Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
GP_UPDATE_DRAFT_EIR_V1
11111111 lill 111111111111111111111111111111111 lill *NEW FILE* GP_UPDATE_DRAFT_EIR V.1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL PLAN 2006 UPDATE Volume I Draft Environmental Impact Report SCH No. 2006011119 Prepared for City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, California 92658-8915 Prepared by EIP Associates 12301 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 430 Los Angeles, California 90025 April 21, 2006 I I I I I u II If li 1 Acronyms/Abbreviations.................................................................................................................x CHAPTER1 Introduction............................................................................................................1-1 1.1 Purpose and Legal Authority.........................................................................................1-1 1.2 Scope of the EIR.............................................................................................................1-2 1.2.1 Environmental Setting/Definition of the Baseline.....................................1-3 1.2.2 Plan Comparison..............................................................................................1-4 1.3 Intended Use of the EIR................................................................................................1-4 1.4 Lead, Responsible, and Trustee Agencies....................................................................1-5 1.5 Environmental Review Process.....................................................................................1-5 1.6 Areas of Controversy and Issues to Be Resolved.......................................................1-7 1.7 Document Organization.................................................................................................1-8 CHAPTER2Summary.................................................................................................................2-1 2.1 Introduction.....................................................................................................................2-1 2.2 Project Description.........................................................................................................2-1 2.2.1 Potential Land Use Changes...........................................................................2-4 2.3 Classification of Environmental Impacts .................................................. I .................. 2-5 2.4 Synopsis of Alternatives.................................................................................................2-5 2.5 Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures...........................................................2-6 CHAPTER3Project Description.................................................................................................3-1 3.1 Environmental Setting and Location............................................................................3-1 3.1.1 Background.......................................................................................................3-2 3.2 Statement of Objectives..................................................................................................3-9 3.3 Project Characteristics.................................................................................................. 3-10 3.3.1 Elements and Components of the Proposed General Plan Update...... 3-10 3.3.2 Updated General Plan Potential Land Use Changes ................................ 3-10 3.3.3 Transportation Improvements....................................................................3-17 3.3.4 Goals and Policy Changes............................................................................ 3-18 CHAPTER4 Environmental Analysis.........................................................................................4-1 4.0 Introduction to Analysis.................................................................................................4-1 4.1 Aesthetics and Visual Quality .................................................................................... 4.1-1 4.1.1 Introduction.................................................................................................. 4.1-1 4.1.2 Existing Conditions...................................................................................... 4.1-1 4.1.3 Regulatory Setting....................................................................................... 4.1-14 4.1.4 Thresholds of Significance........................................................................ 4.1-15 4.1.5 Project Impacts, Mitigation Measures, and Proposed Policies............ 4.1-15 4.1.6 References................................................................................................... 4.1-40 4.2 Air Quality.................................................................................................................... 4.2-1 4.2.1 Introduction.................................................................................................. 4.2-1 ' City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 4.2.2 Existing Conditions...................................................................................... 4.2-1 4.2.3 Regulatory Framework................................................................................ 4.2-7 4.2.4 Thresholds of Significance........................................................................4.2-10 4.2.5 Project Impacts, Mitigation Measures, and Proposed Policies ............ 4.2-11 4.2.6 Cumulative Impacts ... ........ ........................................................................ 4.2-17 4.2.7 References....................................................................................................4.2-24 4.3 Biological Resources.................................................................................................... 4.3-1 4.3.1 Introduction................................................................................................ 4.3-1 4.3.2 Existing Conditions........................................................ .............................. 4.3-1 4.3.3 Regulatory Setting.......................................................................................4.3-16 4.3.4 Thresholds of Significance........................................................................4.3-21 4.3.5 Project Impacts, Mitigation Measures, and Proposed Policies ............ 4.3-22 4.3.6 References....................................................................................................4.3-36 4.4 Cultural Resources.......................................................................................................4.4-1 4.4.1 Introduction ................................................................................................. 4.4-1 4.4.2 Existing Conditions...................................................................................... 4.4-1 4.4.3 Regulatory Framework................................................................................ 4.4-9 4.4.4 Thresholds of Significance........................................................................4.4-13 4.4.5 Project Impacts, Mitigation Measures, and Proposed Policies ............ 4.4-13 4.4.6 References .... ................................................................................................ 4.4-23 4.5 Geology, Soils, and Mineral Resources..................................................................... 4.5-1 4.5.1 Introduction.................................................................................................. 4.5-1 4.5.2 Geology and Soils......................................................................................... 4.5-1 4.5.3 Regulatory Framework..............................................................................4.5-10 4.5.4 Thresholds of Significance ................................................ ........................ 4.5-12 4.5.5 Project Impacts, Mitigation Measures, and Proposed Policies ............ 4.5-12 4.5.6 Mineral Resources......................................................................................4.5-23 4.5.7 Regulatory Framework..............................................................................4.5-27 4.5.8 Thresholds of Significance........................................................................4.5-28 4.5.9 Project Impacts, Mitigation Measures, and Proposed Policies ............ 4.5-28 4.5.10 References ................ ...... ........................... .................. ......................... I ....... 4.5-34 4.6 Hazards and Hazardous Materials............................................................................. 4.6-1 4.6.1 Introduction..................................................................................................4.6-1 4.6.2 Existing Conditions...................................................................................... 4.6-2 4.6.3 Regulatory Framework.............................................................................. 4.6-10 4.6.4 Thresholds of Significance........................................................................4.6-16 4.6.5 Project Impacts, Mitigation Measures, and Proposed Policies.............4.6-17 4.6.6 References....................................................................................................4.6-35 4.7 Hydrology and Water Quality....................................................................................4.7-1 4.7.1 Introduction.................................................................................................. 4.7-1 4.7.2 Existing Conditions......................................................................................4.7-2 4.7.3 Regulatory Framework............................................................................. 4.7-20 4.7.4 Thresholds of Significance........................................................................4.7-26 4.7.5 Project Impacts, Mitigation Measures, and Proposed Policies ............ 4.7-27 4.7.6 References....................................................................................................4.7-55 4.8 Land Use and Planning...............................................................................................4.8-1 4.8.1 Introduction..................................................................................................4.8-1 iv City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR I P I I I I I F I II II I II 4.8.2 Existing Conditions...................................................................................... 