO, a cumulative conditions analysis, and a General Plan analysis. Provided below is a summary of the methodology used in the TPO traffic analysis, an overview of existing conditions for study area intersections, and a summary of the findings for the TPO analysis, cumulative conditions analysis, and General Plan Analysis.

TPO Traffic Analysis Methodology
The proposed Project involves conversion of 79 hotel units to multi -family units, which would then be transferred to the San Joaquin Plaza. The Project also would result in the assignment of 15 un-built and un-assigned units to the San Joaquin Plaza. These 94 units, along with an additional 430 dwelling units already allowed in the MU-H3 portions of the NNCPC, would be allocated specifically to the San Joaquin Plaza. However, since the 430 dwelling units already are allowed within the San Joaquin Plaza, and impacts associated with transportation and traffic associated with such allocation was evaluated as part of the General Plan EIR and Addendum No. I thereto, the analysis of impacts to traffic in this section focuses on impacts associated with the increased development intensity within San Joaquin Plaza (i.e., 94 multi -family units) that would be allowed as a result of the proposed Project.

Based on the scope of the proposed Project, the City's traffic engineers identified a total of 20 intersections requiring analysis, as depicted on Figure 4, TPO Analysis Study Intersections. Existing intersection levels of service were calculated based on existing traffic counts collected in March 2012 and utilizing intersection capacity utilization (ICU) values. The ICU values are a means of presenting the volume to capacity ratios (V/C), with a V/C ratio of .90 representing the upper threshold for an acceptable level of service (LOS D) in the City of Newport Beach. The analysis assumes existing lane configurations and a capacity of 1,600 vehicles per hour (vph) per lane with no clearance factor.

Although no specific development project is proposed at this time, the proposed Project is assumed for purposes of the traffic analysis to be complete in 2015; therefore, the study year is 2016 consistent with the TPO guidelines. An ambient growth rate of 1.0 percent per year was added to the existing volumes along Jamboree Road, MacArthur Boulevard, and Coast Highway. Traffic generated by approved projects in the study area (including the 430 dwelling units currently allocated to the San Joaquin Plaza) were added to the existing -plus -growth peak hour volumes to obtain year 2016 background peak hour volumes for the intersections prior to the addition of Project -generated traffic. Table 10, Approved Projects Summary, summarizes the approved projects included in the analysis.

Trip rates and the resulting ADT for the proposed Project are summarized in Table 11, Trip Generation Summary. These trips were distributed to the surrounding circulation system according to the general distribution shown in Figure 5, General Project Trip Distribution and Project ADT.

Existing -plus -Project peak hour volumes were obtained by adding the Project -generated peak hour trips to the existing peak hour volumes. Similarly, background -plus -Project peak hour volumes were obtained by adding the project -generated peak hour trips to the 2016 background peak hour volumes discussed above.

NNCPC Development Plan Amendment and Related Actions June 2012 Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach Page 4-69

No
O❑ Initial Study and General Plan Program EIR Addenduim No. 2 rigure 4
�C TPO ANALYSIS STUDY INTERSECTIONS
NNCPC Development Plan Amendment and Related Actions June 2012 Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach Page 4-70

No
01-1 Initial Study and General Plan Program EIR Addendum No. 2 Table 10 Approved Projects Summary
Project
Percent Complete
Fashion Island Expansion
40 Temple Bat Yahm Expansion
65 CIOSA— Irvine Project
91 Newport Dunes
0 Hoag Hospital Phase III
0 St. Mark Presbyterian Church
77 OLQA Church Expansion
0 2300 Newport Blvd
0 Newport Executive Court
0 Hoag Health Center
75 North Newport Center
0 Santa Barbara Condo
0 Newport Beach City Hall
0 328 Old Newport Medical Office
0 Coastline Community College
0 Ba view Medical Office
0 Mariner's Pointe
0 4221 Dolphin Striker
0 Source: Stantec Consulting Services, Inc. (May 2012).

Table 11 Trip Generation Summary
Land Use
AM Peak Hour PM -- ak Hour
Amount In Out Total In F—Out Total ADT
Trip Rates
Residential ITE 232
DU .06 .28 .34 .24 .14 .38 4.18
Trip Generation
Residential
94 DU 6 26 32 23 13 36 393
Source: Trip Generation 8
Edition, Institute of Transportation Engineers
NNCPC Development Plan Amendment and Related Actions June 2012 Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach Page 4-71

No
O❑ Initial Study and General Plan Program EIR Addenduim No. 2 rigure o
�C GENERAL PROJECT TRIP DISTRIBUTION AND PROJECT ADT
NNCPC Development Plan Amendment and Related Actions June 2012 Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach Page 4-72

No
01-1 Initial Study and General Plan Program EIR Addendum No. 2 Cumulative traffic volumes were determined based on trip generation and distribution characteristics associated with a list of known but not approved projects compiled by City staff. These cumulative projects are summarized in Table 12, Cumulative Projects Summary. The peak hour cumulative intersection volumes were added to the 2016 background peak hour volumes discussed above, and the proposed Project's peak hour trips were added to the resulting 2016 background -plus -cumulative peak hour volumes.

Table 12 Cumulative Projects Summary
Project-
Amount
Mariner's Medical Arts
Medical Office

12.25 TSF
Banning Ranch
Single Family Detached
423 DU
Condominium/Townhouse
952 DU
Retail

75.00 TSF
Hotel
75 Rm
Sunset Ride Park
Park

13.67 Acre
Marina Park
Marina/Park

10.45 Acre
Koll-Conexant
Apartment
974 DU
Newport Coast TAZ 1 - 4
Single Family Detached
954 DU
Condominium/Townhouse
389 DU
Multi -Family Attached
175 DU
Source: Stantec Consulting Services, Inc. (May 2012).

Existing Conditions
Existing ICU values for the study area intersections are summarized below in Table 13, Existing ICU Summary. As shown in Table 13, all study area intersections operate at an acceptable LOS D or better during the AM and PM peak hours under existing conditions.

Table 13 Existing ICU Summary

1. Jamboree & Ford/E astbl uff
Existing
741C .611B

2. Jamboree & San Joaquin Hills
601A
7018

3. Jamboree & Santa Barbara
441A
571A

4. Jamboree & Coast Hwy
561A
.651B

5. Newport Center & Coast Hwy-
.361A
441A

6. Avocado & Coast Hwy
441A
.501A

7. MacArthur & FordlBonita Canyon
.731C
.821D
S. MacArthur & San Joaquin Hills
65113
.801C

9. MacArthur & San Miguel
531A
441A

10. MacArthur & Coast Hwy
661B
641B

11. Santa Cruz & San Joaquin Hllls
.261A
351A

12. Santa Cruz & San Clemente
141A
251A

13. Santa Cruz & New art Center
.151A
.311A

14. Santa Rosa & San Joaquin Hills
29/A
491A

15. Newport Center & Santa Rosa
121A
.341A

16. Newport Center & San Miguel
141A
321A

17. Avocado & San Mi gueI
311A
.49/A

18. Newport Center & Newport Center
181A
361A

19. Santa Barbara & San Clemente
271A
331A

20. Newport Center & Santa Barbara
121A
211A
Level of service ranges: .00 - .60 A
.61 - .70 B
.71 - .80 C
.81 - .90 ❑
.91 -1.00 F
Above 1.00 F
Source: Stantec Consulting Services, Inc. (May 2012).

NNCPC Development Plan Amendment and Related Actions June 2012 Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach Page 4-73

No
01-1 Initial Study and General Plan Program EIR Addendum No. 2 TPO Analysis Summary
The ICU values for existing -plus -Project conditions are summarized in Table 14, Existing -Plus -Project ICU Summary. The TPO analysis consists of a one percent analysis and an ICU analysis at each study intersection. The one percent analysis compares the proposed project traffic with projected background peak hour volumes. To pass the one percent analysis, peak hour traffic from the proposed Project must be less than one percent of the projected background peak hour traffic on each leg of the intersection. If the proposed project passes the one percent analysis, then the ICU analysis is not required for that intersection and no further analysis is necessary. If the proposed Project does not pass the one percent analysis, then the ICU analysis must be performed for each intersection which fails to pass the one percent test.

Table 14 Existing -Plus -Project ICU Summary

1. Jamboree & ForcVEastbIurf
741C 611B
.741C .611E
Project
00 .00

2. Jamboree & San Joaquin Hills
601A
701E
.601A
70113
00 .00

3. Jamboree & Santa Barbara
441A
571A
.441A
571A
00 .00

4. Jamboree & Coast H
561A
65113
561A
.651E
00 .00

5. Newport Center & Coast H
361A
.441A
.371A
451A
01 .01

6. Avocado & Coast H
441A
501A
441A
501A
00 .00

7. MacArthur & Ford/Bonita Canyon
731C
82JD
731C
821D
00 .00

8. MacArthur & San Joaquin Hills
65/8
.801'C
65113
.801C
00 .00

9. MacArthur & San Miguel
531A
441A
.531A
441A
00 .00

10. MacArthur & Coast H
.66/8
.6418
.6618
.64113
.00
.00

11. Santa Cruz & San Joaquin Hills
261A
361A
.271A
371A
01 .01

12. Santa Cruz & San Clemente
.141A
.251A
.141A
.26/A
.00
.01

13. Santa Cruz & Newport Center
.151A
.311A
.151A
.311A
.00
.00

14. Santa Rosa & San Joaquin Hills
.291A
.491A
.291A
.501A
.00
.01

15. Newport Center & Santa Rosa
.121A
.341A
.121A
.341A
.00
.00

16. Newport Center & San Miguel
141A
.321A
141A
321A
00 .00

17.Avocado & San Miguel
.311A
.491A
.311A
.491A
.00
.00

18. N ewpo rt Center & New po rt Center
181A
.361A
181A
361A
00 .00

19. Santa Barbara & San Clemente
271A
.331A
271A
331A
00 .00

20. N ewpo rt Center & Santa Barbara
121A
.211A
.121A
211A
00 .00
Level of service ranges: .00- .60 A
.61 - .70 B
.71 - .80 C
.81 - .90 D
.91 - 1.00 E
Above 1.00 F
Source: Stantec Consulting Services, Inc. (May 2012).

Table 15, One Percent Traffic Analysis Summary, summarizes the results of the one percent analysis for the proposed Project. As this table indicates, the proposed Project does not pass the one percent analysis at 12 study intersections during the AM or PM peak hour; therefore, an ICU analysis is required and was performed for the 12 intersections that did not pass the one percent test.

Table 16, Year 2016 ICU Summary, summarizes the existing, 2016 background, and 2016 background - plus -project ICU values during the AM and PM peak hours. As indicated in Table 16, each of the study area intersections would operate at LOS D or better during the AM and PM peak hours with the addition of Project traffic. Accordingly, the proposed Project would have no significant direct impact on the study intersections, and no mitigation would be required.

NNCPC Development Plan Amendment and Related Actions June 2012 Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach Page 4-74

No
■ ❑ Initial Study and General Plan Program EIR Addendum No. 2 Table 15 One Percent Traffic Analysis Summary
Less Than I %
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Of Projected 2016
Intersection NE3 S13 EB VVB N13 SB EB W13 Peak Hour Volumes?

1. Jamboree & FordlEastbluff
2016 Projected Peak Hour Volume
1,892
2,207
855
697
2,766
1,891 514
386
Pro ect Peak Hour Tri ps
10 2
0 1
5 7 ❑
2 Yes

2. Jamboree & San Joaquin Hills
2016 Projected Peak Hour Volume
1,406
2,549
395
199
1,644
2,250
143
912
Pro ect Peak Hour Trips
8 2
0 3
6 9
0 1
No
3_ Jamboree & Santa Barbara
2016 Projected Peak Hour Volume
1,528
1,819
60 181
1,481
1,687
81 726
Pro ect Peak Hour Tri ps
2 ❑
0 14
6 1
❑
7 No

4. Jamboree & Coast Hwy
2016 Projected Peak Hour Volume
465
1,243
2,596
1,194
432
1,5199
2,623
2,284
Pro ect Peak Hour Tri ps
0 7
1 1
0 3
4 2
Yes

5. Newport Ctr & Coast Hwy
2016 Projected Peak Hour Volume
0 113
2,188

1.292
0 849
1,704
1,690
Pro' ect Peak Hour Tri ps
0 2
2 2
0 1
1 3
No
S. Avocado & Coast Hydy
2016 Projected Peak Hour Volume
361
191
1,374
1,455
295
603
1 456
1,548
Pro ect Peak Hour Tri ps
0 ❑
4 2
0 0
2 3
Yes

7. MacArthur & FordBonita Cyn
2016 Projected Peak Hour Volume
2 133
3,156
415
2,080
2,773
3,744
425
1,165
Pro ect Peak Hour Tri
4 1
2 0
2 5
2 1
Yes

8. MacArthur & San Joaq uin Hills
2016 Projected Peak Hour Volume
1 493
3,203
509
1,071
1 613
2,811
1 172
728
Pro ect Peak Hour Tri ps
0 1
5 0
0 4
3 1
No

9. MacArthur & San Miguel
2016 Projected Peak Hour Volume
1,554
1,536
330
470
1,125
1,513
1,225
455
Pro ect Peak Hour Trips
0 0
1 0
1 0
0 0
Yes

10. MacArthur & Coast Hwy
2016 Projected Peak Hour Volume
0 1,092
1,653
2,092
0 1,359
1,680
2,028
Pro ect Peak Hour Tri ps
0 1
4 2
0 0
2 4
Yes

11. Santa Cruz & San Joaquin Hills
2016 Projected Peak Hour Volume
118
82 932
399
781
39 783
584
Pro ect Peak Hour Trilps
4 0
5 1
2 0
7 5
No

12. Santa Cruz & San Clemente
2016 Projected Peak Hour Volume
144
360
95 35
577
315
336
102
Pro ect Peak Hour Tri ps
0 3
5 ❑
2 6
3 ❑
No

13. Santa Cruz & N ort Ctr
2016 Projected Peak Hour Volume
60 269
140
178
254
255
280
317
Pro ect Peak Hour Tri ps
0 3
0 ❑
1 ❑
0 1
No

14. Santa Rosa & San Joaquin Hills
2016 Projected Peak Hour Volume
169
132
583
1,015
797
143
789
767
Pro ect Peak Hour Trips
0 0
5 1
❑
❑
3 5
Yes

15. Newport Ctr & Santa Rosa
2016 Projected Peak Hour Volume
204
107
84 400
509
320
270
508
Pro ect Peak Hour Tri ps
0 1
0 ❑
1 ❑
0 ❑
No

16. Newport Ctr & San Miguel
2016 Projected Peak Hour Volume
255
106
39 288
423
298
347
609
Pro ect Peak Hour Trips
0 1
0 ❑
0 ❑
0 1
No

17. Avocado & San Miguel
2016 Projected Peak Hour Volume
381
120
218
1 212
720
321
734
893
Pro ect Peak Hour Tri ps
0 0
1 ❑
0 ❑
0 1
Yes

18. Newport Ctr & Newport Ctr
2016 Projected Peak Hour Volurne
461
24 128
191
428
192
361
472
Pro ect Peak Hour Trips
1 0
2 ❑
1 ❑
1 0
No

19. Santa Barbara & San Clemente
2016 Projected Peak Hour Volume
100
724
0 65
404
278
0 406
Pro ect Peak Hour Tri
1 0
0 6
1 2
0 4
No

20. Newport Ctr & Santa Barbara
2016 Projected Peak Hour Volume
256
146
204
40 281
334
280 148
Pro ect Peak Hour Tri pis
1 1
1 0
1 0
1 0
No
Note:
2316 Projected peak hour volume consists of existin g volume, re ional g rowth, and a pproved projects volume.

Source: Stantec Consulting Services, Inc. (May 2012).

NNCPC Development Plan Amendment and Related Actions June 2012 Lead Agency, City of Newport Beach Page 4-75

No
01-1 Initial Study and General Plan Program EIR Addendum No. 2 Table 16 Year 2016 ICU Summary

2. Jamboree & San Joaquin Hills
Existing
+ Approved
.651E
+ Growth
801C
.651E 80lC
�
.00
M�
.00

3. Jamboree & Santa Barbara
481A
611B
481A
611B
00 00

5. Newport Center & Coast H
.391A
.481A
.391A
.49/A
.00
.01

8. MacArthur & San Joaquin Hills
691B
.861D
69B
.87/a
.00
.01

11. Santa Cruz & San Joa uin Hills
.291A
.381A
.301A
.38/A
.01
.00

12. Santa Cruz & San Clemente
14/A
261A
141A
26/A
.00
.00

13. Santa Cruz & Newport Center
151A
311A
151A
31/A
.00
.00

15. Newport Center & Santa Rosa
151A
401A
151A
40/A
.00
.00
16 Newport Center & San Miguel
151A
341A
151A
341A
.00
.00

18. Newport Center & Newport Center
18/A
381A
181A
381A
.00
.00

19. Santa Barbara & San Clemente
281A
331A
281A
331A
.00
.00

20. Newport Center & Santa Barbara
13/A
22/A
131A
221A
.00
.00
Level of service ranges. .00- .50 A
.61 - .70 B
.71 - .80 C
.81 - .90 D
.91 - 1.00 E
Above 1.00 F
Source: Stantec Consulting Services, Inc. (May 2012).

Cumulative Conditions Analysis
The previously -presented one percent analysis without cumulative volumes represents the worst -case one percent analysis since the addition of cumulative traffic to the background volumes increases the chances of a project passing the one percent analysis. If an intersection passes the one percent analysis prior to the addition of cumulative traffic, then the intersection will pass the one percent analysis with the addition of cumulative traffic and no further analysis is required at that location.

The results of the ICU analysis for cumulative conditions are summarized in Table 17, Cumulative ICU Summary. As indicated in Table 17, all study area intersections would operate at LOS D or better during the AM and PM peak hours. Accordingly, the proposed Project would not result in a cumulatively considerable impact to study area intersections, and no mitigation would be required.

General Plan Analysis
The proposed Project's consistency with the General Plan also was evaluated. San Joaquin Plaza is currently allocated up to 430 multi -family units by the General Plan and NNCPC Development Plan.

The General Plan also allows a total of 79 un-built hotel rooms to General Plan Anomaly 43, and allows 15 multi -family units within the portions of Newport Center that are designated for MU-H3 land uses.

As discussed in Section 2.0, the proposed Project would result in the conversion of the 79 un-built hotel rooms from "hotel rooms" to "multi -family residential units" and the transfer of the converted units to the San Joaquin Plaza. In addition, the proposed Project would assign 15 un-built multi -family residential units to the San Joaquin Plaza.

The peak hour and daily trips generated by 79 multi -family dwelling units would not be greater than the trips generated by 79 hotel rooms.85
85 Stantec Consulting Services, 2012. San Joaquin Plaza Trip Generation. May 16, 2012. Available for review at the City of Newport Beach Planning Division; 3300 Newport Boulevard; Newport Beach CA 92663.

NNCPC Development Plan Amendment and Related Actions June 2012 Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach Page 4-76

No
01-1 Initial Study and General Plan Program EIR Addendum No. 2 Table 17 Cumulative ICU Summary

1. Jamboree & Ford/Eastbluff
Existing + Growth
Approved-
+ Cumulative
.821D 70113
+ Approved
+ Project
.821D
.701E
Project
Increase
.00 .00

2. Jamboree & San Joaquin Hills
681B 8311D
681B
831D
00 .00

3. Jamboree & Santa Barbara
501A
631E
511A
63113
01 .00

4. Jamboree & Coast H
66113
8311D
67113
831D
01 .00

5. Newport Center & Coast H
.421A
531A
421A
.531A
00 .00

6. Avocado & Coast H
.561A
.59fA
561A
.591A
00 .00

7. MacArthur & Ford/Bonita Canyon
781C
8911D
781C
891D
00 .00

8. MacArthur & San Joaquin Hills
711C
890
711C
8911D
00 .00

9. MacArthur & San Miguel
.60/A
501A
601A
.501A
00 .00

10. MacArthur & Coast H
781C
.751C
781C
751C
00 .00

11. Santa Cruz & San Joaquin Hills
.291A
38fA
301A
.391A
01 .01

12. Santa Cruz & San Clemente
.151A
261A
151A
.261A
00 .00

13. Santa Cruz & Newport Center
.161A
321A
16/A
.321A
00 00

14. Santa Rosa & San Joaquin Hills
.351A
541A
351A
.541A
00 .00

15. Newport Center & Santa Rosa
.161A
.401A
.161A
.401A
.00
.00

16. Newport Center & San Miguel
.161A
351A
16/A
.351A
00 .00

17. Avocado & San Miguel
.341A
.551A
341A
.551A
00 .00

18. IN ewpo rt Center & Newport Center
.191A
.381A
191A
.391A
.00
.01

19. Santa Barbara & San Clemente
.281A
.331A
.281A
.331A
.00
.00

20. IN ewport Center & Santa Barbara
.131A
.231A
.131A
.231A
.00
.00
Level of service ranges- 00 - .60 A
61 - .70 B
71 - .80 C
81 - .90 ❑
91 -1.00 E
Above 1.00 F
Source: Stantec Consulting Services, Inc. (May 2012).

Traffic -related impacts associated with buildout of the General Plan were evaluated in the General Plan EIR, which concluded that, with the improvements identified in the General Plan Circulation Element, and without consideration of regional growth, buildout of the General Plan would result in a less than significant impact associated with the projected increase in the number of vehicle trips, volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections compared to existing conditions.86 Because the proposed Project would generate less traffic than was assumed in the General Plan EIR, Project traffic under General Plan buildout conditions would not result in any new significant effects, nor would it substantially increase the severity of any significant effects.

Conclusion
As demonstrated in the above analysis, the proposed Project would not result in any direct or cumulatively significant impacts to study area intersections. In addition, implementation of the proposed Project would result in an increase in the amount of average daily traffic generated within the Newport Center, thereby demonstrating that the proposed Project would be consistent with the assumptions used in the General Plan EIR's analysis of impacts to traffic, which were determined to be less than significant with implementation of the improvements identified in the Circulation Element. Accordingly, the proposed Project would not cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system. Therefore, implementation of the proposed Project would not result in any new impacts or increase the severity of a previously identified significant impact as previously analyzed in the General Plan EIR.
86 General Plan EIR, Page 4.13-32.

NNCPC Development Plan Amendment and Related Actions June 2012 Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach Page 4-77

No
01-1 Initial Study and General Plan Program EIR Addendum No. 2 Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways
The Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) serves as the congestion management agency for Orange County. The OCTA publishes and regularly updates a Congestion Management Program (CMP) for Orange County, which identifies level of service standards and designates regionally significant intersections, highways, and freeways.

The CMP requires that all CMP highway system facilities must maintain a LOS grade of "E" or better.87 Accordingly, a project would have a significant adverse effect on the level of service standards established by the CMP if it would cause or contribute to a LOS below LOS E at any CMP-designated intersection.

The 201 1 CMP identifies the following facilities within the City of Newport Beach as part of the CMP highway system:88

1. Coast Highway (SR-1) throughout the City

2. MacArthur Blvd from Coast Highway to Jamboree

3. Newport Boulevard (SR-55) from north City limit to Coast Highway

4. Jamboree from northern City boundary to MacArthur Boulevard As indicated previously on Figure 4, portions of all of these CMP facilities occur within the study area for the proposed Project's traffic impact analysis, with exception of Newport Boulevard.

As indicated previously in Table 15, the proposed Project contributes less than I % of projected 2016 peak hour volumes to all intersections along Coast Highway, with exception of the intersection of Newport Center Drive and Coast Highway. As indicated in Table 17, this intersection would operate at an LOS A during all study scenarios; therefore, Project traffic would not result in or contribute to the exceedance of a CMP level of service standard for Coast Highway.

As indicated previously in Table 15, the proposed Project contributes less than I % of projected 2016 peak hour volumes to all intersections along MacArthur Boulevard, with exception of the intersection of MacArthur Boulevard and San Joaquin Hills. As indicated in Table 17, this intersection would operate at an LOS D or better during all study scenarios; therefore, Project traffic would not result in or contribute to the exceedance of a CMP level of service standard for MacArthur Boulevard.

As indicated previously in Table 15, the proposed Project contributes less than I % of projected 2016 peak hour volumes to the intersections of Jamboree Boulevard at both Coast Highway and Ford/Eastbluff, but contributes more than 1 % to the intersections with San Joaquin Hills and Santa Barbara. As indicated in Table 17, the intersection of Jamboree at San Joaquin Hills would operate at LOS D or better during all study scenarios, while the intersection of Jamboree at Santa Barbara would operate at LOS B or better during all study scenarios; therefore, Project traffic would not result in or contribute to the exceedance of a CMP level of service standard for MacArthur Boulevard.

Impacts to CMP facilities associated with buildout of the General Plan were evaluated in the General Plan EIR, which concluded that such impacts would be less than significant since all such facilities would 87 Orange County Transportation Authority (2011). 2011 Orange County Congestion Management Program, Page 5.

Available on-line at http://www.octa.net/pdf/201 I-CMP.pdf. Accessed May 18, 2012. 88 Ibid, Figure 2 (201 1 Congestion Management Program Highway System).

NNCPC Development Plan Amendment and Related Actions June 2012 Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach Page 4-78

No
01-1 Initial Study and General Plan Program EIR Addendum No. 2 operate at LOS E or better.89 Because the proposed Project would not cause any new impacts to CMP facilities, and because the General Plan EIR concluded that buildout of the General Plan also would not impact any CMP facilities, the proposed Project would not exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways. Therefore, implementation of the proposed Project would not result in any new impacts or increase the severity of a previously identified significant impact as previously analyzed in the General Plan EIR.

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
As indicated under the discussion and analysis of the AELUP for the JWA in Section 4.3.8, the proposed Project would have no potential to penetrate the FAA FAR Part 77 Obstruction Imaginary Surface. If future buildings proposed in San Joaquin Plaza protrude into the FAA FAR Part 77 notification surface, then notification to the FAA would be required; however, this would not result in a significant impact to air traffic patterns since the buildings would be well below the Part 77 Obstruction Imaginary Surface.

There are no other components of the proposed Project that would have the potential to affect air traffic patterns in a manner that would result in substantial safety risks; accordingly, a significant impact would not occur. Therefore, implementation of the proposed Project would not result in any new impacts or increase the severity of a previously identified significant impact as previously analyzed in the General Plan EIR.

Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)
Implementation of the proposed Project would not result in or require any design features that could pose a significant hazard to the public. The proposed Project site is currently surrounded by fully improved roadways, and would not require any improvements or expansions to the existing roadway network. Future access points serving on -site multi -family residential units would be subject to review by the City's Transportation and Development Services Division for compliance with Municipal Code standards related to intersection safety and traffic control. Accordingly, the proposed Project would have no potential to substantially increase any hazards due to a design feature, such as sharp curves or dangerous intersections.

The proposed Project would consist of increasing the allowable residential development intensity in Newport Center, which is a mixed -use development that includes commercial, office, public facilities, and residential uses under existing conditions. The potential future addition of new multi -family residential units would not represent an incompatible use that could increase safety hazards in the area.

Accordingly, safety impacts would not occur.

Result in inadequate emergency access
The proposed Project would not result in any changes to existing access routes providing emergency services to the Project site or surrounding area. Future applications for development within the San Joaquin Plaza in accordance with the amended NNCPC Development Plan would be subject to review by the NBFD for compliance with Municipal Code Chapter 9.04 (Fire Code), thereby ensuring that 89 General Plan EIR, Page 4.13-42.

NNCPC Development Plan Amendment and Related Actions June 2012 Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach Page 4-79

No
E 1-1 Initial Study and General Plan Program EIR Addendum No. 2 future development provides for adequate emergency access routes. Accordingly, a significant impact would not occur. Therefore, implementation of the proposed Project would not result in any new impacts or increase the severity of a previously identified significant impact as previously analyzed in the General Plan EIR.

Result in inadequate parking capacity
Future plans for development within the San Joaquin Plaza pursuant to the proposed Project would be subject to the parking requirements of the NNCPC, which establishes requirements for off-street parking spaces associated with new development. All future development plans would be required to demonstrate compliance with the requirements of the NNCPC. Accordingly, a significant impact related to inadequate parking capacity would not occur. Therefore, implementation of the proposed Project would not result in any new impacts or increase the severity of a previously identified significant impact as previously analyzed in the General Plan EIR.

Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)
The General Plan incorporates a number of policies related to alternative transportation modes, transportation systems management, and transportation demand management, including the following policies that are applicable to the proposed Project: Policy CE 4.1.4 (Land Use Densities Supporting Public Transit); Policies CE 5.1.1 through CE 5.1.12 (Trail System, Pedestrian Connectivity, Pedestrian Improvements in New Development Projects, Linkages to Citywide Trail System and Neighborhoods, Bikeway System, Bicycle Supporting Facilities, Bicycle Safety, Bicycle Conflicts with Vehicles and Pedestrians, Integrated Bicycle Improvements, Bicycle Trail Signage, School Access, Pedestrian Street Crossings); Policy CE 5.1.16 (Bicycle and Pedestrian Safety); Policy CE 6.1.1 (Traffic Signals); and Policies CE 6.2.1 through CE 6.2.3 (Alternative Transportation Modes, Support Facilities for Alternative Modes, Project Site Design Supporting Alternative Modes). The proposed Project consists of a proposal to assign 15 previously un-built multi -family units to the San Joaquin Plaza, and to convert 79 previously un- built hotel units to residential units which would be transferred to the San Joaquin Plaza portion of the NNCPC. As such, although the Project would not conflict with any of these policies, a review for consistency with alternative transportation policies would be conducted by the City in association with precise development plans (e.g., site plans, building permits, etc.), if and when a specific development proposal for residential use in San Joaquin Plaza is submitted to the City Newport Beach for review and consideration.

The only policy listed above that is directly applicable to the currently proposed Project is Policy CE

4.1.4, which encourages the provision of residential densities that support public transit. The proposed Project would result in an increase in the residential density allowed within the San Joaquin Plaza, and would thereby be consistent with Policy CE 4.1.4.

Accordingly, the proposed Project would not conflict with any adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation, and a significant impact would not occur. Therefore, implementation of the proposed Project would not result in any new impacts or increase the severity of a previously identified significant impact as previously analyzed in the General Plan EIR.

NNCPC Development Plan Amendment and Related Actions June 2012 Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach Page 4-80

No
01-1 Initial Study and General Plan Program EIR Addendum No. 2 Level of Significance After Mitigation
The proposed Project would be consistent with the findings of the General Plan EIR, which identifies that traffic impacts related to intersections, Congestion Management Plan arterials, air traffic patterns, design hazards, emergency access, and parking would be less than significant with mitigation. No feasible mitigation has been identified in the General Plan EIR to reduce impacts to freeway mainlines and ramps; this impact remains significant and unavoidable.

Finding of Consistency with General Plan EIR
Pursuant to Section 15162 of the CEQA Guidelines, the City of Newport Beach has determined, on the basis of substantial evidence in the light of the whole record, that the proposed Project would not involve new significant impacts or a substantial increase in previously identified impacts to transportation and traffic. Additionally, there are no substantial changes to the circumstances under which the Project will be undertaken, and no new information of substantial importance which was not known and could not have been known when the General Plan EIR was certified has since been identified. Therefore, the proposed Project does not meet the standards for a subsequent or supplemental EIR with regards to transportation and traffic, as provided pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15162.

4.3.16 Utilities and Service Systems
The following thresholds of significance are as set forth in the General Plan EIR, which states:
"For purposes of this EIR, implementation of the proposed project may have a significant adverse impact on [utilities and services systems] if it would result in any of the following. • Require or result in the construction and/or expansion of water supply facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts
• Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed
• Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board • Require or result in the construction/expansion of wastewater treatment facilities or recycled water conveyance systems that could cause significant environmental effects • Be served by a landfill with insufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs
• Fail to comply with applicable Federal, State, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste • Require or result in the construction of new energy production and/or transmission facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects • Require or result in the construction of new natural gas production or transmission facilities, the construction of which could cause a significant environmental impact" No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. Utility and service system impacts have been previously analyzed as part of the General Plan EIR, which was prepared and certified pursuant to State and City CEQA Guidelines. Minor additions and/or clarifications are needed to make the previous document adequate to cover the actions that are currently proposed, which are documented below and serve as an Addendum to the General Plan EIR.

NNCPC Development Plan Amendment and Related Actions June 2012 Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach Page 4-81

No
01-1 Initial Study and General Plan Program EIR Addendum No. 2 Summary Analysis
Require or result in the construction and/or expansion of water supply facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts
Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed
The water demand for development in the City of Newport Beach, including development within Newport Center and the NNCPC, is included in the water demand forecasts for the City as identified in the City's 2010 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) and within the planning documents of water districts, authorities, and agencies that directly or indirectly supply and/or manage the City's water supplies, including the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (Metropolitan), the Municipal Water District of Orange County (MWDOC), and the Orange County Water District (OCWD). As such, water demand and supply evaluations conducted by Metropolitan, MWDOC, OCWD, as well as the City of Newport Beach itself are directly applicable to the proposed Project. The General Plan EIR relied on water management plans in effect at the time the General Plan EIR was certified (2006), but because updated information is now available in the form of revised Urban Water Management Plans, that updated information is used as the basis of analysis in this EIR Addendum.

A Water Supply Assessment was prepared for the proposed Project, which is included as Appendix E.

The Assessment determined that increasing the permitted residential development intensity in San Joaquin Plaza would result in an increased water demand of 24.02 acre-feet per year (AFY), which is less than one -tenth of one percent of the City's projected year 2035 total demand of 17,474 AFY (refer to Technical Appendix E for a detailed discussion of the increased water demand that would result from Project implementation). Based on the information contained in the Water Supply Assessment regarding the existing and future availability and reliability of imported water supplies as surmised from the Urban Water Management Plans of Metropolitan (2010), MWDOC (201 1) and the City of Newport Beach (2010), and the OCWD Groundwater Management Plan (2009), there is an availability of sufficient supplies from imported water, local groundwater, and recycled water to service the proposed Project and other existing and projected development in the City of Newport Beach in normal year, single dry year and multiple dry year conditions. Additionally, there has been a trend of per capita water use reduction since 2005 and that trend is expected to continue to reach the City's water usage reduction goal of 202.8 GPCD by year 2020. Accordingly, the proposed Project would not conflict with any adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation, and a significant impact would not occur. Therefore, implementation of the proposed Project would not result in any new impacts or increase the severity of a previously identified significant impact as previously analyzed in the General Plan EIR.

Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board Require or result in the construction/expansion of wastewater treatment facilities or recycled water conveyance systems that could cause significant environmental effects Wastewater Treatment Facilities
The Project Applicant's engineering consultant, RBF Consulting, conducted an analysis of existing localized sewer facilities that would serve the proposed Project site with implementation of the proposed Project. A copy of this analysis is provided as Technical Appendix F. The results of this analysis conclude that the addition of 94 residential units to the San Joaquin Plaza would equate to approximately 15 percent of the most constrained pipe segment capacity within the existing sewer system proximate to the proposed Project. Since the subject segment of the sewer system serves only NNCPC Development Plan Amendment and Related Actions June 2012 Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach Page 4-82

No
E 1-1 Initial Study and General Plan Program EIR Addendum No. 2 the subject site and the existing Orange County Museum of Art, RBF Consulting concludes that there is adequate capacity within the most capacity constrained portion of the existing sewer system in the vicinity of the Project to serve the additional units. Accordingly, implementation of the proposed Project would not require or result in the construction or expansion of any localized sewer conveyance infrastructure, and a significant environmental effect would not occur.

Wastewater generated by the proposed Project would be conveyed via the City of Newport Beach's existing collection system, and would be conveyed via existing pump stations to the OCSD's Plant No. 2 for treatment. Using the wastewater generation rates provided in General Plan EIR Table 4.14-12 for multi -family residential uses, the 79 additional multi -family residential units that would be permitted within the NNCPC (beyond those already assumed by the General Plan EIR) would generate approximately 16,827 gallons of wastewater per day. The 79 hotel units that would no longer be constructed (but that were assumed in the General Plan EIR) would generate 1 1,850 gallons per day.

Therefore, with implementation of the proposed Project, total wastewater generated within the City of Newport Beach's wastewater service area would increase by 4,977 gallons per day as compared to what was assumed in the General Plan EIR.

Treatment Plant No. 2 maintains a design capacity of 276 million gallons per day (mgd), and treated an average flow of 153 mgd as of 2003 (55% of total design capacity).90 As concluded in the General Plan EIR, if "...the entire City's sewage were directed to Treatment Plant No. 2, its average flow would increase to approximately 157 mgd, an increase of 2.8 percent, and the plant would operate at 57 percent of its design capacity."91 With an additional increase of 4,977 gallons per day (or 0.005 mgd), Treatment Plant No. 2 would continue to operate at approximately 57 percent of its design capacity.

Accordingly, and similar to the conclusion reached in the General Plan EIR, because the increase in wastewater generation that would result from implementation of the proposed Project can be accommodated within the existing treatment infrastructure, expansion would not be required. As such, the proposed Project would not require or result in the construction/expansion of wastewater treatment that could cause significant environmental effects.

Wastewater that would be treated by the OCSD would be required to be treated in accordance with federal, state, and regional requirements for water quality prior to being discharged into the Pacific Ocean. The incremental increase in wastewater generated by the proposed Project would not inhibit the ability of the OCSD to achieve required water quality objectives. Accordingly, a significant impact would not occur.

Therefore, implementation of the proposed Project would not result in any new impacts related to wastewater treatment or facilities, or increase the severity of a previously identified significant impact related to wastewater facilities, as compared to what was previously analyzed in the General Plan EIR.

Recycled Water Conveyance Systems
The proposed Project site consists of a fully developed site that contains ornamental landscaping. With implementation of the proposed Project, the amount of area devoted to ornamental landscaping would not change substantially from existing conditions. Accordingly, implementation of the proposed Project would not result in a substantial increase in the demand for recycled water, nor would it require the construction of any new recycled water conveyance systems. Furthermore, and as concluded in the General Plan EIR, if "...expansion or creation of new recycled water infrastructure is necessary, further 90 Ibid, Page 4.14-23.
9' Ibid, Page 4.14-32.

NNCPC Development Plan Amendment and Related Actions June 2012 Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach Page 4-83

No
01-1 Initial Study and General Plan Program EIR Addendum No. 2 environmental review would be required when specific details are known regarding the infrastructure."92 Accordingly, implementation of the proposed Project would not require or result in the construction/expansion of recycled water conveyance systems that could cause significant environmental effects. Therefore, implementation of the proposed Project would not result in any new impacts related to recycled water conveyance infrastructure, or increase the severity of a previously identified significant impact related to recycled water conveyance infrastructure, as compared to what was previously analyzed in the General Plan EIR.

Be served by a landfill with insufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs
Fail to comply with applicable Federal, State, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste Based on the solid waste generation rates presented in General Plan EIR Table 4.14-14 for multi -family residential uses (MFR), the 79 additional units that would be transferred to the San Joaquin Plaza as part of the proposed Project would result in the generation of approximately 506.39 pounds per day of solid waste. The 79 hotel units that would no longer be constructed (but that were assumed in the General Plan EIR) would generate approximately 197.5 pounds per day of solid waste. Therefore, with implementation of the proposed Project, the total amount of solid waste generated within the City of Newport Beach would increase by 308.89 pounds per day as compared to what was assumed in the General Plan EIR.

The analysis contained in the General Plan EIR concluded that buildout under the General Plan would result in a future generation of 21,659.10 tons of solid waste per year, while the remaining capacity of the Frank R. Bowerman Sanitary Landfill (prior to the proposed expansion) was 44.6 million tons.

Furthermore, the solid waste generation rates presented in General Plan EIR do not take into consideration Assembly Bill (AB) 939 mandates to divert a minimum of 50% of solid waste from landfills.93
The projected increase of 308.89 pounds per day associated with the proposed Project, which would represent 0.26% of the City's total daily solid waste generation, would not exceed the planned capacity of any regional landfill facilities on a direct or cumulative basis. Accordingly, a significant direct impact to permitted landfill capacity would not occur with implementation of the proposed Project.

However, buildout under the General Plan, when considered in the context of cumulative development within the region, would incrementally contribute to the ultimate need for new or expanded landfills, which the General Plan EIR identifies as a significant and unavoidable impact. Consistent with the finding of the General Plan EIR, the proposed Project would contribute to this significant and unavoidable impact. However, the increase in solid waste attributable to the proposed Project would not represent a substantial increase in the severity of the City's unavoidable cumulative impact to solid waste, considering the annual increase in solid waste attributable to the proposed Project would represent only

0.00013% of the remaining capacity at the Frank R. Bowerman Sanitary Landfill.

Public Resources Code §40000 et seq. requires that local jurisdictions divert at least 50 percent of all solid waste generated. The City of Newport Beach consistently meets the objective of Public Resources Code §40000 et seq.94 In addition, the proposed Project would be subject to the City's Recycling Service Fee pursuant to Municipal Code Chapter 2.30, which is intended to assist the City in meeting 92 Ibid, Page 4.14-33.
93 Ibid, Page 4.14-44
94 Ibid.

NNCPC Development Plan Amendment and Related Actions June 2012 Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach Page 4-84

No
01-1 Initial Study and General Plan Program EIR Addendum No. 2 the 50 percent diversion objective. Commercial waste haulers within the City are subject to Municipal Code Section 12.63.120 (Recycling Requirement), which states, "No person providing commercial solid waste handling services or conducting a solid waste enterprise shall deposit fifty (50) percent or more of the solid waste collected by the person in the City at any landfill." Furthermore, the proposed Project would be required to comply with Municipal Code Section 20.30.120 (Solid Waste and Recyclable Materials Storage), which mandates that all multi -unit projects with five or more dwelling units "...provide enclosed refuse and recyclable material storage areas with solid roofs." Accordingly, the proposed Project would be fully compliant with all applicable Federal, State, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste, and significant impact would not occur.