4.8-2 4.8.3 Regulatory Framework................................................................................4.8-5 4.8.4 Thresholds of Significance.......................................................................... 4.8-8 4.8.5 Project Impacts, Mitigation Measures, Proposed Policies ..................... 4.8-8 4.8.6 References................................................................................................... 4.8-39 4.9 Noise..............................................................................................................................4.9-1 4.9.1 Introduction.................................................................................................. 4.9-1 4.9.2 Existing Conditions...................................................................................... 4.9-1 4.9.3 Regulatory Setting......................................................................................... 4.9-8 4.9.4 Thresholds of Significance........................................................................4.9-19 4.9.5 Project Impacts, Mitigation Measures, and Proposed Policies............ 4.9-21 4.9.6 References................................................................................................... 4.9-42 4.10 Population and Housing......................................................................................... 4.10-1 4.10.1 Introduction................................................................................................ 4.10-1 4.10.2 Existing Conditions.................................................................................... 4.10-1 4.10.3 Thresholds of Significance........................................................................ 4.10-4 4.10.4 Project Impacts, Mitigation Measures, and Proposed Policies............ 4.10-4 4.10.5 References................................................................................................. 4.10-11 4.11 Public Services............................................................................................................4.11-1 4.11.1 Fire Protection............................................................................................ 4.11-1 4.11.2 Police Protection......................................................................................4.11-12 4.11.3 Schools.......................................................................................................4.11-18 4.11.4 Libraries.....................................................................................................4.11-26 4.11.5 References.................................................................................................4.11-31 4.12 Recreation and Open Space..................................................................................... 4.12-1 4.12.1 Introduction................................................................................................ 4.12-1 4.12.2 Existing Conditions................................................................................... 4.12-1 4.12.3 Regulatory Setting..................................................................................... 4.12-12 4.12.4 Thresholds of Significance...................................................................... 4.12-13 4.12.5 Project Impacts, Mitigation Measures, and Proposed Policies .......... 4.12-14 4.12.6 References................................................................................................. 4.12-24 4.13 Transportation/Traffic.............................................................................................4.13-1 4.13.1 Introduction................................................................................................ 4.13-1 4.13.2 Existing Conditions.................................................................................... 4.13-2 4.13.3 Regulatory Setting.....................................................................................4.13-19 4.13.4 Thresholds of Significance...................................................................... 4.13-21 4.13.5 Analytic Method, Project Impacts, Mitigation Measures, and Proposed Policies....................................................................................................... 4.13-23 4.13.6 References ...... 4.13-63 4.14 Utilities and Service Systems....................................................................................4.14-1 4.14.1 Water System............................................................................................... 4.14-1 4.14.2 Sewer System............................................................................................. 4.14-22 4.14.3 Solid Waste................................................................................................ 4.14-36 4.14.4 Energy........................................................................................................4.14-46 4.14.5 References................................................................................................. 4.14-51 City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR CHAPTERS Alternatives ...............................................................54 ' 5.1 Introduction..................................................................................................................... 5-1 5.2 Potential Feasible Alternatives...................................................................................... 5-2 5.3 Alternative 1: No Project/No Development Alternative ......................................... 5-2 5.3.1 Description............................................................... ........ ................. ............... 5-2 5.3.2 Impact Evaluation........................................................................................... 5-2 5.4 Alternative 2: No Project/No Action Alternative (Existing General Plan)........... 5-3 5.4.1 Description.......................................................................................................5-3 5.4.2 Impact Evaluation........................................................................................... 5-4 5.5 Alternative 3: GPAC Recommendations..................................................................5-12 5.5.1 Description.....................................................................................................5-12 5.5.2 Impact Evaluation.........................................................................................5-12 5.6 Alternative 4: Subarea Only Minimum......................................................................5-20 5.6.1 Description.....................................................................................................5-20 5.6.2 Impact Evaluation.........................................................................................5-22 5.7 Summary Comparison of Alternatives......................................................................5-29 5.8 Environmentally Superior Alternative....................................................................... 5 29 CHAPTER 6 Other CEQA Considerations.................................................................................6-1 6.1 Significant, Irreversible Environmental Changes....................................................... 6-1 6.2 Significant, Unavoidable Adverse Impacts................................................................. 6-1 6.3 Growtb-Inducing Impacts............................................................................................. 6-3 6.3.1 Extension of Public Facilities........................................................................ 6-3 6.3.2 Population Growth......................................................................................... 6-3 6.4 Effects Not Found to Be Significant........................................................................... 6-4 CHAPTER7Report Preparers.....................................................................................................7-1 1 Appendices Appendix A Initial Study/Notice of Preparation and Comment Letters Appendix B Air Quality Data Appendix Cl Biological Resources Addendum Appendix C2 Special -Status Species Table Appendix D Traffic Study Appendix E Supplement to the General Plan Traffic Study Existing IMM ProjeetErabrahon Letter ' Current (2006) Existing Conditions Connt Data i A City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR ' Contents Figures J I II II II II II II II u II Figure 3-1 Figure 3-2 Figure 3-3 Figure 4.1-1 Figure 4.1-2 Figure 4.1-3 Figure 4.3-1 Figure 4.3-2 Figure 4.4-1 Figure 4.5-1 Figure 4.5-2 Figure 4.5-3 Figure 4.5-4 Figure 4.7-1 Figure 4.7-2 Figure 4.7-3 Figure 4.9-1 Figure 4.9-2 Figure 4.9-3 Figure 4.9-4 Figure 4.9-5 Figure 4.9-6 Figure 4.9-7 Figure 4.12-1 Figure 4.12-2 Figure 4.13-1 Figure 4.13-2 Figure 4.13-3 Figure 4.13-4 Figure 4.13-5 Figure 4.13-6 Figure 4.13-7 Figure 4.13-8 Figure 4.13-9 Figure 4.14.1 Figure 4.14-2 RegionalLocation.....................................................................................................................:5-3 PlanningArea............................................................................................................................3-5 Subareas......................................................................................................................................3-7 CoastalViews -Map 1 of 3................................................................................................. 4.1-3 CoastalViews -Map 2 of 3................................................................................................. 4.1-5 CoastalViews -Map 3 of 3................................................................................................. 4.1-7 BiologicalResources...........................................................................................................4.3-11 EnvironmentalStudy Areas............................................................................................... 4.3-13 HistoricResources.................................................................:.............................................. 4.4-7 RegionalFault Map.......:....................................................................................................... 4.5-4 SeismicHazards Map........................................................................................................... 4.5-7 OilProduction Areas.......................................................................................................... 4.5-25 MineralResource Zones.................................................................................................... 4.5-29 WaterResources.................................................................................................................... 4.7-5 Storm Drainage Infrastructure.......................................................................................... 4.7-13 FloodZones........................................................................................................................ 4.7-17 NoiseMeasurement Locations......................................................................................... 4.9-5 Existing Noise Contours -Western Planning Area ........................................................ 4.9-9 Existing Noise Contours -Northern. Planning Area .................................................... 4.9-11 Existing Noise Contours -Eastern Planning Area ....................................................... 4.9-13 Future Noise Contours -Western Planning Area ......................................................... 4.9-23 Future Noise Contours -Northern Planning Area ....................................................... 4.9-25 Future Noise Contours -Eastern Planning Area .......................................................... 4.9-27 ExistingParks...................................................................................................................... 4.12-5 Proposed Parks and Service Areas................................................................................... 4.12-7 Newport Beach Traffic Model (NBTM) Primary Study Area ...................................... 4.13-3 Newport Beach Existing Through Lanes........................................................................ 4.13-4 Existing Count Average Daily Traffic (ADT)................................................................ 4.13-7 Existing Volume/Capacity (V/C) Ratios........................................................................4.13-8 Intersection Count Locations......................................................................................... 4.13-12 Existing Public Transit Routes....................................................................................... 4.13-16 Newport Beach Existing Bicycle Facilities....................................................................4.13-18 General Plan Buildout with Project Average Daily Traffic (ADT) ........................... 4.13-26 General Plan Buildout With Project Volume/Capacity (V/C) Ratios ......................4.13-27 Water Infrastructure and Service Areas........................................................................... 4.14-3 Wastewater Infrastructure and Service Areas 4.14-25 City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR A Tables Table 2-1 Citywide Land Use Changes................................................................................................... 2-4 Table 2-2 Summary of Impacts Compared to Existing Conditions and Mitigation Measures.................................................................................................................................. 2-7 Table 3-1 Current Elements of the General Plan................................................................................. 3-2 Table3-2 Existing Land Use..................................................................................................................3-12 Table 3-3 City of Newport Beach General Plan Update Existing and Proposed Land Use ........ 3-13 Table 3-4 Transportation Improvements under Proposed General Plan Update ......................... 3-18 Table 4.2-1 Summary of Ambient Air Quality at the Costa Mesa Monitoring Station (SRA 18).......................................................................................................................................... 4.2-6 Table 4.2-2 AQMP Control Strategies for Local Governments.......................................................4.2-10 Table 4.2-3 Carbon Monoxide Concentrations at Selected Intersections.......................................4.2-16 Table 4.5-1 Modified Mercalli Intensity Scale........................................................................................ 4.5-5 Table 4.6-1 CERCLIS Sites in the Newport Beach Area.....................................................................4.6-3 Table 4.6-2 Toxic Release Inventory of Facilities in the Newport Beach Area................................4.6-4 Table 4.6-3 EPA -Registered Large -Quantity Generator (LQG) Facilities in Newport Beach ...... 4.6-5 Table 4.6-4 Prior Large -Quantity Generator (LQG) Facilities in Newport Beach .......................... 4.6-5 Table 4.6-5 LUSTs Reported in the Newport Beach Area..................................................................4.6-6 Table 4.7-1 Ocean and Bay Water Closure Postings..........................................................................4.7-10 Table 4.8-1 Existing Land Use................................................................................................................. 4.8-3 Table 4.8-2 SCAG Regional Comprehensive Plan and Guide Policies...........................................4.8-17 Table 4.9-1 Representative Environmental Noise Levels.................................................................... 4.9-2 Table 4.9-2 Human Response to Different Levels of Groundborne Vibration ............................... 4.9-4 Table 4.9-3 Existing Daytime Noise Levels at Selected Locations..................................................... 4.9-7 Table 4.9-4 Existing Roadway Noise Levels........................................................................................4.9-15 Table 4.9-5 Incremental Noise Impact Criteria for Noise Sensitive Uses (CNEL, in dBA) ........4.9-20 Table 4.9-6 Groundborne Vibration and Noise Impact Criteria......................................................4.9-21 Table 4.9-7 Vibration Source Levels fox Construction Equipment ................................................. 4.9-22 Table 4.9-8 General Plan Update Traffic Noise Contours................................................................ 4.9-30 Table 4.9-9 Noise Ranges of Typical Construction Equipment.......................................................4.9-34 Table4.10-1 Newport Beach Population .................. ............................................................................. 4.10-2 Table 4.10-2 SCAG Population and Households Forecast...............................................................4.10-2 Table 4.10-3 Households in Newport Beach and Orange County.(2000-05)...................... ............ 4.10-3 Table 4.11-1 Fire Station Facilities..........................................................................................................4.11-2 Table 4.11-2 Stations and Staffing Chart ...... .......... ............................................................................... 4.11-3 Table 4.11-3 2004NBFD Statistics.................................................... ..................................................... 4.11-4 Table 4.11-4 Average Response Time, from Dispatch to Arrival, for Each Unit in the NBFD for2004..................................... ................................................................................ I., ..... ...4.11-6 Table 4.11-5 2005 City of Newport Beach Part I Offenses...............................................................4.11-15 Table 4.11-6 NMUSD School Enrollment 2004/05..........................................................................4.11-19 Table 4.11-7 NBPL Facilities.................................................................................................................4.11-27 Table 4.12-1 Parkland Acreages ........... .................................................................................................... 4.12-3 Table4.13-1 Roadway Segment Capacities............................................................................................4.13-9 Table4.13-2 ICU Level of Service.......................................................................................................... 4.13-9 Table 4.13-3 Existing Intersection Count............................................................................................4.13-10 Table 4.13-4 Existing SR-73 Freeway/Toll Way Mainline Analysis.................................................4.13-13 17 L F 1J P, II I i 11 i I 1 vill City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR Contents Table 4.13-5 Existing SR-73 Freeway Peak Hour Ramp Analysis....................................................4.13-14 Table 4.13-6 General Plan Buildout with Project Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Comparison To Existing.................................................................................................. 4.13-29 ' Table 4.13-7 Intersection Analysis Summary for General Plan Buildout with Project.................4.13-33 Table 4.13-8 General Plan Buildout with Project Summary of Improvement Needs Beyond 2005 Existing Lanes.......................................................................................................... 4.13-39 Table 4.13-9 General Plan Buildout with Project SR-73 Freeway Peak Hour Ramp Analysis ....4.13-40 Table 4.13-10 Transportation Improvements under Proposed General Plan Update .................... 4.13-47 Table 4.14-1 Current and Planned Water Supply and Demand (AFY)............................................ 4.14-8 Table 4.14-2 Supply Reliability (AFY).................................................................................................... 4.14-9 Table 4.14-3 Projected Normal Water Supply and Demand Comparison (AFY).........................4.14-10 Table 4.14-4 Projected Single Dry -Year Supply and Demand Comparison (AFY), 2020 2025 2030 4.14-10 Table 4.14-5 ..................................................................................................................................... Projected Supply and Demand Comparison During Multiple Dry -Year Period 1 Ending in 2010 (AFY) 2008............................................................................................ 4.14-10 Table 4.14-6 Projected Supply and Demand Comparison During Multiple Dry -Year Period Ending in 2015 (AFY) 2015............................................................................................4.14-11 Table 4.14-7 Projected Supply and Demand Comparison During Multiple Dry -Year Period Ending in 2020 (AFY) 2019 2020.................................................................................. 