Require or result in the construction of new energy production and/or transmission facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects As indicated previously, implementation of the proposed Project would result in a net increase of 79 multi -family residential dwelling units and a net decrease of 79 hotel units within the City, indicating that the proposed Project would result in only a slight incremental increase in the amount of electricity consumed within the City. As indicated in the General Plan EIR, all land uses within the City would be subject to compliance with Title 24 energy efficiency standards. Development within the City also would be subject to General Plan Goal NR 24.1, which requires increased efficiency in private developments. Consistent with the findings of the General Plan EIR, mandatory compliance with current Title 24 energy efficiency standards and adherence to General Plan Goal NR 24.1 would ensure that no impacts related to electricity supply occur with implementation of the proposed Project. Therefore, implementation of the proposed Project would not result in any new impacts or increase the severity of a previously identified significant impact as previously analyzed in the General Plan EIR.

Would the project require or result in the construction of new natural gas production or transmission facilities, the construction of which could cause a significant environmental impact As noted in the General Plan EIR, the Southern California Gas Company (SCGC):
"...declares itself a "reactive" utility and will provide natural gas as customers request its services. SCGC has also indicated that an adequate supply of natural gas is currently available to serve additional development, and that the natural gas level of service provided to the City would not be impaired by buildout under the proposed General Plan Update. Any expansion of service necessitated by implementation of the proposed General Plan Update would be in accordance with SCGC's policies and extension rules on file with the California Public Utilities Commission at the time contractual agreements are made."95 Accordingly, implementation of the proposed Project would not exceed available or planned supplies of natural gas, and new or upgraded natural gas infrastructure would not be needed to serve the proposed Project. Therefore, implementation of the proposed Project would not result in any new impacts or increase the severity of a previously identified significant impact as previously analyzed in the General Plan EIR.
" Ibid, Page 4.14-50.

NNCPC Development Plan Amendment and Related Actions June 2012 Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach Page 4-85

No
01-1 Initial Study and General Plan Program EIR Addendum No. 2 Mitigation Program
Policies of the 2006 General Plan were adopted as a mitigation program that minimized impacts associated with buildout of the City of Newport Beach, including the implementation of future development in the San Joaquin Plaza.

Level of Significance After Mitigation
The proposed Project is consistent with the findings of the General Plan EIR, the General Plan EIR identifies that all utility and service system impacts can be mitigated to a level of, less than significant with the exception of cumulative impacts to landfill capacity; this impact remains significant and unavoidable.

Finding of Consistency with General Plan EIR
Pursuant to Section 15162 of the CEQA Guidelines, the City of Newport Beach has determined, on the basis of substantial evidence in the light of the whole record, that the proposed Project would not involve new significant impacts or a substantial increase in previously identified impacts to utilities and service systems. Additionally, there are no substantial changes to the circumstances under which the Project will be undertaken, and no new information of substantial importance which was not known and could not have been known when the General Plan EIR was certified has since been identified.

Therefore, the proposed Project does not meet the standards for a subsequent or supplemental EIR with regards to utilities and service systems, as provided pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15162.

NNCPC Development Plan Amendment and Related Actions June 2012 Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach Page 4-86

No
01-1 Initial Study and General Plan Program EIR Addendum No. 2

5.0 References
Airport Land Use Commission for Orange County (2008). Airport Environs Land Use Plan for John Wayne Airport. April 17, 2008. (Available on-line at:
http://www.ocair.com/commissions/aluc/docs/IWA_AELUP-April-17-2008.pdf . Accessed May 17, 2012).

Airport Land Use Commission for Orange County (2007). City of Newport Beach: Request for Consideration of Proposed Planned Community Zoning Amendment. November 15, 2007. (Available for review at City of Newport Beach Planning Division; 3300 Newport Boulevard; Newport Beach CA 92663).

California Department of Conservation, 2012. Orange County Important Farmland 2010. (Available on- line at: ftp://ftp.consrv.ca.gov/pub/dlrp/FMMP/pdf/2010/oraIO.pdf . Accessed May 10, 2012.) Citizens for Responsible Equitable Environmental Development v. City of Chula Vista, 197 Cal. App. 4th 327 (2011).

Citizens for Responsible Equitable Environmental Development v. City of San Diego, 196 Cal. App. 411 515 (2011)..

EIP Associates (2006). City of Newport Beach General Plan 2006 Update Draft Environmental Impact Report ("General Plan EIR'). April 21, 2006.
(Available on-line at: http://www.newportbeachca.gov/index.aspx?page=196 . Accessed June 6, 2012).

Federal Emergency Management Agency (2009). FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) No. 06059C0382J. December 3, 2009. (Available on-line at www.fema.gov . Accessed May 16, 2012).

Malcolm Pirnie, Inc. (201 1). City of Newport Beach 2010 Urban Water Management Plan. May 2011. (Available on-line at:
http://www.newportbeachca.gov/Modules/ShowDocument.aspx?documentid=10182 . Accessed June 5, 2012).

National Climate Program Act. 15 U.S.C. § 2901 (2000).

Newport Beach, City of (2012). Newport Beach Municipal Code. As amended through April 10, 2012. (Available for review online at: http://www.codepublishing.com/CA/NewportBeach/ . Accessed June 4, 2012).

Newport Beach, City of (2011). North Newport Center Planned Community Development Plan (and Design Regulations). As amended on May 24, 2011. (Available on-line for review at:
http://www.newportbeachca.gov/PLN/MAP_DOCUMENTS/PC_TEXT/PC_56_North_Newport _Center.pdf. Accessed June 5, 2012).

Newport Beach, City of (2007). Addendum to the City of Newport Beach General Plan 2006 Update Final Program Environmental Impact Report. November 2007. (Available for review at: City of Newport Beach Planning Division; 3300 Newport Boulevard; Newport Beach CA 92663).

NNCPC Development Plan Amendment and Related Actions June 2012 Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach Page 5-1

No
■ 1-1 Initial Study and General Plan Program EIR Addendum No. 2 Newport Beach, City of (2006). City of Newport Beach General Plan ("General Plan'). Adopted July 25, 2006. (Available on-line at: http://www.newportbeachca.gov/index.aspx?page=173 . Accessed June 5, 2012).

Newport Beach Fire Department (2011). City of Newport Beach Emergency Management Plan. (Available On-line at: http://www.newportbeachca.gov/Modules/ShowDocument.aspx?documentid=l 1 179.

Accessed June 5, 2012).

Orange County Transportation Authority (2011). 2011 Orange County Congestion Management Program. (Available on-line at http://www.octa.net/pdf/201 I-CMP.pdf. Accessed May 18, 2012).

RBF Consulting (2012). North Newport Center Assessment of Sewer Capacity Availability Relative to Increased Allocation of Residential Development. May 10, 2012. (Technical Appendix F).

Stantec Consulting Services, Inc. (2012a). North Newport Center San Joaquin Plaza TPO Traffic Analysis.

May 16, 2012. (Technical Appendix D).

Stantec Consulting Services, Inc. (2012b). San Joaquin Plaza — Trip Generation Comparison. May 16, 2012. (Available for review at: City of Newport Beach Planning Division; 3300 Newport Boulevard; Newport Beach CA 92663).

T&B Planning, Inc. (2012). Water Supply Assessment - North Newport Center Planned Community Development Plan Amendment and Related Actions. May 17, 2012. (Technical Appendix E).

Urban Crossroads, Inc. (2012a). North Newport Center Planned Community Air Quality Impact Analysis. May 29, 2012. (Technical Appendix A).

Urban Crossroads, Inc. (2012b). North Newport Center Planned Community Greenhouse Gas Analysis. May 29, 2012. (Technical Appendix B).

Urban Crossroads, Inc. (2012c). North Newport Center Planned Community Noise Impact Analysis. May 29, 2012. (Technical Appendix C).

NNCPC Development Plan Amendment and Related Actions June 2012 Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach Page 5-2

No
01-1 Initial Study and General Plan Program EIR Addendum No. 2

6.0 Persons Contributing to Initial Study and General Plan Program EIR Addendum No. 2 Preparation

6.1 Persons Contributing to Initial Study/Addendum Preparation City of Newport Beach (Lead Agency)
James W. Campbell, Principal Planner, Community Development Department Planning Division Jaime Murillo, Associate Planner, Community Development Department Planning Division T&B Planning, Inc. (Primary CEQA Consultant and Water Supply Assessment Preparer) Tracy Zinn, AICP, Principal
Jeramey Harding, AICP, Project Manager
Urban Crossroads, Inc. (Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, and Noise Technical Consultant-) Haseeb Qureshi, Senior Associate (Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Technical Consultant) Bill Lawson, Principal (Noise Technical Consultant)
Stantec Consulting Services, Inc. (Traffic Engineering Consultant) Joe Foust, PE, Principal
Cathy Lawrence, PE, Transportation Engineer
RBF Consulting (Sewer Capacity Assessment)
John Nagle, PE, Senior Associate/Senior Engineer

6.2 Resumes for Key Personnel
Resumes for the technical consultants responsible for preparing the Initial Study and General Plan Program EIR Addendum No. 2 and/or its associated technical studies are provided on the following pages.

NNCPC Development Plan Amendment and Related Actions June 2012 Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach Page 6-1

.I�
` T RACY Z I N N, AICP
L` I J PRINCIPAL

P L A N N I N G
FPhone:714) 397-4224 E-Mail: tzinnPftlannin
Tracy Zinn, AICP, joined T&B Planning in 1993 and became a Principal in 2006. She is responsible for providing quality control for a majority of the company's environmental documents, as well as preparing and managing specific plans, design guidelines, zoning ordinances, and other planning documents.

Summary of Experience
Proiect Management & Public Meeting Facilitation: Tracy takes a strong leadership role in project team meetings, represents clients at public hearings and workshops, manages coordination efforts among public agencies, and directs a staff of analysts, planners, and technical support personnel. Tracy is often looked to by T&B Planning's staff and clients, as well as government officials, to provide overall project management and bring focus to the task at hand.

Tracy also is highly experienced with leading large project teams and facilitating public meetings. She is respected for keeping projects within budget and on schedule.

Environmental Compliance Documents: Tracy prepares, edits, and directs the preparation of California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) documents and supporting technical studies. Over her career, Tracy has prepared over 100 CEQA documents and has directed the preparation of several hundred technical studies for a wide range of project types, including residential, commercial, and industrial land uses, for both public and private clients. She is respected for preparing environmental documents that are easily understood, accurate, and legally defensible.

Master Planning/Historic Preservation Planning/Permitting: Tracy's working knowledge of local and regional planning issues, design standards, zoning laws, and public policies are invaluable. She has processed hundreds of land use permits and prepared dozens of Specific Plans and zoning ordinances in Southern California, in addition to design guidelines and development standards for a variety of project types. She has also prepared several historic preservation action plans, and roadway corridor plans. Due to her experience in both planning and environmental projects, Tracy can critique a project's feasibility comprehensively, saving her clients' time and money.

Design Guides: Tracy is skilled in assisting communities with managing their eco-tourism and geo-tourism assets. She has directed the preparation of several regional and local Design Guides in established communities as well as Design Guides for Specific Plans and Master Plans for new construction in Southern California. In 2008, she was recognized by the Pennsylvania Chapter of the American Planning Association for her authorship of The Pennsylvania Wilds Design Guide for Community Character Stewardship. The Urban Land Institute endorsed the Design Guide as "one of the best and most comprehensive regional design guides" and the Pennsylvania Department of Conservation and Natural Resources (DCNR) has identified the Design Guide as a model for other regional initiatives.

Certifications
American Institute of Certified Planners (AICP)
Affiliations
American Planning Association
• Green Building Alliance
• Indiana University of Pennsylvania Planning Department Accreditation Committee • Municipality of Murrysville Zoning Hearing Board
• California Association of Environmental Professionals Education
Bachelor of Science — Urban and Regional Planning, Indiana University of Pennsylvania

.I�
` JERAMEY HARDING, AICP
L` I J SENIOR PROJECT MANAGER

P L A N N I N G IF
Phone: (760) 452-2300 E-Mail: iharding�Dtbplannin- com
Jeramey joined T&B Planning in 2002 and provides supervision, oversight, and management of the firm's environmental services in Southern California. He is primarily focused on ensuring project compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Serving as a Senior Project Manager, Jeramey is responsible for managing the production and review of technical studies and leading project teams in the preparation of all forms of CEQA documentation. Jeramey is a results -oriented manager with a record of successful team coordination and leadership.

His problem -solving skills and technical accuracy often exceed the expectations of clients, agencies, and project applicants.

Summary of Experience
Project Management: Jeramey effectively and efficiently manages project teams during the preparation of CEQA documents. He represents clients at public hearings and workshops and manages coordination efforts among public agencies. Jeramey is also experienced with reviewing technical reports for adequacy pursuant to local and state requirements and directs teams of technical experts to ensure projects are completed on -time and on -budget.

Environmental Compliance Documents: Jeramey prepares and edits CEQA documents, including Initial Studies/Environmental Assessments (IS/ES), EIRs, Mitigated Negative Declarations (MNDs), Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Programs (MMRPs), CEQA legal notices, and other environmental documents for residential, commercial, industrial, mixed -use, and public facility projects for both public and private clients. Recent CEQA documents managed by Jeramey include the San Lorenzo Sewer Lift Station EIR in the City of Santa Ana, the Batiquitos Bluffs Residential Project EIR in the City of Encinitas, and the El Sobrante Landfill Expansion Supplemental EIR in the Temescal area of Riverside County. The knowledge and talent that Jeramey brings to each project results in an effective and efficient process and an environmental compliance document that is accurate and defensible.

Visual Quality and Lighting Analysis: Jeramey has prepared several visual quality analyses for projects throughout Southern California. These analyses are often utilized in CEQA documents, such as EIRs, to analyze a proposed project's potential impacts to aesthetics, dark skies, and community character. This analysis addresses topics such as visual quality from surrounding public roadways and lighting issues.

Planning/Entitlement Documentation: In addition to environmental compliance documentation, Jeramey prepares planning reports and processes entitlement permits for new construction. Most often, this work is performed in combination with CEQA compliance documents for the same project. He has prepared Change of Zone, Specific Plan, and General Plan Amendment applications; Specific Plans; Zoning Ordinances; and public notices.

Certifications
American Institute of Certified Planners (AICP)
Affiliations
• California Association of Environmental Professionals (AEP) • American Planning Association (APA)
Building Industry Association (BIA)
Education
Masters in Urban Regional Planning - Eastern Washington University, 2001 Bachelor of Science in Natural Resources Planning - Natural Resources Planning/Humboldt State University, 1999

Ll� Haseeb Qureshi, MES
URBAN
CROSSRO_ns
Senior Associate/ Senior Air Quality &
41 Corporate Park,
Suite300
Climate Change Specialist
Irvine, CA 92606
ph: (949) 660.1994
Since joining Urban Crossroads in June 2004, Mr. Qureshi has worked on a Areas of Expertise
variety of projects, including mobile source (cancer) health risk assessments, Air Quality Analysis/Permitting
air quality impact analyses, and air quality conformity analyses for Dispersion Modeling, Health
transportation improvement projects.

Risk Assessment
Since 2006, Mr. Qureshi has been actively involved in responding to various Air Quality Conformity
Analysis for Interchange
projects needs to address Global Climate Change in their CEQA Documents.

Projects
Mr. Qureshi co-authored an informational newsletter detailing the passage of Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Assembly Bill 32 (AB32) and how it will continue to impact development Evaluation/Inventory
projects.

Climate Action Planning
Mr. Qureshi has a strong technical background in utilizing various air -quality Education
models such as the Urban Emissions Model (URBEMIS), the California Line M.S./Environmental
Science/CSUFBAIEn
ers Source Dispersion Model CALINE-4 , U.S. EPA -approved CAL3QHC, the p ( ) pp
Industrial Source Short Term (ISCST3) Model, and the AMS/EPA Regulatory ntal Analysis &
UC
Model (AERMOD).

Design Irvine
Design/ UC Irvine
Affiliations
At Urban Crossroads, Inc., Mr. Qureshi has participated in hundreds of air American Planning
Association (APA)
quality analyses studies including numerous mobile source and air toxics health risk assessments for various residential, commercial, and industrial Association of Environmental
developments in Orange, Imperial, Kern, Los Angeles, Riverside, San Professionals (AEP)
Bernardino, and San Diego Counties. He is a current member of the Air& Waste Management
American Planning Association (APA), Association of Environmental Association (A&WMA)
Professionals (AEP), and the Air & Waste Management Association Prof. Accomplishments
(A&WMA).

San Diego County Approved
Consultant List —Air Quality
In addition, Mr. Qureshi is an active participant of the South Coast Air Quality Certification -Air Dispersion
Management District, San Diego County, and Orange County Association of Modeling and Risk
Assessment —Lakes
Environmental Professionals working groups that are collaborating to g g p g
Environmental
establish guidance on establishing climate change thresholds for CEQA Certification-AB2588
documents. Mr. Qureshi was also an active participant in the South Coast Air Regulatory Standards —Trinity
Quality Management District's working group on establishing PM2.5 Consultants
significance thresholds for CEQA projects.

Certificate of Completion -
Principles of Ambient Air
Monitoring -California Air
Resources Board
Certificate of Completion -
Planned Communities and
Urban Infill — Urban Land
Institute
Prof. History
Urban Crossroads. Inc.

Sr. Associate /Sr. Air Quality
and Climate Change
Specialist
2007 — Present
Urban Crossroads, Inc.

Air Quality and Climate
Change Specialist
2004 — 2006

Lit Bill Lawson P.E. AICP PTP INCE
URBAN Principal

C RO SSROAOS
Areas of Expertise
Traffic Impact Analyses During his career, Bill Lawson has developed a wide range of expertise that Parking Analysis includes transportation planning, traffic engineering, neighborhood traffic Transportation Planning control, and community noise impact analysis. As a founder of Urban Noise Impact Modeling& Crossroads, Inc. he works with public and private sector clients to provide Analysis planning and engineering consulting expertise. His work efforts focus on the GIS larger more complex technical studies or sensitive projects that increasingly Database Development require coordination with the project legal team, the applicant and the Education decision makers.

MS/1993/Civil &
Environmental Eng./Cal In his current role, Mr. Lawson serves as the contract City Traffic Engineer for Poly, San Luis Obispo Rancho Santa Margarita providing guidance on complex traffic issues and BS/1992/City & Regional presenting policy changes to ensure uniform application of the legal authority Planning/Cal Poly, San Luis provided by the municipal code and the California Vehicle Code.

Obispo
Prof. Registration Mr. Lawson is a Registered Professional Traffic Engineer (#2537), a member P.E. of the American Institute of Certified Planners (AICP), a certified Professional PTP Transportation Planner and an associate member of the Institute of Noise AICP INCE g g ineerin ( Control En INCE). s educational His background includes a Master's
Degree in Civic and Environmental Engineering and a Bachelor's Degree in Affiliations Professional Transportation City and Regional Planning from Cal Poly San Luis Obispo.

Planner (PTP) - Institute of
Transportation Engineers In addition to his transportation expertise, Mr. Lawson is a Certified (ITE) Acoustical Engineer (INCE) and has worked on hundreds of noise studies American Institute of throughout Southern California for both public and private sector clients. His Certified Planners (AICP) work as a noise consultant focuses on helping communities identify and American Planning control noise impacts by developing meaningful solutions to complex noise Association (APA) Issues.

Institute of Noise Control
Engineering (INCE) Mr. Lawson has served as member of the Rancho Santa Margarita Planning Prof. History Advisory Committee, Cityhood executive committee member, and political Urban Crossroads, Inc. action committee chairperson for Cityhood 2000. He previously served on Principal (LARMACoration t i h M R d L e aera Ranch Corporation from through 2002 —Present the p ) f2000 thh g
Senior Associate 2006, serves today as President of the Santa Margarita Water District 2000-2002 (SMWD) Board of Directors and the Ladera Ranch Civic Council (LRCC).

RKJK & Associates, Inc.

Senior Planner
1996 —2000
Planner
1993 —1996

John Nagle, PE
Senior Associate / Senior Engineer
John Nagle has practiced in the field of civil engineering for over Registration:
20 years, and he has extensive experience in planning, designing, 1991, Civil Engineer, CA, 46972
and providing construction support services for major water and 2001, Civil Engineer, NV, 14762
wastewater facilities. He has been responsible for the preparation of 2009, Civil Engineer, UT,
numerous construction plans, specifications and cost estimates for 7214109-2202
water and sewer pipelines, water pumping stations, wastewater lift 2009, Civil Engineer, AZ, 49684
stations, wells, and reservoirs. He has also prepared master plans for both municipal and private -sector clients for potable water, 2001, State Water - Right
sanitary sewer, and recycled water systems. Mr. Nagle has used his Surveyor, NV, 1101
combination of planning and design experience to prepare capital improvement programs, condition assessment studies, engineering Years of Experience: 25
feasibility studies, and connection fee and utility rate studies. The following summarizes Mr. Nagle's specific project experience:

Education:

B.S., 1987, Civil Engineering,
Loyola Marymount University
RELEVANT EXPERIENCE:

M.S., 1996, Civil Engineering,
Rio Vista Valve #2 Vault Modifications (Santa Clarita, CA) Loyola Marymount University
2011 - Project Manager. The Rio Vista Valve #2 (RV-2) is a 72- inch diameter butterfly valve, owned and operated by CLWA, Professional Affiliations:
located on the primary transmission main. CLWA determined that American Society of Civil
after approximately 15 years in service, the valve needed to be Engineers (ASCE)
replaced because the valve seat was damaged and the valve did not Member, American Water Works
fully seal. CLWA also needed to identify the probable cause of the Association
damage to the valve to prevent the damage from reoccurring. RBF Member, American Public Works
conducted a detailed analysis of existing conditions and operational Association
data, including various site investigations and a detailed system Member, National Society of
hydraulic analysis to determine the cause of damage to the valve; Professional Engineers
identified and evaluated project alternatives for replacing the 72- Member, Orange County Water
inch diameter valve, including different types of valves; and Association
recommended facility improvements (e.g. modifications and/or replacement of equipment), as well as operational modifications to ensure that the valve is not damaged again.

LACCD Sewer System Management Plans (Los Angeles, CA)
2010 - Senior Project Engineer for preparation of the Sewer System Management Plans for the Los Angeles Community Colleges District's nine campuses. The State of California recently added legislation to the General Waste Discharge Requirements requiring all wastewater collection system operators (of collection systems greater than one mile) in the form of sanitary sewer order no. 2006- 0003. The studies included condition assessment using Closed - Circuit Television (CCTV) inspection and hydraulic model analysis using computer simulation techniques to ensure capacity for future campus expansion. The CCTV inspections documented the
internal condition of each sewer pipeline televised, and this information was used to develop rehabilitation and replacement W...

CONSULTING
A - Company

John Nagle, PE
Senior Associate / Senior Engineer
plans. Other particulars, such as sewer overflow response plans, legal authority, and chains of communication were also identified to cover the requirements of the order.

Southwest District Pipeline Replacement Projects (Gardena, Hawthorne and Inglewood, CA) - Project Manager for Imperial Highway and Prairie Avenue pipelines. As part of the implementation of Golden State Water Company's capital improvement program, GSWC contracted with RBF to provide professional engineering services for their Southwest District Pipeline Replacement Project. The project includes pipeline replacements in four separate areas. Work completed as part of this project included extensive utility research and field investigation to confirm locations of existing service connections and other appurtenances, preparation of final construction drawings, coordination with the Department of Health Services for utility waivers, and coordination with Caltrans for encroachment permits as required for the temporary closure of connector ramps to I-105.

Recycled Water System Tank Siting Study (Santa Clarita, CA) - Project Manager. The Castaic Lake Water Agency (CLWA) owns a 5.5-acre hillside site where they proposed to construct two projects: 3.5 MG of recycled water storage, and a large array of solar panels. With the solar project moving forward first, CLWA contracted with RBF to prepare a siting study so the land required to construct the tanks could be reserved. RBF considered two alternative tank configurations (1 - 3.5 MG tank; and 2 - 1.75 MG tanks), developed preliminary site and grading plans, and prepared preliminary cost estimates. In addition, RBF coordinated a geotechnical field investigation to determine remedial grading and slope setback requirements.

Whittier Pumping Plant No. 2 Replacement Project (Pico Rivera, CA) - Project Manager. RBF was contracted to provide engineering, surveying, and construction phase services to the Whittier Utility Authority (WUA) for the replacement of its Pumping Plant No. 2, which provides 100% of the potable water supply to WUA's 48,000 customers. Extensive preliminary engineering studies were completed, including: comprehensive hydraulic analyses of the supply and distribution systems; evaluation of pump station operations and control schemes; life -cycle cost analyses for alternative configurations of pumps, primary power, and backup power; project phasing to ensure the existing facility remains in operations throughout construction; and evaluation of remedial soil treatment alternatives to mitigate potential liquefaction to depths of 30 feet below grade. Final design is underway, and upon completion, the new facility will include: an 18.9 MGD Pumping Station (with 17,500 gpm capacity to enable WUA to pump during off-peak periods); two 2.2 MG reservoirs; a new 6,400 s.f. pump building, including office space for operations personnel.

Cook-Riolo Tank and Booster Station (Sacramento County, CA) — QA / QC. This project included design of a 2.75-MG potable prestressed concrete water storage tank and 3,500-gpm booster station.

Orangethorpe Transmission Main (Anaheim/Placentia, CA) 2009 - Project Manager. RBF is providing professional engineering and surveying services to Golden State Water Company for the design and construction of approximately 6,500 LF of 16" DIP pipeline, in the cities of Placentia and Anaheim. This pipeline will provide a connection between GSWC's Placentia and Yorba Linda Service Areas, and will include three pressure regulating stations. The scope of services includes extensive utility research, topographic survey and right-of-way verification, preparation of PS&E's, and traffic control plans. The project also requires coordination with the Orange County Flood Control District for crossing of the Atwood Channel, and coordination with Orange County Transportation Agency for the future grade separation project at Lakeview Avenue.

W...

CONSULTING
A - Company

John Nagle, PE
Senior Associate / Senior Engineer
LVVWD C1244 - Frias 2635 Zone Reservoir and 2745 Zone Pumping Station (Clark County, NV) 2007 to Present - Project Manager. RBF is currently contracted to provide engineering, surveying, and construction phase services to Las Vegas Valley Water District for the design of the Frias 2635 Zone Reservoir and 2745 Zone Pumping Station. The major project elements include: a 30 million gallon (MG) buried, reinforced concrete reservoir; a 53 MGD pumping station (expandable to 106 MGD); pumping station building and buried wetwell (forebay) design; yard piping and valves ranging from 42-inch to 90- inch in diameter; disinfection facilities; associated electrical and instrumentation & control system design; and off -site street improvements on Cactus Avenue. The project required extensive coordination with Clark County, the Bureau of Land Management, the Mountains Edge Master Planned Community, NV Energy, and the Clark County Regional Flood Control District.

SNWA 190-A Horizon Ridge Reservoir Expansion (Henderson, NV) 2003 - 2005 - Project Manager.

RBF Consulting provided engineering services to Southern Nevada Water Authority for the expansion of their existing Horizon Ridge Reservoir Facility. The Project included a 10 MG buried, cast -in -place, reinforced concrete reservoir, and associated inlet, outlet, overflow and drain piping. Other project elements include 42-inch and 60-inch valves and valve vaults, telemetry system modifications, chlorine sampling and washdown system modifications and piping, and all related electrical and instrumentation & control works. RBF also completed a stray current analysis for the site, which is located next to a NV Energy substation.

Northeast Interceptor Gravity Sewer (Las Vegas, NV) 2008 - 2009 — QA / QC Manager. RBF, as a subconsultant, is currently providing preliminary engineering and surveying services to the City of North Las Vegas for the Northeast Interceptor, an influent gravity sewer to the City's Water Reclamation Facility (WRF). The major project elements include extensive research of existing utilities, a Route Study of alignment options from North Las Vegas to the WRF site on Nellis Air Force Base, a hydraulic analysis to determine sewer pipeline size requirements, and an opinion of probable construction costs for each alignment alternative. Aerial topography, surveying, and right-of-way research will be performed for the chosen alignment to produce base maps. The preferred alignment will be further detailed to 30% construction drawings.

SNWA 340I - McCullough Lateral Project (Clark County, NV) 2007 - Deputy Project Manager in charge of reservoirs, cathodic protection, and environmental support. As a subconsultant, RBF provided professional engineering and environmental services for the planning and preliminary design of the McCullough Lateral (MCL) Project in Clark County, Nevada. The MCL Project is a proposed 407 million gallon per day (MGD) water transmission system, which will serve the southerly portion of the Las Vegas Valley. Facilities include a 407 MGD pumping station, a Regulating Reservoir, Rate of Flow Control Stations, and approximately 25 miles of transmission main ranging from 72-inches to 120-inches in diameter. RBF's responsibilities included planning & predesign of the reservoir facilities and cathodic protection analysis and environmental support services for the entire project.

Wigwam / US-95 24-inch 2120 PZ Main and PRV (Henderson, NV) 2008 - 2009 — QA / QC Manager.

RBF Consulting is providing professional engineering and surveying services for the design and construction of 1,700 LF of 24-inch DIP pipeline and a 10,000 gpm PRV Station, which will supply water to the City's 2007 pressure zone. Project elements include: a cut -in 30-inchx24-inch Tee at Wigwam Avenue; construction of 24-inch pipeline beneath a US-95 overpass and across the Pitman Channel to Eastgate Road, while parallel to an active Union Pacific Railroad right-of-way. The construction W...

CONSULTING
A - Company

John Nagle, PE
Senior Associate / Senior Engineer
documents included alternative designs for the PRV station. Extensive agency coordination was required with UPRR, NDOT, NV Energy, Basic Management Incorporated (BMI), and BMI's industrial tenants.

In -State Groundwater Development Project (Clark, Lincoln, White Pine Counties, NV) 2004 - 2005 - Project Manager. RBF provided professional surveying services to the Southern Nevada Water Authority to establish a Geodetic Control Network for the In -State Water Resources Development Project. The project covered an area approximately 250 miles long from Northern Clark County across Lincoln County and extending into White Pine County. The specific project requirements included mobilization of field survey personnel over unfamiliar locations and terrain in order to establish control monuments along the proposed Corridors / Springs by way of GPS Static Surveys. The data was processed, tied and adjusted to the Continuous Operating Reference Station (CORS) monuments. A 17-page Record -of -Survey was prepared and recorded by RBF to memorialize all of the various components of this extensive ground survey. This Geodetic Control Network is being utilized for the current planning and design phases of the SNWA In -State Groundwater Project.

SNWA 340-C Hacienda Pumping Station On -site Improvements (Clark County, NV) 2005 - 2007 - Project Manager. RBF provided engineering services and construction phase assistance to SNWA for this project. Preliminary and final design services included: an expanded plant telephone system; a new compressed air piping system (with nine 3/a-inch service drops located on all three levels of the pumping station); on -site drainage improvements; sub -drain and sump pump installation; grading and soil compaction for a new on -site substation; an 8-foot high perimeter block wall, and on -site retaining walls; property boundary verification; preparation of 22 legal descriptions and exhibits for wall easements and construction easements; technical support for coordination with 11 adjacent property owners and attendance at Town Board and Clark County Planning Commission meetings; and construction phase services.

MacDonald Highlands Potable Water Master Plan Update (Henderson, NV) 2008 - 2009 - QA / QC Manager. The Master Plan Update addresses development changes within MacDonald Highlands since the previously prepared Utility Master Plan. MacDonald Highlands is a Master Planned community consisting of multi -family, and single-family development parcels. RBF developed projections for potable water demands and also completed an extensive analysis of the potable water system and water age with in the master plan development. The WaterCAD software was used to model the on -site distribution system. An extended period simulation was performed to evaluate water age concerns.

The Canyons Utility Master Plan Update (Henderson, NV) 2006 - Project Manager. RBF prepared a comprehensive potable water and sewer master plan update for this 632-acre Master Planned community consisting of commercial, multi -family, and single-family development parcels. RBF developed water and wastewater projections for the development and identified the on -site and off -site utility infrastructure requirements for the development.

The project included extensive analysis of the City's off -site water and wastewater infrastructure.

Hydraulic models were developed for the City's 2630 potable water pressure zone, the Horizon Ridge Parkway Trunk Sewer System, and the Green Valley Parkway Trunk Sewer System. The analyses included research and investigation of undeveloped parcels, development of water and wastewater generation projections, and analysis of multiple development scenarios to determine off -site system capacity constraints. RBF worked with the City of Henderson Department of Utility Services and the Project W...

CONSULTING
A �.. Company

John Nagle, PE
Senior Associate / Senior Engineer
Developer to identify the off -site utility upgrades that would most improve the City's ability to serve this development area.

LVVWD C1106 - Montessouri 2745 Zone Pumping Station Discharge Pipeline (Clark County, NV) 2005 - 2006 - Project Manager. This project for the Las Vegas Valley Water District included: the design of approximately 4,800 LF of 42-inch CML&C welded steel pipe; cut -in of a 42-inch x 42-inch tee connection at the intersection of Buffalo Drive and Badura Avenue; two 42-inch diameter in -line valves and valve vaults; a 4,900 gpm temporary pressure reducing station located on the property of Sierra Vista High School; and all appurtenant facilities. Additional work included: aerial topographic survey; right-of- way coordination; preparation of legal descriptions and exhibits for 14 pipeline and construction easements; corrosion engineering; and scour analyses at drainage channels crossing the pipeline alignment.

LVVWD C1012 - Charleston Heights 2420 Zone Pump Station Discharge Pipeline (Las Vegas, NV) 2002 - 2003 - Project Manager. RBF provided engineering services to Las Vegas Valley Water District for design of approximately 7,000 LF of 20-inch diameter domestic water main. Services included:
preparation of construction drawings, specifications, and cost estimates; coordination with the City of Las Vegas for bore and jack crossing of Decatur Boulevard; scheduling coordination with the Nevada Department of Transportation for a nearby freeway improvement project; and alignment and scheduling coordination to minimize impacts with local businesses, including a regional shopping mall.

LVVWD C1198 - Multi -Site Surge Tank Upgrades (Las Vegas, NV) 2007 - Project Manager. RBF provided professional engineering services to evaluate nine pumping stations at five LVVWD sites (Gowan, Underhill, Rice, Ronzone, and Grand Canyon). RBF's Team conducted a pressure surge analysis of each pumping station and provided recommendations for required improvements to convert from manual to automated surge control systems. Included in the scope of services were site visits, review of record and shop drawings to verify the accuracy of existing information, and review and verification of LVVWD's hydraulic model data, which was used in the surge analysis.

R-28 Reservoir, P-27 Pumping Station and PRV Stations 123, 124, and 125 (Henderson, NV) 2009 - Project Manager. RBF provided professional engineering, surveying, mapping, and construction phase services for the design of a potable water pumping station, reservoir, and associated inlet/outlet transmission main to serve the 2760 and 2630 Pressure Zones within Planning Areas 13 and 20 in MacDonald Highlands, in the City of Henderson. The project elements include: a 600,000-gallon prestressed concrete reservoir; a 24 ft x 50 ft pump building; disinfection facilities; installation of a mechanical mixing system and automated sampling system in the existing R-27 Reservoir; three pressure reducing stations; and 2,600 LF of 16-inch DIP inlet outlet pipeline; and hillside grading for the reservoir site and access road.

LVVWD Pipeline Failure Analysis and Root Cause Training (Las Vegas, NV) 2005 - 2008 - Project Manager. RBF provided consulting services to Las Vegas Valley Water District to develop a Pipeline Failure Root Cause Training Program, and conduct training sessions for the District's Distribution System staff. In addition to developing the training program, other services included:

Forensic engineering services on an "as -requested" basis. These services included field investigations of pipeline failures, collection and testing of pipe material and soil samples, preparation of field investigation reports, and the preparation of an annual summary report.

W...

CONSULTING
A - Company

John Nagle, PE
Senior Associate / Senior Engineer
Conducting a pressure monitoring study on portions of the District's distribution system. The purpose of the study was to investigate whether there is a correlation between cyclical pressure transients and asbestos cement (AC) pipeline failures.

Coastal Water Project (Monterey County, CA) 2007 - Project Engineer. Mr. Nagle performed alignment studies and extensive analysis of potential alternative alignments for 24 miles of pipeline in connection with the CWP. The overall project consists of a 10 million -gallon per day Desalination Plant near the Moss Landing Power Plant, conveyance pipelines, Aquifer Storage and Recovery facilities, and related facilities. This $200 million project will include two booster stations, 24 miles of pipelines, and two reservoirs. A significant portion of the 36-inch diameter conveyance pipeline will be constructed along the former Southern Pacific Railroad alignment that was acquired by the Transportation Agency for Monterey County (TAMC).

WS-1 and WS-2 Wellhead Improvements (Apex, NV) 2005 - Project Manager. RBF provided professional civil and electrical engineering services for the equipping of two raw water/fire flow supply wells (WS-1 and WS-2) and Duke Energy facility near Apex, Nevada. This project included an analysis of different alternatives of equipping the wells to meet project objectives, including the use of variable frequency drive motors versus motor operated control valves. The project also includes the design of the pump controls and instrumentation.

Ivanpah Airport Utility Planning Study (Primm, NV) 2006 - Project Manager. RBF, as a subconsultant, provided utility planning and right-of-way investigation services to the Clark County Department of Aviation, for the proposed Ivanpah Valley Airport (IVP) near Primm, Nevada. RBF's Water Resources Department identified the IVP infrastructure requirements for potable water supply and transmission, wastewater collection and treatment, recycled water, and jet fuel delivery systems for this site. Planning for the requisite wet utility infrastructure required incorporating data from and basing calculations upon IVP activity projections summarized in the 2004 Conceptual Airport Layout Plan Validation Report. Local agency facility planning projections and recommendations, as well as national existing airport activity, utility and facility capacity requirement research all provided the framework for RBF's design.

Comprehensive services were provided for right-of-way research to determine facility easement requirements, capital cost estimates, and development of a facility implementation plan. Extensive communication and coordination efforts were required with local agencies (including the Southern Nevada Water Authority, Las Vegas Valley Water District, Clark County Department of Aviation, Clark County Water Reclamation District, NV Energy, and Kinder Morgan).

EM-21 Turnout Facility and 1305 Zone Pipeline Improvements (Temecula, CA) 2006 - 2008 - Project Manager. RBF provided professional engineering and surveying services to the Rancho California Water District for construction of a new 80 cfs turnout facility from San Diego Pipeline No. 6 - a Metropolitan Water District of Southern California facility. As part of the turnout facility design, RBF provided electrical and instrumentation design, structural design, surge analysis, and operational evaluation. The project also included the conversion of 31,000 LF of existing 48" diameter raw water supply pipeline to a potable water transmission main, abandonment of RCWD's existing EM-19 Turnout Facility, design of 6,300 LF of new 48" diameter transmission main in Ynez Road, 1,400 LF of 36" transmission main in Butterfield Stage Road, and 1,500 LF of 24" transmission main in Margarita Road and La Paz Roads.

W...

CONSULTING
A - Company

John Nagle, PE
Senior Associate / Senior Engineer
EM-20 Turnout and Transmission Main (Riverside County, CA) 1999 - Project Engineer. Design engineering services for approximately 20,000 lineal feet of 54-inch diameter welded steel pipeline and 100-cfs turnout from MWD aqueduct. The project will supplement its treated imported water supply by bringing an additional 100-cfs capacity to its service area in southwestern Riverside County.

El Segundo Mitigation Monitoring Program (El Segundo, CA) 1995 - 2000 - Project Manager. RBF provided professional consulting services for the City of El Segundo's Mitigation Monitoring Program of the City of Los Angeles' Hyperion Wastewater Treatment Plant to full secondary treatment. During this project, RBF's duties included: 1) Coordinating and moderating a monthly community meeting between Hyperion staff and neighboring residents; 2) Maintaining a 24-hour "hotline" to receive, document, and respond to complaints related to odor, light, and noise impacts during Hyperion Secondary Treatment Expansion Project; 3) Periodic site visits to monitor mitigation measures implemented at the Hyperion WWTP, including conducting complaint follow-up with Hyperion staff.

Sea Launch Home Port Facility - Sewer Rehabilitation (Port of Long Beach, CA) 1998 - Project Manager. RBF provided professional design and construction inspection services to The Austin Company, the design/build contractor for the project site owned by the Boeing Company. The project included rehabilitation of the on -site gravity sewer collection system consisting of the following: closed circuit television inspection of sewer pipelines; verification of sewer hydraulic capacity; on -site pipeline rehabilitation using cured -in -place pipe (CIPP) lining system -- 950 linear feet of 6-inch, 400 linear feet of 8-inch, 900 linear feet of 12-inch, 350 linear feet of 15-inch; replacement of 500 linear feet of sewer 12- inch sewer beneath pier; replacement of ship -to -shore sewer connections; on -site manhole rehabilitation using air -placed concrete and polyurethane lining system; and construction inspection services.

El Dorado Colonia Sanitary Sewer System Improvements (El Centro, CA) 1998 - 2000 - Project Manager. RBF provided professional engineering services for the conversion of homes in El Dorado Colonia from private septic tank systems to the City's public sewer collection system. The project included the construction of approximately 15,000 LF of 8-inch sanitary sewer and the extension of sewer laterals to approximately 200 residential parcels. The work for this project included utility research and the preparation of digital base maps by compiling survey data from the County of Imperial. RBF also provided professional surveying services to provide topographic data for areas not covered by the County survey and to verify the County survey data. The project also required extensive coordination with the Imperial Irrigation District and the California Department of Transportation.

El Dorado Colonia Potable Water System Improvements (El Centro, CA) 1997 - Project Manager.

RBF provided professional engineering and surveying services under the Corps of Engineers 219 Program.

The work for this project included preparation of digital base maps by compiling survey data from the County of Imperial. RBF also provided professional surveying services to provide topographic data for areas not covered by the County survey and to verify the County survey data. The project included the construction of 8-inch, 10-inch and 12-inch potable water distribution system and the installation of water meters, and the extension of service laterals to residential parcels. The project also required extensive coordination with the Imperial Irrigation District and the California Department of Transportation.