4.14-11 Table 4.14-8 Projected Supply and Demand Comparison During Multiple Dry -Year Period Endingin 2025(AFY)...................................................................................................... 4.14-11 Table 4.14-9 Projected Supply and Demand Comparison During Multiple Dry -Year Period Ending in 2030 A 4.14-11 Table 4.14-10 IRWD Historical Water Demand................................................................................... 4.14-12 Table 4.14-11 IRWD Projected Normal Year Supply and Demand Comparison (AFY).............. 4.14-12 Table4.14-12 Projected Wastewater within the City ............................................................................4.14-31 Table 4.14-13 Landfill Capacity............................................................................................................... 4.14-38 ' Table 4.14-14 Estimated Increase of Solid Waste Generation............................................................ 4.14-44 Table 4.14-15 Southern California Edison Power Content.................................................................4.14-47 Table 5-1 Citywide Existing and Proposed General Plan Update Designations...............................5-3 N Table 5-2 City of Newport Beach General Plan Update and GPAC Recommendation (Alternative 3)......................................................................................................................... 5-13 ' Table 5-3 City of Newport Beach General Plan Update and Subarea Only Minimum Alternative(Alternative 4).................................................................................................... 5-21 Table 5-4 Comparison of Alternatives to the Proposed Project ...................................................... 5-29 7 Ll II I ', City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR ix Acronym Definhon ADT average daily traffic AELUP Airport Environs Land Use Plan AF acre-feet AHHPAC Ad Hoc Historic Preservation Advisory Committee ALs action levels AILS advanced life support ALUC Airport Land Use Commission AMP Allen•McColloch Pipeline ANSI American National Standards Institute AQMD South Coast Air Quality Management District AQMP Air Quality Management Plam ARB California Air Resources Board AWG Airport Working Group Basin Orange County Groundwater Basin Basin Plan Santa Ana River Basin Water Quality Control Plan BLS basic life support BMD Beach Mile Days BMPs Best Management Practices BP before present BSIP Bus Service Implementation Program Cal/EPA California EPA CaIARP California Accidental Release Prevention Program CBC Califomia Building Code CCR California Code of Regulations CDFG California Department of Fish and Game CDHS California Department of Health Services CEC California Energy Commission CEQA California Environmental Quality Act CERCLA Comprehensive Eovironmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 CERCLIS Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Information System CERT Community Emergency Response Team CESA California Endangered Species Act CFR Code of Federal Regulations CGS California Geological Survey CHP California Highway Patrol CHRIS California Historic Resources Information System CIOSA Circulation and Improvement and Open Space Agreement CIWMB California Integrated Waste Management Board City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR x , Acronym s/Abbreviations Acron m DefiniBon CIWMP Countywide Integrated Waste Management Plan CLUP Coastal Land Use Plan CMP Congestion Management Program CMPD Costa Mesa Police Department CMSD Costa Mesa Sanitation District CNDDB California Natural Diversity Database CNPS California Native Plant Society CNPSEI California Native Plant Society's Electronic Inventory CO carbon monoxide COHb carboxyhemoglobin CPUC California Public Utilities Commission CRHR California Register of Historical Resources CRV California Refund Value CUPA Certified Unified Program Agency CWA Clean Water Act CWCP California Wetlands Conservation Policy DAMP Drainage Area Management Plan d6 Decibel dBAs A -weighted decibels DHS Department of Health Services DOC Department of Conservation DOF California Department of Finance DOGGR California Division of 011, Gas and Geothermal Resources DOSH California Division of Occupational Safety and Health DRWF Dyer Road Well Field DTSC Department of Toxic Substances Control DWR California Department of Water Resources EIR Environmental Impact Report EPA Environmental Protection Agency EQAC Environmental Quality Affairs Citizens Advisory Committee for the City of Newport Beach ESAs Environmental Study Areas ESHAs Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Areas FAA Federal Aviation Administration FCR Federal Code of Regulations FOR Final EIR FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency FESA Federal Endangered Species Act FHWA Federal Highway Administration FIRM Federal Insurance Rate Maps FRA Federal Railroad Administration FTA Federal Transit Administration GEIF Governmental, Educational, and Institutional Facilities ' City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR A Acronyin DeffrbWw GPAC General Plan Advisory Committee GPTS General Plan Transportation Study GRS Groundwater Replenishment System HABS Historical American Building Survey HCA Orange County Health Care Agency HCD State Department of Housing and Community Development HCP Habitat Conservation Plan HHWCC household hazardous waste collection centers HS Highway System HSWA Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments Act HUD Housing and Urban Development HWCL Hazardous Waste Control Law IBC Irvine Business Complex ICU Intersection Count Utilization IRWD Irvine Ranch Water District IS Initial Study ISINOP Initial StudylNotice of Preparation ISO Insurance Service Office IWMD Integrated Waste Management Department JWA John WayneAfrport Kg Kilograms LAFCO Local Agency Formation Commission LBUSD Laguna Beach Unified School District LCP Local Coastal Plan LEED Leadership in Environmental and Energy Design LIP Implementation Plan LOMR Letter of Map Revision LOS Level of Service LQG Large -Quantity Generator LUST Leaking underground storage tank M Richter Magnitude Mbbl million barrels MBTA Migratory Bird Treaty Act MCE Maximum Credible Earthquake MCL Maximum Contaminant Levels Mesa Mesa Consolidated Water District MG million gallons MGD million gallons per day MMI Modified Marcell1 Intensity MMP Mitigation Monitoring Program MPE Maximum Probable Earthquake MRZ Mineral Resource Zones A City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR ' Acronyms/Abbreviations Acronym Defini ion MSHCP Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Mw Moment Magnitude MWD Metropolitan Water District of Southern California MWD MWDOC Metropolitan Water District Municipal Water District of Orange County MWRP Michelson Water Reclamation Plant NBFD Newport Beach Fire Department ' NBPD Newport Beach Police Department NBPL NBTM Newport Beach Public Library Newport Beach Traffic Model I NCCP NDMA Natural Communities Conservation Plan N-nitrosodimethylamine ' NFIP National Flood Insurance Program NFRAP No Further Remedial Action Planned NIMS National Incident Management System i NMUSD Newport -Mesa Unified School District NO2 nitrogen dioxide NOP Notice of Preparation NOx nitrogen oxides NPDES National Pollution Discharge Elimination System ' NPL National Priorities List NRHP National Register of Historic Places OCFA Orange County Fire Authority OCFA Orange County Fire Authority OCFCD Orange County Flood Control District OCSD Orange County Sanitation District OCSD Orange County Sheriff Department OCTA Orange County Transportation Authority OCWCRD Orange County Watershed & Coastal Resources Division OCWD Orange County Water District OEHHA State Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment ' OES OHWM Office of Emergency Services ordinary high water mark OSBR Ocean Safety and Beach Rescue ' OSHA Occupational Safety and Health Administration Pb Lead PCH Pacific Coast Highway ' PERC Tetrachloroethylene PM10 Respirable Particulate Matter ' PPC Public Protection Classification PRC Public Resources Code Section psi per square inch ' City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR xiii Acronyms/Abbreviation s Acronym DeffnlNon PUC California Public Utilities Commission RCPG Regional Comprehensive Plan and Guide RCRA Resources Conservation and Recovery Act RDMD Orange County Resources and Development Management Department RELOOC Regional Landfill Options for Orange County RMS remote monitoring systems RWQCB California Regional Water Quality Control Board SARA Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act SARWQCB Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board SAUSD Santa Ana Unified School District SCAG Southern California Assoclaflon of Government SCAQMD South Coast Air Quality Management District SCE Southern California Edison Company SCG Southern California Gas Company SDMP Storm Drain Master Plan SDWA Federal Safe Drinking Water Act SEMS Standardized Emergency Management System SHPO State Historic Preservation Office SIP State Implementation Plan SMARA Surface Mining and Reclamation Act SOz sulfur dioxide S01 Sphere of Influence SR-1 State Route 1 SRAs source receptor areas SRRE Source Reduction and Recycling Element SSMP Sewer System Management Plan SSO sanitary sewer overflow STIP Statewide Transportation Improvement Program SWPPP Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan SWRCB State Water Resources Control Board TAC Toxic air contaminants TBR Technical Background Report TDM Travel Demand Management TIA traffic Impact analysis TMDLs Total Maximum Daily Loads TRI Toxics Release Inventory TSM Transportation Systems Management UBC Uniform Building Code UC Urban Crossroads USACE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers USDOT United States Department of Transportation USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service AV City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR I Acronyms/Abbreviations I I� Acronym Definiflon USGS U.S. Geological Survey UST underground storage tanks V/C volume/capacity VdB vibration decibels VMT vehicle miles traveled VOCs volatile organic compounds WDRs Waste Discharge Requirements WEC Watershed Executive Committee WMC Watershed Management Committee WQMP Water Quality Management Plan I,' City of Newport Beach General Plan Update E I This Environmental Impact Report (EIR) examines the potential effects of the proposed General Plan Update for Newport Beach (proposed project). The proposed General Plan Update's background and the legal basis for preparing an EIR are described below. 1.1 PURPOSE AND LEGAL AUTHORITY The last comprehensive update of the City's General Plan was in 1988. The City is proposing a new comprehensive update of the General Plan that requires the review and recommendation for adoption by the Planning Commission and the discretionary approval of the City Council of the City of Newport Beach. Adoption of the proposed General Plan Update is considered a project under the State of California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and is, therefore, subject to CEQA requirements. In accordance with Section 15121 of the CEQA Guidelines the purpose of this EIR is to serve as an informational document that: ... will inform public agency decision -makers and the public generally of the significant environmental effects of a project, identify possible ways to minimize the significant effects, and describe reasonable alternatives to the project. The EIR must also disclose significant environmental impacts that cannot be avoided, growth inducing impacts, effects not found to be significant, and significant cumulative impacts of all past, present, and reasonably anticipated future projects. This EIR has been prepared as a Program EIR pursuant to Section 15168 of the CEQA Guidelines, A Program EIR is an EIR that is prepared on a series of actions that can be characterized as one large project. As stated in the CEQA Guidelines, the use of a Program EIR can provide the following advantages: 1. Provide an occasion for a more exhaustive consideration of effects and alternatives than would be practical in an EIR on an individual action; 2. Ensure consideration of cumulative impacts that might be slighted in a case -by -case analysis; 3. Avoid duplicative reconsideration of basic policy considerations; 4. Allow the Lead Agency to consider broad policy alternatives and program wide mitigation measures at an early time when the agency has greater flexibility to deal with basic problems or cumulative impacts; 5. Allow reduction in paperwork. This EIR will review the existing conditions of the City of Newport Beach and the Planning Area, analyze potential environmental impacts from implementation of the proposed General Plan Update, identify policies from the proposed General Plan Update that serve to reduce and minimize impacts, and identify additional mitigation measures, if necessary, to reduce potentially significant impacts of the General Plan Update. As the EIR does not focus on any specific development projects within the City, City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 1-1 subsequent activities in the City that involve individual projects must be examined in the light of the Program EIR to determine whether any additional environmental review is necessary. If it is determined that an individual project would result in adverse impacts on the environment, a specific Project EIR would then be required. In accordance with Section 15166 of the CEQA Guidelines, two General Plan documents are being used to satisfy the requirements for a Draft EIR for the proposed General Plan Update. The two documents are the City of Newport Beach General Plan Technical Background Report (MR), which describes the existing physical conditions, demographics, and trends in the Planning Area, and this EIR, which assesses the physical environmental impacts to the Planning Area from implementation of the proposed General Plan Update. The City of Newport Beach General Plan TBR provides existing data for the entire Planning Area. The TBR was published June 2004 and is available for review at the Newport Beach Planning Department and Central Libraty. The purpose of this report is to serve as an informational document for the public and City of Newpott Beach decision -makers. The process will culminate with Planning Commission and City Council hearings to consider certification of a Final EIR (FEIR) and a decision on whether or not to approve the proposed General Plan Update. 1.2 SCOPE OF THE EIR This EIR addresses the potential environmental effects of Newport Beach's proposed GeneralPlan Update. As the proposed General PlanUpdate is a comprehensive plan that outlines the future potential for growth and development within the City, the scope of the EIR includes an examination of all environmental issues that are considered in Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines. In addition, the environmental issues analyzed in this document will also include those areas determined to be potentially significant by the Notice of Preparation (NOP), responses to the NOP, consulting staff, and the City of Newport Beach. The NOP and comment letters received during the NOP review period are included in Appendix A of this EIR. The NOP identified potentially significant impacts on the following issue areas associated with implementation of the proposed General Plan Update, which are addressed in detail in this EIR: ■ Aesthetics and Visual Quality ■ Air Quality ■ Biological Resources ■ Cultural Resources ■ Geology, Soils, and Mineral Resources ■ Hazards and Hazardous Materials ■ Hydrology and Water Quality ■ Land Use and Planning ■ Noise r Population and Housing ■ Public Services ■ Recreation 1.2 City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR ' Chapter 1 Introduction ■ Transportation/Traffic ■ Utilities and Service Systems In accordance with Section 15128 (Effects Not Found to Be Significant) of the CEQA Guidelines, Chapter 6 of this EIR provides reasons why some environmental impacts related to Agriculture were not considered significant and, therefore, are not analyzed further in this EIR. In preparing the EIR, pertinent policies of the proposed General Plan Update were evaluated for their ability to reduce impacts resulting from the proposed General Plan Update. Regional and local agencies that regulate and provide services to the City and its SOI were also contacted for information. A list of references and persons consulted are provided in at the end of each chapter. Chapter 5 (Alternatives) of the EIR was prepared in accordance with Section 15126.6 of the CEQA Guidelines. It also identifies the "environmentally superior" alternative among the alternatives assessed. The alternatives analyzed in this EIR include the CEQA-required "no project" alternative, the continued implementation of the City's existing General Plan, and two additional reduced intensity alternatives. 1.2.1 Environmental Setting/Definition of the Baseline According to Section 15125 of the CEQA Guidelines, an EIR must include a description of the existing physical environmental conditions in the vicinity of the project to provide the "baseline condition" against which project -related impacts are compared. Normally, the baseline condition is the physical condition that exists when the Notice of Preparation (NOP) is published. The NOP for the General Plan Update EIR was published in January 2006. However, the CEQA Guidelines recognize that the date for establishing an environmental baseline cannot be rigid. Because physical environmental conditions may vary over a range of time periods, the use of environmental baselines that differ from the date of the NOP is reasonable and appropriate when doing so results in a more accurate or conservative environmental analysis. For analytical purposes, impacts associated with implementation of the General Plan Update are derived from the existing environmental setting in the June 2004 Technical Background Report (TBR) prepared for the proposed project. Although the TBR was published in 2004, it is based on 2002 data. This baseline year (2002) is used for all impact areas analyzed in this EIR to determine impacts. Where it was feasible to present more current information, the more current information is also provided and analyzed. The TBR presents a more conservative analysis for this EIR because the TBR does not include the growth authorized under the existing General Plan that occurred between 2002 and the January 2006 NOP publication date. As a result, the allowable growth under the proposed land use changes (as defined by proposed General Plan buildout) in some areas is actually much less than what was used to analyze the environmental impacts in this EIR. For example, under the current General Plan Hoag Project had already been built between 2002 and 2006. Therefore, while the proposed General Plan Update was evaluated with a baseline to projected growth in West Newport Mesa of more than one million square feet of institutional uses, actually as of the date the NOP, significantly less than one million square feet is projected growth under the Proposed General Plan Update. Thus, this EIR presents a worst -case scenario based upon the maximum potential development within the City and adjacent areas from 2002 City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 1-3 through 2030.As a practical matter, as illustrated by the less than full build out under the current General Plan, actual development in any city or county is substantially less than the entitlement or theoretical limit of development because of building and zoning restrictions as well as market forces. 1.2.2 Plan Comparison This EIR evaluates the potential impacts of the proposed land use changes and associated growth potential compared to the existing setting/baseline conditions, as described above. In some cases, the existing General Plan growth potential is also discussed to provide additional information to the reader of the differences or changes between the existing and proposed General Plan Update. however, the impacts analysis presented in this document is not a comparison of the existing to proposed General Plan Update. 