Arcadia and Sierra Madre Water Infrastructure Restoration Special Study and Final Design (Arcadia and Sierra Madre, CA) 1997 - Project Manager. Final design engineering services (PS&E) for water infrastructure restoration for the cities of Arcadia and Sierra Madre that included the following: 4.3 MG reservoir seismic rehabilitation; 1.2 MG reservoir demolition and reconstruction; new 2000 gpm well; three new 8-inch pressure reducing stations; a water system inter -tie between cities (incl. 12-inch pipeline); W...

CONSULTING
A - Company

John Nagle, PE
Senior Associate / Senior Engineer
new 8-inch pipeline; conversion of a standby engine from natural gas engine to diesel fuel at an existing pumping station; and emergency electrical generator backup power performance specifications for sewer pumping station sites. A seismic vulnerability and earthquake safety evaluation for the entire water delivery system was performed, which included pipelines, valves, pump stations, emergency generators, and reservoirs.

Dyer Road Surge Analysis (Santa Ana, CA) 2000 - Project Engineer. The Dyer Road Well Field (DRWF) provides one of the two major sources of supply of potable water to the Irvine Ranch Water District's (IRWD) Zone I Central System. RBF performed a surge analysis for the Dyer Road Well Field and the Zone 1 Central System. The surge analysis modeled three flow scenarios for both year 2000 and year 2025 demands for a total of six different runs, and considered the implementation of future District projects, such was the Deep Aquifer Treatment System (DATS) project. These six runs used pump curve data from IRWD and correlated it with the District's WaterCAD model to determine the flow provided by the well field. The surge analysis showed that surge protection will definitely be required for year 2025 demands with addition of the DATS project.

Santa Margarita Water District South County Pipeline (Orange County, CA) - Project Engineer. RBF prepared a detailed analysis of alignment alternatives for the Santa Margarita Water District's South County Pipeline Project. The analysis considered over 30 alternative alignments for a regional water transmission main, and evaluated the environmental, traffic, and institutional impacts to the City of Mission Viejo. Provided overall master planning, environmental documentation, permit processing, and design of this large -diameter pipeline project. RBF prepared plans and specifications, provided construction staking and management for a major portion of this project, including over 13 miles of 66-inch diameter pipeline, five service connections, five flow facilities, and a regulating reservoir. RBF received the 1990 California Council of Civil Engineers and Land Surveyors Grand Award of Excellence for the outstanding design and coordination efforts on the 100 million dollar construction project.

Lake Mead Drive Raw Water Transmission Main (Henderson, NV) 2003 - Project Manager. RBF provided professional engineering, surveying, and mapping services for approximately 4,000 LF of 16-inch ductile iron pipeline constructed along Lake Mead Drive in Henderson, Nevada. The purpose of the project is to provide additional raw water transmission capacity to the Lake Las Vegas development from the City of Henderson's connection to the BMI pipeline. This project also included the design of metering facilities, pressure relief facilities, and a technical drainage study update for the extension of existing culvert crossings at Lake Mead Drive. In addition, the project required extensive coordination with the City of Henderson and NDOT for construction permitting along Lake Mead Drive.

Lake Las Vegas Raw Water System Modifications (Henderson, NV) 2003 - Project Manager. RBF provided professional engineering, surveying, and mapping services for the design of approximately 3,900 LF of 16-inch and 20-inch raw water pipelines. The facilities are intended to increase the transmission capacity of the existing raw water delivery system, which provides irrigation and lake fill water to the Lake Las Vegas development. Also included in this project is the relocation of the Southshore R-1 pressure reducing station. RBF is responsible for the design of valving, piping and associated equipment for a new pressure reducing station, as well as the abandonment of the existing facility. Legal descriptions and exhibits for two municipal utility easements were also required for this project.

Brooks Avenue Waterline Replacement (North Las Vegas, NV) 2001 - Project Manager. RBF provided professional civil engineering services for the relocation of approximately 1,600 LF of cement mortar -lined W...

CONSULTING
A - Company

John Nagle, PE
Senior Associate / Senior Engineer
and coated steel water main. The project required close coordination with City engineering department and operations staff to determine the best method for isolating the portion to be relocated, while maintaining the integrity of the existing connections and protecting an adjacent 36-inch City transmission pipeline.

Preston Waterline Replacement (Ione, CA) 2001 - Project Manager. Design engineering services to the State of California, Project Management Branch for approximately 16,500 LF of 10-inch pipeline and pressure reducing station. Project responsibilities included coordination with multiple landowners for easements, resolution of conflicting record surveys, and coordination with numerous agencies, including Caltrans, the City of lone, the County of Amador, and the Amador Water Agency.

Wastewater Utility Rate Study (El Centro, CA) 1997 - Project Engineer. RBF prepared a 5-Year Wastewater Utility Rate Study for the City of El Centro. This analysis included a review of the City's operating, administrative, and debt service costs. A final rate program was developed which implemented by the City, thereby enabling the City to proceed with their proposed five year Capital Improvement Program. RBF worked closely with City's engineering and administrative staff in developing the rate study and prepared the final presentation to City Council.

Steel Tank Retrofit and Seismic Stability (Irvine, CA) - Project Manager. Analysis and design of seismic retrofit for three of the District's flat -bottom, welded steel tanks ranging from 2.5 mg to 15.0 mg capacity. The tanks include: Zone 1 - 15.0 mg domestic reservoir; Zone 4 - 2.5 mg domestic reservoir; and Zone 8 - 2.5 mg domestic reservoir. The reservoirs were originally constructed between 1983 and 1985.

RBF's scope of work included: review of available record information, field verification of existing reservoir elements (such as tank dimensions, shell and floor thicknesses), comparison of original design criteria to current seismic design parameters, geotechnical investigation, preparation of a preliminary design report summarizing seismic retrofit recommendations, and contract documents, including construction drawings and a project manual, for the seismic retrofit of all three tanks.

Santa Margarita Water District Master Planning (Orange County, CA) - Project Engineer. Mr. Nagle has prepared numerous Plan Of Works Reports for several communities within the Santa Margarita Water District, including Rancho Santa Margarita, Coto de Caza, Rancho Trabuco, portions of Mission Viejo, and Talega. The Plans of Works included development of water and wastewater planning criteria for both residential and commercial land uses, hydraulic analyses and computer modeling of both water and sewer systems, and development of capital improvement plans and facility financing programs.

Santa Margarita Water District (Talega Development Wastewater Collection and Treatment Alternatives Study) (Orange County, CA) - Project Engineer. This Study evaluated the feasibility of an on -site wastewater treatment and reclamation facility versus the conveyance of wastewater to an off -site regional facility for treatment and disposal. The project included a cost benefit analysis for each alternative.

Santa Margarita Water District, Industrial Waste Discharge Permit Review (Orange County, CA) 1987 -1992 - Project Engineer. RBF provided Industrial Wastewater Engineering services for the Santa Margarita Water District, and developed the Industrial Wastewater Discharges Regulations for the District.

RBF reviewed all industrial permit applications for regulatory compliance, evaluated the industrial treatment process, and made recommendations for permit conditions and monitoring. The industrial wastewater treatment permits analyzed by RBF have included laboratory facilities, research and development facilities, manufacturing, and plating, among other industrial applications.

W...

CONSULTING
A - Company

John Nagle, PE
Senior Associate / Senior Engineer
County of Orange, James Musick Facility Expansion Sewer Capacity Analysis (Orange County, CA) - Project Engineer. This preliminary hydraulic analysis for the County of Orange determined the available capacity in the existing Irvine Ranch Water District (IRWD) sewage collection system. The analysis included verification of existing IRWD facilities, estimating current and ultimate wastewater generation tributary to the IRWD system, and development of phasing criteria for the Musick Facility expansion.

Rancho California Water District Water Facilities Master Plan (Riverside County, CA) - Project Engineer. The Master Plan, for 100,000-acre service area, included detailed land use and population inventory and projections, development of water use factors, development of a hydraulic model and analysis of the RCWD's 19 different pressure zones. The Master Plan also identified proposed capital improvements and funding requirements.

Santa Margarita Water District, Bond Issue Reallocations (Orange County, CA) - Project Engineer.

RBF prepared a reallocation report for $360 Million in general obligation bonds for the Santa Margarita Water District. This analysis included verifying actual construction costs for existing water and wastewater facilities and verifying the funding capacity for remaining capital improvement projects.

Jack Rabbit Trail Specific Plan (Beaumont, CA) - Project Engineer. Prepared opportunity and constraints study and subsequent master plan for water, wastewater, and reclaimed water facilities required to service the proposed Jack Rabbit Trail Project. The Project consists of approximately 1,500 dwelling units. The preliminary alignments and sizes of all onsite and offsite water, sewer, and reclaimed water facilities were identified in a report for incorporation into the Specific Plan document.

Catellus Development - Hilarides Development Water and Sewer Master Plan (Chino Hills, CA) - Project Engineer. This study determined the water and sewer facilities required for a remote 300-unit residential development in the City of Chino Hills. RBF was responsible for identifying not only on -site collection facilities, but off -site needs as well. The investigation resulted in alternative off -site collection scenarios, including up to one -and -one-half miles of sewer; these scenarios were developed from extensive research of record drawings, existing sewers, and discussions with City Staff.

City of Douglas Water Master Plan (Douglas, AZ) 1996 - Project Engineer. RBF prepared a Water System Master Plan for the City of Douglas, Arizona. This Master Plan evaluated the existing water supply and distribution systems at the existing and ultimate conditions, identified areas of deficiency, recommended proposed capital improvements, and developed a phased implementation program.

W...

CONSULTING
A - Company

John Nagle, PE
Senior Associate / Senior Engineer
Poe Colonia (Imperial County, CA) 1998 - Project Manager. Under the Corps 219 program, RBF prepared an analysis of wastewater collection, treatment and disposal alternatives for the Poe Colonia, a low-income residential community in Imperial County. The Project included an evaluation of onsite treatment methods, such as package plants and stabilization ponds, versus exporting the sewage to the City of Brawley. Specific tasks included wastewater flow projections, preliminary facility layouts, evaluation of regulatory and institutional issues, and preparation of cost estimates.

University of California, Irvine Utilities Master Plan (Orange County, CA) - Project Manager. This study entailed extensive research to develop a map of existing UCI onsite water, reclaimed water, and wastewater facilities. RBF was responsible for the computer analysis, using the EPANET software for the existing and proposed water and reclaimed water distribution systems. The Master Plan included a summary report of findings and recommendations.

Santa Margarita Water District, Debt Service Allocations (Orange County, CA) 1987 - 1994 - Project Engineer. RBF prepared annual debt service analysis and allocation reports for the Santa Margarita Water District's (SMWD) active general obligation bond issues. The studies identified the capital costs, operation and maintenance costs and developed the corresponding facility charges and rate fees for each of the eight Improvement Districts that comprise SMWD. The charges were based on a detailed assessment of the facilities related to each Improvement District and formulated a prorata capacity, where facilities common to more than one Improvement District are applicable.

Rancho California Water District Capital Improvement Program (Riverside County, CA) 1990 - Project Engineer. RBF conducted a comprehensive analysis and prepared a capital improvement program for $350 million in facility requirements. Costs were allocated between developed and undeveloped properties. The study also evaluated capital replacement and allocations between service zone areas. The program determined funding and requirements on a yearly, five-year, and ultimate buildout basis.

City of Culver City - Sewer Facilities Charge Program (Culver City, CA) 1998 - Project Manager.

RBF prepared a Sewer Facilities Charge Fee Program, which will update the City's existing fees. The study includes a comprehensive review and analysis of the City's wastewater flows, user rates, five-year capital improvement program, operation and maintenance costs, capital improvement and replacement costs, and the City of Los Angeles' pass -through costs for the regional conveyance, treatment, and disposal system.

Santa Margarita Water District, Las Flores Trunk Sewers and Zone II Water Mains (Orange County, CA) - Project Engineer. This Project included the preparation of plans, specifications and estimates for the construction of approximately 6,100 linear feet of 10-inch and 12-inch trunk sewer and 8,900 linear feet of 16-inch and 30-inch water main. The Project included coordination with the California Fish and Game Department and the Orange County Flood Control District for a creek crossing.

City of Beverly Hills, Water System Capital Improvement Projects (Beverly Hills, CA) 1993 - 2000 - Project Manager. RBF is currently providing complete design engineering and construction staking services for the City of Beverly Hills Public Works Department's capital improvement program, which includes water transmission main replacements, pressure reducing stations installation, street improvements, and traffic signalization. RBF has coordinated with City staff, local merchants, residents and Caltrans to select pipeline alignments and establish construction schedules which minimize disruption to traffic, local businesses and local residences.

W...

CONSULTING
A - Company

John Nagle, PE
Senior Associate / Senior Engineer
Santa Margarita Water District, Oso Trunk Sewer Relocation (Orange County, CA) 1991 - Project Engineer. This project included the preparation of construction plans, specifications and estimates for the relocation of a 27-inch trunk sewer and the installation of a flow diversion structure and parshall flume metering station. The project also included coordination with Caltrans for a 350-foot long jack -and -bore across the Interstate 5, coordination with the Mission Viejo Country Club for the realignment, and extensive utility investigation.

Irvine Ranch Water District, Jeffrey Road (Zone A) Parallel Reclaimed Water Pipeline (Irvine, CA) 1995 - Project Manager. This Project included the preparation of construction drawings, specifications and cost estimates for three miles of 30-inch reclaimed water pipeline. The Project included preliminary engineering and alternative alignment analyses, which considered 15 alternative alignments. The Project also required coordination with: Caltrans for a bore -and -jack crossing of Interstate 405; the Orange County Department of Harbors, Beaches and Parks for construction in Mason Regional Park; the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and California Department of Fish and Game for the crossing of the San Diego Creek; and the City of Irvine for traffic control.

W...

CONSULTING
A - Company

No
01-1 Initial Study and General Plan Program EIR Addendum No. 2

7.0 Technical Appendices
The various reports identified below are included within the Technical Appendices to this EIR, and are herein incorporated by reference pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15 150.

Appendix Document/Reference Title
A Air Quality Impact Analysis
B Greenhouse Gas Analysis
C Noise Impact Analysis
D North Newport Center San Joaquin Plaza TPO Traffic Analysis Water Supply Assessment
Assessment of Sewer Capacity Availability Relative to Increase Allocation of Residential Development
NNCPC Development Plan Amendment and Related Actions June 2012 Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach Page 7-1

No
■ ❑ Initial Study and General Plan Program EIR Addendum No. 2 Technical Appendix A
Air Quality Impact Analysis
Urban Crossroads, Inc.

June 6, 2012
NNCPC Development Plan Amendment and Related Actions June 2012 Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach

V#�URBAM

CROSSROADS
41 Corporate Park, Suite 300
Irvine, CA 92606
Prepared by:

Haseeb Qureshi, MES
Prepared for:

Ms. Tracy Zinn
T&B Planning
17542 East 17t" Street, Suite 100
Tustin, CA 92780

NORTH NEWPORT CENTER PLANNED COMMUNITY

AIR QUALITY IMPACT ANALYSIS

CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA
June 6, 2012
JN:08210-05 AQ REPORT
HQ

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section Page

1.0 Executive Summary.............................................................................6

1.1 Purpose of Report.................................................................................................6

1.2 Project Overview................................................................................................... 7

1.3 Operational Activity Recommended Mitigation Measures.....................................9

1.4 Summary of Findings............................................................................................9

2.0 Existing Conditions.............................................................................10

2.1 South Coast Air Basin.........................................................................................10

2.2 Regional Climate.................................................................................................10

2.3 Wind Patterns and Project Location....................................................................12

2.4 Existing Air Quality..............................................................................................12

2.5 Regional Air Quality............................................................................................15

2.6 Local Air Quality..................................................................................................15

2.7 Regulatory Background.......................................................................................22

2.7.1 Federal Regulations

2.7.2 California Regulations

2.7.3 Air Quality Management Planning

3.7.3 Air Quality Management Planning

2.8 Existing Project Site Air Quality Conditions.........................................................24

3.0 Project Air Quality Impact...................................................................25

3.1 Introduction.........................................................................................................25

3.2 Standards of Significance....................................................................................25

3.3 Project -Related Sources of Potential Impact.......................................................26

3.4 Construction Emissions.......................................................................................26

3.5 Operational Emissions........................................................................................27

3.5.1 Construction Emissions Summary

3.5.2 Combustion Emissions Associated with Natural Gas and Electricity

3.5.3 Fugitive Dust Related to Vehicular Travel

3.5.4 Landscape Maintenance Equipment

3.5.5 Consumer Products

3.5.6 Architectural Coatings

3.5.7 Operational Emissions Summary

3.6 CO Hot Spot Analysis......................................................................................... 31 3.7
Air Quality Management Planning.......................................................................32 North Newport Center Planned Community Air Quality Impact Analysis City of Newport Beach, CA (JN:08210-05 AQ Report) OURBAN

3.8 Potential Impacts to Sensitive Receptors............................................................ 37

3.9 Odors.................................................................................................................. 37

3.10 Cumulative Impacts.............................................................................................38

4.0 References.........................................................................................41 North Newport Center Planned Community Air Quality Impact Analysis City of Newport Beach, CA (JN:08210-05 AQ Report) OURBAN

LIST OF APPENDICES
Appendix
Page
CaIEEModTM Input/Output Construction and Operational Emissions........... A North Newport Center Planned Community Air Quality Impact Analysis City of Newport Beach, CA (JN:08210-05 AQ Report) OURBAN

LIST OF EXHIBITS
Exhibit
Page
2-1 Wind Rose..........................................................................................13 North Newport Center Planned Community Air Quality Impact Analysis City of Newport Beach, CA (JN:08210-05 AQ Report) OURBAN 10 LIST OF TABLES
Table Paqe
2-1 State and Federal Ambient Air Quality Standards..............................14 2-2 Attainment Status of Criteria Pollutants in the South Coast Air Basin(SCAB).....................................................................................17 2-3 Project Area Air Quality Monitoring Summary 2008-2010..................18 3-1 Maximum Daily Emissions Thresholds...............................................26 3-2 Summary of Peak Operational Emissions (SummerMinter) Pounds Per Day (Without Mitigation).................................................30 North Newport Center Planned Community Air Quality Impact Analysis City of Newport Beach, CA (JN:08210-05 AQ Report) OURBAN 0 NORTH NEWPORT CENTER PLANNED COMMUNITY

AIR QUALITY IMPACT ANALYSIS

CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA

1.0 INTRODUCTION
This report presents the results of the air quality impact analysis (AQIA) prepared by Urban Crossroads, Inc. for the proposed North Newport Center Planned Community (NNCPC) (referred to as "Project")

1.1 PURPOSE OF REPORT
The purpose of this report is to satisfy CEQA Guidelines section 15168(c), which requires the City to analyze whether subsequent activities regarding the North Newport Center zoning require an additional environmental document beyond the Final Environmental Impact Report ("EIR") for the City of Newport Beach General Plan 2006 Update (State Clearinghouse No. 200601119) ("General Plan EIR"), and the first North Newport Center Addendum to the Environmental Impact Report for the City of Newport Beach General Plan 2006 Update, approved by Resolution No. 2007-79 on December 11, 2007. The General Plan EIR was certified by the Newport Beach City Council on July 25, 2006, as adequately addressing the potential environmental impacts associated with the buildout of the City of Newport Beach, inclusive of North Newport Center. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15168(c), this report analyzes whether the Project would have effects that were not examined in the General Plan EIR and confirms that the Project will not result in new effects and will not require new mitigation measures so that the City can determine whether it is appropriate to approve the Project as within the scope of the General Plan EIR. As required by CEQA Guidelines section 15168(e), this report also analyzes whether: (i) the Project is within the scope of the General Plan 2006 Update; and (ii) the General Plan EIR adequately describes the subsequent activity for the purposes of CEQA.

CEQA Guidelines section 15164(a) states: "The lead agency or responsible agency shall prepare an addendum to a previously certified EIR if some changes or additions are necessary but none of the conditions described in Section 15162 calling for the preparation of a subsequent EIR have occurred." Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15162, no subsequent EIR may be required for the project unless the City determines, on the basis of substantial evidence, that one or more of the following conditions are met:
(a) When an EIR has been certified or a negative declaration adopted for a project, no subsequent EIR shall be prepared for that project unless the lead agency determines, on the basis of substantial evidence in the light of the whole record, one or more of the following:

North Newport Center Planned Community Air Quality Impact Analysis "� l! RBAN City of Newport Beach, CA (JN:08210-05 AQ Report) CROSSROAaS 6 (1) Substantial changes are proposed in the project which will require major revisions of the previous EIR or negative declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects;
(2) Substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken which will require major revisions of the previous EIR or Negative Declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; or (3) New information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the previous EIR, was certified as complete or the Negative Declaration was adopted, shows any of the following:
(A) The project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous EIR or negative declaration;
(B) Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than shown in the previous EIR;
(C) Mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible, and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the project, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative; or
(D) Mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerably different from those analyzed in the previous EIR would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative.

In order to provide the analysis necessary for the City to make its determination under CEQA Guidelines section 15168(c), this AQIA evaluates the potential impacts to air quality associated with construction and operation of the proposed Project. Additional information beyond that required for the City's determination is included for public information.

1.2 PROJECT OVERVIEW
The NNCPC Development Plan currently allows for 430 multi -family residential units to be developed in areas of the NNCPC designated MU-H3 by the General Plan. In comparison, the General Plan allows a maximum of 450 units in the MU-H3 category throughout the Newport Center Statistical Area. In other words, of the 450 MU-H3 residential units allowed by the General Plan in the Newport Center Statistical Area, 430 are specifically assigned to the areas of the NNCPC designated by the NNCPC Development Plan as Block 500, Block 600 and San Joaquin Plaza. The remaining 20 units are allowed to be developed in any MU-H3 designated area in the Newport Center Statistical Area. Five (5) MU-H3 units have been assigned to the Golf Realty Fund Tennis Club development and the other 15 MU-H3 units are not assigned to any particular property.

North Newport Center Planned Community Air Quality Impact Analysis City of Newport Beach, CA (JN:08210-05 AQ Report) OURBAN 7 In addition, certain areas of the City are identified on the General Plan Land Use Map as "Anomaly Locations," where a maximum development intensity is allowed pursuant to General Plan Tables LU1 and LU2. Anomaly Location 43 in the Newport Center Statistical Area (Statistical Area L1) is developed with a 532 room resort hotel presently operated by Marriott Hotels and Resorts. General Plan Table LU2 allows a maximum of 611 hotel rooms in Anomaly Location 43; therefore, 79 hotel rooms allowed by the General Plan are un-built. The proposed Project would convert the 79 un-built hotel rooms to 79 multi -family residential units and then transfer them to the San Joaquin Plaza portion of the NNCPC.

Under existing conditions, Block 500, Block 600, and San Joaquin Plaza are developed with commercial/office land uses and the Island Hotel. No multi -family residential units are constructed in these areas, although the NNCPC Development Plan allows for up to 430 residential units. Thus, the City's General Plan and NNCPC Development Plan currently allow for the existing land uses in Block 500, Block 600 and San Joaquin Plaza to be supplemented by or partially replaced with multi -family residential housing.

The Project Applicant proposes an amendment to the NNCPC Development Plan to increase the allowable residential development intensity by 94 units (comprising 15 un-assigned and un- built multi -family units and the 79 hotel units that would be converted to multi -family units) and to assign those 94 units, along with 430 units already allocated to the NNCCP, to the portion of the NNCCP designated as San Joaquin Plaza.

No specific development project is proposed at this time. A proposal to develop a specific residential project in the San Joaquin Plaza would be subject to the procedures for development specified in the NNCPC Development Plan. There would be no change to the boundaries of the NNCPC Development Plan area or any constituent blocks or sub -districts, and there would be no change in the permitted types of land uses, development regulations, or design guidelines resulting from approval of the proposed NNCPC Development Plan Amendment.

Since no specific development is proposed at this time, and the exact location of the units is unknown, a specific calculation of emissions that may be associated with future construction activities is not possible and is not provided in this analysis. However, construction activities would be consistent with the assumptions made in the General Plan EIR and would not result in any new impacts or increase the severity of any impacts previously identified in the General Plan EIR. For purposes of this analysis, the air quality impacts centered on the on -going operations of the 94 units are evaluated.

North Newport Center Planned Community Air Quality Impact Analysis City of Newport Beach, CA (JN:08210-05 AQ Report) OURBAN 8 1.3 OPERATIONAL ACTIVITY RECOMMENDED MITIGATION MEASURES The proposed project will not result in a significant regional or localized air quality impact during operational activity, nor would the project substantially increase the severity of any impacts previously disclosed in the General Plan EIR; accordingly, mitigation is not required.

1.4 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
• The Project will not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan. • The Project will not violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation.
• The Project will not 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 (including releasing emissions, which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors.
• The Project will not expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. • The Project will not create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people.

North Newport Center Planned Community Air Quality Impact Analysis City of Newport Beach, CA (JN:08210-05 AQ Report) OURBAN 9 2.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS
This section provides an overview of the existing air quality conditions in the project area and region.

2.1 SOUTH COAST AIR BASIN
The project site is located in the SCAB within the jurisdiction of SCAQMD. The SCAQMD was created by the 1977 Lewis -Presley Air Quality Management Act, which merged four county air pollution control bodies into one regional district. Under the Act, the SCAQMD is responsible for bringing air quality in areas under its jurisdiction into conformity with federal and state air quality standards. As discussed above, the Project site is located within the South Coast Air Basin, a 6,745-square mile subregion of the SCAQMD, which includes portions of Los Angeles, Riverside, and San Bernardino Counties, and all of Orange County.

The SCAB is bound by the Pacific Ocean to the west and the San Gabriel, San Bernardino, and San Jacinto Mountains to the north and east. The Los Angeles County portion of the Mojave Desert Air Basin is bound by the San Gabriel Mountains to the south and west, the Los Angeles / Kern County border to the north, and the Los Angeles / San Bernardino County border to the east. The Riverside County portion of the Salton Sea Air Basin is bound by the San Jacinto Mountains in the west and spans eastward up to the Palo Verde Valley.

2.2 REGIONAL CLIMATE
The regional climate has a substantial influence on air quality in the SCAB. In addition, the temperature, wind, humidity, precipitation, and amount of sunshine influence the air quality.

The annual average temperatures throughout the SCAB vary from the low to middle 60s (degrees Fahrenheit). Due to a decreased marine influence, the eastern portion of the SCAB shows greater variability in average annual minimum and maximum temperatures. January is the coldest month throughout the SCAB, with average minimum temperatures of 470F in downtown Los Angeles and 36°F in San Bernardino. All portions of the SCAB have recorded maximum temperatures above 100°F.

Although the climate of the SCAB can be characterized as semi -arid, the air near the land surface is quite moist on most days because of the presence of a marine layer. This shallow layer of sea air is an important modifier of SCAB climate. Humidity restricts visibility in the SCAB, and the conversion of sulfur dioxide to sulfates is heightened in air with high relative humidity. The marine layer provides an environment for that conversion process, especially during the spring and North Newport Center Planned Community Air Quality Impact Analysis City of Newport Beach, CA (JN:08210-05 AQ Report) OURBAN 10 summer months. The annual average relative humidity within the SCAB is 71 percent along the coast and 59 percent inland. Since the ocean effect is dominant, periods of heavy early morning fog are frequent and low stratus clouds are a characteristic feature. These effects decrease with distance from the coast.

More than 90 percent of the SCAB's rainfall occurs from November through April. The annual average rainfall varies from approximately nine inches in Riverside to fourteen inches in downtown Los Angeles. Monthly and yearly rainfall totals are extremely variable. Summer rainfall usually consists of widely scattered thunderstorms near the coast and slightly heavier shower activity in the eastern portion of the SCAB with frequency being higher near the coast.

Due to its generally clear weather, about three-quarters of available sunshine is received in the SCAB. The remaining one -quarter is absorbed by clouds. The ultraviolet portion of this abundant radiation is a key factor in photochemical reactions. On the shortest day of the year there are approximately 10 hours of possible sunshine, and on the longest day of the year there are approximately 14-1/2 hours of possible sunshine.

The importance of wind to air pollution is considerable. The direction and speed of the wind determines the horizontal dispersion and transport of the air pollutants. During the late autumn to early spring rainy season, the SCAB is subjected to wind flows associated with the traveling storms moving through the region from the northwest. This period also brings five to ten periods of strong, dry offshore winds, locally termed "Santa Anas" each year. During the dry season, which coincides with the months of maximum photochemical smog concentrations, the wind flow is bimodal, typified by a daytime onshore sea breeze and a nighttime offshore drainage wind. Summer wind flows are created by the pressure differences between the relatively cold ocean and the unevenly heated and cooled land surfaces that modify the general northwesterly wind circulation over southern California. Nighttime drainage begins with the radiational cooling of the mountain slopes. Heavy, cool air descends the slopes and flows through the mountain passes and canyons as it follows the lowering terrain toward the ocean. Another characteristic wind regime in the SCAB is the "Catalina Eddy," a low level cyclonic (counterclockwise) flow centered over Santa Catalina Island which results in an offshore flow to the southwest. On most spring and summer days, some indication of an eddy is apparent in coastal sections.

In the SCAB, there are two distinct temperature inversion structures that control vertical mixing of air pollution. During the summer, warm high-pressure descending (subsiding) air is undercut by a shallow layer of cool marine air. The boundary between these two layers of air is a persistent marine subsidence/inversion. This boundary prevents vertical mixing which effectively acts as an impervious lid to pollutants over the entire SCAB. The mixing height for the inversion structure is normally situated 1,000 to 1,500 feet above mean sea level.

North Newport Center Planned Community Air Quality Impact Analysis City of Newport Beach, CA (JN:08210-05 AQ Report) OURBAN 11 A second inversion -type forms in conjunction with the drainage of cool air off the surrounding mountains at night followed by the seaward drift of this pool of cool air. The top of this layer forms a sharp boundary with the warmer air aloft and creates nocturnal radiation inversions. These inversions occur primarily in the winter, when nights are longer and onshore flow is weakest. They are typically only a few hundred feet above mean sea level. These inversions effectively trap pollutants, such as NOX and CO from vehicles, as the pool of cool air drifts seaward. Winter is therefore a period of high levels of primary pollutants along the coastline.

2.3 WIND PATTERNS AND PROJECT LOCATION
The distinctive climate of the Project area and the SCAB is determined by its terrain and geographical location. The Basin is located in a coastal plain with connecting broad valleys and low hills, bounded by the Pacific Ocean in the southwest quadrant with high mountains forming the remainder of the perimeter.

Wind patterns across the south coastal region are characterized by westerly and southwesterly on -shore winds during the day and easterly or northeasterly breezes at night. Winds are characteristically light although the speed is somewhat greater during the dry summer months than during the rainy winter season.

Wind speed and direction data is monitored by the SCAQMD for the Project area (Source Receptor Area) (SRA) 18; this data was obtained from North Orange County Coastal monitoring station, which is the nearest monitoring station to the proposed project. As shown in the following wind rose exhibit (Exhibit 2-1), the prevailing winds move predominately from the northwest to the southeast with an average wind speed of 1.06 meters per second (m/s) or 3.48 feet per second (f/s).

2.4 EXISTING AIR QUALITY
Existing air quality is measured based upon ambient air quality standards. These standards are the levels of air quality that are considered safe, with an adequate margin of safety, to protect the public health and welfare. National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) and California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS) currently in effect, as well health effects of each pollutant regulated under these standards are shown in Table 2-1.

The determination of whether a region's air quality is healthful or unhealthful is determined by comparing contaminant levels in ambient air samples to the state and federal standards presented in Table 2-1. The air quality in a region is considered to be in attainment by the state if the measured ambient air pollutant levels for 03, CO, S02, NO2, PM10, and PM2.5 are not equaled or exceeded at any time in any consecutive three-year period; and the federal standards (other than North Newport Center Planned Community Air Quality Impact Analysis City of Newport Beach, CA (JN:08210-05 AQ Report) OURBAN 12 EXHIBIT 2-1

WIND ROSE
WIND ROSE PLOT. DISPLAY_
csta Wind Speed
Direction (blowing from)

WIND SPEED
(mi
- — 11.0
- 6.0-11.0
- 4.0 - 6.0
- 2.0 - 4.0
EA 0.5 - 2.0

0.1 - 0.5
Calms: 13.40%
COMMENTS. DATA PERIOD. COMPANY NAME.
2005-2007
Jan 1 - Dec 31
00:00 - 23:00 MODELER
CALM WINDS.

TOTAL COUNT:

13.40%
25385 hrs.

AVG. WIND SPEED.

DATE.

PROJECT NO..

1.06 mis
1/2812009
WPPLOT View -Lakes Environmental Software
North Newport Center Planned Community Air Quality Impact Analysis City of Newport Beach, CA (JN:08210-05 AQ Report)
OURBAN
13 TABLE 2-1

STATE AND NATIONAL CRITERIA POLLUTANT STANDARDS, EFFECTS, AND SOURCES Averaging State National Health and Atmospheric
Pollutant Time Standard Standard Effects Major Sources
1 hour 0.09 ppm --- High concentrations can directly
Formed when reactive organic
Ozone
8 hours 0.07 ppml 0.075 ppm affect lungs, causing irritation. gases (ROG) and nitrogen oxides
Long-term exposure may cause
(NOx) react in the presence of
damage to lung tissue.
sunlight. Major sources include on -
road motor vehicles, solvent
evaporation, and commercial /
industrial mobile equipment.

Carbon
1 hour 20 ppm 35 ppm Classified as a chemical
Internal combustion engines,
Monoxide
8 hours 9.0 ppm 9 ppm asphyxiant, carbon monoxide
primarily gasoline -powered motor
interferes with the transfer of
vehicles.
fresh oxygen to the blood and
deprives sensitive tissues of
oxygen.

Nitrogen
1 hour 0.18 ppm --- Irritating to eyes and respiratory
Motor vehicles, petroleum refining
Dioxide
Annual Avg. 0.030 0.053 ppm tract. Colors atmosphere
operations, industrial sources,
reddish -brown.
aircraft, ships, and railroads.

Sulfur
1 hour 0.25 ppm 75 ppb Irritates upper respiratory tract; Fuel combustion, chemical plants,
Dioxide
3 hours --- --- injurious to lung tissue. Can
sulfur recovery plants, and metal
24 hours 0.04 ppm --- yellow the leaves of plants,
processing.
destructive to marble, iron, and
steel. Limits visibility and
reduces sunlight.

Inhalable
24 hours 50 µg/m3 150 µg/m3 May irritate eyes and
Dust and fume -producing industrial
Particulate
Annual Avg. 20 µg/m3 --- respiratory tract, decreases in and agricultural operations,
Matter
lung capacity, cancer and
combustion, atmospheric
(PM-10)
increased mortality. Produces
photochemical reactions, and
haze and limits visibility.
natural activities (e.g., wind -raised
dust and ocean sprays).

Fine
24 hours --- 35 µg/m3 Increases respiratory disease,
Fuel combustion in motor vehicles,
Particulate
Annual Avg. 12 µg/m3 15 µg/m3 lung damage, cancer, and
equipment, and industrial sources;
Matter
premature death. Reduces
residential and agricultural burning;
(PM-2.5)
visibility and results in surface
Also, formed from photochemical
soiling.
reactions of other pollutants,
including NOx, sulfur oxides, and
organics.

Lead
Monthly Ave. 1.5 µg/m3 --- Disturbs gastrointestinal
Present source: lead smelters,
Quarterly --- 1.5 µg/m3 system, and causes anemia,
battery manufacturing & recycling
Rolling 3- --- 0.15 µg/m3 kidney disease, and
facilities. Past source: combustion
Month Avg. neuromuscular and
of leaded gasoline.
neurological dysfunction.

Hydrogen
1 hour 0.03 ppm No National Nuisance odor (rotten egg
Geothermal Power Plants,
Sulfide
Standard smell),
Petroleum Production and refining
headache and breathing
difficulties (higher
concentrations)
Sulfates
24 hour 25 µg/m3 No National Breathing difficulties,
Produced by the reaction in the air
Standard aggravates asthma, reduced
of S02.
visibility
Visibility
8 hour Light No National Reduces visibility, reduced
See PM10/PM2.5.

Reducing
extinction Standard airport safety, lower real estate
Particles
of 0.23/km; value, discourages tourism.
visibility of
10 miles or
more
NOTE: ppm = parts per million; µg/m3 = micrograms per cubic meter. 1 This concentration was approved by the Air Resources Board on April 28, 2005 and became effective May 17, 2006.

SOURCE: California Air Resources Board, 09/08/2010 ( http://www.arb.ca.ciov/research/aags/aags2.pdf) . Ambient Air Quality Standards, available at http://www.arb.ca.gov/research/aaqs/aags2.pdf Standards last updated November 17, 2008. California Air Resources Board, 2001. CARB Fact Sheet. Air Pollution Sources, Effects and Control, http://www.arb.ca.gov/research/health/fs/fs2/f` s2.htm, page last updated December 2005.

North Newport Center Planned Community Air Quality Impact Analysis City of Newport Beach, CA (JN:08210-05 AQ Report) OURBAN 14 03, PM10, PM2.5, and those based on annual averages or arithmetic mean) are not exceeded more than once per year. The 03 standard is attained when the fourth highest eight -hour concentration in a year, averaged over three years, is equal to or less than the standard. For PM10, the 24-hour standard is attained when 99 percent of the daily concentrations, averaged over three years, are equal to or less than the standard.

2.5 REGIONAL AIR QUALITY
The SCAQMD monitors levels of various criteria pollutants at 30 monitoring stations throughout the air district. In 2009, the federal and state standards were exceeded on one or more days for ozone, PM10, and PM2.5 at most monitoring locations. No areas of the SCAB exceeded federal or state standards for NO2i SO2, CO, sulfates or lead. See Table 3-2 for attainment designations for the SCAB.

2.6 LOCAL AIR QUALITY
Relative to the Project site, the nearest long-term air quality monitoring site for Ozone (03), Carbon Monoxide (CO), Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2), Inhalable Particulates (PM10), Fine Particulates (PM2.5) and is the South Coast Air Quality Management District North Coastal (SRA 18) monitoring station.

The most recent three (3) years of data available' is shown on Table 2-3 and identifies the number of days standards were exceeded for the study area, which was chosen to be representative of the local air quality at the Project site. Additionally, data for SO2 has been omitted as attainment is regularly met in the South Coast Air Basin and few monitoring stations measure SO2 concentrations.

Criteria pollutants are pollutants that are regulated through the development of human health based and/or environmentally based criteria for setting permissible levels. Examples of sources and effects of the criteria pollutants are identified below:
• Carbon Monoxide (CO): Is a colorless, odorless gas produced by the incomplete combustion of carbon -containing fuels, such as gasoline or wood. CO concentrations tend to be the highest during the winter morning, when little to no wind and surface - based inversions trap the pollutant at ground levels. Because CO is emitted directly from internal combustion engines, unlike ozone, motor vehicles operating at slow speeds are the primary source of CO in the Basin. The highest ambient CO concentrations are generally found near congested transportation corridors and intersections. • Sulfur Dioxide (SO2j: Is a colorless, extremely irritating gas or liquid. It enters the atmosphere as a pollutant mainly as a result of burning high sulfur -content fuel oils and coal and from chemical processes occurring at chemical plants and refineries. When ' Year 2011 air quality monitoring station data was not available at the time of preparation of this report from the SCAQMD.

North Newport Center Planned Community Air Quality Impact Analysis City of Newport Beach, CA (JN:08210-05 AQ Report) OURBAN 15 SO2 oxidizes in the atmosphere, it forms sulfates (SO4). Collectively, these pollutants are referred to as sulfur oxides (SOX).
• Nitrogen Oxides (Oxides of Nitrogen, or NOJ: Nitrogen oxides (NOX) consist of nitric oxide (NO), nitrogen dioxide (NO2) and nitrous oxide (N2O) and are formed when nitrogen (N2) combines with oxygen (02). Their lifespan in the atmosphere ranges from one to seven days for nitric oxide and nitrogen dioxide, to 170 years for nitrous oxide.

Nitrogen oxides are typically created during combustion processes, and are major contributors to smog formation and acid deposition. NO2 is a criteria air pollutant, and may result in numerous adverse health effects; it absorbs blue light, resulting in a brownish -red cast to the atmosphere and reduced visibility. Of the seven types of nitrogen oxide compounds, NO2 is the most abundant in the atmosphere. As ambient concentrations of NO2 are related to traffic density, commuters in heavy traffic may be exposed to higher concentrations of NO2 than those indicated by regional monitors. • Ozone 03): Is a highly reactive and unstable gas that is formed when volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and nitrogen oxides (NOX), both byproducts of internal combustion engine exhaust, undergo slow photochemical reactions in the presence of sunlight.