1.3 INTENDED USE OF THE EIR This EIR has been prepared to analyze potentially significant environmental impacts associated with future development resulting from implementation of the proposed General Plan Update, and also addresses appropriate and feasible mitigation measures or project alternatives that would minimize or eliminate these impacts. Additionally, this EIR will provide the primary source of environmental information for the City of Newport Beach, which is the Lead Agency, to use when considering the proposed General Plan Update. This EIR is intended to provide decision -makers and the public with information that enables them to intelligently consider the environmental consequences of the proposed action. This EIR identifies significant or potentially significant environmental effects, as well as ways in which those impacts can be reduced to less -than -significant levels, whether through the imposition of mitigation measures or through the implementation of specific alternatives to the project. In a practical sense, this document functions as a technique for fact-finding, allowing concerned citizens and agency staff an opportunity to collectively review and evaluate baseline conditions and project impacts through a process of full disclosure. To gain the most value from this report, certain key points recommended in the CEQA Guidelines should be kept in mind: ■ This report should be used as a tool to give the reader an overview of the possible ramifications of the proposed General Plan Update. It is designed to be an "early warning system" with regard to potential environmental impacts and subsequent effects on the local community's environmental resources. ■ A specific environmental impact is not necessarily irreversible or permanent. Most impacts, particularly in more developed urban areas, can be wholly or partially mitigated by incorporating the General Plan policies referenced in this report. ■ This report, while a summary of facts, reflects the professional judgment of the author. Therefore, the reader willhave to individually weigh the facts that it reports. 1-4 City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR , Chapter I Introduction 1.4 LEAD, RESPONSIBLE, AND TRUSTEE AGENCIES Per the CEQA Guidelines, this EIR defines lead, responsible, and trustee agencies. The City of Newport Beach is the lead agency for the project because it holds principal responsibility for approving the ' project. A responsible agency refers to a public agency other than the lead agency that has discretionary approval over the project. A trustee agency is a state agency having jurisdiction by law over natural resources affected by a project, which are held in trust for the people of the state. Agencies that would ' serve as both the responsible agency and the trustee agency for the proposed project may include the California Coastal Commission, the California Department of Fish and Game, the California Department ' of Transportation, and/or the Regional Water Quality Control Board. 1.5 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW PROCESS ' This EIR has been prepared to meet all of the substantive and procedural requirements of CEQA of 1970 (California Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq.), California CEQA Guidelines (California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Section 15000 et seq.), and the rules, regulations and procedures for the implementation of CEQA as adopted by the City of Newport Beach. Accordingly, as discussed above, ' the City of Newport Beach has been identified as the Lead Agency for this project, taking primary responsibility for conducting the environmental review and approving or denying the project. The proposed General Plan Update will serve as a comprehensive document that will guide future potential growth and development within the City. The Lead Agency has determined that an EIR for the proposed General Plan Update would best serve the City if it contains a comprehensive examination of ' all environmental issues that are contained in Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines with the exception of Agricultural Resources. The City, therefore, prepared an Initial Study (IS) to eliminate Agricultural Resources from further review and to make a preliminary determination of the impacts for the other environmental issue areas. The EIR that will analyze all aspects of the proposed General Plan Update to determine whether any aspect of the project, either individually or cumulatively, may cause a significant effect on the environment with regards to the environmental issues listed above in Section 1.2. After completion of the IS, the City filed a Notice of Preparation (NOP), included in Appendix A, with the California Office of Planning and Research as an indication that an EIR would be prepared. In turn, the IS/NOP was distributed to involved public agencies and interested parties for a 30-day public review period, which began on January 27, 2006, and ended on February 27, 2006. The purpose of the public ' review period was to solicit comments on the scope and content of the environmental analysis to be included in the EIR. The City received seventeen comment letters on the IS/NOP, which are included in Appendix A of this EIR. During preparation of the EIR, agencies, organizations, and persons who the City believed might have an interest in this project were specifically contacted. Information, data, and observations from these contacts are included in the EIR. Agencies or interested persons who did not respond during the public review period of the NOP will have an opportunity to comment during the public review period for the Draft EIR, as well as at subsequent hearings on the proposed General Plan Update. LJ ' City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 1-5 This EIR will be distributed to affected agencies, surrounding cities, involved public agencies, and interested parties for a 45-day review period in accordance with Section 15087 of the CEQA Guidelines, During the 45-day public review period, this EIR is available for general public review on the City's website (w%vw.city.newport-beach.ca.us/) and at the following locations: City of Newport Beach, Planning Department 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92658-8915 Newport Beach Public Library Central Branch 1000 Avocado Avenue Newport Beach, Ca 92660 Interested parties may provide comments on the EIR in written form. Comments should be addressed to the City of Newport Beach to the following address: GregB. Ramirez, Senior Planner Planning Department City of NewportBeach 3300 Newport Boulevard P.O. Box 1768 NewportBeach, CA 92658-8915 Upon completion of the 45-day public review period, written responses to all significant comments raised with respect to environmental issues discussed in the EIR will be prepared and incorporated into the Final EIR. Furthermore, written responses to comments received from any State agencies will' be made available to these agencies at least 10 days prior to the public hearing during which the certification of the FEIR will be considered. These comments, and their responses, will be included in the FEIR for consideration by the City of Newport Beach Planning Commission and City Council, as well as any other public decision -makers. According to Public Resources Code Section (PRC) 21081, the Lead Agency must make specific Findings of Fact (" Findings') before approving the FEIR, when the EIR identifies significant environmental impacts that may result from a project. The purpose of the Findings is to establish the link between the contents of the FEIR and the action of the Lead Agency with regard to approval or rejection of the project. Prior to approval of a project, one of three findings must be made: ■ Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the FEIR. ■ Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and not the agency making the finding. Such changes have been adopted by such other agency or can and should be adopted by such other agency. ■ Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the FEIR. 1-6 City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR ' Chapter I Introduction Additionally, according to PRC Section 21081.6, for projects in which significant impacts will be avoided ' by mitigation measures, the Lead Agency must include a mitigation monitoring program (MMW. The purpose of the MMP is to ensure compliance with required mitigation during implementation of the project. ' However, environmental impacts may not always be mitigated to a less -than -significant level. When this occurs, impacts are considered significant and unavoidable. If a public agency approves -a project that has ' significant and unavoidable impacts, the agency shall state in writing the specific reasons for approving the project, based on the FEIR and any other information in the public record. This is termed a "Statement of Overriding Considerations" and is used to explain the specific reasons why the benefits of ' a proposed project make its unavoidable environmental effects acceptable. The statement is prepared, if required, after the FEIR has been completed, yet before action to approve the project has been taken. ' 1.6 AREAS OF CONTROVERSY AND ISSUES TO BE RESOLVED ' During the environmental review process, NOP comment letters were received that outlined areas of potential controversy and issues to be resolved. These issues are discussed within the technical sections of this document, and summarized below. ' ■ John Wayne Airport and Orange County Airport Land Use Commission —Development under the General Plan Update should be consistent with the Orange County Airport Land Use Commission's Airport Environs Land Use Plan, as well as all other land use policies pertaining to areas in the vicinity of an airport. ■ Califon is Department of Transportation (Caltrans)—The proposed project should adhere to all applicable plans and policies emphasizing coordination between the City and Caltrans early in the ' land use and transportation planning process. ■ South Coast Air Quality Management District (AOMD)—AQMD recommends using the CEQA Air Quality Handbook as guidance when preparing its air quality analysis. The proposed project should identify any potential adverse air quality impacts that could occur from all phases of the proposed project and all air pollutant sources related to the project. Air quality impacts from both construction and operations should be considered, as well as air quality impacts from indirect sources. An analysis of all toxic air contaminant impacts should also be included. ■ Neighboring Manicipalitier—Municipalities adjacent to the Planning Area recommend full analysis of land use intensity and traffic changes, specifically including the Airport Area, West Newport Mesa, ' and Banning Ranch subareas of the Planning Area. ■ Environmental Qualio Affairs Citi.Zens Advisory Committee ---The proposed project should address potential impacts to population and housing development, hazardous emissions within the vicinity ' of a school, and the provision of visitor -serving facilities and land uses. Potential impacts of the addition of schools to accommodate new students due to new residential development must also be analyzed. A full discussion of transportation and circulation