Ozone concentrations are generally highest during the summer months when direct sunlight, light wind, and warm temperature conditions are favorable to the formation of this pollutant.
• PM10 (Particulate Matter less than 10 microns): A major air pollutant consisting of tiny solid or liquid particles of soot, dust, smoke, fumes, and aerosols. The size of the particles (10 microns or smaller, about 0.0004 inches or less) allows them to easily enter the lungs where they may be deposited, resulting in adverse health effects. PM10 also causes visibility reduction and is a criteria air pollutant. • PM2_5 (Particulate Matter less than 2.5 microns): A similar air pollutant consisting of tiny solid or liquid particles which are 2.5 microns or smaller (which is often referred to as fine particles). These particles are formed in the atmosphere from primary gaseous emissions that include sulfates formed from SO2 release from power plants and industrial facilities and nitrates that are formed from NOX release from power plants, automobiles and other types of combustion sources. The chemical composition of fine particles highly depends on location, time of year, and weather conditions. PM2.5 is a criteria air pollutant.
• Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC): Volatile organic compounds are hydrocarbon compounds (any compound containing various combinations of hydrogen and carbon atoms) that exist in the ambient air. VOCs contribute to the formation of smog through North Newport Center Planned Community Air Quality Impact Analysis City of Newport Beach, CA (JN:08210-05 AQ Report) OURBAN 16 TABLE 2-2

ATTAINMENT STATUS OF CRITERIA POLLUTANTS IN THE SOUTH COAST AIR BASIN (SCAB) Criteria Pollutant
State Designation
Federal Designation
Ozone - 1 hour standard
Nonattainment
No Standard
Ozone - 8 hour standard
Nonattainment
Extreme Nonattainment'
PM10
Nonattainment
Serious Nonattainment
PM2.5
Nonattainment
Nonattainment
Carbon Monoxide
Attainment
Attain ment/Maintenance
Nitrogen Dioxide
Nonattainment2
Attainment/Maintenance
Sulfur Dioxide
Attainment
Attainment
Lead
Attainment/NonattainmeW
Attain ment/Nonattainment4
All others
Attainment/Unclassified
Attainment/Unclassified
Source: California Air Resources Board 2010 ( http://www.arb.ca.gov/regact/2010/areal0/area10.htm , http://www.arb.ca.gov/desig/feddesig.htm) The USEPA approved redesignation from Severe 17 to Extreme Nonattainment on May 5, 2010 to be effective June 4, 2010. 2 The SCAB was reclassified from attainment to nonattainment for nitrogen dioxide on March 25, 2010. 3 Los Angeles County was reclassified from attainment to nonattainment for lead on March 25, 2010; the remainder of the SCAB is in attainment of the State Standard.
4 The Los Angeles County portion of the SCAB is classified as nonattainment; the remainder of the SCAB is in attainment of the State Standard.

North Newport Center Planned Community Air Quality Impact Analysis City of Newport Beach, CA (JN:08210-05 AQ Report) OURBAN 17 TABLE 2-3
PROJECT AREA AIR QUALITY MONITORING SUMMARY 2008-2010
NORTH COASTAL (SRA 18) AIR MONITORING STATION DATA

POLLUTANT

STANDARD
YEAR
2008
2009
Ozone (03)
Maximum 1-Hour Concentration m
.094
.087
.097
Maximum 8-Hour Concentration ppm
.079
.075
.076
Number of Days Exceeding State 1-Hour Standard
> 0.09 ppm
0 0
1 Number of Days Exceeding State 8-Hour Standard
> 0.07 ppm
6 3
2 Number of Days Exceeding Federal 1-Hour Standard
> 0.12 ppm
0 0
0 Number of Days Exceeding Federal 8-Hour Standard
> 0.075 ppm
3 0
1 Number of Days Exceeding Health Advisory
>_ 0.15 ppm
0 0
0 Carbon Monoxide CO
Maximum 1-Hour Concentration ppm
3 3
2 Maximum 8-Hour Concentration ppm

2.0 2.2

2.1 Number of Days Exceeding State 1-Hour Standard
> 20 ppm
0 0
0 Number of Days Exceeding Federal / State 8-Hour Standard > 9.0 ppm
0 0
0 Number of Days Exceeding Federal 1-Hour Standard
> 35 ppm
0 0
0 Nitrogen Dioxide NO2
Maximum 1-Hour Concentration ppm
.08
.07

70.0 Annual Arithmetic Mean Concentration (ppm)
.0132
.0130

11.3 Number of Days Exceeding State 1-Hour Standard
> 0.18 ppm
0 0
0 Inhalable Particulates PM0)'
Maximum 24-Hour Concentration (pg/m3)42
56 34
Number of Samples
55 60
58 Number of Samples Exceeding State Standard
> 50 tag/m3
0 1
0 Number of Samples Exceeding Federal Standard
> 150 tag/m3
0 0
1 0
Fine Particulates (PM2 5)a
Maximum 24-Hour Concentration (ta /m3

32.6 39.2

19.9 Annual Arithmetic Mean (tag/m3)

10.4 9.5

8.0 Number of Samples Exceeding Federal 24-Hour Standard > 35 Ng/m3
0 1
0 -11
a Saddleback Monitoring Station used where data not available from North Coastal Orange County.

Source: South Coast AQMD ( www.aamd.gov)
North Newport Center Planned Community Air Quality Impact Analysis City of Newport Beach, CA (JN:08210-05 AQ Report) OURBAN 18 atmospheric photochemical reactions and/or may be toxic. Compounds of carbon (also known as organic compounds) have different levels of reactivity; that is, they do not react at the same speed or do not form ozone to the same extent when exposed to photochemical processes. VOCs often have an odor, and some examples include gasoline, alcohol, and the solvents used in paints. Exceptions to the VOC designation include: carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, carbonic acid, metallic carbides or carbonates, and ammonium carbonate. VOCs are a criteria pollutant since they are a precursor to 03, which is a criteria pollutant.
• Reactive Organic Gasses (ROG): Similar to VOC, Reactive Organic Gasses (ROG) are also precursors in forming ozone and consist of compounds containing methane, ethane, propane, butane, and longer chain hydrocarbons, which are typically the result of some type of combustion/decomposition process. Smog is formed when ROG and nitrogen oxides react in the presence of sunlight. ROGs are a criteria pollutant since they are a precursor to 03, which is a criteria pollutant.
• Lead (Pb): Lead is a heavy metal that is highly persistent in the environment. In the past, the primary source of lead in the air was emissions from vehicles burning leaded gasoline. As a result of the removal of lead from gasoline, there have been no violations at any of the SCAQMD's regular air monitoring stations since 1982. Currently, emissions of lead are largely limited to stationary sources such as lead smelters. It should be noted that the proposed Project is not anticipated to generate a quantifiable amount of lead emissions. Lead is a criteria air pollutant.

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 exposure (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 associated with increased school absences. In recent years, a correlation between elevated 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 live in communities with high ozone levels.

Ozone exposure under exercising conditions is known to increase the severity of the responses described above. Animal studies suggest that exposure to a combination of pollutants that includes ozone may be more toxic than exposure to ozone alone. Although lung volume and North Newport Center Planned Community Air Quality Impact Analysis City of Newport Beach, CA (JN:08210-05 AQ Report) OURBAN 19 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 decreased 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 fetuses, patients with diseases involving heart and blood vessels, and patients with chronic hypoxemia (oxygen deficiency) as seen at 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 (PM10 and PM2.5) 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 PM2.5 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 longterm 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 PM10 and PM2.5.

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 North Newport Center Planned Community Air Quality Impact Analysis City of Newport Beach, CA (JN:08210-05 AQ Report) OURBAN 20 exposure to NO2 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 of exposure to low levels of SO2 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 SO2 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 SO2 levels. In these studies, efforts to separate the effects of SO2 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 North Newport Center Planned Community Air Quality Impact Analysis City of Newport Beach, CA (JN:08210-05 AQ Report) OURBAN 21 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.

Odors
The science of odor as a health concern is still new. Merely identifying the hundreds of VOCs that cause odors poses a big challenge. Offensive odors can potentially affect human health in several ways. First, odorant compounds can irritate the eye, nose, and throat, which can reduce respiratory volume. Second, studies have shown that the VOCs that cause 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.

2.7 REGULATORY BACKGROUND

2.7.1 FEDERAL REGULATIONS
The U.S. EPA is responsible for setting and enforcing the NAAQS for 03, CO, NO, S02, PM,o, and lead. The U.S. EPA has jurisdiction over emissions sources that are under the authority of the federal government including aircraft, locomotives, and emissions sources outside state waters (Outer Continental Shelf). The U.S. EPA also establishes emission standards for vehicles sold in states other than California. Automobiles sold in California must meet the stricter emission requirements of the CARB.

The Federal Clean Air Act (CAA) was first enacted in 1955, and has been amended numerous times in subsequent years (1963, 1965, 1967, 1970, 1977, and 1990). The CAA establishes the federal air quality standards, the NAAQS, and specifies future dates for achieving compliance. The CAA also mandates that states submit and implement State Implementation Plans (SIPs) for local areas not meeting these standards. These plans must include pollution control measures that demonstrate how the standards will be met.

The 1990 amendments to the CAA that identify specific emission reduction goals for areas not meeting the NAAQS require a demonstration of reasonable further progress toward attainment and incorporate additional sanctions for failure to attain or to meet interim milestones. The sections of the CAA most directly applicable to the development of the Project site include Title I (Non - Attainment Provisions) and Title 11 (Mobile Source Provisions).

Title I provisions were established with the goal of attaining the NAAQS for the following criteria pollutants 03, NO2, S02, PM10, CO, PM2.5, and lead. The NAAQS were amended in July 1997 to North Newport Center Planned Community Air Quality Impact Analysis City of Newport Beach, CA (JN:08210-05 AQ Report) OURBAN 22 include an additional standard for 03 and to adopt a NAAQS for PM2.5. Table 3-1 (previously presented) provides the NAAQS within the basin.

Mobile source emissions are regulated in accordance with Title II provisions. These provisions require the use of cleaner burning gasoline and other cleaner burning fuels such as methanol and natural gas. Automobile manufacturers are also required to reduce tailpipe emissions of hydrocarbons and nitrogen oxides (NOX). NOX is a collective term that includes all forms of nitrogen oxides (NO, NO2, NO3) which are emitted as byproducts of the combustion process.

2.7.2 CALIFORNIA REGULATIONS
The CARB, which became part of the California EPA in 1991, is responsible for ensuring implementation of the California Clean Air Act (AB 2595), responding to the federal CAA, and for regulating emissions from consumer products and motor vehicles. The California CAA mandates achievement of the maximum degree of emissions reductions possible from vehicular and other mobile sources in order to attain the state ambient air quality standards by the earliest practical date. The CARB established the CAAQS for all pollutants for which the federal government has NAAQS and, in addition, establishes standards for sulfates, visibility, hydrogen sulfide, and vinyl chloride. However at this time, hydrogen sulfide and vinyl chloride are not measured at any monitoring stations in the SCAB because they are not considered to be a regional air quality problem. Generally, the CAAQS are more stringent than the NAAQS.

Local air quality management districts, such as the SCAQMD, regulate air emissions from commercial and light industrial facilities. All air pollution control districts have been formally designated as attainment or non -attainment for each CAAQS.

Serious non -attainment areas are required to prepare air quality management plans that include specified emission reduction strategies in an effort to meet clean air goals. These plans are required to include:
• Application of Best Available Retrofit Control Technology to existing sources; • Developing control programs for area sources (e.g., architectural coatings and solvents) and indirect sources (e.g. motor vehicle use generated by residential and commercial development);
• A District permitting system designed to allow no net increase in emissions from any new or modified permitted sources of emissions;
• Implementing reasonably available transportation control measures and assuring a substantial reduction in growth rate of vehicle trips and miles traveled; • Significant use of low emissions vehicles by fleet operators; North Newport Center Planned Community Air Quality Impact Analysis City of Newport Beach, CA (JN:08210-05 AQ Report) OURBAN 23 • Sufficient control strategies to achieve a five percent or more annual reduction in emissions or 15 percent or more in a period of three years for ROGs, NO, CO and PM,o. However, air basins may use alternative emission reduction strategy that achieves a reduction of less than five percent per year under certain circumstances.

2.7.3 AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLANNING
Currently, the NAAQS and CAAQS are exceeded in most parts of the SCAB. In response, the SCAQMD has adopted a series of Air Quality Management Plans (AQMPs) to meet the state and federal ambient air quality standards. AQMPs are updated regularly in order to more effectively reduce emissions, accommodate growth, and to minimize any negative fiscal impacts of air pollution control on the economy. A detailed discussion on the AQMP and Project consistency with the AQMP is provided in Section 3.7.

2.8 EXISTING PROJECT SITE AIR QUALITY CONDITIONS
The Project site is currently not vacant and the existing land uses are generating emissions, the exact amount of emissions are unknown and not easily quantifiable. Therefore the existing air quality conditions at the Project site would generally reflect ambient monitored conditions as presented previously at Table 2-3 (ambient monitored conditions occur in a generally similar built environment).

North Newport Center Planned Community Air Quality Impact Analysis City of Newport Beach, CA (JN:08210-05 AQ Report) OURBAN 24 3.0 PROJECT AIR QUALITY IMPACT

3.1 INTRODUCTION
The Project has been evaluated to determine if it will violate an air quality standard or contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation. Additionally, the proposed Project has been evaluated to determine if it will result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of a criteria pollutant for which the SCAB is non -attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard. The significance of these potential impacts is described in the following section. The City of Newport Beach does not have its own thresholds of significance.

3.2 STANDARDS OF SIGNIFICANCE
The criteria used to determine the significance of potential Project -related air quality impacts are taken from the Initial Study Checklist in Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines (14 California Code of Regulations §§15000, et seq.). Based on these thresholds, a project would result in a significant impact related to air quality if it would:
(1) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan. (2) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation. (3) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is in non -attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions, which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors). (4) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. (5) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people.

Within the context of the above threshold considerations, based on the SCAQMD's CEQA Air Quality Handbook (1993), project impacts would be significant if they exceed the following California standards for localized CO concentrations:
1-hour CO standard of 20.0 parts per million (ppm)
• 8-hour CO standard of 9.0 ppm.

The SCAQMD has also developed regional and localized significance thresholds for other regulated pollutants, as summarized at Table 3-1. The SCAQMD's CEQA Air Quality Significance Thresholds North Newport Center Planned Community Air Quality Impact Analysis City of Newport Beach, CA (JN:08210-05 AQ Report) OURBAN 25 (March 2009) indicate that any projects in the SCAB with daily emissions that exceed any of the indicated thresholds should be considered as having an individually and cumulatively significant air quality impact.

TABLE 3-1

MAXIMUM DAILY EMISSIONS THRESHOLDS (REGIONAL THRESHOLDS) Pollutant
Construction
Operational
NOX
100 lbs/day
55 Ibs/da
VOC
75 Ibs/day
55 Ibs/day
PM10
150 Ibs/day
150 Ibs/day
PM2.5
55 lbs/day
55 Ibs/da
SOX
150 Ibs/day
150 Ibs/day
CO
550 Ibs/day
550 Ibs/day
Lead
3 Ibs/day
3 Ibs/day

3.3 PROJECT -RELATED SOURCES OF POTENTIAL IMPACT
Land uses such as the proposed Project impact air quality through emissions associated with short-term construction, and long-term operational activity.

On February 3, 2011, the SCAQMD released the California Emissions Estimator ModelTM (CalEEModTM). The purpose of this model is to accurately calculate criteria pollutant (NOx, VOC, PM10, PM2.5, SOx, and CO) and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from direct and indirect sources and quantify applicable air quality and GHG reductions achieved from mitigation measures. As such, the latest version of CalEEModTm has been used for this Project to determine operational air quality impacts. Output from the model runs for operational activity is provided in Appendix "A".

3.4 CONSTRUCTION EMISSIONS
Since no specific development project is proposed at this time and the exact location of proposed development is unknown, a calculation of emissions that may be associated with future construction activities is not possible and is not provided in this analysis. Regardless, construction activities that may be associated with future residential development on the Project site would clearly fall within the scope of analysis provided in the General Plan EIR because the General Plan EIR anticipated the construction of 430 multi -family units within the NNCPC, 15 multi -family units within Newport Center, and 79 hotel units at General Plan Anomaly Location 43. Therefore, the conversion of 79 hotel units to multi -family residential units and the conduct of construction activities to the specific location of San Joaquin Plaza represent the Project's only potential to create new construction -related air quality impacts because construction of the remaining 445 multi -family units in Newport Center were assumed North Newport Center Planned Community Air Quality Impact Analysis City of Newport Beach, CA (JN:08210-05 AQ Report) OURBAN 26 and previously evaluated by the General Plan EIR. The construction of 79 multi -family residential units instead of 79 hotel units would not represent any measurable difference in construction -related air emissions. The types of construction equipment, material use, and duration of construction activities would be very similar for hotel units or multi -family units. Additionally, the conduct of construction activities in San Joaquin Plaza would not have the potential to generate air emissions that would be different or more severe than the conduct of construction activities in other parts of Newport Center.

Accordingly, future Project -related construction emissions would not result in any new impacts or substantially increase the severity of the significant and unavoidable construction -related air quality impact previously disclosed in the General Plan EIR.

3.5 OPERATIONAL EMISSIONS
As previously noted, the Applicant proposes an amendment to the NNCPC Development Plan to increase the allowable residential development intensity by 94 units and to assign those 94 units, along with 430 units already allocated to the NNCCP, to the portion of the NNCCP designated as San Joaquin Plaza. It should be noted that of the 94 units, 15 dwelling units are currently assigned to Newport Center and impacts from these dwelling units were accounted for by the General Plan EIR.

The remaining 79 units consist of hotel units that would be converted to multi -family residential units.

In order to provide consistency with the traffic study, this analysis relates to the proposed increase of 94 dwelling units allowed within the San Joaquin Plaza (as is done for the traffic study), and represents a "worst case" (conservative) analysis since there would be no credit taken for reducing by 79 the number of hotel units that can be constructed within Statistical AreaL1, nor would any credit be applied for the 15 MU-H3 units already allowed in Newport Center by the General Plan.

Operational activities associated with the proposed Project will result in emissions of ROG, NOX, CO, SOX, PM,o, and PM2.5. Operational emissions would be expected from the following primary sources:
• Vehicles
• Combustion Emissions Associated with Natural Gas and Electricity • Fugitive dust related to vehicular travel
• Landscape maintenance equipment
• Emissions from consumer products
• Architectural coatings

3.5.1 VEHICLES
Project operational (vehicular) impacts are dependent on both overall daily vehicle trip generation and the effect of the project on peak hour traffic volumes and traffic operations in the vicinity of the project.

The project related operational air quality impact centers primarily on the vehicle trips generated by the North Newport Center Planned Community Air Quality Impact Analysis City of Newport Beach, CA (JN:08210-05 AQ Report) OURBAN 27 project. Trip characteristics available from the report, North Newport Center San Joaquin Plaza TPO Traffic Analysis (Stantec, May 2012) were utilized in this analysis. The estimated emissions resulting from vehicle operations are summarized in Table 3-2.

3.5.2 COMBUSTION EMISSIONS ASSOCIATED WITH NATURAL GAS AND ELECTRICITY Electricity and natural gas are used by almost every project. Criteria pollutant emissions are emitted through the generation of electricity and consumption of natural gas. However, because electrical generating facilities for the Project area are located either outside the region (state) or offset through the use of pollution credits (RECLAIM) for generation within the SCAB, criteria pollutant emissions from offsite generation of electricity is generally excluded from the evaluation of significance and only natural gas use is considered. The emissions associated with natural gas use were calculated using the CaIEEModTM model. The estimated combustion emissions are provided in Table 3-2 (presented later in this report.) Detailed emission calculations are provided in Appendix "A".

3.5.3 FUGITIVE DUST RELATED TO VEHICULAR TRAVEL
Vehicles traveling on paved roads would be a source of fugitive emissions due to the generation of road dust. The emissions estimates for travel on paved roads were calculated using the CaIEEModTM model. The estimated PM,o and PM2.5 emissions from vehicles for fugitive dust are summarized in Table 3-2 (presented later in this report.) Detailed emission calculations are provided in Appendix "A".

3.5.4 LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE EQUIPMENT
Landscape maintenance equipment would generate emissions from fuel combustion and evaporation of unburned fuel. Equipment in this category would include lawnmowers, shedders/grinders, blowers, trimmers, chain saws, and hedge trimmers used to maintain the landscaping of the Project. The emissions associated with landscape maintenance equipment were calculated based on assumptions provided in the CaIEEModTM model. The estimated landscape maintenance emissions are provided in Table 3-2 (presented later in this report.) Detailed emission calculations are provided in Appendix "A".

3.5.5 CONSUMER PRODUCTS
Consumer projects include, but are not limited to detergents, cleaning compounds, polishes, personal care products, and lawn and garden products. Many of these products contain organic compounds which when released in the atmosphere can react to form ozone and other photochemically reactive pollutants. The estimated emissions from consumer products are provided in Table 3-2 (presented later in this report.) Detailed emission calculations are provided in Appendix "A".

3.5.6 ARCHITECTURAL COATINGS
Over a period of time the buildings that are part of this Project will be subject to emissions resulting from the evaporation of solvents contained in paints, varnishes, primers, and other surface coatings as part of Project maintenance. The emissions associated with architectural coatings were calculated North Newport Center Planned Community Air Quality Impact Analysis City of Newport Beach, CA (JN:08210-05 AQ Report) OURBAN 28 using the CalEEModTM model. The estimated architectural coating emissions are provided in Table 3-2 (presented later in this report.) Detailed emission calculations are provided in Appendix "A".

3.5.7 OPERATIONAL EMISSIONS SUMMARY
The Project -related operations emissions burdens, along with a comparison of SCAQMD recommended significance thresholds, are shown on Table 3-2.

Detailed operational model outputs are presented in Appendix "A". Results of the analysis indicate that the addition of 94 units to San Joaquin Plaza would not result in any excedances of the SCAQMD regional thresholds during either summer or winter months. Accordingly, Project -related emissions would not violate the SCAQMD standards for criteria pollutants. Furthermore, if Project emissions do not exceed the SCAQMD regional thresholds for NOX, VOC, PM,o, or PM2.5, it follows that the emissions would not substantially contribute to a cumulative excedance of a pollutant for which the SCAB is in nonattainment (i.e., ozone, NOX, PM,o, and/or PM2.5). Operational impacts were not specifically evaluated in the General Plan EIR because the SCAQMD does not recommend calculation of operational emissions for a planning document, such as a General Plan Update; therefore, long-term operation of the proposed Project would not result in any new impacts or increase the severity of a previously identified significant impact as previously analyzed in the General Plan EIR and no mitigation would be required.

North Newport Center Planned Community Air Quality Impact Analysis City of Newport Beach, CA (JN:08210-05 AQ Report) OURBAN 29 TABLE 3-2

SUMMARY OF PEAK OPERATIONAL EMISSIONS (SUMMER)
(POUNDS PER DAY) (WITHOUT MITIGATION)
Operational Activities
VOC
NO.

CO
SOX
PM10
PM2.5
Area Source Emissions a

12.32 0.55

39.07 0.08

5.01 5.01
Energy Source Emissions b

0.07 0.61

0.26 0.00

0.05 0.05
Mobile Emissions °

1.92 3.47

18.87 0.04

4.64 0.33
Maximum Daily Emissions

14.31 4.63

58.20 0.12

9.70 5.39
SCAQMD Regional Threshold
55 55
550
150
150
55 Significant?
NO
I NO
I NO
NO
I NO
I NO

SUMMARY OF PEAK OPERATIONAL EMISSIONS (WINTER)
(POUNDS PER DAY) (WITHOUT MITIGATION)
Operational Activities
VOC
NO.

CO
SOX
PM10
PM2.5
Area Source Emissions a

12.32 0.55

39.07 0.08

5.01 5.01
Energy Source Emissions b

0.07 0.61

0.26 0.00

0.05 0.05
Mobile Emissions °

2.03 3.84

18.37 0.04

4.64 0.33
Maximum Daily Emissions

14.42 5.00

57.70 0.12

9.70 5.39
SCAQMD Regional Threshold
55 55
550
150
150
55 Significant?
NO
I NO
I NO
NO
I NO
I NO
Note: Please refer to Appendix A for the CaIEEModTM output files and additional supporting information for the estimated emissions. a Includes emissions of landscape maintenance equipment and architectural coatings emissions b Includes emissions of natural gas consumption
° Includes emissions of vehicle emissions and fugitive dust related to vehicular travel North Newport Center Planned Community Air Quality Impact Analysis City of Newport Beach, CA (JN:08210-05 AQ Report) OURBAN 30 3.6 CO "HOT SPOT" ANALYSIS
A carbon monoxide (CO) "hot spots" analysis is needed to determine whether the change in the level of service (LOS) of an intersection due to the Project would have the potential to result in exceedances of the California or National Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS or NAAQS).

It has long been recognized that CO exceedances are caused by vehicular emissions, primarily when idling at intersections. Vehicle emissions standards have become increasingly more stringent in the last twenty years. Currently, the CO standard in California is a maximum of 3.4 grams/mile for passenger cars (there are requirements for certain vehicles that are more stringent). With the turnover of older vehicles, introduction of cleaner fuels and implementation of control technology on industrial facilities, CO concentrations in the Project vicinity have steadily declined, as shown based on historical data presented on Table 2-3.

Accordingly, with the steadily decreasing CO emissions from vehicles, even very busy intersections do not result in exceedances of the CO standard.

The analysis prepared for CO attainment in the SCAB by the SCAQMD can be used to assist in evaluating the potential for CO exceedances in the South Coast Air Basin. CO attainment was thoroughly analyzed as part of the SCAQMD's 2003 Air Quality Management Plan (2003 AQMP) and the 1992 Federal Attainment Plan for Carbon Monoxide (1992 CO Plan). As discussed in the 1992 CO Plan, peak carbon monoxide concentrations in the South Coast Air Basin are due to unusual meteorological and topographical conditions, and not due to the impact of particular intersections. Considering the region's unique meteorological conditions and the increasingly stringent CO emissions standards, CO modeling was performed as part of 1992 CO Plan and subsequent plan updates and air quality management plans.

In the 1992 CO Plan, a CO hot spot analysis was conducted for four busy intersections in Los Angeles County at the peak morning and afternoon time periods. The intersections evaluated included: Long Beach Blvd. and Imperial Highway (Lynwood); Wilshire Blvd. and Veteran Ave. (Westwood); Sunset Blvd. and Highland Ave. (Hollywood); and La Cienega Blvd. and Century Blvd. (Inglewood). The analysis in the 1992CO Plan did not result in a violation of CO standards. The busiest intersection evaluated was that at Wilshire Blvd. and Veteran Ave., which has a daily traffic volume of approximately 100,000 vehicles per day. The Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority evaluated the LOS in the vicinity of the Wilshire Blvd. /Veteran Ave. intersection and found it to be Level E at peak morning traffic and Level F at peak afternoon traffic.

This highest Project -area average daily traffic is lower than the values studied in the 1992 CO Plan.

Consequently at buildout of the Project, according to the Traffic Impact Analysis, none of the intersections in the vicinity of the Proposed Project Site would have peak hourly traffic volumes exceeding those at the intersections modeled in the 2003 AQMP, nor would there be any reason unique to project area North Newport Center Planned Community Air Quality Impact Analysis City of Newport Beach, CA (JN:08210-05 AQ Report) OURBAN 31 meteorology to conclude that this intersection would yield higher CO concentrations if modeled in detail. As a result, the South Coast Air Basin has been designated as attainment for CO since 2007 (SCAQMD 2007) and even very busy intersections do not result in exceedances of the CO standard.

3.7 AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLANNING
The Project site is located within the SCAB, which is characterized by relatively poor air quality. The SCAQMD has jurisdiction over an approximately 12,000 square -mile area consisting of the four -county Basin and the Los Angeles County and Riverside County portions of what use to be referred to as the Southeast Desert Air Basin. In these areas, the SCAQMD is principally responsible for air pollution control, and works directly with the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG), county transportation commissions, local governments, as well as state and federal agencies to reduce emissions from stationary, mobile, and indirect sources to meet state and federal ambient air quality standards.

Currently, these state and federal air quality standards are exceeded in most parts of the Basin. In response, the SCAQMD has adopted a series of Air Quality Management Plans (AQMPs) to meet the state and federal ambient air quality standards. AQMPs are updated regularly in order to more effectively reduce emissions, accommodate growth, and to minimize any negative fiscal impacts of air pollution control on the economy.

The SCAQMD has published the Draft Final 2007 AQMP, which was adopted by the SCAQMD Governing Board on June 1, 2007. In September 2007, the CARB Board adopted the SCAQMD 2007 AQMP as part of the SIP. The purpose of the 2007 AQMP for the SCAB (and those portions of the Salton Sea Air Basin under the SCAQMD's jurisdiction) is to set forth a comprehensive program that will lead these areas into compliance with federal and state air quality planning requirements for ozone and PM2.5. On September 27, 2007, the CARB Board adopted the State Strategy for the 2007 State Implementation Plan and the 2007 South Coast Air Quality Management Plan as part of the (SIP). On November 22, 20102, U.S. EPA published its notice of proposed partial approval and partial disapproval of the 2007 AQMP PM2.5 Plan.

The proposed disapproval is primarily due to the fact that the attainment demonstration relies heavily on emissions reductions from several State rules that have not been finalized or submitted to U.S. EPA for approval. No timetable for full adoption of the 2007 AQMP is available at this time.

As part of the 2007 AQMP, the SCAQMD requested, and the U.S. EPA's subsequently approved a "bump - up" to the "extreme" nonattainment classification for ozone in the SCAB, which extends the attainment date to 2024 and allow for the attainment demonstration to rely on emission reductions from measures that anticipate the development of new technologies or improvement of existing control technologies. Although PM2.5 plans for nonattainment areas were due in April 2008, the 2007 AQMP also focuses on attainment strategies for the PM2.5 standard through stricter control of sulfur oxides, directly -emitted PM2.5, NOX, and VOCs. The need to commence PM2.5 control strategies before April 2008 is due to the attainment date for 2 http://www.agmd.gov/hb/attachments/2011-2015/2011Jan/2011-Jan7-019.pdf North Newport Center Planned Community Air Quality Impact Analysis City of Newport Beach, CA (JN:08210-05 AQ Report) OURBAN 32 PM2.5 (2015) being much earlier than that for ozone (2021 for the current designation of severe-17 or 2024 for the extreme designation). However, it should be noted that the PM2.5 plans are still in the process of being submitted. Control measures and strategies for PM2.5 will also help control ozone generation in the region because PM2.5 and ozone share similar precursors (e.g., NOX). The SCAQMD has integrated PM2.5 and ozone reduction control measures and strategies in the 2007 AQMP. In addition, the AQMP focuses on reducing VOC emissions, which have not been reduced at the same rate as NOX emissions in the past.

Hence, the SCAB has not achieved the reductions in ozone as were expected in previous plans.

The 2007 AQMP was based on assumptions on motor vehicles provided by the CARB and on demographics provided by SCAG. These assumptions are reflected in the new EMFAC2007 computer model. The air quality levels projected in the 2007 AQMP are based on several assumptions. For example, the 2007 AQMP has assumed that development associated with general plans, specific plans, residential projects, and wastewater facilities will be constructed in accordance with population growth projections identified by SCAG in its 2004 RTP. The 2007 AQMP also has assumed that such development projects will implement strategies to reduce emissions generated during the construction and operational phases of development. The Project's consistency with the 2007 AQMP is discussed as follows:

Criteria for determining consistency with the AQMP are defined in Chapter 12, Section 12.2 and Section

12.3 of the SCAQMD's CEQA Air Quality Handbook (1993). These indicators are discussed below:
• Consistency Criterion No. 1: The proposed Project will not result in an increase in the frequency or severity of existing air quality violations or cause or contribute to new violations, or delay the timely attainment of air quality standards or the interim emissions reductions specified in the AQMP.

Project's Contribution to Air Quality Violations
According to the SCAQMD, the proposed project would be consistent with the AQMP if the project would not result in an increase in the frequency or severity of existing air quality violations or cause or contribute to new violations, or delay timely attainment of air quality standards or the interim emission reductions specified in the AQMP.

Emissions Associated with Construction Activities
No specific development project is proposed as part of the Project at this time; therefore, it is not possible to calculate specific emission quantities that may be associated with future construction activities.

Nevertheless, it is recognized that construction effects would be expected to follow approval of the Project.

See CEQA Guidelines Section 15146. Construction -related impacts to air quality were previously evaluated as part of the General Plan EIR, which concluded that buildout of the General Plan would result in construction activities that would exceed the SCAQMD's construction -related air quality standards. As North Newport Center Planned Community Air Quality Impact Analysis City of Newport Beach, CA (JN:08210-05 AQ Report) OURBAN 33 such, the General Plan EIR disclosed construction -related air emissions as a significant and unavoidable impact.

Any future Project -related construction activities would be required to comply with General Plan policies NR 8.1 through 8.5, which when implemented would help to reduce construction -related air pollutant emissions. Further, construction activities that may be associated with future residential development on the proposed Project site would be required to comply with all applicable SCAQMD Rules and current California Building Code requirements (California Code of Regulations, Title 24), some provisions of which are more stringent now than when the General Plan EIR was certified in 2007.

Construction -related air emissions and resulting impacts associated with the proposed allocation of 524 multi -family residential units to San Joaquin Plaza clearly fall within the scope of analysis previously provided in the General Plan EIR. Of the 524 units, the General Plan EIR assumed that 430 of those units would be constructed within the NNCPC and also assumed that an additional 15 multi -family units would be constructed within Statistical Area L1. The remaining 79 units were assumed by the General Plan EIR to consist of hotel units. Therefore, the conversion of 79 hotel units to multi -family residential units and the conduct of construction activities to the specific location of San Joaquin Plaza represent the Project's only potential to create new construction -related air quality impacts because construction of the remaining 445 multi -family units in Newport Center were assumed and previously evaluated by the General Plan EIR.

The construction of 79 multi -family residential units instead of 79 hotel units would not represent any measurable difference in construction -related air emissions. The types of construction equipment, material use, and duration of construction activities would be very similar for hotel units or multi -family units.

Additionally, the conduct of construction activities in San Joaquin Plaza would not have the potential to generate air emissions that would be different or more severe than the conduct of construction activities in other parts of Newport Center. Accordingly, future Project -related construction emissions would not result in any new impacts or substantially increase the severity of the significant and unavoidable construction - related air quality impact previously disclosed in the General Plan EIR.

Long -Term Operational -Related Emissions
Although the General Plan EIR identified a significant and unavoidable impact due to a conflict with the applicable AQMP, the conflict was related only to the increase in population that would be associated with buildout of the General Plan (and is discussed below under the analysis of Consistency Criterion No. 2).

As indicated in the General Plan EIR:
`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. "
North Newport Center Planned Community Air Quality Impact Analysis City of Newport Beach, CA (JN:08210-05 AQ Report) OURBAN 34 The General Plan EIR determined that VMTs would be reduced through compliance with the General Plan goals and policies, and that the reduction in VMTs would be consistent with the AQMP. For example, the General Plan would "...promote a mixed -use pedestrian -friendly district for Balboa Peninsula, Airport Area, Newport Center/Fashion Island, Mainers Mile, and which would contribute to decreases in vehicle miles traveled." Additionally, the General Plan EIR identifies several other policies, including Policies LU 3.3, LU 6.15.9, 6.14.5, 6.15.9, NR 6.1, NR 6.2, NR 6.3, NR 6.4, and NR 6.5, that would serve to reduce VMTs within the City.

The proposed Project would contribute to the mixed -use nature of Newport Center/Fashion Island by locating multi -family residential uses within the San Joaquin Plaza where commercial and office land uses exist. The Project also would be required to comply with all applicable General Plan goals and policies.

Furthermore, and as concluded in the Project's traffic study, the proposed Project would generate 315 fewer daily trips than was assumed under the General Plan EIR, and would therefore result in a net reduction in VMTs. Accordingly, VMTs associated with the proposed Project would be within the scope of analysis as presented in the General Plan EIR, and would not contribute to a substantial increase in the severity of the General Plan's significant and unavoidable impact due to a conflict with the applicable AQMP.

Project -related air quality emissions were calculated and presented previously in Section 3.5. As discussed in Section 3.5 and shown in Table 3-2, air emissions associated with the allocation of 94 additional multi -family units to the San Joaquin Plaza will not violate an air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation. Therefore, it follows that the Project's emissions would not substantially contribute to a cumulative excedance of a pollutant for which the SCAB is in nonattainment (ozone, nitrogen dioxide, PM10, PM2.5). Because Project emissions would not substantially contribute to a cumulative excedance of a pollutant for which the Air Basin is in nonattainment, operation of the proposed Project would not result in any new impacts due to a conflict with the AQMP, nor would the Project's operational emissions create a substantially more severe impact due to conflict with the AQMP than previously disclosed in the General Plan EIR.

On the basis of the preceding discussion, the Project would be consistent with the scope of analysis as presented in the General Plan EIR and is determined to be consistent with the first criterion. • Consistency Criterion No. 2: The proposed project will not exceed the assumptions in the AQMP or increments based on the years of project build -out phase.

The General Plan EIR identified a significant unavoidable impact due to a conflict with the applicable AQMP because buildout of the General Plan "...would result in population levels above those uses in the 2003 AQMP."
North Newport Center Planned Community Air Quality Impact Analysis City of Newport Beach, CA (JN:08210-05 AQ Report) OURBAN 35 Assumptions of the AQMP used in projecting future emissions levels are based in part on land use data provided by lead agency general plan documentation. Projects that propose general plan amendments and changes of zone may increase the intensity of use and/or result in higher traffic volumes, thereby resulting in increased stationary area source emissions and/or vehicle source emissions when compared to the AQMP assumptions. If however, a project does not exceed the growth projections in the applicable local General Plan, then the project is considered to be consistent with the growth assumptions in the AQMP.

As discussed under the analysis of Consistency Criterion No. 1, construction -related emissions that may be associated with future development at the proposed Project site would be consistent with the assumptions previously evaluated and disclosed in the General Plan EIR. Therefore, the proposed Project would not exceed growth assumptions for construction -related activities.

The proposed Project does not involve a General Plan Amendment, but it does involve a change of zone associated with a proposed amendment to the NNCPC Development Plan, which serves as the controlling zoning ordinance for properties within its geographic boundaries. The amendment proposes to vest a total of 524 multi -family units to the San Joaquin Plaza portion of NNCPC, including 430 units already allowed within the San Joaquin Plaza, the assignment of 15 un-built units to the San Joaquin Plaza, and through the conversion of 79 hotel units to multi -family units and the transfer of those units to the San Joaquin Plaza.

Population growth associated with the 430 multi -family residential units already allowed within the San Joaquin Plaza and the 15 un-assigned and un-built multi -family units within Statistical Area L1 are consistent with the growth projections assumed in the General Plan EIR, and are therefore accounted for as part of the significant and unavoidable conflict with the 2003 AQMP as disclosed by the General Plan EIR. By contrast, the conversion of 79 un-built hotel units to residential units would result in an estimated increase in the City's permanent population by 173 persons (based on a person per household [pph] value of 2.19 cited in the General Plan EIR). It should be noted that the increase in the permanent population would be somewhat off -set by the reduction in transient population (i.e., hotel patrons) due to the reduction in the number of hotel units allowed within the City (79 units).

As evaluated in the San Joaquin Plaza — Trip Generation letter (Stantec, May 2012), the 79 residential units proposed by the Project to be converted from hotel room units would generate 315 fewer daily trips, and thereby fewer operational air emissions than the 79 hotel rooms that were assumed in the General Plan EIR. Accordingly, because the 2007 AQMP relied on land use and demographic data from the General Plan and the proposed Project would generate fewer emissions than assumed for General Plan buildout, the Project would not exceed the growth assumptions in the AQMP. As such, the proposed project is in compliance with Consistency Criterion No. 2 and would not result in greater emissions than what is already included in the General Plan.

North Newport Center Planned Community Air Quality Impact Analysis City of Newport Beach, CA (JN:08210-05 AQ Report) OURBAN 36 Since the project satisfies both of the two aforementioned criterion for determining consistency, the proposed Project would not result in any new impacts due to a Project -specific conflict with the AQMP, nor would the proposed Project result in a substantial increase in the severity of the General Plan's significant and unavoidable conflict with the AQMP. Therefore, implementation of the proposed Project would not result in any new impacts or increase the severity of a previously identified significant impact as previously analyzed in the General Plan EIR..

Additionally, to ensure continued progress toward clean air and compliance with state and federal requirements, the SCAQMD, in conjunction with the CARB and SCAG, is currently preparing the 2012 revision to its 2007 AQMP3. The 2012 AQMP will incorporate the latest scientific and technological information and planning assumptions, including the 2012 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy, comprehensive strategy aimed at controlling pollution from all sources, and updated emission inventory methodologies for stationary sources, on -road and off -road mobile sources, and area sources. No timetable for the release of the 2012 AQMP is available at this time, however, since the Project is deemed consistent with the 2007 AQMP it follows that the Project would also remain consistent with the 2012 AQMP, when it is released.

3.8 POTENTIAL IMPACTS TO SENSITIVE RECEPTORS
The potential impact of Project -generated air pollutant emissions at sensitive receptors has also been considered. Sensitive receptors can include uses such as long term health care facilities, rehabilitation centers, and retirement homes. Residences, schools, playgrounds, child care centers, and athletic facilities can also be considered as sensitive receptors.

The Project will not exceed the applicable regional thresholds during long-term operational activity, as such, a less than significant impact to any sensitive receptors in the vicinity of the project is expected.

The proposed Project would not result in a significant CO "hotspot" as a result of Project related traffic during ongoing operations, thus a less than significant impact to sensitive receptors during operational activity is expected.

3.9 ODORS
The potential for the Project to generate objectionable odors has also been considered. Land uses generally associated with odor complaints include:
• Agricultural uses (livestock and farming)
• Wastewater treatment plants
3 http://www.agmd.gov/agmp/2012agmP/index.htm
North Newport Center Planned Community Air Quality Impact Analysis City of Newport Beach, CA (JN:08210-05 AQ Report) OURBAN 37 • Food processing plants
• Chemical plants
• Composting operations
• Refineries
• Landfills
• Dairies
• Fiberglass molding facilities
The Project does not contain land uses typically associated with emitting objectionable odors. Potential odor sources associated with the proposed Project may result from construction equipment exhaust and the application of asphalt and architectural coatings during construction activities, and the temporary storage of typical solid waste (refuse) associated with the proposed Project's (long-term operational) uses.

Standard construction requirements would minimize odor impacts resulting from construction activity. It should be noted that any construction odor emissions generated would be temporary, short-term, and intermittent in nature and would cease upon completion of the respective phase of construction activity and is thus considered less than significant. It is expected that Project -generated refuse would be stored in covered containers and removed at regular intervals in compliance with the City's solid waste regulations.

The proposed Project would also be required to comply with SCAQMD Rule 402 to prevent occurrences of public nuisances. Therefore, odors associated with the proposed Project construction and operations would be less than significant and no mitigation is required.