issues should be provided, including potential impacts associated with roadway improvements and levels of traffic congestion. ■ Greenligbt—Possible adverse effects of the proposed General Plan Update on increased traffic ' levels within the City. All potential transportation and circulation impacts should be fully evaluated. ■ Public Comments and Citi.Zens Groups --A comprehensive analysis of population change, the provision of park acreage, and change in land area and land use under the proposed General Plan Update should be provided. Additionally, all proposed transportation improvements must be discussed. ' City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR t-7 Chapter 1 Introduction 1.7 DOCUMENT ORGANIZATION This EIR has been designed for easy use and reference. To help the reader locate information of particular interest, a brief summary of the,contents of each section of the EIR is provided. The following chapters are contained within the EIR: ■ Chapter 1: Introduction —This section describes the purpose, approach, intended use, and scope of the EIR, a summary of the environmental and public review process, the projeces relevant agencies, the availability of the EIR, documents incorporated by reference, areas of controversy and issues to be resolved, and a brief outline of this document's organization. ■ Chapter 2: Executive Summary This section contains a summary of the proposed project, as well as an overview of the scope of the EIR. This section provides a summary of environmental impacts, proposed mitigation, level of significance after mitigation, and unavoidable impacts. ■ Chapter 3: Project Description —This section provides a detailed description of the proposed General Plan Update, including a description of the project location, environmental setting, project background, project objectives, and project characteristics. ■ Chapter 4: Environmental Analysis —This section describes and evaluates the environmental issue areas, applicable environmental thresholds, environmental impacts (both short-term and long-term), policy considerations related to the particular environmental issue area under analysis, mitigation measures capable of minimizing environmental harm, and a discussion of cumulative impacts. Where additional actions must be taken to ensure consistency with environmental policies, recommendations are made, as appropriate. ■ Chapter 5: Project Alternatives —This section analyzes feasible alternatives to the proposed General Plan Update, including the No Project Alternative, the continuation of the City's existing General Plan, and two additional reduced intensity alternatives. ■ Chapter 6: Other CEQA Considerations —This chapter provides analysis, as required by CEQA, regarding impacts that would result from the proposed General Plan Update, including effects found not to be significant, gtowth-inducing impacts, cumulative impacts, significant irreversible change to the environment, and significant and unavoidable adverse impacts. ■ Chapter 7: Report Preparers —This section identifies all individuals responsible for the preparation of this EIR. 1-8 City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR ' This section summarizes the characteristics of the proposed City of Newport Beach General Plan Update, the environmental impacts, mitigation measures, and impacts associated with the proposed project. 2.1 INTRODUCTION This Program EIR discusses the environmental impacts associated with implementation of the proposed General Plan Update for the City of Newport Beach and its Sphere of Influence (SOI). A complete description of the proposed General Plan Update is provided in Chapter 3 of this document, and a summary of the proposed General Plan Update components is provided below. This Program EIR provides a discussion of impacts by issue area and provides mitigation measures, where appropriate. Specific issue areas discussed in this document include the following. ■ Aesthetics and Visual Quality ■ Air Quality ■ Biological Resources ■ Cultural Resources ■ Geology, Soils, and Mineral Resources ■ Hazards and Hazardous Materials ■ Hydrology and Water Quality ■ Land Use and Planning ■ Noise ■ Population and Housing ■ Public Services ■ Recreation ■ Transportation and Traffic ■ Utilities and Service Systems Discussions of these issue areas are provided in Sections 4.1 through 4.14 of this document. According to California Code of Regulations 565302, there is no requirement that economic or social issues be included as elements to the General Plan. As the EIR is concerned with physical environmental impacts resulting from implementation of the proposed General Plan Update, economic and social impacts not related or resulting from environmental impacts were excluded from this document. An analysis of alternatives to the proposed General Plan Update and long-term implications resulting from implementation of the plan are also provided. 2.2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION The City of Newport Beach is currently updating their General Plan. The proposed General Plan Update is a comprehensive update of the current General Plan. Elements of the existing General Plan have been City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 2-1 re -organized by thematic topic for clarity and to avoid redundancy, as encouraged by the State's General Plan Guidelines. The updated City of Newport 'Beach General Plan is organized into the following elements: ■ Land Use ■ Housing ■ Circulation/Mobility ■ Recreation ■ Natural Resources ■ Safety ■ Noise ■ Historic Resources ■ 'Arts and Cultural Resources ■ Harbor and Bay Growth Management Element goals and policies are incorporated into the Circulation/Mobility Element. Goals and polices for the protection of the City's open spaces, currently found in the Recreation and Open Space Element, are incorporated into the Natural Resources Element. The Land Use Element identifies the special study subareas as districts or corridors, depending on their physical form, functional role, and how they relate to the land or water adjoining them. Newport Beach is almost fully developed. Therefore, the proposed General Plan Update focuses on how limited population and employment growth can be strategically accommodated to preserve the distinguishing and valued qualities of the community. For most of the City, the proposed General Plan Update conserves the existing pattern of uses and intensity of development, and establishes policies for protection and long-term maintenance of established neighborhoods. Generally, new development in accordance with the proposed General Plan Update would result as re- use of economically underperforming properties and obsolete development, conversion of uses in response to market demand (e.g., office and industrial to residential) and more intense use of land in a few defined areas. Several subareas within Newport Beach determined to have special planning considerations were the subjects of special study during the update process. These areas are described below. Development outside of these subareas remains relatively unchanged from the existing General Plan with changes made only to select locations where circumstances warrant, The subareas where change could occur represent only 10.5 percent of the total land area of the City. They have been divided into districts and corridors, according to their physical characteristics. Districts Districts are uniquely identifiable by their common functional role, mix of uses, density/intensity, physical form and character, and/or environmental setting. Generally, they encompass areas that extend equally in length and breadth. While Newport Beach contains many subareas, the General Plan policies in the following areas focus on those that are likely to change over the next 20 years as existing viable land uses are enhanced, underperforming properties are revitalized, and opportunities are provided to accommodate the City's fair share of regional housing needs. Policies are directed to the management of 2.2 City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR Chapter 2 Summary ' these changes to assure that they complement the characteristics that are valued by Newport Beach's residents. The City has identified the following districts: ' ■ West Newport Mesa ■ Newport Center/Fashion Island ' ■ John Wayne Airport Area ■ Banning Ranch ■ Balboa Peninsula ' Corridors ' Corridors share common characteristics of districts by their identifiable functional role, land use mix, density/intensity, physical form and character, and/or environmental setting. They differ in their linear configuration, generally with shallow depth parcels located along arterial streets. They are significantly ' impacted by traffic, often inhibiting access during peals travel periods. While the City is crossed by a number of commercial corridors, the policies in the proposed General Plan Update focus on those in which change is anticipated to occur during the next 20 years. Additionally, they provide guidance for the ' maintenance of corridors in which it is the objective to maintain existing types and levels of development. The City has identified the following corridors: ' ■ West Newport Highway ■ Old Newport Boulevard ■ Mariners' Mile ' ■ Corona del Mar Other Land Use Changes ' While land use changes are proposed for other areas of the City by the updated General Plan, these areas would retain the basic land use character of existing uses. Land use intensification would also result throughout the City in areas where no changes in use are proposed, but additional development is permitted under the existing General Plan. Because no new land use patterns would be established, no conflicts of use would result. ' The area bounded by Irvine Avenue, 15s' Street, St. Andrews Road, and Coral Place is currently designated for multi -family and is developed with a mix of housing units, including older apartments, t small lot units, and single-family detached units. The proposed General Plan Update would re -designate this area as single-family residential to allow for consistency with the current development trend in the area replacing higher -density apartments with small -lot residential and detached units. ' Another area where changes would take place is along the southern frontage of Westcliff Drive, east of Irvine Avenue, and the western frontage of Dover Drive, south of Westcliff Drive. Changes in this area ' include re -designating the area from Administrative, Professional, and Financial Commercial uses to mixed use, allowing a mix