3.10 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
As previously indicated, air quality emissions associated with future construction activities would be consistent with the assumptions made in the General Plan EIR. Accordingly, future construction activities would not result in any new or more severe cumulative impacts to air quality beyond what was previously evaluated and disclosed in the General Plan EIR.

The Project area is designated as an extreme non -attainment area for ozone, and a non -attainment area for PM10 and PM2.5. Germane to this non -attainment status, the Project -specific evaluation of emissions associated with the addition of 94 multi -family units to the San Joaquin Plaza presented in the preceding analysis demonstrates that the Project will not result in an increased impact due to a conflict with the AQMP, which is designed to assist the region in attaining the applicable state and national ambient air quality standards. Furthermore, the Project -related emissions would not exceed the regional thresholds established by the SCAQMD for NOX, VOC, PM10, or PM2.5; as such, it follows that the emissions would not substantially contribute to a cumulative excedance of a pollutant for which the SCAB is in nonattainment (i.e., ozone, NOX, PM10, and/or PM2.5). The Project would comply with SCAQMD's Rule 403 (fugitive dust control) during construction, as well as all other adopted AQMP emissions control measures. Per SCAQMD rule and mandates, as well as the CEQA requirement that significant impacts be mitigated to the extent feasible, these same requirements would also be imposed North Newport Center Planned Community Air Quality Impact Analysis City of Newport Beach, CA (JN:08210-05 AQ Report) OURBAN 38 on all projects Basin -wide, which would include all related projects. As such, Project -related criteria pollutant emissions would not result in any new impacts or increase the severity of a previously identified significant impact as analyzed in the General Plan EIR.

North Newport Center Planned Community Air Quality Impact Analysis City of Newport Beach, CA (JN:08210-05 AQ Report) OURBAN 39 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
North Newport Center Planned Community Air Quality Impact Analysis City of Newport Beach, CA (JN:08210-05 AQ Report) OURBAN 40 4.0 REFERENCES

1. California Air Resources Board, 2007. California Air Resources Board Almanac.

2. California Air Resources Board, 2007. EMFAC 2007.

3. EIP Associates, 2006. City of Newport Beach General Plan 2006 Update Draft Environmental Impact Report.

4. South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD), 1993. CEQA Air Quality Handbook.

5. South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD), 2011. California Emissions Estimator Model (CaIEEModTM)

6. South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD), March 2009. CEQA Air Quality Significance Thresholds.

7. South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD), 2003. Final Localized Significance Threshold Methodology.

8. Stantec, 2012. North Newport Center San Joaquin Plaza TPO Traffic Analysis.

North Newport Center Planned Community Air Quality Impact Analysis City of Newport Beach, CA (JN:08210-05 AQ Report) OURBAN 41 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
North Newport Center Planned Community Air Quality Impact Analysis City of Newport Beach, CA (JN:08210-05 AQ Report) OURBAN 42 APPENDIX A
CaIEEModTM Input/Output
Construction and Operational Emissions
North Newport Center Planned Community Air Quality Impact Analysis City of Newport Beach, CA (JN:08210-05 AQ Report) OURBAN

CaIEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2011.1.1
North Newport Center Planned Community Amendment
Orange County, Summer

1.0 Project Characteristics

1.1 Land Usage
Land Uses Size Metric
Condo/Townhouse High Rise 94 Dwelling Unit

1.2 Other Project Characteristics
Urbanization Urban Wind Speed (m/s) 2.2 Utility Company Southern California Edison Climate Zone 8 Precipitation Freq (Days) 30

1.3 User Entered Comments
Project Characteristics -
Land Use -
Construction Phase -
Off -road Equipment - the project does not require emissions for the construction phase Trips and VMT - the project does not require emissions for the construction phase Vehicle Trips - trip rate data was sourced from Trip Generation 8th Edition, Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE 232) Date: 5/17/2012

2.0 Emissions Summary
1 of 10

2.1 Overall Construction (Maximum Daily Emission)
Unmitigated Construction
ROG
NOx
CO
S02
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio-
CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N20
CO2e
Year
lb/day
lb/day
2011 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Mitigated Construction
ROG
NOx
CO
S02
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio-
CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N20
CO2e
Year
lb/day
lb/day
2011 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
2of10

2.2 Overall Operational
Unmitigated Operational
ROG
NO.

CO
S02
Fugitive
Exhaust
PM10
Fugitive
Exhaust
PM2.5
Bio- CO2
NBio-
Total CO2
CH4
N20
CO2e
PM10
PM10
I
Total
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
CO2
Category
lb/day
lb/day
Area 12.32 0.55 39.07 0.08 0.00 5.01 0.00 5.01 663.33 1,706.13 ' 2.64 0.04 2,437.50 Energy 0.07 0.61 0.26 0.00 0.00 0.05 0.00 0.05 776.28 0.01 0.01 781.00 Mobile 1.92 3.47 18.87 0.04 4.46 0.18 4.64 0.15 0.18 0.33 3,693.29 ' 0.15 3,696.35 Total

14.31 4.63

58.20 0.12

4.46 0.18

9.70 0.15

0.18 5.39
663.33
6,175.70

2.80 0.05
6,914.85
Mitigated Operational
ROG
NO.

CO
S02
Fugitive
Exhaust
PM10
Fugitive
Exhaust
PM2.5
Bio- CO2
NBio-
Total CO2
CH4
N20
CO2e
PM10
PM10
I
Total
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
CO2
Category
lb/day
lb/day
Area 12.32 0.55 39.07 0.08 0.00 5.01 0.00 5.01 • 663.33 1,706.13 ' 2.64 0.04 2,437.50 Energy 0.07 0.61 0.26 0.00 0.00 0.05 0.00 0.05 776.28 0.01 0.01 781.00 Mobile 1.92 3.47 18.87 0.04 4.46 0.18 4.64 0.15 0.18 0.33 3,693.29 ' 0.15 3,696.35 Total

14.31 4.63

58.20 0.12

4.46 0.18

9.70 0.15

0.18 5.39
663.33
6,175.70

2.80 0.05
6,914.85

3.0 Construction Detail
3of10

3.1 Mitigation Measures Construction

3.2 Demolition - 2011
Unmitigated Construction On -Site
ROG
NO.

CO
S02
Fugitive
PM10
I Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio-
CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N20
CO2e
Category
lb/day
lb/day
. . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Off -Road 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total

0.00 0.00

0.00 Unmitigated Construction Off -Site
ROG
NOx
CO
S02
Fugitive
Exhaust
PM10
Fugitive
Exhaust
PM2.5
Bio- CO2
NBio-
Total CO2
CH4
N20
CO2e
PM10
PM10
I
Total
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
CO2
Category
lb/day
lb/day
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Worker 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total

0.00 0.00

0.00 4of10

3.2 Demolition - 2011
Mitigated Construction On -Site
ROG
NO.

CO
S02
Fugitive
PM10
I Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio-
CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N20
CO2e
Category
lb/day
lb/day
. . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Off -Road 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00
Mitigated Construction Off -Site
ROG
NO.

CO
S02
Fugitive
Exhaust
PM10
Fugitive
Exhaust
PM2.5
Bio- CO2
NBio-
Total CO2
CH4
N20
CO2e
PM10
PM10
I
Total
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
CO2
Category
lb/day
lb/day
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Worker 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total

0.00 0.00

0.00 4.0 Mobile Detail

4.1 Mitigation Measures Mobile
5of10

ROG
NO.

CO
S02
Fugitive
PM10
I Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
I PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio-
CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N20
CO2e
Category
lb/day
lb/day
Mitigated 1.92 3.47 18.87 0.04 4.46 0.18 4.64 0.15 0.18 0.33 3,693.29 ' 0.15 3,696.35 Unmitigated 1.92 3.47 18.87 0.04 4.46 0.18 4.64 0.15 0.18 0.33 3,693.29 ' 0.15 3,696.35 Total
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA

4.2 Trip Summary Information
Average Daily Trip Rate
Unmitigated
Mitigated
Land Use Weekday
Saturday
Sunday
Annual VMT
Annual VMT
Condo/Townhouse High Rise 392.92 405.14 322.42 1,280,920 1,280,920 Total
392.92
405.14
322.42
1,280,920
1,280,920

4.3 Trip Type Information
Miles Trip %
Land Use H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW Condo/Townhouse High Rise 12.70 7.00 9.50 40.20 19.20 40.60

5.0 Energy Detail

5.1 Mitigation Measures Energy
6of10

ROG
NOx
CO
S02
Fugitive
Exhaust
PM10
Fugitive
Exhaust
PM2.5
Bio- CO2
NBio-
Total CO2
CH4
N20
CO2e
I
I
PM10
PM10
Total
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
CO2
I
Category
lb/day
lb/day
NaturalGas 0.07 0.61 0.26 0.00 0.00 0.05 0.00 0.05 776.28 0.01 0.01 781.00 Mitigated
NaturalGas 0.07 0.61 0.26 0.00 0.00 0.05 0.00 0.05 776.28 0.01 0.01 781.00 Unmitigated
Total
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA

5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas
Unmitigated
NaturalGas Use
ROG
NOx
CO
S02
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
I Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio-
CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N20
CO2e
Land Use
kBTU
lb/day
lb/day
Condo/Townhouse' 6598.36 0.07 0.61 0.26 0.00 0.00 0.05 0.00 0.05 776.28 0.01 0.01 781.00 High Rise
Total

0.07 0.61

0.26 0.00

0.00 0.05

0.00 0.05
776.28

0.01 0.01
781.00
7of10

5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas
Mitigated
NaturalGas Use
ROG
NOx
CO
S02
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio-
CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N20
CO2e
Land Use
kBTU
lb/day
lb/day
Condo/Townhouse' 6.59836 0.07 0.61 0.26 0.00 0.00 0.05 0.00 0.05 776.28 0.01 0.01 781.00 High Rise
Total

0.07 0.61

0.26 0.00

0.00 0.05

0.00 0.05
776.28

0.01 0.01
781.00

6.0 Area Detail

6.1 Mitigation Measures Area
ROG
NOx
CO
S02
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio-
CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N20
I CO2e
Category
b/day
lb/day
Mitigated 12.32 0.55 39.07 0.08 0.00 5.01 0.00 5.01 663.33 1,706.13 ' 2.64 0.04 ' 2,437.50 -------------- ------- *------ *------ *------ *------ *------ *------ *------ *------ ------- ------- *------ *------ *------ *------ Unmitigated 12.32 0.55 39.07 0.08 0.00 5.01 0.00 5.01 663.33 1,706.13 ' 2.64 0.04 2,437.50 Total
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
8of10

6.2 Area by SubCategory
Unmitigated
ROG
NO.

CO
S02
Fugitive
Exhaust
PM10
Fugitive
Exhaust
PM2.5
Bio- CO2
NBio-
Total CO2
CH4
N20
CO2e
PM10
PM10
I
Total
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
CO2
SubCategory
lb/day
lb/day
Architectural 0.20 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Coating
Consumer 1.86 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Products
--- ------------T------*------*------*------*------*------*------*------*------.------T------*------*------ ------ ------ Hearth 10.01 0.46 31.11 0.08 0.00 4.97 0.00 4.97 663.33 1,692.00 ' 2.63 0.04 2,423.06 ----------- +------ T------ *------ *------ *------ *------ r------ r------ *------ ---- --- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----- Landscaping 0.25 0.09 7.96 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.00 0.04 14.13 0.01 14.44 Total

12.32 0.55

39.07 0.08

0.00 5.01

0.00 5.01
663.33
1,706.13

2.64 0.04
2,437.50
Mitigated
ROG
NOx
CO
S02
Fugitive
Exhaust
PM10
Fugitive
Exhaust
PM2.5
Bio- CO2
NBio-
Total CO2
CH4
N20
CO2e
PM10
PM10
I
Total
PM2.5
PM2.5
To
CO2
SubCategory
lb/day
lb/day
Architectural 0.20 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Coating
Consumer 1.86 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Products
Hearth 10.01 0.46 31.11 0.08 0.00 4.97 0.00 4.97 663.33 1,692.00 ' 2.63 0.04 2,423.06 Landscaping 0.25 0.09 7.96 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.00 0.04 14.13 0.01 14.44 Total

12.32 0.55

39.07 0.08

0.00 5.01

0.00 5.01
663.33
1,706.13

2.64 0.04
2,437.50
9of10

7.0 Water Detail

7.1 Mitigation Measures Water

8.0 Waste Detail

8.1 Mitigation Measures Waste

9.0 Vegetation
10 of 10

CaIEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2011.1.1
North Newport Center Planned Community Amendment
Orange County, Winter

1.0 Project Characteristics

1.1 Land Usage
Land Uses Size Metric
Condo/Townhouse High Rise 94 Dwelling Unit

1.2 Other Project Characteristics
Urbanization Urban Wind Speed (m/s) 2.2 Utility Company Southern California Edison Climate Zone 8 Precipitation Freq (Days) 30

2.0 Emissions Summary
1 of 10

2.2 Overall Operational
Unmitigated Operational
ROG
NO.

CO
S02
Fugitive
Exhaust
PM10
Fugitive
Exhaust
PM2.5
Bio- CO2
NBio-
Total CO2
CH4
N20
CO2e
PM10
PM10
I
Total
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
CO2
Category
lb/day
lb/day
Area 12.32 0.55 39.07 0.08 0.00 5.01 0.00 5.01 663.33 1,706.13 ' 2.64 0.04 2,437.50 Energy 0.07 0.61 0.26 0.00 0.00 0.05 0.00 0.05 776.28 0.01 0.01 781.00 Mobile 2.03 3.84 18.37 0.04 4.46 0.18 4.64 0.15 0.18 0.33 3,486.56 ' 0.15 Total

14.42 5.00

57.70 0.12

4.46 0.18

9.70 0.15

0.18 5.39
663.33
5,968.97

2.80 0.05:Ea
Mitigated Operational
ROG
NO.

CO
S02
Fugitive
Exhaust
PM10
Fugitive
Exhaust
PM2.5
Bio- CO2
NBio-
Total CO2
CH4
N20
CO2e
PM10
PM10
I
Total
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
CO2
Category
lb/day
lb/day
Area 12.32 0.55 39.07 0.08 0.00 5.01 0.00 5.01 • 663.33 1,706.13 ' 2.64 0.04 2,437.50 Energy 0.07 0.61 0.26 0.00 0.00 0.05 0.00 0.05 776.28 0.01 0.01 781.00 Mobile 2.03 3.84 18.37 0.04 4.46 0.18 4.64 0.15 0.18 0.33 3,486.56 ' 0.15 Total

14.42 5.00

57.70 0.12

4.46 0.18

9.70 0.15

0.18 5.39
663.33
5,968.97

2.80 0.05:Ea

3.0 Construction Detail
3of10

3.1 Mitigation Measures Construction

3.2 Demolition - 2011
Unmitigated Construction On -Site
ROG
NO.

CO
S02
Fugitive
PM10
I Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio-
CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N20
CO2e
Category
lb/day
lb/day
. . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Off -Road 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total

0.00 0.00

0.00 4of10

3.2 Demolition - 2011
Mitigated Construction On -Site
ROG
NO.

CO
S02
Fugitive
PM10
I Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio-
CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N20
CO2e
Category
lb/day
lb/day
. . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Off -Road 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00
Mitigated Construction Off -Site
ROG
NO.

0.00 0.00

0.00 4.0 Mobile Detail

4.1 Mitigation Measures Mobile
5of10

ROG
NO.

CO
S02
Fugitive
PM10
I Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
I PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio-
CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N20
CO2e
Category
lb/day
lb/day
Mitigated 2.03 3.84 18.37 0.04 4.46 0.18 4.64 0.15 0.18 0.33 3,486.56 ' 0.15 3,489.62 Unmitigated 2.03 3.84 18.37 0.04 4.46 0.18 4.64 0.15 0.18 0.33 3,486.56 ' 0.15 3,489.62 Total
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA

4.3 Trip Type Information
Miles Trip %
Land Use H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW Condo/Townhouse High Rise 12.70 7.00 9.50 40.20 19.20 40.60

5.0 Energy Detail

5.1 Mitigation Measures Energy
6of10

0.07 0.61

0.26 0.00

0.00 0.05

0.00 0.05
776.28

0.01 0.01
781.00
7of10

0.07 0.61

0.26 0.00

0.00 0.05

0.00 0.05
776.28

0.01 0.01
781.00

6.0 Area Detail

6.2 Area by SubCategory
Unmitigated
ROG
NO.

12.32 0.55

39.07 0.08

0.00 5.01

0.00 5.01
663.33
1,706.13

12.32 0.55

39.07 0.08

0.00 5.01

0.00 5.01
663.33
1,706.13

2.64 0.04
2,437.50
9of10

7.0 Water Detail

7.1 Mitigation Measures Water

8.0 Waste Detail

8.1 Mitigation Measures Waste

9.0 Vegetation
10 of 10

No
■ ❑ Initial Study and General Plan Program EIR Addendum No. 2 Technical Appendix B
Greenhouse Gas Analysis
Urban Crossroads, Inc.

June 6, 2012
NNCPC Development Plan Amendment and Related Actions June 2012 Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach

URBAN

CROSSROADS
41 Corporate Park, Suite 300
Irvine, CA 92606
Prepared by:

Haseeb Qureshi, MES
Prepared for:

Ms. Tracy Zinn
T&B Planning
17542 East 17t" Street, Suite 100
Tustin, CA 92780

NORTH NEWPORT CENTER PLANNED COMMUNITY

GREENHOUSE GAS ANALYSIS

CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA
June 6, 2012
JN:08210-05 GHG REPORT
HQ

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section
Page

1.0 Introduction
......................................................................................................................4

1.1 Purpose of Report.................................................................................................4 12 Project Overview................................................................................................... 7 1.3
Summary of Findings............................................................................................9

1.4 Requirements........................................................................................................9

1.5 Construction Activity Recommended Mitigation Measures................................10

1.6 Operational Activity Recommended Mitigation Measures...................................10

2.0 Background....................................................................................................................11

2.1 Introduction to Global Climate Change...............................................................11

2.2 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventories.............................................................11

2.3 Global Climate Change Defined..........................................................................13

2.4 Greenhouse Gases.............................................................................................13

2.5 Effects of Climate Change In California..............................................................17

2.6 Human Health Effects.........................................................................................20

2.7 Regulatory Setting...............................................................................................22

2.9 Discussion on Establishment of Significance Thresholds...................................31

2.10 City of Newport Beach 2006 General Plan Update Final Program EIR...............32

3.0 Project Greenhouse Gas Impact....................................................................................34

3.1 Project Related Greenhouse Gas Emissions...................................................... 34 3.2
Life -Cycle Analysis.............................................................................................. 34 3.3
Construction Emissions.......................................................................................34

3.4 Operational Emissions........................................................................................ 35 3.4.1 Building Energy Use

3.4.2 Water Supply, Treatment and Distribution

3.4.3 Solid Waste

3.4.4 Mobile Source Emissions

3.5 Emissions Summary...........................................................................................36

3.6 GHG Emissions Findings and Recommendations..............................................38

3.7 Requirements......................................................................................................40

3.8 Construction Activity Recommended Mitigation Measures................................41

3.9 Operational Activity Recommended Mitigation Measures...................................41

4.0 References....................................................................................................................42 North Newport Center Planned Community Greenhouse Gas Analysis City of Newport Beach, CA (JN:08210-05 GHG Report) OURBAN

LIST OF APPENDICES
Appendix
Page
GHG Emissions Calculations..................................................................................................... A North Newport Center Planned Community Greenhouse Gas Analysis City of Newport Beach, CA (JN:08210-05 GHG Report) OURBAN

LIST OF TABLES
Table Page
2-1 Top GHG Producer Countries and the European Union................................................12 2-2 Global Warming Potentials and Atmospheric Lifetime of Select GHGs .........................14 2-3 Scoping Plan GHG Reduction Measures toward 2020 Target.......................................27 3-1 Total Greenhouse Gas Emissions (Annual) (Metric Tons Per Year) .............................. 37 North Newport Center Planned Community Greenhouse Gas Analysis City of Newport Beach, CA (JN:08210-05 GHG Report) OURBAN

NORTH NEWPORT CENTER PLANNED COMMUNITY

GREENHOUSE GAS ANALYSIS

CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA

1.0 INTRODUCTION
This report presents the results of the greenhouse gas analysis (GHGA) conducted by Urban Crossroads, Inc., for the proposed North Newport Center Planned Community (NNCPC) (referred to as "Project').

North Newport Center Planned Community Greenhouse Gas Analysis City of Newport Beach, CA (JN:08210-05 GHG Report) OURBAN 4 (1) Substantial changes are proposed in the project which will require major revisions of the previous EIR or negative declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; (2) Substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken which will require major revisions of the previous EIR or Negative Declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; or
(3) New information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the previous EIR, was certified as complete or the Negative Declaration was adopted, shows any of the following:
(A) The project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous EIR or negative declaration;
(B) Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than shown in the previous EIR;
(C) Mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible, and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the project, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative; or (D) Mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerably different from those analyzed in the previous EIR would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative.

In order to provide the analysis necessary for the City to make its determination under CEQA Guidelines section 15168(c), this GHGA evaluates Project -related construction and operational emissions and determines the level of greenhouse gas (GHG) impacts as a result of constructing and operating the proposed Project. Additional information beyond that required for the City's determination has been included at the request of the City in order to provide public information regarding how the Project standing alone would impact GHG emissions.

Crucial to the City's consideration of the above -stated factors in the GHG context is the fact that the proposed Project serves to implement principal goals of the 2006 General Plan. These goals and policies include the following:'
A successful mixed -use district that integrates an economic and commercial center 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.
' City of Newport Beach, Final Environmental Impact Report for the General Plan 2006 Update (State Clearinghouse No. 2006011119), July 26, 2006, pages 3-97 to 3-98.

North Newport Center Planned Community Greenhouse Gas Analysis City of Newport Beach, CA (JN:08210-05 GHG Report) OURBAN 5 Provide the opportunity for limited residential, hotel, and office development in accordance with the limits specified by Tables LUI and LU2.

Provide the opportunity for an additional anchor tenant, other retail, and/or entertainment and supporting uses that complement, are integrated with and enhance the economic vitality of existing development.

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.

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.

Full implementation of entitlements for North Newport Center consistent with the 2006 General Plan will assist the City in achieving its General Plan goals. Regarding long- term air quality impacts, the General Plan EIR states that the nature of North Newport Center has the potential to contribute to decreases in vehicle miles traveled because the project area promotes a mixed -use pedestrian -friendly district.2 This report analyzes and confirms that the Project is not expected to result in any climate change impacts due to greenhouse gas emissions beyond the impacts of the development set forth in the General Plan EIR.

The General Plan EIR analyzed air quality impacts associated with buildout of future development in the City, inclusive of North Newport Center. The analysis included carbon dioxide (CO2) and other greenhouse gas emissions. This report analyzes and confirms that the Project would not generate any new air quality impacts not already identified in the General Plan EIR, and that the Project is in conformance with the assumptions set forth in the General Plan EIR. This report will enable the City to confirm that implementation of the Project would not result in any new impacts or increase the severity of a previously identified significant impact as previously analyzed in the General Plan EIR.

With respect to global climate change (GCC) resulting from greenhouse gas emissions, no new information of substantial importance on climate change is now available that was not known and could not have been known when the City approved the General Plan EIR in 2006. For example, in 1979 the National Research Council published Carbon Dioxide and Climate A Scientific Assessment," which concluded that climate change was an accelerating phenomenon partly due to human activity. Numerous studies conducted before and after the National Research Council report reached similar conclusions. The 2 City of Newport Beach, Final Environmental impact Report for the General Plan 2006 Update (State Clearinghouse No. 2006011119), July 26, 2006, page 4.2-12.

North Newport Center Planned Community Greenhouse Gas Analysis City of Newport Beach, CA (JN:08210-05 GHG Report) OURBAN 6 State of California adopted legislation in 2002 requiring the California Air Resources Board to develop regulations limiting greenhouse gas emissions from automobiles.

Consideration of strategies to control emissions of greenhouse gases which may contribute in some manner to global climate change is under consideration at all regulatory levels; however, there is no one agency responsible for regulating greenhouse gases, and there are no established standards to evaluate the significance of greenhouse gas emissions. However, the most common greenhouse gas emissions are from vehicle emissions (both construction and operational) and operational emissions from energy consumption. These issues have been addressed in the General Plan EIR.

Analyses prepared for or by California State Agencies on climate change issues do not provide for the provision of specific measures to incorporate into particular projects to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, except for generalized recommendations about such matters as encouraging jobs/housing proximity. The California Energy Commission has explained that accessibility and mixed use are two factors that reduce vehicles trips, which are a major source of greenhouse gas emissions in California.3 In addition, the Project's incremental contribution to any cumulative global climate change impact is mitigated by various characteristics of the Project that serve to render its contribution less than cumulatively considerable. One of the main concerns raised by those concerned about the effect of greenhouse gases on climate change is that "leap frog" -type development would serve to potentially increase the number of vehicle miles traveled and consequently increase those vehicular emissions (i.e., CO2 that contribute to greenhouse gases). The Project would allow for in -fill, mixed use development in an urbanized setting thereby providing opportunities to reduce vehicle trips.

While this GHGA indicates that the Project would produce GHG emissions, the potential GHG emissions associated with the Project would not exceed those estimated in 2006 because the Project is not larger in size or scope than the full buildout of the 2006 General Plan analyzed in the General Plan EIR. Thus, this report concludes that there are no new significant GHG impacts resulting from the Project nor is there any substantial increase in the severity of any previously identified GHG impacts.

1.2 PROJECT OVERVIEW
The NNCPC Development Plan currently allows for 430 multi -family residential units to be developed in areas of the NNCPC designated MU-H3 by the General Plan. In comparison, the General Plan allows a maximum of 450 units in the MU-H3 category throughout the Newport Center Statistical Area. In other words, of the 450 MU-H3 residential units allowed by the General Plan in the Newport Center Statistical Area, 430 are specifically assigned to the areas of the NNCPC designated by the NNCPC 3 California Energy Commission, The Role of Land Use in Meeting California's Energy and Climate Change Goals, Draft, June 26, 2007, pages 7, 17-19.

North Newport Center Planned Community Greenhouse Gas Analysis City of Newport Beach, CA (JN:08210-05 GHG Report) OURBAN 7 Development Plan as Block 500, Block 600 and San Joaquin Plaza. The remaining 20 units are allowed to be developed in any MU-H3 designated area in the Newport Center Statistical Area. Five (5) MU-H3 units have been assigned to the Golf Realty Fund Tennis Club development and the other 15 MU-H3 units are not assigned to any particular property.

In addition, certain areas of the City are identified on the General Plan Land Use Map as "Anomaly Locations," where a maximum development intensity is allowed pursuant to General Plan Tables LU1 and LU2. Anomaly Location 43 in the Newport Center Statistical Area (Statistical Area L1) is developed with a 532 room resort hotel presently operated by Marriott Hotels and Resorts. General Plan Table LU2 allows a maximum of 611 hotel rooms in Anomaly Location 43; therefore, 79 hotel rooms allowed by the General Plan are un-built. The proposed Project would convert the 79 un-built hotel rooms to 79 multi -family residential units and then transfer them to the San Joaquin Plaza portion of the NNCPC.

The Project Applicant proposes an amendment to the NNCPC Development Plan to increase the allowable residential development intensity by 94 units (comprising 15 un-assigned and un-built multi- family units and the 79 hotel units that would be converted to multi -family units) and to assign those 94 units, along with 430 units already allocated to the NNCCP, to the portion of the NNCCP designated as San Joaquin Plaza.

Since no specific development is proposed at this time, and the exact location of the units is unknown, a specific calculation of emissions that may be associated with future construction -related GHG emissions is not possible and is not provided in this analysis. However, construction activities would be consistent with the assumptions made in the General Plan EIR and would not result in any new impacts or increase the severity of any impacts previously identified in the General Plan EIR. For purposes of this analysis, the greenhouse gas impacts centered on the on -going operations of the 94 units are evaluated.

North Newport Center Planned Community Greenhouse Gas Analysis City of Newport Beach, CA (JN:08210-05 GHG Report) OURBAN 8 1.3 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
• The Project will not generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment.
• The Project will not conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases.

1.4 REQUIREMENTS
The issue of GHG emissions was not previously evaluated in the General Plan EIR; as such, no mitigation measures specifically related to GHG emissions was identified in the General Plan EIR.

However, the General Plan includes several policies that would serve to reduce GHG emissions, and the proposed Project would be required to comply with all applicable General Plan goals and policies.

Additionally, although the Project will not result in a new significant GHG impact or increase the level of GHG emissions that would otherwise occur from buildout of the City's General Plan, the Project would be required to comply with all mandatory regulatory requirements imposed by the State of California and the South Coast Air Quality Management District aimed at the reduction of air quality emissions.

Those that are particularly applicable to the Project and that would assist in the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions are:
• Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (AB32)
• Regional GHG Emissions Reduction Targets/Sustainable Communities Strategies (SB 375) • Pavely Fuel Efficiency Standards (AB1493). Establishes fuel efficiency ratings for new vehicles. • Title 24 California Code of Regulations (California Building Code). Establishes energy efficiency requirements for new construction.
• Title 20 California Code of Regulations (Appliance Energy Efficiency Standards). Establishes energy efficiency requirements for appliances.
• Title 17 California Code of Regulations (Low Carbon Fuel Standard). Requires carbon content of fuel sold in California to be 10% less by 2020.
• California Water Conservation in Landscaping Act of 2006 (AB1881). Requires local agencies to adopt the Department of Water Resources updated Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance or equivalent by January 1, 2010 to ensure efficient landscapes in new development and reduced water waste in existing landscapes.
• Statewide Retail Provider Emissions Performance Standards (SB 1368). Requires energy generators to achieve performance standards for GHG emissions.

North Newport Center Planned Community Greenhouse Gas Analysis City of Newport Beach, CA (JN:08210-05 GHG Report) OURBAN 9 • Renewable Portfolio Standards (SB 1078). Requires electric corporations to increase the amount of energy obtained from eligible renewable energy resources to 20 percent by 2010 and 33 percent by 2020.

1.5 CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY RECOMMENDED MITIGATION MEASURES No significant impacts were identified and no mitigation measures are required.

1.6 OPERATIONAL ACTIVITY RECOMMENDED MITIGATION MEASURES No significant impacts were identified and no mitigation measures are required.

North Newport Center Planned Community Greenhouse Gas Analysis City of Newport Beach, CA (JN:08210-05 GHG Report) OURBAN 10 2.0 BACKGROUND

2.1 INTRODUCTION TO GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE
Global Climate Change (GCC) is defined as the change in average meteorological conditions on the earth with respect to temperature, precipitation, and storms. GCC is currently one of the most controversial environmental issues in the United States, and much debate exists within the scientific community about whether or not GCC is occurring naturally or as a result of human activity. Some data suggests that GCC has occurred in the past over the course of thousands or millions of years. These historical changes to the Earth's climate have occurred naturally without human influence, as in the case of an ice age. However, many scientists believe that the climate shift taking place since the industrial revolution (1900) is occurring at a quicker rate and magnitude than in the past. Scientific evidence suggests that GCC is the result of increased concentrations of greenhouse gases in the earth's atmosphere, including carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, and fluorinated gases. Many scientists believe that this increased rate of climate change is the result of greenhouse gases resulting from human activity and industrialization over the past 200 years.

An individual project like the proposed Project evaluated in this GHGA cannot generate enough greenhouse gas emissions to effect a discernible change in global climate. However, the proposed Project may participate in the potential for GCC by its incremental contribution of greenhouse gasses combined with the cumulative increase of all other sources of greenhouse gases, which when taken together constitute potential influences on GCC. Section 3.0 will evaluate the potential for the proposed Project to have an effect upon the environment as a result of its potential contribution to the greenhouse effect.

2.2 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS INVENTORIES
Global
Worldwide anthropogenic (man-made) GHG emissions are tracked by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change for industrialized nations (referred to as Annex 1) and developing nations (referred to as Non -Annex 1). Man-made GHG emissions data for Annex I nations are available through 2009. Man- made GHG emissions data for Non -Annex I nations are available through 2007. For the Year 2009 the sum of these emissions totaled approximately 40,084 MMTCO2e.4 Emissions from the top five countries and the European Union accounted for approximately 65 percent of the total global GHG 4 The global emissions are the sum of Annex I and non -Annex I countries, without counting Land -Use, Land -Use Change and Forestry (LULUCF). For countries without 2005 data, the UNFCCC data for the most recent year were used. United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, "Annex I Parties — GHG total without LULUCF," http://unfccc.int/qhq emissions data/qhq data from unfccc/time series annex i/items/3841.php and "Flexible GHG Data Queries" with selections for total GHG emissions excluding LULUCF/LUCF, all years, and non -Annex I countries, http://unfccc.int/di/FlexibleQueries/Event.do?event= showProjection. n.d.

North Newport Center Planned Community Greenhouse Gas Analysis City of Newport Beach, CA (JN:08210-05 GHG Report) OURBAM 11 emissions, according to the most recently available data (see Table 2-1, Top GHG Producer Countries and the European Union). The GHG emissions in more recent years may differ from the inventories presented in Table 2-1; however, the data is representative of currently available inventory data.

United States
As noted in Table 2-1, the United States was the number two producer of GHG emissions in 2009. The primary greenhouse gas emitted by human activities in the United States was CO2, representing approximately 83 percent of total greenhouse gas emissions.5 Carbon dioxide from fossil fuel combustion, the largest source of US greenhouse gas emissions, accounted for approximately 78 percent of the GHG emissions.6
TABLE 2-1

TOP GHG PRODUCER COUNTRIES AND THE EUROPEAN UNION'
Emitting Countries
GHG Emissions (MMT CO2e)
China
6,703
United States
6,608
European Union
8,338
Russian Federation
2,159
India
1,410
Japan
1,209
Total
26,427
State of California
CARB compiles GHG inventories for the State of California. Based upon the 2008 GHG inventory data (i.e., the latest year for which data are available) for the 2000-2008 greenhouse gas emissions inventory, California emitted 474 MMTCO2e including emissions resulting from imported electrical power in 2008.$ Based on the CARB inventory data and GHG inventories compiled by the World Resources Institute9, California's total statewide GHG emissions rank second in the United States (Texas is number one) with emissions of 417 MMTCO2e excluding emissions related to imported power.
5 US Environmental Protection Agency, "Inventory of US Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks 1990-2009," http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/usqqinventory.html . 2011. ' ibid
World Resources Institute, " Climate Analysis Indicator Tool (CAIT) Excludes emissions and removals from land use, land -use change and forestry (LULUCF) Emissions Inventory," http://cait.wri.org s California Air Resources Board, "California Greenhouse Gas 2000-2008 Inventory by Scoping Plan Category - Summary," http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/inventory/data/data.htm . 2010. 9 World Resources Institute, " Climate Analysis Indicator Tool (GAIT) -US — Yearly Emissions Inventory," http://cait.wri.org North Newport Center Planned Community Greenhouse Gas Analysis City of Newport Beach, CA (JN:08210-05 GHG Report) OURBAM 12 2.3 GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE DEFINED
Global Climate Change (GCC) refers to the change in average meteorological conditions on the earth with respect to temperature, wind patterns, precipitation and storms. Global temperatures are regulated by naturally occurring atmospheric gases such as water vapor, CO2 (Carbon Dioxide), N2O (Nitrous Oxide), CH4 (Methane), hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons and sulfur hexafluoride. These particular gases are important due to their residence time (duration they stay) in the atmosphere, which ranges from 10 years to more than 100 years. These gases allow solar radiation into the Earth's atmosphere, but prevent radioactive heat from escaping, thus warming the Earth's atmosphere. GCC can occur naturally as it has in the past with the previous ice ages. According to the California Air Resources Board (CARB), the climate change since the industrial revolution differs from previous climate changes in both rate and magnitude (CARB, 2004, Technical Support document for Staff Proposal Regarding Reduction of Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Motor Vehicles).

Gases that trap heat in the atmosphere are often referred to as greenhouse gases. Greenhouse gases are released into the atmosphere by both natural and anthropogenic (human) activity. Without the natural greenhouse gas effect, the Earth's average temperature would be approximately 61 ° Fahrenheit (F) cooler than it is currently. The cumulative accumulation of these gases in the earth's atmosphere is considered to be the cause for the observed increase in the earth's temperature.

Although California's rate of growth of greenhouse gas emissions is slowing, the state is still a substantial contributor to the U.S. emissions inventory total. In 2004, California is estimated to have produced 492 million gross metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e) greenhouse gas emissions. Despite a population increase of 16 percent between 1990 and 2004, California has significantly slowed the rate of growth of greenhouse gas emissions due to the implementation of energy efficiency programs as well as adoption of strict emission controls.10

2.4 GREENHOUSE GASES
For the purposes of this analysis, emissions of carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide were evaluated (see Table 3-4 later in this report) because these gasses are the primary contributors to GCC from development projects. Although other substances such as fluorinated gases also contribute to GCC, sources of fluorinated gases are not well defined and no accepted emissions factors or methodology exist to accurately calculate these gases.

Greenhouse gases have varying global warming potential (GWP) values; GWP values represent the potential of a gas to trap heat in the atmosphere. Carbon dioxide is utilized as the reference gas for GWP, and thus has a GWP of 1.
10 California Energy Commission, "Inventory of California Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks," http://www.energy . ca.gov/2005publications/CEC-600-2005-025/CEC-600-2005-025. PDF. 2005.

North Newport Center Planned Community Greenhouse Gas Analysis City of Newport Beach, CA (JN:08210-05 GHG Report) OURBAM 13 The atmospheric lifetime and GWP of selected greenhouse gases are summarized in the following Table. As shown in the table below, GWP range from 1 for carbon dioxide to 23,900 for sulfur hexafluoride.

TABLE 2-2

GLOBAL WARMING POTENTIALS AND ATMOSPHERIC LIFETIME OF SELECT GHGS Gas
Atmospheric Lifetime
(years)
Global Warming Potential
(100 year time horizon)
Carbon Dioxide
50-200
1 Methane
12 ± 3
21 Nitrous Oxide
120
310
HFC-23
264
11,700
HFC-134a

14.6 1,300
HFC-152a

1.5 140
PFC: Tetrafluoromethane (CH4)
50,000
6,500
PFC: Hexafluoroethane (C2F6)
10,000
9,200
Sulfur Hexafluoride (SF6)
3,200
23,900
Source: EPA 2006 (URL: http://www.epa.gov/nonco2/econ-inv/table.html) Water Vapor: Water vapor (1-120) is the most abundant, important, and variable greenhouse gas in the atmosphere. Water vapor is not considered a pollutant; in the atmosphere it maintains a climate necessary for life. Changes in its concentration are primarily considered to be a result of climate feedbacks related to the warming of the atmosphere rather than a direct result of industrialization. A climate feedback is an indirect, or secondary, change, either positive or negative, that occurs within the climate system in response to a forcing mechanism. The feedback loop in which water is involved is critically important to projecting future climate change.

As the temperature of the atmosphere rises, more water is evaporated from ground storage (rivers, oceans, reservoirs, soil). Because the air is warmer, the relative humidity can be higher (in essence, the air is able to `hold' more water when it is warmer), leading to more water vapor in the atmosphere.

As a GHG, the higher concentration of water vapor is then able to absorb more thermal indirect energy radiated from the Earth, thus further warming the atmosphere. The warmer atmosphere can then hold more water vapor and so on and so on. This is referred to as a "positive feedback loop." The extent to which this positive feedback loop will continue is unknown as there are also dynamics that hold the positive feedback loop in check. As an example, when water vapor increases in the atmosphere, more of it will eventually also condense into clouds, which are more able to reflect incoming solar radiation (thus allowing less energy to reach the Earth's surface and heat it up).

North Newport Center Planned Community Greenhouse Gas Analysis � URBAN City of Newport Beach, CA (JN:08210-05 GHG Report) � c"'ass ',M s 14 There are no human health effects from water vapor itself; however, when some pollutants come in contact with water vapor, they can dissolve and the water vapor can then act as a pollutant -carrying agent. The main source of water vapor is evaporation from the oceans (approximately 85 percent)." Other sources include: evaporation from other water bodies, sublimation (change from solid to gas) from sea ice and snow, and transpiration from plant leaves.

Carbon Dioxide: Carbon dioxide (CO2) is an odorless and colorless GHG. Outdoor levels of carbon dioxide are not high enough to result in negative health effects. Carbon dioxide is emitted from natural and manmade sources. Natural sources include: the decomposition of dead organic matter; respiration of bacteria, plants, animals and fungus; evaporation from oceans; and volcanic outgassing.

Anthropogenic sources include: the burning of coal, oil, natural gas, and wood. Carbon dioxide is naturally removed from the air by photosynthesis, dissolution into ocean water, transfer to soils and ice caps, and chemical weathering of carbonate rocks12.

Since the industrial revolution began in the mid-1700s, the sort of human activity that increases GHG emissions has increased dramatically in scale and distribution. Data from the past 50 years suggests a corollary increase in levels and concentrations. As an example, prior to the industrial revolution, CO2 concentrations were fairly stable at 280 parts per million (ppm). Today, they are around 370 ppm, an increase of more than 30 percent. Left unchecked, the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is projected to increase to a minimum of 540 ppm by 2100 as a direct result of anthropogenic sources.13
Methane: Methane (CH4) is an extremely effective absorber of radiation, though its atmospheric concentration is less than carbon dioxide and its lifetime in the atmosphere is brief (10-12 years), compared to other GHGs. No health effects are known to occur from exposure to methane.

Methane has both natural and anthropogenic sources. It is released as part of the biological processes in low oxygen environments, such as in swamplands or in rice production (at the roots of the plants).

Over the last 50 years, human activities such as growing rice, raising cattle, using natural gas, and mining coal have added to the atmospheric concentration of methane. Other anthropocentric sources include fossil -fuel combustion and biomass burning. 14 Nitrous Oxide: Nitrous oxide (N20), also known as laughing gas, is a colorless greenhouse gas.

Nitrous oxide can cause dizziness, euphoria, and sometimes slight hallucinations. In small doses, it is 11 ibid.
12 On awarmer Earth, chemical weathering is promoted by more vigorous cycling of water through the atmosphere and higher temperatures. "More chemical weathering removes more CO2 from the atmosphere as carbonic acid reacts with silicate minerals, producing bicarbonate ion." Carbon Cycle and Climate Change — J Bret Bennington, Hofstra University. http://www.cengage.com/custom/enrichment modules/data/Carbon _ Cycle_0495738557_LowRes. pdf 13 International Panel on Climate Change 2007, "Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report,"
http://www . ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/publications_ipcc_fourth_assessment_report_wg 1 _report_the_physical_science_basis. htm 14 ibid.

North Newport Center Planned Community Greenhouse Gas Analysis City of Newport Beach, CA (JN:08210-05 GHG Report) OURBAM 15 considered harmless. However, in some cases, heavy and extended use can cause Olney's Lesions (brain damage)15
Concentrations of nitrous oxide also began to rise at the beginning of the industrial revolution. In 1998, the global concentration was 314 parts per billion (ppb).16 Nitrous oxide is produced by microbial processes in soil and water, including those reactions which occur in fertilizer containing nitrogen. In addition to agricultural sources, some industrial processes (fossil fuel -fired power plants, nylon production, nitric acid production, and vehicle emissions) also contribute to its atmospheric load. It is used as an aerosol spray propellant, i.e., in whipped cream bottles. It is also used in potato chip bags to keep chips fresh. It is used in rocket engines and in race cars. Nitrous oxide can be transported into the stratosphere, be deposited on the Earth's surface, and be converted to other compounds by chemical reaction
Chlorofluorocarbons: Chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) are gases formed synthetically by replacing all hydrogen atoms in methane or ethane (CA) with chlorine and/or fluorine atoms. CFCs are nontoxic, nonflammable, insoluble and chemically unreactive in the troposphere (the level of air at the Earth's surface). CFCs are no longer being used; therefore, it is not likely that health effects would be experienced. Nonetheless, in confined indoor locations, working with CFC-113 or other CFCs is thought to result in death by cardiac arrhythmia (heart frequency too high or too low) or asphyxiation.

CFCs have no natural source, but were first synthesized in 1928. They were used for refrigerants, aerosol propellants and cleaning solvents. Due to the discovery that they are able to destroy stratospheric ozone, a global effort to halt their production was undertaken and was extremely successful, so much so that levels of the major CFCs are now remaining steady or declining. However, their long atmospheric lifetimes mean that some of the CFCs will remain in the atmosphere for over 100 years.

Hydrofluorocarbons: Hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) are synthetic, man-made chemicals that are used as a substitute for CFCs. Out of all the greenhouse gases, they are one of three groups with the highest global warming potential. The HFCs with the largest measured atmospheric abundances are (in order), HFC-23 (CHF3), HFC-134a (CF3CH2F), and HFC-152a (CH3CHF2). Prior to 1990, the only significant emissions were of HFC-23. HFC-134a emissions are increasing due to its use as a refrigerant. The U.S. EPA estimates that concentrations of HFC-23 and HFC-134a are now about 10 parts per trillion (ppt) each; and that concentrations of HFC-152a are about 1 ppt.17 No health effects are known to result from exposure to HFCs, which are manmade for applications such as automobile air conditioners and refrigerants.
15 U.S. Department of Labor. Occupational Safety and Health Guideline for Nitrous Oxide. http://www.osha.gov/SLTC/healthguidelines/nitrousoxide/recognition.html 16 ibid.
17 U.S. EPA. High Global Warming Potential (GWP) Gases. httr):// www.er)a.gov/highgwi)/scientific.html North Newport Center Planned Community Greenhouse Gas Analysis City of Newport Beach, CA (JN:08210-05 GHG Report) OURBAM 16 Perfluorocarbons: Perfluorocarbons (PFCs) have stable molecular structures and do not break down through chemical processes in the lower atmosphere. High-energy ultraviolet rays, which occur about 60 kilometers above Earth's surface, are able to destroy the compounds. Because of this, PFCs have very long lifetimes, between 10,000 and 50,000 years. Two common PFCs are tetrafluoromethane (CF4) and hexafluoroethane (C2F6). The U.S. EPA estimates that concentrations of CF4 in the atmosphere are over 70 ppt.18
No health effects are known to result from exposure to PFCs. The two main sources of PFCs are primary aluminum production and semiconductor manufacture.

Sulfur Hexafluoride: Sulfur hexafluoride (SF6) is an inorganic, odorless, colorless, nontoxic, nonflammable gas. It also has the highest GWP of any gas evaluated (23,900). The U.S. EPA indicates that concentrations in the 1990s were about 4 ppt.19 In high concentrations in confined areas, the gas presents the hazard of suffocation because it displaces the oxygen needed for breathing.

Sulfur hexafluoride is used for insulation in electric power transmission and distribution equipment, in the magnesium industry, in semiconductor manufacturing, and as a tracer gas for leak detection.

2.5 EFFECTS OF CLIMATE CHANGE IN CALIFORNIA
The California Environmental Protection Agency (CaIEPA) published a report titled "Scenarios of Climate Change in California: An Overview" (Climate Scenarios report) in February 2006 (California Climate Change Center 2006), that while not adequate for a CEQA project -specific or cumulative analysis, is generally instructive about the statewide impacts of global warming.

The Climate Scenarios report uses a range of emissions scenarios developed by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) to project a series of potential warming ranges (i.e., temperature increases) that may occur in California during the 21st century: lower warming range (3.0-5.5°F); medium warming range (5.5-8.0°F); and higher warming range (8.0-10.50F). The Climate Scenarios report then presents an analysis of future climate in California under each warming range, that while uncertain, present a picture of the impacts of global climate change trends in California.

In addition, most recently on August 5, 2009, the State's Natural Resources Agency released a public review draft of its "California Climate Adaptation Strategy" report that details many vulnerabilities arising from climate change with respect to matters such as temperature extremes, sea level rise, wildfires, floods and droughts and precipitation changes. This report responds to the Governor's Executive Order S-13-2008 that called on state agencies to develop California's strategy to identify and prepare for expected climate impacts
18 ibid.
19 ibid.

North Newport Center Planned Community Greenhouse Gas Analysis City of Newport Beach, CA (JN:08210-05 GHG Report) OURBAM 17 According to the reports, substantial temperature increases arising from increased GHG emissions potentially could result in a variety of impacts to the people, economy, and environment of California associated with a projected increase in extreme conditions, with the severity of the impacts depending upon actual future emissions of GHGs and associated warming. Under the emissions scenarios of the Climate Scenarios report, the impacts of global warming in California have the potential to include, but are not limited to, the following areas:

Public Health
According to Cal EPA, higher temperatures may increase the frequency, duration, and intensity of conditions conducive to air pollution formation. For example, days with weather conducive to ozone formation could increase from 25 to 35 percent under the lower warming range to 75 to 85 percent under the medium warming range. In addition, if global background ozone levels increase as predicted in some scenarios, it may become difficult to meet local air quality standards. Air quality could be further compromised by increases in wildfires, which emit fine particulate matter that can travel long distances, depending on wind conditions. The Climate Scenarios report indicates that large wildfires could become more frequent if GHG emissions are not significantly reduced.

In addition, under the higher warming range scenario, there could be up to 100 more days per year with temperatures above 90OF in Los Angeles and 950F in Sacramento by 2100. This is a large increase over historical patterns and approximately twice the increase projected if temperatures remain within or below the lower warming range. Rising temperatures could increase the risk of death from dehydration, heat stroke/exhaustion, heart attack, stroke, and respiratory distress caused by extreme heat.

Water Resources
A vast network of man-made reservoirs and aqueducts captures and transports water throughout the state from northern California rivers and the Colorado River. The current distribution system relies on Sierra Nevada snowpack to supply water during the dry spring and summer months. Rising temperatures, potentially compounded by decreases in precipitation, could severely reduce spring snowpack, increasing the risk of summer water shortages.

If temperatures continue to increase, more precipitation could fall as rain instead of snow, and the snow that does fall could melt earlier, reducing the Sierra Nevada spring snowpack by as much as 70 to 90 percent. Under the lower warming range scenario, snowpack losses could be only half as large as those possible if temperatures were to rise to the higher warming range. How much snowpack could be lost depends in part on future precipitation patterns, the projections for which remain uncertain.

However, even under the wetter climate projections, the loss of snowpack could pose challenges to water managers and hamper hydropower generation. It could also adversely affect winter tourism.

Under the lower warming range, the ski season at lower elevations could be reduced by as much as a North Newport Center Planned Community Greenhouse Gas Analysis City of Newport Beach, CA (JN:08210-05 GHG Report) OURBAM 18 month. If temperatures reach the higher warming range and precipitation declines, there might be many years with insufficient snow for skiing and snowboarding.

The State's water supplies are also at risk from rising sea levels. An influx of saltwater could degrade California's estuaries, wetlands, and groundwater aquifers. Saltwater intrusion caused by rising sea levels is a major threat to the quality and reliability of water within the southern edge of the Sacramento/San Joaquin River Delta — a major fresh water supply.

Agriculture
Increased temperatures could cause widespread changes to the agriculture industry reducing the quantity and quality of agricultural products statewide. First, California farmers could possibly lose as much as 25 percent of the water supply they need. Although higher CO2 levels can stimulate plant production and increase plant water -use efficiency, California's farmers could face greater water demand for crops and a less reliable water supply as temperatures rise. Crop growth and development could change, as could the intensity and frequency of pest and disease outbreaks. Rising temperatures could aggravate 03 pollution, which makes plants more susceptible to disease and pests and interferes with plant growth.

Plant growth tends to be slow at low temperatures, increasing with rising temperatures up to a threshold. However, faster growth can result in less -than -optimal development for many crops, so rising temperatures could worsen the quantity and quality of yield for a number of California's agricultural products. Products likely to be most affected include wine grapes, fruits and nuts.

In addition, continued global climate change could shift the ranges of existing invasive plants and weeds and alter competition patterns with native plants. Range expansion could occur in many species while range contractions may be less likely in rapidly evolving species with significant populations already established. Should range contractions occur, new or different weed species could fill the emerging gaps. Continued global climate change could alter the abundance and types of many pests, lengthen pests' breeding season, and increase pathogen growth rates.

Forests and Landscapes
Global climate change has the potential to intensify the current threat to forests and landscapes by increasing the risk of wildfire and altering the distribution and character of natural vegetation. If temperatures rise into the medium warming range, the risk of large wildfires in California could increase by as much as 55 percent, which is almost twice the increase expected if temperatures stay in the lower warming range. However, since wildfire risk is determined by a combination of factors, including precipitation, winds, temperature, and landscape and vegetation conditions, future risks will not be uniform throughout the state. In contrast, wildfires in northern California could increase by up to 90 percent due to decreased precipitation.

North Newport Center Planned Community Greenhouse Gas Analysis City of Newport Beach, CA (JN:08210-05 GHG Report) OURBAM 19 Moreover, continued global climate change has the potential to alter natural ecosystems and biological diversity within the state. For example, alpine and subalpine ecosystems could decline by as much as 60 to 80 percent by the end of the century as a result of increasing temperatures. The productivity of the state's forests has the potential to decrease as a result of global climate change.

Rising Sea Levels
Rising sea levels, more intense coastal storms, and warmer water temperatures could increasingly threaten the state's coastal regions. Under the higher warming range scenario, sea level is anticipated to rise 22 to 35 inches by 2100. Elevations of this magnitude would inundate low-lying coastal areas with salt water, accelerate coastal erosion, threaten vital levees and inland water systems, and disrupt wetlands and natural habitats. Under the lower warming range scenario, sea level could rise 12-14 inches.

2.6 HUMAN HEALTH EFFECTS
The potential health effects related directly to the emissions of carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide as they relate to development projects such as the proposed Project are still being debated in the scientific community. Their cumulative effects to global climate change have the potential to cause adverse effects to human health. Increases in Earth's ambient temperatures would result in more intense heat waves, causing more heat -related deaths. Scientists also purport that higher ambient temperatures would increase disease survival rates and result in more widespread disease. Climate change will likely cause shifts in weather patterns, potentially resulting in devastating droughts and food shortages in some areas (American Lung Association, 2004). Figure 1 presents the potential impacts of global warming.

Specific health effects associated with directly emitted GHG emissions are as follows:

Water Vapor: There are no known direct health effects related to water vapor at this time. It should be noted however that when some pollutants react with water vapor, the reaction forms a transport mechanism for some of these pollutants to enter the human body through water vapor.

Carbon Dioxide: According to the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) high concentrations of carbon dioxide can result in health effects such as: headaches, dizziness, restlessness, difficulty breathing, sweating, increased heart rate, increased cardiac output, increased blood pressure, coma, asphyxia, and/or convulsions. It should be noted that current concentrations of carbon dioxide in the earth's atmosphere are estimated to be approximately 370 parts per million (ppm), the actual reference exposure level (level at which adverse health effects typically occur) is at exposure levels of 5,000 ppm averaged over 10 hours in a 40-hour workweek and short-term reference exposure levels of 30,000 ppm averaged over a 15 minute period (NIOSH 2O05).

North Newport Center Planned Community Greenhouse Gas Analysis City of Newport Beach, CA (JN:08210-05 GHG Report) OURBAM 20 Higher
Emission!
5cenado
Medium,
High
Emission
Scenario
Figure 1
Summary of Projected Global Warming Impact,2070�-2099
(as compared with 1961-1990)
13•F 9cl%hss in
22-30 indses Of sea level "
12 3-4 times as many heat wave days in rnajar urban centers • d-6timesasmany heat -rehtaddeaths nnwjorurban cenIers 1 t 25 times mare critical Iydryyears
higher 20%ixraaseinenergy demand
74 Warming Range
0"Q539
• 70-W%lass in Sierra snowpack
• 14-22inches ofsea lerelrise
d
25-4 times as many heat wave days In major urban centers 2-6timesas many heat -related deaths in major urban centers 2 Medium
75-W% increase indays canducivetoo-mnefonnation'
Wwrnng Range
{S.ggeFl
2-2.50mes more oribcaiy dry years
6 10%increase in deJuioty demand
• 30%decrease nfamayieks (pirwl
i
55%in€rease in the expected risk of largewikifres
Lower
• 30-604;bssinSierra snowpad;
Wannmg Range
3 13-5_e4I lrlSinchesofsea level rise
• 2-2.5times asmarry heat wave dayEinmajorurban cenwrs
7 2-3timesas marry heat -related deathsin major urban centers 25-35%increase in days conducive to o-mne formation'
t Llpto 15 times more critically dryyean
• 3-6%increaseinelect6citydemand
0 7'-14% decrease in fanest yields {pine;
l o-354i increase in the risk of large w tfirs
�r-,r high omo kr tiam in rnn orgdz m &i and thaw ku Itmwa4;milt+; Source: California Energy Commission, 2006. Our Changing Climate, Assessing the Risks to California, 2006 Biennial Report.

Methane: Methane is extremely reactive with oxidizers, halogens, and other halogen -containing compounds. Methane is also an asphyxiant and may displace oxygen in an enclosed space (OSHA 2003).

Nitrous Oxide: Nitrous Oxide is often referred to as laughing gas; it is a colorless greenhouse gas. The health effects associated with exposure to elevated concentrations of nitrous oxide include dizziness, euphoria, slight hallucinations, and in extreme cases of elevated concentrations nitrous oxide can also cause brain damage (OSHA 1999).

Fluorinated Gases: High concentrations of fluorinated gases can also result in adverse health effects such as asphyxiation, dizziness, headache, cardiovascular disease, cardiac disorders, and in extreme cases, increased mortality (NIOSH 1989, 1997).

Aerosols: The health effects of aerosols are similar to that of other fine particulate matter. Thus aerosols can cause elevated respiratory and cardiovascular diseases as well as increased mortality (NASA 2002).

North Newport Center Planned Community Greenhouse Gas Analysis City of Newport Beach, CA (JN:08210-05 GHG Report) OURBAM 21 2.7 REGULATORY SETTING
International Regulation and the Kyoto Protocol:

In 1988, the United Nations established the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change to evaluate the impacts of global warming and to develop strategies that nations could implement to curtail global climate change. In 1992, the United States joined other countries around the world in signing the United Nations' Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) agreement with the goal of controlling greenhouse gas emissions. As a result, the Climate Change Action Plan was developed to address the reduction of GHGs in the United States. The Plan currently consists of more than 50 voluntary programs for member nations to adopt.

The Kyoto protocol is a treaty made under the UNFCCC and was the first international agreement to regulate GHG emissions. Some have estimated that if the commitments outlined in the Kyoto protocol are met, global GHG emissions could be reduced an estimated five percent from 1990 levels during the first commitment period of 2008-2012. Notably, while the United States is a signatory to the Kyoto protocol, Congress has not ratified the Protocol and the United States is not bound by the Protocol's commitments. In December 2009, international leaders from 192 nations met in Copenhagen to address the future of international climate change commitments post -Kyoto.

Federal Regulation and the Clean Air Act:

Coinciding 2009 meeting in Copenhagen, on December 7, 2009, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued an Endangerment Finding under Section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act, opening the door to federal regulation of GHGs. The Endangerment Finding notes that GHGs threaten public health and welfare and are subject to regulation under the Clean Air Act. To date, the EPA has not promulgated regulations on GHG emissions, but it has already begun to develop them.

Previously the EPA had not regulated GHGs under the Clean Air Act because it asserted that the Act did not authorize it to issue mandatory regulations to address global climate change and that such regulation would be unwise without an unequivocally established causal link between GHGs and the increase in global surface air temperatures. In Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency et al. (127 S. Ct. 1438 (2007), however, the U.S. Supreme Court held that GHGs are pollutants under the Clean Air Act and directed the EPA to decide whether the gases endangered public health or welfare.

The EPA had also not moved aggressively to regulate GHGs because it expected Congress to make progress on GHG legislation, primarily from the standpoint of a cap -and -trade system. However, proposals circulated in both the House of Representative and Senate have been controversial and it may be some time before the U.S. Congress adopts major climate change legislation. The EPA's Endangerment Finding paves the way for federal regulation of GHGs with or without Congress.

Although global climate change did not become an international concern until the 1980s, efforts to reduce energy consumption began in California in response to the oil crisis in the 1970s, resulting in the North Newport Center Planned Community Greenhouse Gas Analysis City of Newport Beach, CA (JN:08210-05 GHG Report) OURBAM 22 incidental reduction of greenhouse gas emissions. In order to manage the state's energy needs and promote energy efficiency, AB 1575 created the California Energy Commission (CEC) in 1975.

Title 24 Energy Standards:

The California Energy Commission (CEC) first adopted Energy Efficiency Standards for Residential and Nonresidential Buildings (California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 6) in 1978 in response to a legislative mandate to reduce energy consumption in the state. Although not originally intended to reduce GHG emissions, increased energy efficiency, and reduced consumption of electricity, natural gas, and other fuels would result in fewer GHG emissions from residential and nonresidential buildings subject to the standard. The standards are updated periodically to allow for the consideration and inclusion of new energy efficiency technologies and methods. The latest revisions were adopted in 2008 and became effective on January 1, 2010.

Part 11 of the Title 24 Building Standards Code is referred to as the California Green Building Standards Code (CALGreen Code). The purpose of the CALGreen Code is to "improve public health, safety and general welfare by enhancing the design and construction of buildings through the use of building concepts having a positive environmental impact and encouraging sustainable construction practices in the following categories: (1) Planning and design; (2) Energy efficiency; (3) Water efficiency and conservation; (4) Material conservation and resource efficiency; and (5) Environmental air quality. ,20 The CALGreen Code is not intended to substitute or be identified as meeting the certification requirements of any green building program that is not established and adopted by the California Building Standards Commission (CBSC). The CBSC has released the 2010 California Green Building Standards Code on its Web site.21 Unless otherwise noted in the regulation, all newly constructed buildings in California are subject of the requirements of the CALGreen Code.

California Assembly Bill No. 1493 (AB 1493):

AB 1493 requires CARB to develop and adopt the nation's first greenhouse gas emission standards for automobiles. The Legislature declared in AB 1493 that global warming was a matter of increasing concern for public health and environment in California. Further, the legislature stated that technological solutions to reduce greenhouse gas emissions would stimulate the California economy and provide jobs.

To meet the requirements of AB 1493, ARB approved amendments to the California Code of Regulations (CCR) adding GHG emission standards to California's existing motor vehicle emission standards in 2004. Amendments to CCR Title 13 Sections 1900 (CCR 13 1900) and 1961 (CCR 13 1961) and adoption of Section 1961.1 (CCR 13 1961.1) require automobile manufacturers to meet fleet average GHG emission limits for all passenger cars, light -duty trucks within various weight criteria, and 20 California Building Standards Commission, 2008 California Green Building Standards Code, (2009). 21 "CALGreen," http://www.bsc.ca.gov/CALGreen/default.htm . 2010 North Newport Center Planned Community Greenhouse Gas Analysis City of Newport Beach, CA (JN:08210-05 GHG Report) OURBAM 23 medium -duty passenger vehicle weight classes beginning with the 2009 model year. Emission limits are further reduced each model year through 2016.

In December 2004 a group of car dealerships, automobile manufacturers, and trade groups representing automobile manufacturers filed suit against ARB to prevent enforcement of CCR 13 1900 and CCR 13 1961 as amended by AB 1493 and CCR 13 1961.1 (Central Valley Chrysler -Jeep et al. v.

Catherine E. Witherspoon, in her official capacity as Executive Director of the California Air Resources Board, et al.). The suit, heard in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California, contended that California's implementation of regulations that in effect regulate vehicle fuel economy violates various federal laws, regulations, and policies. In January 2007, the judge hearing the case accepted a request from the State Attorney General's office that the trial be postponed until a decision is reached by the U.S. Supreme Court on a separate case addressing GHGs. In the Supreme Court Case, Massachusetts vs. EPA, the primary issue in question is whether the federal CAA provides authority for USEPA to regulate CO2 emissions. In April 2007, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Massachusetts' favor, holding that GHGs are air pollutants under the CAA. On December 11, 2007, the judge in the Central Valley Chrysler -Jeep case rejected each plaintiff's arguments and ruled in California's favor. On December 19, 2007, the USEPA denied California's waiver request. California filed a petition with the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals challenging USEPA's denial on January 2, 2008.

The Obama administration subsequently directed the USEPA to re-examine their decision. On May 19, 2009, challenging parties, automakers, the State of California, and the federal government reached an agreement on a series of actions that would resolve these current and potential future disputes over the standards through model year 2016. In summary, the USEPA and the U.S. Department of Transportation agreed to adopt a federal program to reduce GHGs and improve fuel economy, respectively, from passenger vehicles in order to achieve equivalent or greater greenhouse gas benefits as the AB 1493 regulations for the 2012-2016 model years. Manufacturers agreed to ultimately drop current and forego similar future legal challenges, including challenging a waiver grant, which occurred on June 30, 2009. The State of California committed to (1) revise its standards to allow manufacturers to demonstrate compliance with the fleet -average GHG emission standard by "pooling" California and specified State vehicle sales; (2) revise its standards for 2012-2016 model year vehicles so that compliance with USEPA-adopted GHG standards would also comply with California's standards; and (3) revise its standards, as necessary, to allow manufacturers to use emissions data from the federal CAFE program to demonstrate compliance with the AB 1493 regulations (CARB 2009, http://www.arb.ca.gov/regact/2009/ghgpvO9/ghgpvisor.pdf) both of these programs are aimed at light - duty auto and light -duty trucks.

Executive Order S-3-05:

Executive Order S-3-05, which was signed by Governor Schwarzenegger in 2005, proclaims that California is vulnerable to the impacts of climate change. It declares that increased temperatures could reduce the Sierra's snowpack, further exacerbate California's air quality problems, and potentially North Newport Center Planned Community Greenhouse Gas Analysis City of Newport Beach, CA (JN:08210-05 GHG Report) OURBAM 24 cause a rise in sea levels. To combat those concerns, the Executive Order established total greenhouse gas emission targets. Specifically, emissions are to be reduced to the 1990 level by 2020, and to 80% below the 1990 level by 2050. The Executive Order directed the Secretary of the California Environmental Protection Agency (CaIEPA) to coordinate a multi -agency effort to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to the target levels. The Secretary also is required to submit biannual reports to the Governor and state Legislature describing: (1) progress made toward reaching the emission targets; (2) impacts of global warming on California's resources; and (3) mitigation and adaptation plans to combat these impacts. To comply with the Executive Order, the Secretary of the CaIEPA created a Climate Action Team (CAT) made up of members from various state agencies and commission. CAT released its first report in March 2006. The report proposed to achieve the targets by building on voluntary actions of California businesses, local government and community actions, as well as through state incentive and regulatory programs.

California Assembly Bill 32 (AB 32):

In September 2006, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger signed AB 32, the California Climate Solutions Act of 2006. AB 32 requires that statewide GHG emissions be reduced to 1990 levels by the year 2020.

This reduction will be accomplished through an enforceable statewide cap on GHG emissions that will be phased in starting in 2012. To effectively implement the cap, AB 32 directs CARB to develop and implement regulations to reduce statewide GHG emissions from stationary sources. AB 32 specifies that regulations adopted in response to AB 1493 should be used to address GHG emissions from vehicles. However, AB 32 also includes language stating that if the AB 1493 regulations cannot be implemented, then CARB should develop new regulations to control vehicle GHG emissions under the authorization of AB 32.

AB 32 requires that CARB adopt a quantified cap on GHG emissions representing 1990 emissions levels and disclose how it arrives at the cap; institute a schedule to meet the emissions cap; and develop tracking, reporting, and enforcement mechanisms to ensure that the state achieves reductions in GHG emissions necessary to meet the cap. AB 32 also includes guidance to institute emissions reductions in an economically efficient manner and conditions to ensure that businesses and consumers are not unfairly affected by the reductions.

In November 2007, CARB completed its estimates of 1990 GHG levels. Net emission 1990 levels were estimated at 427 MMTs (emission sources by sector were: transportation — 35 percent; electricity generation — 26 percent; industrial — 24 percent; residential — 7 percent; agriculture — 5 percent; and commercial — 3 percent)22. Accordingly, 427 MMTs of CO2 equivalent was established as the emissions limit for 2020. For comparison, CARB's estimate for baseline GHG emissions was 473 MMT for 2000 and 532 MMT for 2010. "Business as usual" conditions (without the 30 percent reduction to be implemented by CARB regulations) for 2020 were projected to be 596 MMTs. 22 On a national level, the EPA's Endangerment Finding stated that electricity generation is the largest emitting sector (34%), followed by transportation (28%), and industry (19%).

North Newport Center Planned Community Greenhouse Gas Analysis City of Newport Beach, CA (JN:08210-05 GHG Report) OURBAM 25 In December 2007, CARB approved a regulation for mandatory reporting and verification of GHG emissions for major sources. This regulation covered major stationary sources such as cement plans, oil refineries, electric generating facilities/providers, and co -generation facilities, which comprise 94 percent of the point source CO2 emissions in the State.

On December 11, 2008, CARB adopted a scoping plan to reduce GHG emissions to 1990 levels. The Scoping Plan's recommendations for reducing GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020 include emission reduction measures, including a cap -and -trade program linked to Western Climate Initiative partner jurisdictions, green building strategies, recycling and waste -related measures, as well as Voluntary Early Actions and Reductions. Implementation of individual measures must begin no later than January 1, 2012, so that the emissions reduction target can be fully achieved by 2020.

Table 2-3 shows the proposed reductions from regulations and programs outlined in the Scoping Plan.

While local government operations were not accounted for in achieving the 2020 emissions reduction, local land use changes are estimated to result in a reduction of 5 MMTons of CO2e, which is approximately 3 percent of the 2020 GHG emissions reduction goal. In recognition of the critical role local governments will play in successful implementation of AB 32, CARB is recommending GHG reduction goals of 15 percent of 2006 levels by 2020 to ensure that municipal and community -wide emissions match the state's reduction target. According to the Measure Documentation Supplement to the Scoping Plan, local government actions and targets are anticipated to reduce vehicle miles by approximately 2 percent through land use planning, resulting in a potential GHG reduction of 2 MMTons tons of CO2e (or approximately 1.2 percent of the GHG reduction target).

California Senate Bill No. 1368 (SB 1368):

In 2006, the State Legislature adopted Senate Bill 1368 ("SB 1368"), which was subsequently signed into law by the Governor. SB 1368 directs the California Public Utilities Commission ("CPUC") to adopt a greenhouse gas emission performance standard ("EPS") for the future power purchases of California utilities. SB 1368 seeks to limit carbon emissions associated with electrical energy consumed in California by forbidding procurement arrangements for energy longer than five years from resources that exceed the emissions of a relatively clean, combined cycle natural gas power plant. Due to the carbon content of its fuel source, a coal-fired plant cannot meet this standard because such plants emit roughly twice as much carbon as natural gas, combined cycle plants. Accordingly, the new law will effectively prevent California's utilities from investing in, otherwise financially supporting, or purchasing power from new coal plants located in or out of the State. Thus, SB 1368 will lead to dramatically lower greenhouse gas emissions associated with California energy demand, as SB 1368 will effectively prohibit California utilities from purchasing power from out of state producers that cannot satisfy the EPS standard required by SB 1368.

North Newport Center Planned Community Greenhouse Gas Analysis City of Newport Beach, CA (JN:08210-05 GHG Report) OURBAM 26 TABLE 2-3
SCOPING PLAN GHG REDUCTION MEASURES TOWARD 2020 TARGET
Reductions
Percentage
Counted
of
toward
Statewide
2020 Target of
2020
Recommended Reduction Measures
169 MMT CO2e
Target
Cap and Trade Program and Associated Measures
California Light -Duty Vehicle GHG Standards

31.7 19%
Energy Efficiency

26.3 16%
Renewable Portfolio Standard (33 percent by 2020)

21.3 13%
Low Carbon Fuel Standard
15 9%
Regional Transportation -Related GHG Targets1
5 3%
Vehicle Efficiency Measures

4.5 3%
Goods Movement

3.7 2%
Million Solar Roofs

2.1 1%
Medium/Heavy Duty Vehicles

1.4 1%
High Speed Rail

1.0 1%
Industrial Measures

0.3 0%
Additional Reduction Necessary to Achieve Cap

34.4 20%
Total Cap and Trade Program Reductions
146.7
87%
Uncapped Sources/Sectors Measures
High Global Warming Potential Gas Measures

20.2 12%
Sustainable Forests
5 3%
Industrial Measures (for sources not covered under cap and

1.1 1%
trade program)
Recycling and Waste (landfill methane capture)
1 1%
Total Uncapped Sources/Sectors Reductions

27.3 16%
Total Reductions Counted toward 2020 Target
174
100%
Other Recommended Measures — Not Counted toward 2020 Target State Government Operations

1.0 to 2.0
1%
Local Government Operations
To Be Determined2
NA
Green Buildings
26 15%
Recycling and Waste
9 5%
Water Sector Measures

4.8 3%
Methane Capture at Large Dairies
1 1%
Total Other Recommended Measures — Not Counted toward

42.8 NA
2020 Target
Source: CARB. 2008, MMTons CO2e: million metric tons of CO2e 1 Reductions represent an estimate of what may be achieved from local land use changes. It is not the SB 375 regional target. 2 According to the Measure Documentation Supplement to the Scoping Plan, local government actions and targets are anticipated to reduce vehicle miles by approximately 2 percent through land use planning, resulting in a potential GHG reduction of 2 million metric tons of CO2e (or approximately 1.2 percent of the GHG reduction target). However, these reductions were not included
in the Scoping
Plan reductions to achieve the 2020 Target
North Newport Center Planned Community Greenhouse Gas Analysis City of Newport Beach, CA (JN:08210-05 GHG Report)
Vim► URBAN
27 Senate Bill 97 (SB 97):

Pursuant to the direction of SB 97, OPR released preliminary draft CEQA Guideline amendments for greenhouse gas emissions on January 8, 2009, and submitted its final proposed guidelines to the Secretary for Natural Resources on April 13, 2009. The Natural Resources Agency adopted the Guideline amendments and they became effective on March 18, 2010.

Of note, the new guidelines state that a lead agency shall have discretion to determine whether to use a quantitative model or methodology, or in the alternative, rely on a qualitative analysis or performance based standards. CEQA Guideline § 15064.4(a)"A lead agency shall have discretion to determine, in the context of a particular project, whether to: (1) Use a model or methodology to quantify greenhouse gas emissions resulting from a project, and which model or methodology to use ...; or (2) Rely on a qualitative analysis or performance based standards."
CEQA emphasizes that the effects of greenhouse gas emissions are cumulative, and should be analyzed in the context of CEQA's requirements for cumulative impacts analysis. (See CEQA Guidelines Section 15130(f)).

Section 15064.4(b) of the CEQA Guidelines provides direction for lead agencies for assessing the significance of impacts of greenhouse gas emissions:

1. The extent to which the project may increase or reduce greenhouse gas emissions as compared to the existing environmental setting;

2. Whether the project emissions exceed a threshold of significance that the lead agency determines applies to the project; or

3. The extent to which the project complies with regulations or requirements adopted to implement a statewide, regional, or local plan for the reduction or mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions. Such regulations or requirements must be adopted by the relevant public agency through a public review process and must include specific requirements that reduce or mitigate the project's incremental contribution of greenhouse gas emissions. If there is substantial evidence that the possible effects of a particular project are still cumulatively considerable notwithstanding compliance with the adopted regulations or requirements, an EIR must be prepared for the project.

The CEQA Guideline amendments do not identify a threshold of significance for greenhouse gas emissions, nor do they prescribe assessment methodologies or specific mitigation measures. Instead, they call for a "good -faith effort, based on available information, to describe, calculate or estimate the amount of greenhouse gas emissions resulting from a project." The amendments encourage lead agencies to consider many factors in performing a CEQA analysis and preserve lead agencies' North Newport Center Planned Community Greenhouse Gas Analysis City of Newport Beach, CA (JN:08210-05 GHG Report) OURBAM 28 discretion to make their own determinations based upon substantial evidence. The amendments also encourage public agencies to make use of programmatic mitigation plans and programs from which to tier when they perform individual project analyses. Specific GHG language incorporated in the Guidelines' suggested Environmental Checklist (Guidelines Appendix G) is as follows:

VII. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
Would the project:
a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment?
b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?
Executive Order S-01-07:

On January 18, 2007 California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, through Executive Order S-01-07, mandated a statewide goal to reduce the carbon intensity of California's transportation fuel by at least ten percent by 2020. The order also requires that a California specific Low Carbon Fuel Standard be established for transportation fuels.

Senate Bills 1078 and 107 and Executive Order S-14-08:

SIB 1078 (Chapter 516, Statutes of 2002) requires retail sellers of electricity, including investor -owned utilities and community choice aggregators, to provide at least 20% of their supply from renewable sources by 2017. SIB 107 (Chapter 464, Statutes of 2006) changed the target date to 2010. In November 2008 Governor Schwarzenegger signed Executive Order S-14-08, which expands the state's Renewable Energy Standard to 33% renewable power by 2020.

Senate Bill 375:

SIB 375, signed in September 2008 (Chapter 728, Statutes of 2008), aligns regional transportation planning efforts, regional GHG reduction targets, and land use and housing allocation. SIB 375 requires metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs) to adopt a sustainable communities strategy (SCS) or alternative planning strategy (APS) that will prescribe land use allocation in that MPO's regional transportation plan. ARB, in consultation with MPOs, will provide each affected region with reduction targets for GHGs emitted by passenger cars and light trucks in the region for the years 2020 and 2035.

These reduction targets will be updated every 8 years but can be updated every 4 years if advancements in emissions technologies affect the reduction strategies to achieve the targets. ARB is also charged with reviewing each MPO's SCS or APS for consistency with its assigned targets. If MPOs do not meet the GHG reduction targets, transportation projects will not be eligible for funding programmed after January 1, 2012.

North Newport Center Planned Community Greenhouse Gas Analysis City of Newport Beach, CA (JN:08210-05 GHG Report) OURBAM 29 This law also extends the minimum time period for the regional housing needs allocation cycle from 5 years to 8 years for local governments located within an MPO that meets certain requirements. City or county land use policies (including general plans) are not required to be consistent with the regional transportation plan (and associated SCS or APS). However, new provisions of CEQA would incentivize (through streamlining and other provisions) qualified projects that are consistent with an approved SCS or APS, categorized as "transit priority projects."
CARB's Preliminary Draft Staff Proposal for Interim Significance Thresholds:

Separate from its Scoping Plan approved in December of 2008, CARB issued a Staff Proposal in October 2008, as its first step toward developing recommended statewide interim thresholds of significance for GHGs that may be adopted by local agencies for their own use. CARB staff's objective in this proposal is to develop a threshold of significance that will result in the vast majority (approximately 90 percent statewide) of GHG emissions from new industrial projects being subject to CEQA's requirement to impose feasible mitigation. The proposal does not attempt to address every type of project that may be subject to CEQA, but instead focuses on common project types that, collectively, are responsible for substantial GHG emissions — specifically, industrial, residential, and commercial projects. CARB is developing these thresholds in these sectors to advance climate objectives, streamline project review, and encourage consistency and uniformity in the CEQA analysis of GHG emissions throughout the state. These draft thresholds are under revision in response to comments. There is currently no timetable for finalized thresholds at this time.

As currently proposed by CARB, the threshold consists of a quantitative threshold of 7,000 metric tons (MT) of CO2e per year for operational emissions (excluding transportation), and performance standards for construction and transportation emissions. These performance standards have not yet been developed.

However, CARB's proposal is not yet final, and thus cannot be applied to the Project. Further, CARB's proposal sets forth draft thresholds for industrial projects that have high operational stationary GHG emissions, such as manufacturing plants, or uses that utilize combustion engines. Thus, mobile source emissions are not addressed. This Project's GHG emissions are mostly from mobile sources, and as such, the CARB proposal is not applicable to the Project.zs South Coast Air Quality Management District Recommendations for Significance Thresholds:

In April 2008, the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD), in order to provide guidance to local lead agencies on determining the significance of GHG emissions identified in CEQA documents, convened a "GHG CEQA Significance Threshold Working Group."24 The goal of the working group is to develop and reach consensus on an acceptable CEQA significance threshold for 23 http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/localgov/ceqa/meetings/102708/prelimdraftproposa1102408.pdf 24 For more information visit: http://www.agmd.gov/ceqa/handbook/GHG/GHG.htmi .

North Newport Center Planned Community Greenhouse Gas Analysis City of Newport Beach, CA (JN:08210-05 GHG Report) OURBAM 30 GHG emissions that would be utilized on an interim basis until CARB (or some other state agency) develops statewide guidance on assessing the significance of GHG emissions under CEQA.

Initially, SCAQMD staff presented the working group with a significance threshold that could be applied to various types of projects —residential; non-residential; industrial; etc. However, the threshold is still under development. In December 2008, staff presented the SCAQMD Governing Board with a significance threshold for stationary source projects where it is the lead agency. This threshold uses a tiered approach to determine a project's significance, with 10,000 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (MTCO2e) as a screening numerical threshold for stationary sources.

In September 2010, the Working Group released additional revisions which recommended either a 3,000 MTCO2e threshold for all land use types or a land -use specific threshold of 3,500 MTCO2e for residential projects, 1,400 MTCO2e for commercial projects, and 3,000 MTCO2e for mixed use projects, additionally the working group identified project -level efficiency target of 4.8 MTCO2e per service population as a 2020 target and 3.0 MTCO2e per service population as a 2035 target. The recommended plan -level target for 2020 was 6.6 MTCO2e and the plan level target for 2035 was 4.1 MTCO2e. The SCAQMD has not announced when staff is expecting to present a finalized version of these thresholds to the Governing Board. The SCAQMD has also adopted Rules 2700, 2701, and 2702 that address GHG reductions; however, these rules are currently applicable to boilers and process heaters, forestry, and manure management projects.

2.9 DISCUSSION ON ESTABLISHMENT OF SIGNIFICANCE THRESHOLDS In order to assess the significance of a proposed project's environmental impacts it is necessary to identify quantitative or qualitative thresholds which, if exceeded, would constitute a finding of significance. As discussed above, while project -related GHG emissions can be estimated, the direct impacts of such emissions on climate change and global warming cannot be determined on the basis of available science. There is no evidence at this time that would indicate that the emissions from a project the size of the proposed Project would directly affect global climate change. The SCAQMD has adopted a quantitative GHG emission significance thresholds to assess direct impacts from industrial projects for which the SCAQMD is the lead agency. The SCAQMD and other air quality agencies concur that GHG and climate change should be evaluated as a potentially significant cumulative rather than project -specific impact.

AB 32 states, in part, that "[g]lobal warming poses a serious threat to the economic well-being, public health, natural resources, and the environment of California." Because global warming is the result of GHG emissions, and GHGs are emitted by innumerable sources worldwide, global climate change is considered to be a significant cumulative impact. GHG emissions from the project would contribute to cumulative GHG emissions in California and to the potential adverse environmental impacts of climate change.

North Newport Center Planned Community Greenhouse Gas Analysis City of Newport Beach, CA (JN:08210-05 GHG Report) OURBAM 31 As previously discussed, the CEQA guidelines indicate that a project would potentially result in a significant impact on climate change if a project were to: a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment, or b) conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases.

Based on the analysis set forth above, for the purposes of this analysis, implementation of the proposed project may have a significant adverse impact on GHG emissions if it would result in any of the following:

1. Generate GHG emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment, based on any applicable threshold of significance. a. A potentially significant impact would occur if the project exceeds the SCAQMD's 3,000 MTCO2e per year screening threshold. For purposes of this analysis, the 3,000 MTCO2e per year screening threshold is used since it is the most conservative threshold under consideration by SCAQMD for a residential land use.

2. Conflict with any applicable plan, policy or regulation of an agency adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases.
a. Fail to show consistency with AB 32's Scoping Plan.

2.10 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 2O06 GENERAL PLAN UPDATE FINAL PROGRAM EIR Although climate change impacts due to greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions were not specifically evaluated as part of the Program EIR prepared in support of the City's 2006 General Plan Update, the General Plan EIR analyzed air quality impacts associated with buildout of the City, inclusive of carbon dioxide (CO2) and other GHG emissions. The General Plan EIR also addressed vehicle emissions (both construction and operational) and operational emissions from energy consumption, which are the most common sources of greenhouse gas emissions.

As such, GHG emissions and the issue of global climate change (GCC) do not represent new information of substantial importance which was not known and could not have been known at the time that the General Plan EIR was certified. Information on the effect of GHG emissions on climate was known long before the City certified the General Plan EIR. GCC and GHG emissions were identified as North Newport Center Planned Community Greenhouse Gas Analysis City of Newport Beach, CA (JN:08210-05 GHG Report) OURBAM 32 environmental issues since as early as 1978 when the U.S. Congress enacted the National Climate Program Act (Pub L 95-367, 92 Stat 601). In 1979 the National Research Council published "Carbon Dioxide and Climate: A Scientific Assessment," which concluded that climate change was an accelerating phenomenon partly due to human activity. Numerous studies conducted before and after the National Research Council report reached similar conclusions. Information also was widely published in a serious of reports by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPPC) dating back to the 1990s, including IPPC's "2001 Third Assessment Report." In California, the State adopted legislation in 2002 requiring the California Air Resources Board to develop regulations limiting greenhouse gas emissions from automobiles. As such, information about GCC and GHG emissions was available with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the General Plan EIR was certified in 2006. During the public review period and public hearings associated with the General Plan EIR, no objections or concerns were raised regarding the EIR's analysis of GHG emissions, and no legal challenge was filed within the statute of limitations period established by Public Resources Code §21167(c). Similarly, no objections were raised on the topics of GHG emissions and GCC as part of Addendum No. 1 to the General Plan EIR in 2007. Based on CEQA case Iaw25 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15162(a)(3), the issue of project -related GHG emissions does not provide new information of substantial importance or substantial evidence of a new impact to the environment that was not or could not have been known at the time General Plan EIR was certified. 25 CREED v. City of San Diego (2011), Super. Ct. No. 37-2009-00085307-CU-MC-CTL.

North Newport Center Planned Community Greenhouse Gas Analysis City of Newport Beach, CA (JN:08210-05 GHG Report) OURBAM 33 3.0 PROJECT GREENHOUSE GAS IMPACT

3.1 PROJECT RELATED GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
CEQA Guidelines 15064.4 (b) (1) states that a lead agency may use a model or methodology to quantify greenhouse gas emissions associated with a project.

On February 3, 2011, the SCAQMD released the California Emissions Estimator Model (CALEEMOD) Emissions Inventory ModelTM. The purpose of this model is to more accurately calculate air quality and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from direct and indirect sources and quantify applicable air quality and GHG reductions achieved from mitigation measures. As such, the February 2011 CALEEMODTM was used for this Project. The CaIEEModTM model includes GHG emissions from the following source categories: construction, area, energy, mobile, waste, water.

3.2 LIFE -CYCLE ANALYSIS
A full life -cycle analysis (LCA) is not included in this analysis due to the lack of consensus guidance on LCA methodology at this time.26 Life -cycle analysis (i.e., assessing economy -wide GHG emissions from the processes in manufacturing and transporting all raw materials used in the project development and infrastructure) depends on emission factors or econometric factors that are not well established for all processes. At this time a LCA would be extremely speculative and thus has not been prepared.

3.3 CONSTRUCTION EMISSIONS
Since no specific development project is proposed at this time and the exact location of proposed development is unknown, a calculation of GHG emissions that may be associated with future construction activities is not possible and is not provided in this analysis. Regardless, construction activities that may be associated with future residential development on the Project site would clearly fall within the scope of analysis provided in the General Plan EIR because the General Plan EIR anticipated the construction of 430 multi -family units within the NNCPC, 15 multi -family units within Newport Center, and 79 hotel units at General Plan Anomaly Location 43. Therefore, the conversion of 79 hotel units to multi -family residential units and the conduct of construction activities to the specific location of San Joaquin Plaza represent the Project's only potential to create new construction -related greenhouse gas emission impacts because construction of the remaining 445 multi -family units in Newport Center were assumed and previously evaluated by the General Plan EIR.

The construction of 79 multi -family residential units instead of 79 hotel units would not represent any measurable difference in construction -related greenhouse gas emissions. The types of construction equipment, material use, and duration of construction activities would be very similar for hotel units or 26 California Natural Resources Agency, Final Statement of Reasons for Regulatory Action, Amendments to the State CEQA Guidelines Addressing Analysis and Mitigation of Greenhouse Gas Emissions Pursuant to SB97, December 2009.

North Newport Center Planned Community Greenhouse Gas Analysis City of Newport Beach, CA (JN:08210-05 GHG Report) OURBAM 34 multi -family units. Also, GHG contributions to GCC are cumulative in nature and thus the specific location of the emissions source, whether it be Newport Center generally or San Joaquin Plaza specifically, has no material bearing. Accordingly, future Project -related construction emissions of greenhouse gases would not represent new information of substantial importance which was not known and could not have been known at the time that the General Plan EIR was certified. There would be no new or more severe construction related GHG emissions impact than would otherwise occur with implementation of the City's General Plan, as analyzed in the General Plan EIR

3.4 OPERATIONAL EMISSIONS
As previously noted, the Applicant proposes an amendment to the NNCPC Development Plan to increase the allowable residential development intensity by 94 units and to assign those 94 units, along with 430 units already allocated to the NNCPC, to the portion of the NNCPC designated as San Joaquin Plaza. It should be noted that of the 94 units, 15 dwelling units are currently assigned to Newport Center and impacts from these dwelling units were accounted for by the General Plan EIR.

The remaining 79 units consist of hotel units that would be converted to multi -family residential units.

In order to provide consistency with the traffic study, this analysis relates to the proposed increase of 94 dwelling units allowed within the San Joaquin Plaza (as is done for the traffic study), and represents a "worst case" (conservative) analysis since there would be no credit taken for the reduction of 79 hotel rooms or for the 15 units already allowed by the General Plan.

Operational activities associated with the proposed Project will result in emissions of CO2, CH4, and N2O from the following primary sources:
• Building Energy Use
• Water Supply, Treatment and Distribution
• Solid Waste
• Mobile Source Emissions

3.4.1 BUILDING ENERGY USE
GHGs are emitted from buildings as a result of activities for which electricity and natural gas are typically used as energy sources. Combustion of any type of fuel emits CO2 and other GHGs directly into the atmosphere; these emissions are considered direct emissions associated with a building.

GHGs are also emitted during the generation of electricity from fossil fuels; these emissions are considered to be indirect emissions. Unless otherwise noted, CalEEModTm default parameters were used.

North Newport Center Planned Community Greenhouse Gas Analysis City of Newport Beach, CA (JN:08210-05 GHG Report) OURBAM 35 3.4.2 WATER SUPPLY, TREATMENT AND DISTRIBUTION
Indirect GHG emissions result from the production of electricity used to convey, treat and distribute water and wastewater. The amount of electricity required to convey, treat and distribute water depends on the volume of water as well as the sources of the water. Unless otherwise noted, CalEEModTM default parameters were used.

3.4.3 SOLID WASTE
Residential land uses will result in the generation and disposal of solid waste. A large percentage of this waste will be diverted from landfills by a variety of means, such as reducing the amount of waste generated, recycling, and/or composting. The remainder of the waste not diverted will be disposed of at a landfill. GHG emissions from landfills are associated with the anaerobic breakdown of material. GHG emissions associated with the disposal of solid waste associated with the proposed Project were calculated by the CalEEModTM model using default parameters.

3.4.4 MOBILE SOURCE EMISSIONS
GHG emissions will also result from mobile sources associated with the Project. These mobile source emissions will result from the typical daily operation of motor vehicles by visitors, employees, and customers.

Project mobile source emissions are dependent on both overall daily vehicle trip generation. Trip characteristics available from the report, North Newport Center San Joaquin Plaza TPO Traffic Analysis (Stantec, May 2012) were utilized in this analysis.

3.5 EMISSIONS SUMMARY
The summary of annual operational GHG emissions from 94 dwelling units is reported in Table 3-1. The operational GHG emissions for the Project are estimated to be 935.04 MTCO2e per year.

North Newport Center Planned Community Greenhouse Gas Analysis City of Newport Beach, CA (JN:08210-05 GHG Report) OURBAM 36 TABLE 3-1

TOTAL PROJECT GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS (ANNUAL) METRIC TONS PER YEAR) Emission Source
CO2
Emissions (metric tons per year)
CH4 N20
Total CO2E
Area Source Emissions

69.88 0.03

71.00 Energy
244.28

0.01 245.79
Mobile Sources
556.77

0.02 557.25
Waste

8.78 0.52 --

19.67 Water Usage

35.74 0.19 0.01

41.33 Total CO2E (All Sources)
935.04
Threshold MT CO2E/Yr
3,000
Significant?
NO
Source: CalEEModTM model output, See Appendix "A" for detailed model outputs.

Note: Totals obtained from CalEEModTm and may not total 100% due to rounding.

North Newport Center Planned Community Greenhouse Gas Analysis City of Newport Beach, CA (JN:08210-05 GHG Report)
OURBAM
37 3.6 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FACTOR NO. 1: The extent to which the project may generate GHG emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment, based on any applicable threshold of significance.

Less Than Significant Impact. Global climate change is not confined to a particular project area and is generally accepted as the consequence of global industrialization over the last 200 years. A typical project, even a very large one, does not generate enough greenhouse gas emissions on its own to influence global climate change significantly; hence, the issue of global climate change is, by definition, a cumulative environmental impact. The State of California, through its governor and its legislature, has established a comprehensive framework for the substantial reduction of GHG emissions over the next 40-plus years. This will occur primarily through the implementation of Assembly Bill (AB 32) and Senate Bill (SB 375), which will address GHG emissions on a statewide cumulative basis.

GHG emissions generated by the project are associated with the new area sources (natural gas use, landscape equipment, etc.) from the new building structures, transportation emissions associated with vehicles traveling to and from the project site, and indirect emissions associated with purchased energy, energy associated with water (conveyance, treatment, distribution, and treatment of wastewater), and waste disposal. GHG emissions from project -related operational activities are included in Table 3-1.

The proposed project would generate approximately 935.04 metric tons (MTons) of GHG emissions per year. Currently, there are no adopted thresholds for GHG emissions for projects within the SCAQMD region. However, SCAQMD has convened a Working Group to identify GHG thresholds for use in the SoCAB. For projects that are not exempt or where no qualifying GHG reduction plans are directly applicable, SCAQMD requires an assessment of GHG emissions. SCAQMD is proposing a screening level threshold of 3,000 MTons annually for all land use types. This threshold is based on a review of the Governor's Office of Planning and Research database of CEQA projects. Based on their review, 90 percent of CEQA projects would exceed 3,000 MTons per year. Projects that exceed the screening threshold would require additional technical analysis to determine the level of significance. Because the GHG emissions associated with the project would be below the SCAQMD's proposed screening threshold, the proposed project's cumulative contribution to GHG emissions would be less than significant and would not comprise a new significant environmental effect. Additionally, because the Project's GHG emissions would be below SCAQMD's screening threshold, the Project's GHG emissions would not represent a significant increase as compared to the level of GHG emissions that would otherwise occur from implementation of the City's General Plan. In conclusion, implementation of the proposed Project would not result in any new impacts or increase the severity of a previously identified significant impact as analyzed in the General Plan EIR. No mitigation measures are necessary.

North Newport Center Planned Community Greenhouse Gas Analysis City of Newport Beach, CA (JN:08210-05 GHG Report) OURBAM 38 FACTOR NO. 2: The extent to which the project may conflict with any applicable plan, policy or regulation of an agency adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases.

No Impact. CARB adopted the Scoping Plan on December 11, 2008. The Scoping Plan is California's GHG reduction strategy to achieve the state's GHG emissions reduction target established by AB 32, which is 1990 levels by year 2020. Statewide strategies to reduce GHG emissions include the Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS), California Appliance Energy Efficiency regulations, California Renewable Energy Portfolio standard, changes in the corporate average fuel economy (CAFE) standards, and other early action measures would ensure the state is on target to achieve the GHG emissions reduction goals of AB 32. The project's GHG emissions would be further reduced from compliance with these statewide measures.

The state of California recently adopted the 2008 Building and Energy Efficiency Standards and the 2010 Green Building Code, which require a greater degree of energy efficiency than the 2005 version of the state building code that was in effect when the General Plan EIR was certified in 2006. Although no specific development project is proposed at San Joaquin Plaza at this time, future construction activities would be required to comply with all applicable building codes. Currently, development activities are required to achieve the energy efficiency standards of the 2008 Building and Energy Efficiency Standards. The 2008 Standard is 15 percent more energy efficienct compared to the 2005 Building and Energy Efficiency Standards. CARB and the EPA have also adopted new fuel efficiency standards for model years 2012 through 2016. The Scoping Plan also calls for more stringent fuel efficiency standards model years 2016 through 2020 under Pavley II. Because the proposed project would not exceed the SCAQMD's proposed screening threshold for GHG emissions and residential development in San Joaquin Plaza would be required to achieve efficiency standards mandated as part of the state building code in effect at the time of future construction, the proposed project would not have the potential to interfere with the State of California's ability to achieve GHG reduction goals and strategies. Furthermore, the proposed Project would result in fewer GHG emissions than would have been assumed in the General Plan EIR since the 2008 efficiency standards and other statewide measures to reduce GHG emissions were not in place at the time the General Plan EIR was certified.

Various characteristics of the Project serve to render its contribution to GCC less than cumulatively considerable. One of the main issues raised by those concerned about the effect of greenhouse gases on climate change is that "leap frog" -type development would potentially increase the number of vehicle miles traveled and consequently increase vehicular emissions (i.e., CO2 that contribute to greenhouse gases). The Project is an infill, mixed use development in an urbanized setting thereby providing opportunities to reduce vehicle trips.

North Newport Center Planned Community Greenhouse Gas Analysis City of Newport Beach, CA (JN:08210-05 GHG Report) OURBAM 39 In conclusion, implementation of the proposed Project would not result in any new impacts or increase the severity of a previously identified significant impact as previously analyzed in the General Plan EIR.

3.7 REQUIREMENTS
The issue of GHG emissions was not previously evaluated in the General Plan EIR; as such, no mitigation measures specifically related to GHG emissions was identified in the General Plan EIR.

However, the General Plan includes several policies that would serve to reduce GHG emissions, including, but not limited to, the following Policies: LU 6.4.6 (Approaches for a Livable Neighborhood); LU 6.15.19 (Walkable Streets); LU 6.15.20 (Connected Streets); NR 6.1 (Walkable Neighborhoods); NR 6.2 (Mixed -Use Development); NR 6.3 (Vehicle -Trip Reduction Measures); NR 6.4 (Transportation Demand Management Ordinance); NR 6.5 (Local Transit Agency Collaboration); NR 6.6 (Traffic Signal Synchronization); NR 6.7 (City Fleet Vehicles); NR 6.8 (Accessible Alternative Fuel Infrastructure); NR

6.9 (Education on Mobile Source Emission Reduction Techniques); NR 7.1 (Fuel Efficient Equipment); NR 7.2 (Source Emission Reduction Best Management Practices); NR 7.3 (Incentives for Air Pollution Reduction); NR 7.4 (Use of Blowers); NR 8.1 (Construction Equipment); NR 8.2 (Maintenance of Construction Equipment); NR 8.3 (Construction Equipment Operation); NR 9.1 (Efficient Airport Operations); NR 9.2 (Aircraft and Equipment Emission Reduction); CE 1.1.1 (Comprehensive Transportation System); CE 1.2.2 (Shuttle Service); CE 1.2.4 (Public Transit); CE 4.1.1 (Public Transit Efficiency); CE 4.1.4 (Land Use Densities Supporting Public Transit); CE 4.1.5 (Airport Shuttles); CE

4.1.6 (Transit Support Facilities); CE 5.1.1 (Trail System); CE 5.1.2 (Pedestrian Connectivity); CE 5.1.3 (Pedestrian Improvements in New Development Projects); CE 5.1.4 (Linkages to Citywide Trail System and Neighborhoods); CE 5.1.5 (Bikeway System); CE 5.1.6 (Bicycle Supporting Facilities); CE 5.1.9 (Integrated Bicycle Improvements); CE 5.1.11 (School Access); CE 5.1.12 (Pedestrian Street Crossings); CE 5.1.14 (Newport Harbor Trails and Walkways); CE 6.1.1 (Traffic Signals); CE 6.1.2 (Intelligent Transportation Systems); CE 6.2.1 (Alternative Transportation Modes); CE 6.2.2 (Support Facilities for Alternative Modes); and CE 6.2.3 (Project Site Design Supporting Alternative Modes).

Additionally, and although the Project will not result in a new significant GHG impact or increase the level of GHG emissions that would otherwise occur from buildout of the City's General Plan, the Project would be required to comply with all mandatory regulatory requirements imposed by the State of California and the South Coast Air Quality Management District aimed at the reduction of air quality emissions. Those that are particularly applicable to the Project and that would assist in the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions are:
• Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (AB32)
• Regional GHG Emissions Reduction Targets/Sustainable Communities Strategies (SB 375) • Pavely Fuel Efficiency Standards (AB1493). Establishes fuel efficiency ratings for new vehicles. • Title 24 California Code of Regulations (California Building Code). Establishes energy efficiency requirements for new construction.

North Newport Center Planned Community Greenhouse Gas Analysis City of Newport Beach, CA (JN:08210-05 GHG Report) OURBAM 40 • Title 20 California Code of Regulations (Appliance Energy Efficiency Standards). Establishes energy efficiency requirements for appliances.
• Title 17 California Code of Regulations (Low Carbon Fuel Standard). Requires carbon content of fuel sold in California to be 10% less by 2020.
• California Water Conservation in Landscaping Act of 2006 (AB1881). Requires local agencies to adopt the Department of Water Resources updated Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance or equivalent by January 1, 2010 to ensure efficient landscapes in new development and reduced water waste in existing landscapes.
• Statewide Retail Provider Emissions Performance Standards (SB 1368). Requires energy generators to achieve performance standards for GHG emissions. • Renewable Portfolio Standards (SB 1078). Requires electric corporations to increase the amount of energy obtained from eligible renewable energy resources to 20 percent by 2010 and 33 percent by 2020.

3.8 CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY RECOMMENDED MITIGATION MEASURES No significant impacts were identified and no mitigation measures are required.

3.9 OPERATIONAL ACTIVITY RECOMMENDED MITIGATION MEASURES No significant impacts were identified and no mitigation measures are required.

North Newport Center Planned Community Greenhouse Gas Analysis City of Newport Beach, CA (JN:08210-05 GHG Report) OURBAN 41 4.0 REFERENCES

1. California Air Resources Board, 2007. California Air Resources Board Almanac.

2. California Air Resources Board, 2007. EMFAC 2007.

3. California Air Resources Board, 2010. California Greenhouse Gas 2000-2008 Inventory by Scoping Plan Category - Summary.

4. California Building Standards Commission, 2010. 2008 California Green Building Standards Code.

5. California Energy Commission, 2005. Inventory of California Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks.

6. EIP Associates, 2006. City of Newport Beach General Plan 2006 Update Draft Environmental Impact Report.

7. International Panel on Climate Change, 2007. Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis.

Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report.

8. San Bernardino County, 2011. Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reduction Plan for San Bernardino County.

9. South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD), 1993. CEQA Air Quality Handbook.

10. South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD), 2011. California Emissions Estimator Model (CaIEEModTM)

11. Stantec, 2012. North Newport Center San Joaquin Plaza TPO Traffic Analysis.

12. United States Department of Labor, 2011. Occupational Safety and Health Guideline for Nitrous Oxide.

13. United States Environmental Protection Agency, 2011. Inventory of US Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks 1990-2011.

14. United States Environmental Protection Agency, 2010. High Global Warming Potential (GWP) Gases.

15. World Resources Institute, 2011. Climate Analysis Indicator Tool (CAIT) - US - Yearly Emissions Inventory.

North Newport Center Planned Community Greenhouse Gas Analysis City of Newport Beach, CA (JN:08210-05 GHG Report)
OURBAM
42 F... ►� A,,
GHG Emissions Calculations
North Newport Center Planned Community Greenhouse Gas Analysis City of Newport Beach, CA (JN:08210-05 GHG Report) OURBAM A

CaIEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2011.1.1
North Newport Center Planned Community Amendment
Orange County, Annual

1.0 Project Characteristics

1.1 Land Usage
Land Uses Size Metric
Condo/Townhouse High Rise 94 Dwelling Unit

1.2 Other Project Characteristics
Urbanization Urban Wind Speed (m/s) 2.2 Utility Company Southern California Edison Climate Zone 8 Precipitation Freq (Days) 30

2.0 Emissions Summary
1 of 14

2.1 Overall Construction
Unmitigated Construction
ROG
NOx
CO
S02
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio-
CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N20
CO2e
Year
tons/yr
MT/yr
2011 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00
Mitigated Construction
ROG
NOx
CO
S02
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio-
CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N20
CO2e
Year
tons/yr
MT/yr
2011 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00
2of14

2.2 Overall Operational
Unmitigated Operational
ROG
NO.

CO
S02
Fugitive
Exhaust
PM10
Fugitive
Exhaust
PM2.5
Bio- CO2
NBio-
Total CO2
CH4
N20
CO2e
PM10
PM10
I
Total
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
CO2
Category
tons/yr
MT/yr
Area 0.73 0.02 2.04 0.00 0.00 0.10 0.00 0.10 9.98 59.90 69.88 0.03 0.00 71.00 Energy 0.01 0.11 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.00 244.28 244.28 0.01 0.00 245.79 Mobile 0.33 0.61 3.23 0.01 0.70 0.03 0.73 0.03 0.03 0.06 0.00 556.77 556.77 0.02 0.00 557.25 Waste 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 8.78 0.00 8.78 0.52 0.00 19.67 Water 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 35.74 35.74 0.19 0.01 41.33 Total

1.07 0.74

5.32 0.01

0.70 0.03

0.84 0.03

0.03 0.17

18.76 896.69
915.45

0.77 0.01
935.04
3of14

2.2 Overall Operational
Mitigated Operational
ROG
NO.

1.07 0.74

5.32 0.01

0.70 0.03

0.84 0.03

0.03 0.17

18.76 896.69
915.45

0.77 0.01
935.04

3.0 Construction Detail

3.1 Mitigation Measures Construction
4of14

3.2 Demolition - 2011
Unmitigated Construction On -Site
ROG
NO.

CO
S02
Fugitive
PM10
I Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio-
CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N20
CO2e
Category
tons/yr
MT/yr
. . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Off -Road 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00
Unmitigated Construction Off -Site
ROG
NOx
CO
S02
Fugitive
Exhaust
PM10
Fugitive
Exhaust
PM2.5
Bio- CO2
NBio-
Total CO2
CH4
N20
CO2e
PM10
PM10
I
Total
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
I
CO2
Category
tons/yr
MT/yr
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Worker 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00
5of14

3.2 Demolition - 2011
Mitigated Construction On -Site
ROG
NO.

CO
S02
Fugitive
PM10
I Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio-
CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N20
CO2e
Category
tons/yr
MT/yr
. . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Off -Road 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00
Mitigated Construction Off -Site
ROG
NOx
CO
S02
Fugitive
Exhaust
PM10
Fugitive
Exhaust
PM2.5
Bio- CO2
NBio-
Total CO2
CH4
N20
CO2e
PM10
PM10
I
Total
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
I
CO2
Category
tons/yr
MT/yr
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Worker 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total

0.00 0.00

4.0 Mobile Detail

4.1 Mitigation Measures Mobile
6of14

ROG
NO.

CO
S02
Fugitive
PM10
I Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
I PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio-
CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N20
CO2e
Category
tons/yr
MT/yr
Mitigated 0.33 0.61 3.23 0.01 0.70 0.03 0.73 0.03 0.03 0.06 0.00 : 556.77 556.77 0.02 0.00 557.25 Unmitigated 0.33 0.61 3.23 0.01 0.70 0.03 0.73 0.03 0.03 0.06 0.00 556.77 556.77 0.02 0.00 557.25 Total
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA

4.3 Trip Type Information
Miles Trip %
Land Use H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW Condo/Townhouse High Rise 12.70 7.00 9.50 40.20 19.20 40.60

5.0 Energy Detail

5.1 Mitigation Measures Energy
7of14

ROG
NO.

CO
SO2
Fugitive
Exhaust
PM10
Fugitive
Exhaust
PM2.5
Bio- CO2
NBio-
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
PM10
PM10
I
Total
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
CO2
Category
tons/yr
MT/yr
Electricity 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 115.76 115.76 0.01 0.00 116.48 Mitigated
Electricity 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 115.76 115.76 0.01 0.00 116.48 Unmitigated
------------------------------- *------ *------ *------ *------ *------ *------ *------------- ------ *------ *------ *------ * ---- NaturalGas 0.01 0.11 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.00 128.52 128.52 0.00 0.00 129.30 Mitigated
NaturalGas 0.01 0.11 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.00 1 28. 52 1 28. 52 0.00 0.00 1 29. 30 Unmitigated
Total
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA

5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas
Unmitigated
NaturalGas Use
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
I Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio-
CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Land Use
kBTU
tons/yr
MT/yr
Condo/Townhouse' 2.4084e+006 0.01 0.11 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.00 128.52 128.52 0.00 0.00 129.30 High Rise
Total

0.01 0.11

0.05 0.00

0.00 0.01

0.00 128.52
128.52

0.00 0.00
129.30
8of14

5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas
Mitigated
NaturalGas Use
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio-
CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Land Use
kBTU
tons/yr
MT/yr
Condo/Townhouse' 2.4084e+006 0.01 0.11 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.00 128.52 128.52 0.00 0.00 129.30 High Rise
Total

0.01 0.11

0.05 0.00

0.00 0.01

0.00 128.52
128.52

0.00 0.00
129.30

5.3 Energy by Land Use - Electricity
Unmitigated
Electricity Use
ROG
NOx
I CO
SO2 Total CO2
CH4
I N2O
CO2e
Land Use
kWh
tons/yr MT/yr
Condo/Townhouse : 397969 115.76 0.01 0.00 116.48
High Rise
Total
115.76

0.01 0.00
116.48
9of14

5.3 Energy by Land Use - Electricity
Mitigated
Electricity Use
ROG
NOx
I CO
S02 Total CO2
CH4
I N20
CO2e
Land Use
kWh
tons/yr MT/yr
Condo/Townhouse' 397969 115.76 0.01 0.00 116.48
High Rise
Total
115.76

0.01 0.00
116.48

6.0 Area Detail

6.1 Mitigation Measures Area
ROG
NOx
CO
S02
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio-
CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N20
CO2e
Category
tons/yr
MT/yr
Mitigated 0.73 0.02 2.04 0.00 0.00 0.10 0.00 0.10 9.98 59.90 69.88 0.03 0.00 71.00 -------------- ------- *------ *------ *------ *------ *------ *------ *------ *------ ------- ------- *------ *------ *------ *------ Unmitigated 0.73 0.02 2.04 0.00 0.00 0.10 0.00 0.10 9.98 59.90 69.88 0.03 0.00 71.00 Total
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
10 of 14

6.2 Area by SubCategory
Unmitigated
ROG
NO.

CO
SO2
Fugitive
Exhaust
PM10
Fugitive
Exhaust
PM2.5
Bio- CO2
NBio-
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
PM10
PM10
I
Total
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
CO2
SubCategory
tons/yr
MT/yr
Architectural 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Coating
Consumer 0.34 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Products
--- ------------T------*------*------*------*------*------*------*------*------•------T------*------*----- ---- ----- Hearth 0.31 0.01 0.59 0.00 0.00 0.09 0.00 0.09 9.98 57.56 67.55 0.03 0.00 68.61 ----------- +------ T------ *------ *------ *------ *------ r------ r------ *------ ---- --- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----- Landscaping 0.05 0.02 1.45 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.00 2.34 2.34 0.00 0.00 2.39 Total

0.74 0.03

2.04 0.00

0.00 0.10

9.98 59.90

69.89 0.03

0.00 71.00
Mitigated
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
Exhaust
PM10
Fugitive
Exhaust
PM2.5
Bio- CO2
NBio-
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
PM10
PM10
I
Total
PM2.5
PM2.5
To
CO2
SubCategory
tons/yr
MT/yr
Architectural 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Coating
Consumer 0.34 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Products
Hearth 0.31 0.01 0.59 0.00 0.00 0.09 0.00 0.09 9.98 57.56 67.55 0.03 0.00 68.61 Landscaping 0.05 0.02 1.45 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.00 2.34 2.34 0.00 0.00 2.39 Total

0.74 0.03

2.04 0.00

0.00 0.10

9.98 59.90

69.89 0.03

0.00 71.00
11 of 14

7.0 Water Detail

7.1 Mitigation Measures Water
ROG
NOx
I CO
SO2 Total CO2
CH4
I N2O
CO2e
Category
tons/yr MT/yr
Mitigated 35.74 0.19 0.01 41.33
---------- ------ T------ *------ *------ *------ r------ r------ r------ Unmitigated 35.74 0.19 0.01 41.33
Total
NA
j NA
j NA
j NA
j NA
j NA
j NA
j NA

7.2 Water by Land Use
Unmitigated
Indoor/Outdoor
Use
ROG
NOx
I CO
SO2 Total CO2
CH4
I N2O
CO2e
Land Use
Mgal
tons/yr MT/yr
Condo/Townhouse 6.12448 / 35.74 0.19 0.01 41.33
High Rise 3.86108
Total

35.74 0.19

0.01 41.33
12 of 14

7.2 Water by Land Use
Mitigated
Indoor/Outdoor
Use
ROG
NOx
I CO
SO2 Total CO2
CH4
I N2O
CO2e
Land Use
Mgal
tons/yr MT/yr
Condo/Townhouse' 6.12448 / 35.74 0.19 0.01 41.33
High Rise 3.86108
Total

35.74 0.19

0.01 41.33

8.0 Waste Detail

8.1 Mitigation Measures Waste
CategoryNear
ROG
NOx
I CO
I SO2 Total CO2
CH4
I N2O
CO2e
tons/yr MT/yr
Mitigated 8.78 0.52 0.00 ' 19.67
-------------- ------- *------ *------ *------ *------ *------ *------ Unmitigated 8.78 0.52 0.00 19.67
Total
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
13 of 14

8.2 Waste by Land Use
Unmitigated
Waste
Disposed
ROG
NOx
I CO
SO2 Total CO2
CH4
I N2O
CO2e
Land Use
tons
tons/yr MT/yr
Condo/Townhouse' 43.24 8.78 0.52 0.00 19.67
High Rise
Total

8.78 0.52

0.00 19.67
Mitigated
Waste
Disposed
ROG
NOx
I CO
SO2 Total CO2
CH4
I N2O
CO2e
Land Use
tons
tons/yr MT/yr
Condo/Townhouse : 43.24 8.78 0.52 0.00 19.67
High Rise
Total

8.78 0.52

0.00 19.67

9.0 Vegetation
14 of 14

No
■ ❑ Initial Study and General Plan Program EIR Addendum No. 2 Technical Appendix C
Noise Impact Analysis
Urban Crossroads, Inc.

May 29, 2012
NNCPC Development Plan Amendment and Related Actions June 2012 Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach

6f u R BAN

CROSSROADS
41 Corporate Park, Suite 300
Irvine, CA 92606
Prepared by:

Bill Lawson, P.E., INCE
Prepared for:

Ms. Tracy Zinn
T&B PLANNING, INC.
17542 East 17t" Street, Suite 100
Tustin, CA 92780

NORTH NEWPORT CENTER PLANNED COMMUNITY

NOISE IMPACT ANALYSIS

CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA
June 6, 2012
JN:08211-04 Noise Report

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Sectinn
Page

1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY...................................................................................

1.1 Project Overview

1.2 Off -Site Transportation Noise Analysis

2.0 INTRODUCTION............................................................................................. 2

2.1 Purpose of Report

2.2 Project Description

2.3 General Plan Analysis of Transportation -Related Noise Impacts

3.0 NOISE FUNDAMENTALS................................................................................. 7

3.1 Range of Noise

3.2 Effects of Noise

3.3 Noise Descriptors

3.4 Traffic Noise Prediction

3.5 Ground Absorbtion

3.6 Noise Control

3.7 Noise Barrier Attenuation

3.8 Community Response to Noise

3.9 Land Use Campatibility with Noise

4.0 NOISE STANDARDS..................................................................................... 12

4.1 Transportation Noise Standards

4.2 Significant Noise Impact Criteria

5.0 METHODS AND PROCEDURES....................................................................... 14

5.1 FHWA Traffic Noise Prediction Model

5.2 Traffic Noise Prediction Model Inputs

6.0 OFF -SITE TRANSPORTATION NOISE IMPACTS ................................................ 21

6.1 Traffic Noise Contours

6.2 Existing Roadway Noise Levels

6.3 Year 2016 Roadway Noise Levels

6.4 Existing With Project Traffic Noise Level Contributions

6.5 Year 2016 Project Traffic Noise Level Contributions

6.6 Off -Site Transportation Related Project Noise Impacts North Newport Center Planned Community Noise Impact Analysis OURBAMCity of Newport Beach, CA (JN.08211-04 Noise Report) cRossR

LIST OF APPENDICES
Appendix Page
Off -Site FHWA Traffic Noise Model Printouts................................................................................................ 6.1

LIST OF EXHIBITS
Exhibit Page
3-A Typical Noise Levels and Their Subjective Loudness and Effects................................................8

LIST OF TABLES
Table Page
5-1
Off -Site Roadway Parameters....................................................................................................15 5-2
Average Daily Traffic(1000's).....................................................................................................17 5-3
Hourly Traffic Flow Distribution...................................................................................................20 6-1
Existing Without Project Conditions Noise Contours..................................................................22 6-2
Existing With Project Conditions Noise Contours.......................................................................25 6-3
Year 2016 Without Project Conditions Noise Contours..............................................................28 6-4
Year 2016 With Project Conditions Noise Contours...................................................................31 6-5
Existing Off -Site Project Related Traffic Noise Impacts..............................................................35 6-6
Year 2016 Off -Site Project Related Traffic Noise Impacts..........................................................38 North Newport Center Planned Community Noise Impact Analysis �� URBAN City of Newport Beach, CA (JN:08211-04 Noise Report. docx) CRoss RC3^Os

NORTH NEWPORT CENTER PLANNED COMMUNITY

NOISE IMPACT ANALYSIS

CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA

1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This noise study has been completed to determine the noise impacts associated with the development of the proposed North Newport Center Planned Community (NNCPC) (referred to as "Project"). The purpose of this noise assessment is to evaluate the off -site project traffic noise impacts and to recommend noise mitigation measures, if necessary, to minimize the potential project impacts.

1.1 Project Overview
The Project involves increasing the residential development allocation within the NNCPC from 430 dwelling units to a total of 524 dwelling units (increase of 94 units). The NNCPC was originally adopted in 2007, for which an addendum to the City of Newport Beach General Plan 2006 Update Final Program EIR was prepared.

1.2 Off -Site Transportation Noise Analysis
Traffic generated by the proposed Project will influence the traffic noise levels in surrounding off - site areas. To quantify the off -site traffic noise impacts on the surrounding off -site areas, the changes in traffic noise levels on 73 roadway segments surrounding the Project site were estimated based on the change in the average daily traffic volumes. The traffic noise levels provided in this analysis are based on the traffic forecasts from the North Newport Center San Joaquin Plaza TPO Traffic Analysis prepared by Stantec in May 2012.

To assess the off -site noise level impacts associated with the proposed project, noise contour boundaries were developed for Existing and Year 2016 traffic conditions. In order for an off -site transportation related noise impact to be considered a significant impact, the project traffic must create a significant noise level increase as defined by the City of Newport Beach General Plan Noise Policy N 1.8. This analysis shows that the project will not generate a substantial permanent off -site traffic noise level increase for existing sensitive uses or expose persons to noise levels in excess of the standards established by the City of Newport Beach General Plan Noise Policy N

1.8. North Newport Center Planned Community Noise Impact Analysis City of Newport Beach, CA (JN. 08211-04 Noise Report)
OURBAM

CROSSROADS
1 2.0 INTRODUCTION
This noise study has been completed to determine the noise impacts associated with the construction and operation of the proposed North Newport Center Planned Community.

2.1 Purpose of Report
The purpose of this report is to satisfy CEQA Guidelines section 15168(c), which requires the City to analyze whether subsequent activities regarding the North Newport Center zoning require an additional environmental document beyond the Final Environmental Impact Report ("EIR") for the City of Newport Beach General Plan 2006 Update (State Clearinghouse No. 200601119) ("General Plan EIR"), and the first North Newport Center Addendum to the Environmental Impact Report for the City of Newport Beach General Plan 2006 Update, approved by Resolution No. 2007-79 on December 11, 2007. The General Plan EIR was certified by the Newport Beach City Council on July 25, 2006, as adequately addressing the potential environmental impacts associated with the buildout of the City of Newport Beach, inclusive of North Newport Center. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15168(c), this report analyzes whether the Project would have effects that were not examined in the General Plan EIR and confirms that the Project will not result in new effects and will not require new mitigation measures so that the City can determine whether it is appropriate to approve the Project as within the scope of the General Plan EIR. As required by CEQA Guidelines section 15168(e), this report also analyzes whether: (i) the Project is within the scope of the General Plan 2006 Update; and (ii) the General Plan EIR adequately describes the subsequent activity for the purposes of CEQA.

North Newport Center Planned Community Noise Impact Analysis City of Newport Beach, CA (M 08211-04 Noise Report)
OURBAM

CROSSROADS
2 (a) When an EIR has been certified or a negative declaration adopted for a project, no subsequent EIR shall be prepared for that project unless the lead agency determines, on the basis of substantial evidence in the light of the whole record, one or more of the following:
(1) Substantial changes are proposed in the project which will require major revisions of the previous EIR or negative declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; (2) Substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken which will require major revisions of the previous EIR or Negative Declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; or
(3) New information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the previous EIR, was certified as complete or the Negative Declaration was adopted, shows any of the following:
(A) The project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous EIR or negative declaration;
(B) Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than shown in the previous EIR;
(C) Mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible, and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the project, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative; or (D) Mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerably different from those analyzed in the previous EIR would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative.

In order to provide the analysis necessary for the City to make its determination under CEQA Guidelines section 15168(c), this noise study briefly describes the proposed Project, provides information regarding noise fundamentals, describes the local noise guidelines, provides the study methods and procedures for traffic noise analysis, and evaluates the future off -site exterior noise environment. Additional information beyond that required for the City's determination is included for public information. This study also satisfies the City of Newport Beach noise standards requirements.

2.2 Project Description
The NNCPC Development Plan currently allows for 430 multi -family residential units to be developed in areas of the NNCPC designated MU-H3 by the General Plan. In comparison, the General Plan allows a maximum of 450 units in the MU-H3 category throughout the Newport North Newport Center Planned Community Noise Impact Analysis City of Newport Beach, CA (JN. 08211-04 Noise Report)
OURBAM

CROSSROADS
3 Center Statistical Area. In other words, of the 450 MU-H3 residential units allowed by the General Plan in the Newport Center Statistical Area, 430 are specifically allocated to be developed within the areas of the NNCPC designated by the NNCPC Development Plan as Block 500, Block 600 and San Joaquin Plaza. The remaining 20 units are allowed to be developed in any MU-H3 designated area in the Newport Center Statistical Area. Five (5) MU- H3 units have been assigned to the Golf Realty Fund Tennis Club development and the other 15 MU-H3 units are not assigned to any particular property.

The Project Applicant proposes an amendment to the NNCPC Development Plan to increase the allowable residential development intensity by 94 units (comprising the 15 un-assigned and un-built multi -family units and the 79 hotel units that would be converted to multi -family units), and to assign those 94 units, along with 430 units already allocated to the NNCCP, to the portion of the NNCCP designated as San Joaquin Plaza.

North Newport Center Planned Community Noise Impact Analysis City of Newport Beach, CA (JN:08211-04 Noise Report)
OURBAM
2 No specific development project is proposed at this time. A proposal to develop a specific residential project in the San Joaquin Plaza would be subject to the procedures for development specified in the NNCPC Development Plan. There would be no change to the boundaries of the NNCPC Development Plan area or any constituent blocks or sub -districts, and there would be no change in the permitted types of land uses, development regulations, or design guidelines resulting from approval of the proposed NNCPC Development Plan Amendment.

Since no specific development is proposed at this time, and the exact location of the units is unknown, a specific calculation of construction noise levels impacts that may be associated with future construction activities is not possible and is not provided. However, construction activities would be consistent with the assumptions made in the General Plan EIR and would not result in any new impacts or increase the severity of any impacts previously identified in the General Plan EIR.

2.3 General Plan Analysis of Transportation -Related Noise Impacts Operational noise impacts associated with implementation of the General Plan were previously evaluated as part of the General Plan EIR, which identified significant and unavoidable impacts due to the exposure of existing development to future traffic related noise that would exceed the General Plan noise standards and/or would represent a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels. The General Plan EIR notes that compliance with General Plan Goal N-2 (Transportation Noise) would reduce this impact, but not to a level below significant.

Although the proposed Project would involve the allocation of 94 additional units to the San Joaquin Plaza, implementation of the proposed Project would result in the reduction of traffic with buildout of the General Plan. Specifically, the TPO Traffic Analysis shows that the proposed Project, which would convert 79 hotel units to multi -family units, would result in a net reduction in average daily traffic (ADT) of 315 trips, including 17 fewer a.m. peak hour trips and 17 fewer p.m. peak hour trips. Due to the reduction in traffic volumes generated by the Project compared to the assumptions made in the General Plan EIR, the proposed Project would not result in a substantial increase in the significant and unavoidable transportation noise -related impacts identified in the General Plan EIR.

North Newport Center Planned Community Noise Impact Analysis City of Newport Beach, CA (M 08211-04 Noise Report)
OURBAM

CROSSROADS
5 To substantiate this conclusion, future noise conditions for study area roadway segments were calculated based on the TPO Traffic Analysis to determine whether traffic generated by the Project would cause or contribute to transportation -related noise levels that could exceed the General Plan standards and/or result in a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the Project vicinity above levels existing without the Project. The results are presented in Section 4.0 of this report.

North Newport Center Planned Community Noise Impact Analysis City of Newport Beach, CA (JN. 08211-04 Noise Report)
OURBAM

CROSSROADS
A

3.0 NOISE FUNDAMENTALS
Noise has been simply defined as "unwanted sound." Sound becomes unwanted when it interferes with normal activities, when it causes actual physical harm or when it has adverse effects on health.

3.1 Range of Noise
Since the range of sound that the human ear can detect is so large, the scale used to measure sound intensity is a scale based on multiples of 10, the logarithmic scale. The unit of measure in which a sound intensity is described is the decibel (dB). Each interval of 10 decibels indicates a sound energy ten times greater than before, which is perceived by the human ear as being roughly twice as loud. However, due to the internal mechanism of the human ear and how it receives and processes noise, when two sound sources of equal intensity or power are measured together, their combined effect (intensity level) is 3 dBA higher than the level of either separately. Thus, two 72 dBA cars together measure 75 dBA under ideal conditions.

The most common sounds vary between 40 dBA (very quiet) to 100 dBA (very loud). Normal conversation at three feet is roughly at 60 dBA, while loud jet engine noises equate to 110 dBA at approximately 100 feet, which can cause serious discomfort. Exhibit 3-A presents a summary of the typical noise levels and their subjective loudness and effects that are described in more detail below.

3.2 Effects of Noise
Harmful effects of noise can include speech interference; sleep disruption and loss of hearing.

High background noise levels can affect performance and learning processes through distraction, reduced accuracy, increased fatigue, annoyance and irritability, the inability to concentrate, and sleep prevention.

Several factors determine whether a particular noise will interfere with sleep. These factors include the noise level and characteristics, the stage of sleep, the individual's age and motivation to waken.

North Newport Center Planned Community Noise Impact Analysis City of Newport Beach, CA (JN. 08211-04 Noise Report)
OURBAM

CROSSROADS
7 EXHIBIT 3-A

TYPICAL NOISE LEVELS AND

THEIR SUBJECTIVE LOUDNESS AND EFFECTS

COMMON OUTDOOR

COMMON INDOOR

A - WEIGHTED

SUBJECTIVE

EFFECTS OF

ACTIVITIES

ACTIVITIES
SOUND LEVEL dBA

LOUDNESS
NOISE

THRESHOLD OF PAIN
140
0 INTOLERABLE OR

NEAR JET ENGINE
130

DEAFENING
120
HEA
JET FLY -OVER AT 300m (1000 ft)

ROCK BAND
110

LOUD AUTO HORN
100
GAS LAWN MOWER AT 1m (3 ft)
90 VERY NOISY
DIESEL TRUCK AT 15m (50 ft), at 80
FOOD BLENDER AT 1 m (3 ft)
80 km/hr (50 mph)

NOISY URBAN AREA, DAYTIME
VACUUM CLEANER AT 3m (10 ft)
70 SPEECH
LOUD

INTERFERENCE
HEAVY TRAFFIC AT 90m (300 ft)
NORMAL SPEECH AT 1 m (3 ft)
60 QUIET URBAN DAYTIME

LARGE BUSINESS OFFICE
50 MODERATE
SLEEP

DISTURBANCE

QUIET URBAN NIGHTTIME

THEATER, LARGE CONFERENCE
40 ROOM (BACKGROUND)

QUIET SUBURBAN NIGHTTIME

LIBRARY
30 FAINT

BEDROOM AT NIGHT, CONCERT

QUIET RURAL NIGHTTIME

HALL (BACKGROUND)
20 BROADCAST/RECORDING
10 NO EFFECT
STUDIO

VERY FAINT

LOWEST THRESHOLD OF HUMAN LOWEST THRESHOLD OF HUMAN
0 HEARING HEARING
SOURCE: NOISE TECHNICAL SUPPLEMENT BY CALTRANS
North Newport Center Planned Community Noise Impact Analysis URBAN City of Newport Beach, CA (JN - 08211:005.dwg)

CROSSROADS

3.3 Noise Descriptors
Environmental noise descriptors are generally based on averages, rather than instantaneous, noise levels. The most commonly used figure is the equivalent level (Leq). Leq represents a steady sound level containing the same total energy as a time -varying level over a given measurement interval. Leq's may represent any desired length of time; however, one hour is the most commonly used in environmental work. Consequently, Leq's can vary depending upon the time of day. In traffic noise measurements, the noisiest hour of the day is considered the benchmark of a road's noise emissions; therefore, the peak hour Leq is the noise metric used by Caltrans for all traffic noise impact analyses.

Peak hour noise levels, while useful, do not completely describe a given noise environment.

Noise levels lower than peak hour levels may be disturbing if they occur during times when quiet is most desirable, namely evening and nighttime (sleeping) hours. To account for this, the Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL), representing a composite twenty-four hour noise level, is utilized.

The Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) is the weighted average of the intensity of a sound, with corrections for time of day, and averaged over 24 hours. The time of day corrections require the addition of five decibels to sound levels in the evening from 7 p.m. to 10 p.m., and the addition of ten decibels to sound levels at night between 10 p.m. and 7 a.m.

These additions are made to account for the noise sensitive time periods during the evening and night hours when sound appears louder and it is weighted accordingly. CNEL does not represent the actual sound level heard at any particular time, but rather represents the total sound exposure.

3.4 Traffic Noise Prediction
According to the Highway Traffic Noise Analysis and Abatement Policy and Guidance, provided by the Federal Highway Administration, the level of traffic noise depends on three primary factors: (1) the volume of the traffic, (2) the speed of the traffic, and (3) the vehicle mix within the flow of traffic. Generally, the loudness of traffic noise is increased by heavier traffic volumes, higher speeds, and a greater number of trucks. A doubling of the traffic volume, assuming that the speed and vehicle mix do not change, results in a noise level increase of 3 dBA. The North Newport Center Planned Community Noise Impact Analysis City of Newport Beach, CA (JN: 08211-04 Noise Report)
OURBAM

CROSSROADS
NJ

vehicle mix on a given roadway may also have an effect on community noise levels. As the number of medium and heavy trucks increases and becomes a larger percentage of the vehicle mix, adjacent noise level impacts will increase. Vehicle noise is a combination of the noise produced by the engine, exhaust, and tires on the roadway.

3.5 Ground Absorption
To account for the ground -effect attenuation (absorption), two types of site conditions are commonly used in traffic noise models, soft site and hard site conditions. Soft site conditions account for the sound propagation loss over natural surfaces such as normal earth and ground vegetation. A drop-off rate of 4.5 dBA per doubling of distance is typically observed over soft ground with landscaping, as compared with a 3.0 dBA drop-off rate over hard ground such as asphalt, concrete, stone and very hard packed earth. Caltrans research has shown that the use of soft site conditions is more appropriate for the application of the FHWA traffic noise prediction model used in this analysis.

3.6 Noise Control
Noise control is the process of obtaining an acceptable noise environment for a particular observation point or receptor by controlling the noise source, transmission path, receptor, or all three. This concept is known as the source -path -receptor concept. In general, noise control measures can be applied to any and all of these three elements.

3.7 Noise Barrier Attenuation
Effective noise barriers can reduce noise levels by 10 to 15 dBA, cutting the loudness of traffic noise in half. A noise barrier is most effective when placed close to the noise source or receptor.

Noise barriers, however, do have limitations. For a noise barrier to work, it must be high enough and long enough to block the view of the noise source.

3.8 Community Response to Noise
Approximately ten (10) percent of the population has a very low tolerance for noise and will object to any noise not of their own making. Consequently, even in the quietest environment, North Newport Center Planned Community Noise Impact Analysis City of Newport Beach, CA (JN: 08211-04 Noise Report)
OURBAM

CROSSROADS
10 some complaints will occur. Another 25 percent of the population will not complain even in very severe noise environments. Thus, a variety of reactions can be expected from people exposed to any given noise environment.

Despite this variability in behavior on an individual level, the population as a whole can be expected to exhibit the following responses to changes in noise levels. An increase or decrease of 1.0 dBA cannot be perceived except in carefully controlled laboratory experiments, a change of 3.0 dBA are considered "barely perceptible," and changes of 5 dBA are considered "readily perceptible."

3.9 Land Use Compatibility With Noise
Some land uses are more tolerant of noise than others. For example, schools, hospitals, churches and residences are considered to be more sensitive to noise intrusion than are commercial or industrial activities. Ambient noise levels can also affect the perceived desirability or livability of a development. For these reasons, land use compatibility with the noise environment is an important consideration in the planning and design process.

North Newport Center Planned Community Noise Impact Analysis City of Newport Beach, CA (JN. 08211-04 Noise Report)
OURBAM

CROSSROADS
11 4.0 NOISE STANDARDS
Local noise guidelines are often based on the broader guidelines established by state and federal agencies. This section describes the regulatory setting for the proposed North Newport Center Planned Community project.

4.1 Transportation Noise Standards
The City of Newport Beach General Plan Noise Element specifies the maximum noise levels allowable for new developments impacted by transportation noise sources such as arterial roads, freeways, airports and railroads. For the purposes of this project, the noise impacts associated with traffic are controlled by the General Plan Noise Element.

The General Plan standards are derived from standards contained in the General Plan Guidelines, a publication of the California Office of Planning and Research. These standards are used by many California cities and counties. The Noise Element includes standards for land use compatibility for community noise exposure. For noise sensitive uses such as schools and single- family homes, exterior noise levels ranging from 60 to 65 dBA CNEL are considered normally compatible. According the Noise Element, the 60 dBA CNEL contour defines the Noise Referral Zone. This is the noise level for which noise considerations should be included when making land use policy decisions that effect existing and proposed noise -sensitive developments. The 65 dBA CNEL contour describes the area for which new noise sensitive developments will be permitted only if appropriate mitigation measures are included.

4.2 Significant Noise Impact Criteria
Noise Policy N 1.8 requires the employment of noise mitigation measures for existing sensitive uses when a significant noise impact is identified. A significant noise impact occurs when there is a substantial increase in the ambient CNEL produced by new development impacting existing sensitive uses. For purposes of analysis in this report (and as required by General Plan Policy N 1.8), off -site transportation -related noise increases would be considered "substantial" if Project -related traffic results in any of the following: a noise level increase of 3 dBA CNEL where the existing without project ambient noise levels range from 55 to 60 dBA CNEL; a noise North Newport Center Planned Community Noise Impact Analysis City of Newport Beach, CA (JN:08211-04 Noise Report.docx) URBAN

CROSSROADS
`v,

level increase of 2 dBA CNEL where the existing without project ambient noise levels range from 60 to 65 dBA CNEL; a noise level increase of 1 dBA CNEL where the existing without project ambient noise levels range from 65 to 75 dBA CNEL; and/or any off -site transportation project related noise level increase where the existing without project ambient noise levels are over 75 dBA CNEL is considered a significant impact. If the Project's transportation -related noise increases are substantial and impact sensitive receptors that were previously identified by the General Plan EIR as being impacted by noise, then the Project's contribution would be considered to comprise a substantial increase in the severity of a significant effect (CEQA Guidelines §15162(3)(b)). If the Project's transportation -related noise increases are substantial and impact sensitive receptors that were not previously identified by the General Plan EIR as being impacted by traffic -related noise, then the Project's noise contribution would be considered a significant effect not discussed in the General Plan EIR (CEQA Guidelines §15162(3)(a)).

North Newport Center Planned Community Noise Impact Analysis City of Newport Beach, CA (JN:08211-04 Noise Report.docx) URBAN

CROSSROADS
13 5.0 METHODS AND PROCEDURES
The following section outlines the methods and procedures used to model and analyze the future traffic noise environment.

5.1 FHWA Traffic Noise Prediction Model
The projected roadway noise impacts from vehicular traffic were projected using a computer program that replicates the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Traffic Noise Prediction Model- FHWA-RD-77-108 (the "FHWA Model"). The FHWA Model arrives at a predicted noise level through a series of adjustments to the Reference Energy Mean Emission Level (REMEL).

Adjustments are then made to the REMEL to account for: the roadway classification (e.g., collector, secondary, major or arterial), the roadway active width (i.e., the distance between the center of the outermost travel lanes on each side of the roadway), the total average daily traffic (ADT), the travel speed, the percentages of automobiles, medium trucks, and heavy trucks in the traffic volume, the roadway grade, the angle of view (e.g., whether the roadway view is blocked), the site conditions ("hard" or "soft" relates to the absorption of the ground, pavement, or landscaping), and the percentage of total ADT which flows each hour throughout a 24-hour period.

5.2 Traffic Noise Prediction Model Inputs
Table 5-1 presents the FHWA Traffic Noise Prediction Model roadway parameters used in this analysis. Soft site conditions were used to develop the noise contours to analyze the traffic noise impacts to the study area. Soft site conditions account for the sound propagation loss over natural surfaces such as normal earth and ground vegetation.

The Existing and Year 2016 average daily traffic volumes used for this study and presented in Table 5-2 were provided by the North Newport Center San Joaquin Plaza TPO Traffic Analysis prepared by Stantec in May 2012.'
Table 5-3 presents the hourly traffic flow distributions (vehicle mix) used for this analysis. The vehicle mix provides the hourly distribution percentages of automobile, medium trucks, and heavy trucks for input into the FHWA Model.

North Newport Center Planned Community Noise Impact Analysis City of Newport Beach, CA (JN. 08211-04 Noise Report)
OURBAM

CROSSROADS
14 Table 5-1 (1 of 2)
Off -Site Roadway Parameters
Roadway
Segment
Roadway
Classification'
Lanes
Vehicle Speed
(MPH)
Macarthur
South of Bonita Canyon
Major Arterial
6 45
Macarthur
North of San Joaquin Hills
Major Arterial
6 45
Macarthur
South of San Joaquin Hills
Major Arterial
6 45
Macarthur
North of San Miguel
Major Arterial
6 45
Macarthur
South of San Miguel
Major Arterial
6 45
Macarthur
North of Coast Highway
Major Arterial
6 45
San Joaquin Hills
West of Jamboree
Major Arterial
6 45
San Joaquin Hills
East of Jamboree
Major Arterial
6 45
San Joaquin Hills
West of Santa Cruz
Major Arterial
6 45
San Joaquin Hills
East of Santa Cruz
Major Arterial
6 45
San Joaquin Hills
West of Santa Rosa
Major Arterial
6 45
San Joaquin Hills
East of Santa Rosa
Major Arterial
6 45
San Joaquin Hills
West of Macarthur
Major Arterial
6 45
San Joaquin Hills
East of Macarthur
Major Arterial
6 45
Coast Highway
West of Jamboree
Major Arterial
6 45
Coast Highway
East of Jamboree
Major Arterial
6 45
Coast Highway
West of Newport CTR
Major Arterial
6 45
Coast Highway
East of Newport CTR
Major Arterial
6 45
Coast Highway
West of Avacado
Major Arterial
6 45
Coast Highway
East of Avacado
Major Arterial
6 45
Coast Highway
West of Macarthur
Major Arterial
6 45
Coast Highway
East of Macarthur
Major Arterial
6 45
Jamboree
North of Eastbluff
Major Arterial
6 45
Jamboree
Eastbluff to San Joaquin Hills
Major Arterial
6 45
Jamboree
South of San Joaquin Hills
Major Arterial
6 45
Jamboree
North of Santa Barbara
Major Arterial
6 45
Jamboree
South of Santa Barbara
Major Arterial
6 45
Jamboree
North of Coast Highway
Major Arterial
6 45
Jamboree
South of Coast Highway
Major Arterial
6 45
Newport CTR
West of Newport CTR
Major Arterial
6 45
Newport CTR
South of Santa Barbara
Major Arterial
6 45
Newport CTR
North of Santa Barbara
Major Arterial
6 45
Newport CTR
South of Santa Cruz
Major Arterial
6 45
Newport CTR
North of Santa Cruz
Major Arterial
6 45
Newport CTR
North of Santa Rosa
Major Arterial
6 45
Newport CTR
South of Santa Rosa
Major Arterial
6 45
Newport CTR
North of San Miguel
Major Arterial
6 45
Newport CTR
lSouth of San Miguel
Major Arterial
1 6
1 45
Newport CTR
I East of Newport CTR
Major Arterial
1 6
145
North Newport Center Planned Community Noise Impact Analysis City of Newport Beach CA (JN:08211-04) OURBAM
15 Table 5-1 (2 of 2)
Off -Site Roadway Parameters
Roadway
Segment
Roadway
Classification'
Lanes
Vehicle Speed
(MPH)
Newport CTR
South of Newport CTR (Circle
Major Arterial
6 45
Newport CTR
North of Coast Highway
Major Arterial
6 45
Macarthur
North of Bonita Canyon
Major Arterial
6 45
Eastbluff/Ford/Bonita Cyn
West of Jamboree
Primary Arterial
4 45
Eastbluff/Ford/Bonita Cyn
East of Jamboree
Primary Arterial
4 45
Eastbluff/Ford/Bonita Cyn
West of Bonita Canyon
Primary Arterial
4 45
Eastbluff/Ford/Bonita Cyn
East of Bonita Canyon
Primary Arterial
4 45
San Miguel
West of Newport CTR
Primary Arterial
4 45
San Miguel
East of Newport CTR
Primary Arterial
4 45
San Miguel
West of Avacado
Primary Arterial
4 45
San Miguel
East of Avacado
Primary Arterial
4 45
San Miguel
West of Macarthur
Primary Arterial
4 45
San Miguel
East of Macarthur
Primary Arterial
4 45
Santa Cruz
North of San Joaquin Hills
Primary Arterial
4 45
Santa Cruz
Souh of San Joaquin Hills
Primary Arterial
4 45
Santa Cruz
North of San Clemente
Primary Arterial
4 45
Santa Cruz
South of San Clemente
Primary Arterial
4 45
Santa Cruz
North of Newport CTR
Primary Arterial
4 45
Santa Cruz
South of Newport CTR
Primary Arterial
4 45
Santa Rosa
North of San Joaquin Hills
Primary Arterial
4 45
Santa Rosa
South of San Joaquin Hills
Primary Arterial
4 45
Santa Rosa
North of Newport CTR
Primary Arterial
4 45
Santa Rosa
South of Newport CTR
Primary Arterial
4 45
San Clemente
East of Santa Barbara
Secondary
4 40
San Clemente
West of Santa Cruz
Secondary
4 40
Santa Barbara
West of Jamboree
Secondary
4 40
Santa Barbara
East of Jamboree
Secondary
4 40
Santa Barbara
North of San Clemente
Secondary
4 40
Santa Barbara
South of San Clemente
Secondary
4 40
Santa Barbara
West of Newport CTR
Secondary
4 40
Santa Barbara
East of Newport CTR
Secondary
4 40
Avocado
North of San Miguel
Secondary
4 40
Avocado
South of San Miguel
Secondary
4 40
Avocado
North of Coast Highway
Secondary
4 40
'According to the City of Newport Beach General Plan Circulation Element.

North Newport Center Planned Community Noise Impact Analysis City of Newport Beach CA (JN:08211-04) OURBAM
16 Table 5-2 (1 of 3)
Average Daily Traffic Volumes (1000's)
Roadway
Segment
Average Daily Traffic (1,000's)
Existing
Year 2016
No Project
With Project
No Project
With Project
Macarthur
South of Bonita Canyon

61.4 61.5

69.1 69.2
Macarthur
North of San Joaquin Hills

61.4 61.5

68.1 68.1
Macarthur
South of San Joaquin Hills

38.8 38.8

43.4 43.4
Macarthur
North of San Miguel

34.8 34.8

38.8 38.8
Macarthur
South of San Miguel

28.6 28.6

32.4 32.4
Macarthur
North of Coast Highway

28.7 28.7

32.5 32.5
San Joaquin Hills
West of Jamboree

4.8 4.8

5.0 5.0
San Joaquin Hills
East of Jamboree

17.7 17.9

20.3 20.4
San Joaquin Hills
West of Santa Cruz

21.9 22.0

23.7 23.7
San Joaquin Hills
East of Santa Cruz

13.7 13.8

14.9 15.0
San Joaquin Hills
West of Santa Rosa

15.7 15.8

17.2 17.3
San Joaquin Hills
East of Santa Rosa

21.6 21.7

22.8 22.9
San Joaquin Hills
West of Macarthur

21.2 21.3

23.5 23.6
San Joaquin Hills
East of Macarthur

20.6 20.6

21.3 21.3
Coast Highway
West of Jamboree

60.0 60.0

71.5 71.6
Coast Highway
East of Jamboree

47.0 47.0

58.3 58.3
Coast Highway
West of Newport CTR

43.6 43.6

54.1 54.1
Coast Highway
East of Newport CTR

35.7 35.8

45.2 45.3
Coast Highway
West of Avacado

34.4 34.5

43.8 43.8
Coast Highway
East of Avacado

36.3 36.4

45.0 45.1
Coast Highway
West of Macarthur

36.4 36.5

41.8 45.3
Coast Highway
East of Macarthur

5.7 50.3

61.7 61.8
Jamboree
North of Eastbluff

25.5 43.6

52.2 52.4
Jamboree
Eastbluff to San Joaquin Hills

53.6 53.7

63.0 63.2
Jamboree
South of San Joaquin Hills

36.0 36.0

43.0 43.1
Jamboree
North of Santa Barbara

38.5 38.6

45.1 45.2
Jamboree
South of Santa Barbara

34.5 34.6

41.0 41.1
Jamboree
North of Coast Highway

32.0 32.1

38.6 38.7
Jamboree
South of Coast Highway

12.2 12.2

12.9 12.9
Newport CTR
West of Newport CTR

7.0 7.0

7.3 7.3
Newport CTR
South of Santa Barbara

7.7 7.7

7.9 7.9
Newport CTR
North of Santa Barbara

6.5 6.5

6.9 6.9
Newport CTR
South of Santa Cruz

6.0 6.0

6.3 6.3
Newport CTR
North of Santa Cruz

5.6 5.6

5.8 5.8
Newport CTR
North of Santa Rosa

6.5 6.5

7.3 7.3
North Newport Center Planned Community Noise Impact Analysis City of Newport Beach CA (JN:08211-04) OURBAM
17 Table 5-2 (2 of 3)
Average Daily Traffic Volumes (1000's)
Roadway
Segment
Average Daily Traffic (1,000's)
Existing
Year 2016
No Project
With Project
No Project
With Project
Newport CTR
South of Santa Rosa

9.1 9.2

10.0 10.0
Newport CTR
North of San Miguel

7.2 9.2

7.6 7.6
Newport CTR
South of San Miguel

10.6 10.6

10.9 10.9
Newport CTR
East of Newport CTR

8.8 8.8

9.1 9.1
Newport CTR
South of Newport CTR (Circle

12.9 12.9

14.2 14.2
Newport CTR
North of Coast Highway

14.9 14.9

16.4 16.4
Macarthur
North of Bonita Canyon

72.9 72.9

80.4 80.5
Eastbluff/Ford/Bonita Cyn
West of Jamboree

14.4 14.4

15.3 15.3
Eastbluff/Ford/Bonita Cyn
East of Jamboree

11.5 11.5

12.2 12.3
Eastbluff/Ford/Bonita Cyn
West of Bonita Canyon

9.9 10.0

10.6 10.6
Eastbluff/Ford/Bonita Cyn
East of Bonita Canyon

37.6 37.7

39.3 39.4
San Miguel
West of Newport CTR

7.8 7.8

9.1 9.1
San Miguel
East of Newport CTR

12.7 12.7

14.4 14.4
San Miguel
West of Avacado

16.4 16.4

18.1 18.1
San Miguel
East of Avacado

24.3 24.3

26.8 26.8
San Miguel
West of Macarthur

22.1 22.1

25.0 25.0
San Miguel
East of Macarthur

11.8 11.8

12.5 12.5
Santa Cruz
North of San Joaquin Hills

1.7 1.7

1.7 1.7
Santa Cruz
Souh of San Joaquin Hills

12.0 13.2

12.5 12.7
Santa Cruz
North of San Clemente

11.7 11.8

12.3 12.4
Santa Cruz
South of San Clemente

9.3 9.4

9.9 10.0
Santa Cruz
North of Newport CTR

8.9 9.0

9.5 9.5
Santa Cruz
South of Newport CTR

4.3 4.3

4.6 4.6
Santa Rosa
North of San Joaquin Hills

3.8 3.8

3.8 3.8
Santa Rosa
South of San Joaquin Hills

14.5 14.5

16.8 16.8
Santa Rosa
North of Newport CTR

12.2 12.2

14.3 14.3
Santa Rosa
South of Newport CTR

6.8 6.8

7.9 7.9
San Clemente
East of Santa Barbara

5.6 5.7

5.6 5.7
San Clemente
West of Santa Cruz

5.8 5.9

5.8 5.9
Santa Barbara
West of Jamboree

2.1 2.1

2.3 2.3
Santa Barbara
East of Jamboree

12.1 12.2

12.8 12.9
Santa Barbara
North of San Clemente

12.0 12.1

12.6 12.6
Santa Barbara
South of San Clemente

7.3 7.3

7.9 7.9
North Newport Center Planned Community Noise Impact Analysis City of Newport Beach CA (JN:08211-04) OURBAM

Table 5-2 (3 of 3)
Average Daily Traffic Volumes (1000's)
Roadway
Segment
Average Daily Traffic (1,000's)
Existing
Year 2016
No Project
With Project
No Project
With Project
Santa Barbara
West of Newport CTR

6.3 6.4

6.9 6.9
Santa Barbara
East of Newport CTR

3.3 3.3

3.7 3.7
Avocado
North of San Miguel

4.2 4.2

5.0 5.0
Avocado
South of San Miguel

13.1 13.1

15.5 15.5
Avocado
North of Coast Highway

9.2 9.2

11.0 11.0
Traffic volumes according to the North Newport Center San Joaquin Plaza TPO Traffic Analysis by Stantec, May 2012.

North Newport Center Planned Community Noise Impact Analysis City of Newport Beach CA (JN:08211-04) OURBAM
19 Table 5-3 (1 of 1)
Hourly Traffic Flow Distribution 1
Motor -Vehicle Type
Daytime
(7 am to 7 pm)
Evening
(7 pm to 10 pm)
Night
(10 pm to 7 am)
Total %
Traffic Flow
Automobiles

77.5%

12.9%

9.6%

97.42%
Medium Trucks

84.8%

4.9%

10.3%

1.84%
Heavy Trucks

86.5%

2.7%

10.8%

0.74%
Typical southern California vehicle mix.

North Newport Center Planned Community Noise Impact Analysis City of Newport Beach CA (JN:08211-04) OURBAM

6.0 OFF -SITE TRANSPORTATION NOISE IMPACTS
To assess the off -site noise level impacts associated with development of the proposed North Newport Center Planned Community project, noise contours were developed for the following traffic scenarios:

Existing With / Without Protect: This scenario refers to the existing present-day noise conditions, without and with construction of the proposed project.

Year 2016 With / Without Protect: This scenario refers to the background noise conditions at future Year 2016 with and without the proposed project. This corresponds to the existing plus growth plus approved projects plus cumulative project conditions without and with the NNCPC.

6.1 Traffic Noise Contours
Noise contours represent the distance to noise levels of a constant value and are measured from the center of the roadway. CNEL noise contours are determined below for the 70, 65, 60, and 55 dBA noise levels. The distance from the centerline of the roadway to the CNEL contours for roadways in the proposed project's vicinity are presented in Tables 6-1 through 6-4. The noise contours do not take into account the noise reducing effect of any existing noise barriers or topography that may affect ambient noise levels. The off -site FHWA model printouts are included in Appendix 6.1.

6.2 Existing Roadway Noise Levels
Table 6-1 shows that the unmitigated exterior noise levels are expected to range from 54.0 to 71.1 dBA CNEL at 100 feet from each roadway's centerline. Table 6-2 presents the existing with project conditions unmitigated noise contours that are expected to remain the same and range from 54.0 to 71.1 dBA CNEL at 100 feet from the roadway centerline. Most of the off -site study area is currently developed or planned for development.

6.3 Year 2016 Roadway Noise Levels
Table 6-3 shows that for Year 2016 without project conditions the off -site traffic noise levels are estimated to range from 54.4 to 71.5 dBA CNEL. With the addition of the Project, Table 6-4 North Newport Center Planned Community Noise Impact Analysis City of Newport Beach, CA (JN:08211-04 Noise Report)
OURBAM
21 Table 6-1 (1 of 3)
Existing Without Project Conditions Noise Contours
Road
Segment
CNEL at
100 Feet
(dBA)
Distance to Contour (Feet)
70 dBA
CNEL
65 dBA
CNEL
60 dBA
CNEL
55 dBA
CNEL
Jamboree
North of Eastbluff

68.8 84
180
389
837
Jamboree
Eastbluff to San Joaquin Hills

69.8 96
207
447
962
Jamboree
South of San Joaquin Hills

68.0 74
159
343
738
Jamboree
North of Santa Barbara

68.3 77
166
358
772
Jamboree
South of Santa Barbara

67.8 72
155
333
718
Jamboree
North of Coast Highway

67.5 68
147
1 317
682
Jamboree
South of Coast Highway

63.3 RW
77 167
359
Santa Cruz
North of San Joaquin Hills

54.5 RW
RW
RW
92 Santa Cruz
Souh of San Joaquin Hills

63.0 RW
73 158
340
Santa Cruz
North of San Clemente

62.9 RW
72 155
334
Santa Cruz
South of San Clemente

61.9 RW
RW
133
287
Santa Cruz
North of Newport CTR

61.7 RW
RW
129
279
Santa Cruz
South of Newport CTR

58.5 RW
RW
80 172
Newport CTR
West of Newport CTR

60.9 RW
RW
115
248
Newport CTR
South of Santa Barbara

61.3 RW
RW
123
264
Newport CTR
North of Santa Barbara

60.6 RW
RW
109
236
Newport CTR
South of Santa Cruz

60.2 RW
RW
104
224
Newport CTR
North of Santa Cruz

59.9 RW
RW
99 214
Newport CTR
North of Santa Rosa

60.6 RW
RW
109
236
Newport CTR
South of Santa Rosa

62.0 RW
64 137
295
Newport CTR
North of San Miguel

61.0 RW
RW
117
252
Newport CTR
South of San Miguel

62.7 RW
70 152
327
Newport CTR
East of Newport CTR

61.9 RW
RW
134
289
Newport CTR
South of Newport CTR (Circle

63.6 RW
80 173
372
Newport CTR
North of Coast Highway

64.2 RW
88 190
410
Santa Rosa
North of San Joaquin Hills

58.0 RW
RW
73 158
Santa Rosa
South of San Joaquin Hills

63.8 RW
83 179
386
Santa Rosa
North of Newport CTR

63.0 RW
74 160
344
Santa Rosa
South of Newport CTR

60.5 RW
RW
108
233
Avocado
North of San Miguel

57.0 RW
RW
RW
136
Avocado
South of San Miguel

62.0 RW
RW
135
291
Avocado
North of Coast Highway

60.4 RW
RW
107
230
Macarthur
North of Bonita Canyon

71.1 118
255
548
1,181
Macarthur
1South of Bonita Canyon
1 70.3
105
227
489
1 North of San Joaquin Hills

70.3 105
227
489
2,054Macarthur
North Newport Center Planned Community Noise Impact Analysis City of Newport Beach CA (JN:08211-04) OURBAM
22 Table 6-1 (2 of 3)
Existing Without Project Conditions Noise Contours
Road
Segment
CNEL at
100 Feet
(dBA)
Distance to Contour (Feet)
70 dBA
CNEL
65 dBA
CNEL
60 dBA
CNEL
55 dBA
CNEL
Macarthur
South of San Joaquin Hills

68.3 78
167
360
776
Macarthur
North of San Miguel

67.9 72
155
1 335
722
Macarthur
South of San Miguel

67.0 RW
136
294
633
Macarthur
North of Coast Highway

67.0 RW
137
295
635
Eastbluff/Ford/Bonita Cyn
West of Jamboree

63.8 RW
83 178
384
Eastbluff/Ford/Bonita Cyn
East of Jamboree

62.8 RW
71 153
330
Eastbluff/Ford/Bonita Cyn
West of Bonita Canyon

62.1 RW
64 139
299
Eastbluff/Ford/Bonita Cyn
East of Bonita Canyon

67.9 73
157
338
728
San Joaquin Hills
West of Jamboree

59.3 RW
RW
89 193
San Joaquin Hills
East of Jamboree

64.9 RW
99 213
460
San Joaquin Hills
West of Santa Cruz

65.9 RW
114
246
530
San Joaquin Hills
East of Santa Cruz

63.8 RW
84 180
388
San Joaquin Hills
West of Santa Rosa

64.4 RW
91 197
425
San Joaquin Hills
East of Santa Rosa

65.8 RW
113
244
525
San Joaquin Hills
West of Macarthur

65.7 RW
112
241
519
San Joaquin Hills
East of Macarthur

65.6 RW
110
236
509
San Clemente
East of Santa Barbara

58.3 RW
RW
77 165
San Clemente
West of Santa Cruz

58.4 RW
RW
78 169
Santa Barbara
West of Jamboree

54.0 RW
RW
RW
86 Santa Barbara
East of Jamboree

61.6 RW
RW
128
276
Santa Barbara
North of San Clemente

61.6 RW
RW
127
275
Santa Barbara
South of San Clemente

59.4 RW
RW
91 197
Santa Barbara
West of Newport CTR

58.8 RW
RW
83 179
Santa Barbara
East of Newport CTR

56.0 RW
RW
RW
116
San Miguel
West of Newport CTR

61.1 RW
RW
118
255
San Miguel
East of Newport CTR

63.2 RW
76 164
353
San Miguel
West of Avacado

64.3 RW
90 194
419
San Miguel
East of Avacado

66.0 RW
117
253
544
San Miguel
West of Macarthur

65.6 RW
110
237
511
San Miguel
East of Macarthur

62.9 RW
72 156
336
Coast Highway
West of Jamboree

70.2 104
224
482
1,038
Coast Highway
East of Jamboree

69.2 88
190
409
882
Coast Highway
West of Newport CTR

68.9 1 84
181
389
839
North Newport Center Planned Community Noise Impact Analysis City of Newport Beach CA (JN:08211-04) OURBAM
23 Table 6-1 (3 of 3)
Existing Without Project Conditions Noise Contours
Road
Segment
CNEL at
100 Feet
(dBA)
Distance to Contour (Feet)
70 dBA
CNEL
65 dBA
CNEL
60 dBA
CNEL
55 dBA
CNEL
Coast Highway
East of Newport CTR

68.0 73
158
341
734
Coast Highway
West of Avacado

67.8 72
154
332
716
Coast Highway
East of Avacado

68.1 74
160
345
742
Coast Highway
West of Macarthur

68.1 74
160
345
744
Coast Highway
East of Macarthur

69.5 92
198
428
921
"RW" = Location of the respective noise contour falls within the right-of-way of the road North Newport Center Planned Community Noise Impact Analysis City of Newport Beach CA (JN:08211-04) OURBAM
24 Table 6-2 (1 of 3)
Existing With Project Conditions Noise Contours
Road
Segment
CNEL at
100 Feet
(dBA)
Distance to Contour (Feet)
70 dBA
CNEL
65 dBA
CNEL
60 dBA
CNEL
55 dBA
CNEL
Jamboree
North of Eastbluff

68.9 84
181
389
839
Jamboree
Eastbluff to San Joaquin Hills

69.8 96
208
447
964
Jamboree
South of San Joaquin Hills

68.0 74
159
343
738
Jamboree
North of Santa Barbara

68.3 77
167
359
773
Jamboree
South of Santa Barbara

67.8 72
155
334
719
Jamboree
North of Coast Highway

67.5 68
147
1 317
684
Jamboree
South of Coast Highway

63.3 RW
77 167
359
Santa Cruz
North of San Joaquin Hills

54.5 RW
RW
RW
92 Santa Cruz
Souh of San Joaquin Hills

63.4 RW
78 168
362
Santa Cruz
North of San Clemente

62.9 RW
72 156
336
Santa Cruz
South of San Clemente

61.9 RW
RW
134
289
Santa Cruz
North of Newport CTR

61.7 RW
RW
130
281
Santa Cruz
South of Newport CTR

58.5 RW
RW
80 172
Newport CTR
West of Newport CTR

60.9 RW
RW
115
248
Newport CTR
South of Santa Barbara

61.3 RW
RW
123
264
Newport CTR
North of Santa Barbara

60.6 RW
RW
109
236
Newport CTR
South of Santa Cruz

60.2 RW
RW
104
224
Newport CTR
North of Santa Cruz

59.9 RW
RW
99 214
Newport CTR
North of Santa Rosa

60.6 RW
RW
109
236
Newport CTR
South of Santa Rosa

62.1 RW
64 138
297
Newport CTR
North of San Miguel

62.1 RW
64 138
297
Newport CTR
South of San Miguel

62.7 RW
70 152
327
Newport CTR
East of Newport CTR

61.9 RW
RW
134
289
Newport CTR
South of Newport CTR (Circle

63.6 RW
80 173
372
Newport CTR
North of Coast Highway

64.2 RW
88 190
410
Santa Rosa
North of San Joaquin Hills

58.0 RW
RW
73 158
Santa Rosa
South of San Joaquin Hills

63.8 RW
83 179
386
Santa Rosa
North of Newport CTR

63.0 RW
74 160
344
Santa Rosa
South of Newport CTR

60.5 RW
RW
108
233
Avocado
North of San Miguel

57.0 RW
RW
RW
136
Avocado
South of San Miguel

62.0 RW
RW
135
291
Avocado
North of Coast Highway

60.4 RW
RW
107
230
Macarthur
North of Bonita Canyon

71.1 118
255
548
1,181
Macarthur
1South of Bonita Canyon
1 70.3
105
227
490
1 1,055
Macarthur
I North of San Joaquin Hills
1 70.3
105
227
1 490
1 1,055
North Newport Center Planned Community Noise Impact Analysis City of Newport Beach CA (JN:08211-04) OURBAM
25 Table 6-2 (2 of 3)
Existing With Project Conditions Noise Contours
Road
Segment
CNEL at
100 Feet
(dBA)
Distance to Contour (Feet)
70 dBA
CNEL
65 dBA
CNEL
60 dBA
CNEL
55 dBA
CNEL
Macarthur
South of San Joaquin Hills

68.3 78
167
360
776
Macarthur
North of San Miguel

67.9 72
155
1 335
722
Macarthur
South of San Miguel

67.0 RW
136
294
633
Macarthur
North of Coast Highway

67.0 RW
137
295
635
Eastbluff/Ford/Bonita Cyn
West of Jamboree

63.8 RW
83 178
384
Eastbluff/Ford/Bonita Cyn
East of Jamboree

62.8 RW
71 153
330
Eastbluff/Ford/Bonita Cyn
West of Bonita Canyon

62.2 RW
65 140
301
Eastbluff/Ford/Bonita Cyn
East of Bonita Canyon

67.9 73
157
338
729
San Joaquin Hills
West of Jamboree

59.3 RW
RW
89 193
San Joaquin Hills
East of Jamboree

65.0 RW
100
215
463
San Joaquin Hills
West of Santa Cruz

65.9 RW
115
247
532
San Joaquin Hills
East of Santa Cruz

63.9 RW
84 181
390
San Joaquin Hills
West of Santa Rosa

64.4 RW
92 198
426
San Joaquin Hills
East of Santa Rosa

65.8 RW
113
244
527
San Joaquin Hills
West of Macarthur

65.7 RW
112
241
520
San Joaquin Hills
East of Macarthur

65.6 RW
110
236
509
San Clemente
East of Santa Barbara

58.3 RW
RW
78 167
San Clemente
West of Santa Cruz

58.5 RW
RW
79 171
Santa Barbara
West of Jamboree

54.0 RW
RW
RW
86 Santa Barbara
East of Jamboree

61.7 RW
RW
129
278
Santa Barbara
North of San Clemente

61.6 RW
RW
128
276
Santa Barbara
South of San Clemente

59.4 RW
RW
91 197
Santa Barbara
West of Newport CTR

58.8 RW
RW
84 181
Santa Barbara
East of Newport CTR

56.0 RW
RW
RW
116
San Miguel
West of Newport CTR

61.1 RW
RW
118
255
San Miguel
East of Newport CTR

63.2 RW
76 164
353
San Miguel
West of Avacado

64.3 RW
90 194
419
San Miguel
East of Avacado

66.0 RW
117
253
544
San Miguel
West of Macarthur

65.6 RW
110
237
511
San Miguel
East of Macarthur

62.9 RW
72 156
336
Coast Highway
West of Jamboree

70.2 104
224
482
1,038
Coast Highway
East of Jamboree

69.2 88
190
409
882
Coast Highway
West of Newport CTR

68.9 1 84
181
389
839
North Newport Center Planned Community Noise Impact Analysis City of Newport Beach CA (JN:08211-04) OURBAM

Table 6-2 (3 of 3)
Existing With Project Conditions Noise Contours
Road
Segment
CNEL at
100 Feet
(dBA)
Distance to Contour (Feet)
70 dBA
CNEL
1 65 dBA
CNEL
60 dBA
CNEL
55 dBA
CNEL
Coast Highway
East of Newport CTR

68.0 74
158
341
735
Coast Highway
West of Avacado

67.8 72
155
333
1 718
Coast Highway
East of Avacado

68.1 74
160
345
744
Coast Highway
West of Macarthur

68.1 74
161
346
745
Coast Highway
East of Macarthur

Newport Beach City CouncilApril 9, 2024

Newport Beach City Council
April 9, 2024