of office and multi -family residential uses. Any new residential development in ' this area would be compatible with the existing residential uses behind these properties. ' City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 2.3 The Caltrans Remnant property, bounded by the SR 73, MacArthur Boulevard, and University Drive is currently a vacant property and would be re -designated for commercial use under the proposed General Plan Update. The north side of San Miguel Drive, east of San Joaquin Hills Road, and west of Newport Hills Drive, which is currently a single parcel formerly used as a child care facility, abutting multi -family residential uses, would be re -designated as multiple -family residential. This would allow for consistency with adjacent land uses. The property west of Big Canyon Reservoir, north of Pacific View Drive is currently developed with institutional (church) and senior affordable housing. Under the proposed General Plan Update, this area would be re -designated as multi -family residential also to promote consistency with adjacent land uses. 2.2.1 Potential Land Use Changes Implementation of the proposed General Plan Update would result in varied opportunities for development consisting of buildout of existing entitlements, xe-use of economically underperforming properties and obsolete development, conversion of uses in response to market demand. (e.g., office and industrial to residential) and more intense use of land in defined areas. Table 2-1 compares development that could result at the fullest intensity allowed under the proposed General Plan Update with existing development in the City as of 2002. This table also includes a comparison of buildout of the existing General Plan with existing development. Table. .- Sin9fe-Famy AW-Famy Wirmsetying ReldenHal Residenffd Commerclal Indusldal (hoteldnd Ins h&rral Pocks unlls Unh motelrooms OMce acre Existing Development 18,702 21,477 6,539,388 1,569,229 3,365 12,616,827 694,820 133.5 Existing General Plan 19,570 30,159 7,412,132 2,234,242 5,676 14,576,930 893,213 178.8 General Plan Update 20,402 33,992 7,685,030 1,163,460 6,549 12,867,500 853,413 254.7 Increase —General Plan Update vs. Existing g 1% 58.3% 38.7% (25.8%) 94.6% 2.0% 22.8% 90.8% Development Increase —General Plan Update vs. 4.2% 12.7% 3.7% (54.7%) 47.9% (13.3%) (4.4%) 42.4% Existing General Plan 2.4 City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR Chapter 2 Summary ' 2.3 CLASSIFICATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS ' Potential environmental impacts have been classified in the following categories: ■ Less Than Significant —Results in no substantial adverse change to existing environmental ' conditions ■ Potentially Significant —Constitutes a substantial adverse change to existing environmental conditions that can be mitigated to less -than -significant levels by implementation of feasible ' mitigation measures or by the selection of an environmentally superior project alternative ■ Significant and Unavoidable —Constitutes a substantial adverse change to existing environmental conditions that cannot be fully mitigated by implementation of all feasible mitigation measures, or by the selection of an environmentally superior project alternative ' 2.4 SYNOPSIS OF ALTERNATIVES As required by Section 15126.6(a) of the State CEQA Guidelines and recent court cases, an EIR must: ' Describe a range of reasonable alternatives to the project, or to the location of the project, which would feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the project but would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project, and evaluate the comparative merits of the alternatives. Further, Section 15126.6(b) Guidelines state: ' The discussion of alternatives shall focus on alternatives to the project or its location which are capable of avoiding or substantially lessening any significant effects of the project, even if these alternatives would impede to some degree the attainment of the project objectives, or would be ' more costly. Alternatives evaluated in this EIR include the following: ' ■ Alternative 1: No Project/No Development —With this alternative, development under the proposed General Plan Update would not occur. The Planning Area would remain developed with existing land uses. ' ■ Alternative 2: No Project/No Action (Existing General Plan) —With this alternative, development under the proposed General Plan Update would not occur. Development would be guided by continued implementation of the existing General Plan. ' ■ Alternative 3: GPAC Recommendations —With this alternative, development under the General Plan would consist of the land use recommendations formulated by GPAC. The Alternatives Chapter of the EIR will provide a detailed breakdown of the proposed land uses under this t Alternative. ■ Alternative 4: Subarea Only Minimum —With this alternative, development under the General Plan would consist of a mixture of land -use intensities for the various subareas. The Alternatives ' Chapter of the EIR will provide a detailed breakdown of the proposed land uses under this Alternative. ' The Subarea Only Minimum is considered the environmentally superior alternative. ' City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 2-5 2.5 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES ' Pursuant to Section 15123(b)(1) of the State CEQA Guidelines, Table 2-2 contains a summary of less- , than -significant, potentially significant, or significant and unavoidable environmental impacts associated with the proposed General Plan Update, mitigation measures that would reduce or avoid those effects, , and the level of significance of the impacts following the implementation of mitigation measures. 11 I I 1 11 It Ll 11 iI 11 2-6 City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR , 7 = m Chapter 2 Summary Biological Resources Impact4.3-1 Development allowed under the LTS No mitigation is required. LTS proposed General Plan Update could result in potential adverse impacts either directly or indirectly through habitat modifications, -to candidate, sensitive, or special status plant and wildlife species. Impact 4.3-2 Development allowed under the LTS No mitigation is required. LTS proposed General Plan Update could result in adverse effects on riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, and regulations, or by the CDFG or USFWS. Impact 4.3.3 Development under the proposed LTS No mitigation is required. LTS General Plan Update could interfere with the movement of native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or corridors. Cultural Resources Impact 4.4-1 Development under the proposed PS No feasible mitigation measures are available. SU General Plan Update would result in the demolition of historic structures. Impact4.4-2 Ground -disturbing activities associated LTS No mitigation is required. LTS With development under the proposed General Plan Update could result in damage to or destruction of archaeological-andfor Native American cultural resources. Impact 4.4-3 Ground -disturbing activities associated LTS No mitigation is required. LTS with development under -the proposed General Plan Update could result in damage to or destruction of unique paleontological resources within rock units or geologic features. Impact 4.4-4 Ground -disturbing activities associated LTS No mitigation is required. LTS with development under the proposed General Plan Update could result in damage to or destruction of human burial grounds. 2-8 City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR M M M M M Chapter 2 Summary Geolociv and Soils Impact 4.5.1 Implementation of the General Plan LTS No mitigation is required. LTS Update could expose people or structures to adverse effects involving strong seismic ground shaking. Impact 4.5.2 Implementation of the General Plan LTS No mitigation is required. LTS Update could expose people or structures to adverse effects involving seismic -related ground failure or landslides. Impact 4.5-3 Implementation of the proposed General LTS No mitigation is required. LTS Plan Update could result in substantial soil erosion and the loss of topsoil. Impact 4.5-4 Implementation of the proposed General LTS No mitigation is required. LTS Plan Update could subject people and structures to hazards associated with lateral spreading, subsidence, collapse, differential settlement, or heaving. Impact 4.5.5 Implementation of the proposed General LTS No mitigation is required. LTS Plan Update could result in the construction of facilities on expansive soils, creating substantial risk to people and structures. Hazards and Hazardous Materials Impact 4.64 Implementation of the proposed General LTS No mitigation is required. LTS Plan Update could result in an increase in commercial development that could increase the overall routine transport, use, storage, and disposal of hazardous materials within the City. Impact 4.6.2 Construction activities associated with LTS No mitigation is required. LTS implementation of the proposed General Plan Update could result in the release of hazardous materials to the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions. City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 2-9 Table 2-2 Summary of Impacts Compared to Existing Conditions and Mitigation Measures Signiscance Signrlfccance tMPCKf Before ' nMeasures Aftmlbalion Impact 4.6-3 Operation of future land uses that could LTS No mitigation is required. LTS be developed under the proposed project could create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment Impact 4.6.4 Implementation of the proposed General LTS No mitigation is required. LTS Plan Update could result in a safety hazard as a result of existing oil wells or methane gas areas within the City. Impact 4.6.5 Implementation of the proposed General LTS No mitigation is required. LTS Plan Update could emit hazardous emissions or handle acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one -quarter mile of an existing or proposed school. Impact4.6-6 The proposed General Plan Update LTS No mitigation is required. LTS includes sites which are included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and as a result, could create a significant hazard to the public or the environment Impact 4.6-7 Implementation of the proposed General LTS No mitigation is required. LTS Plan Update could result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the Planning Area as a result of the proximity of a public airport Impact 4.6-9 Implementation of the proposed General LTS No mitigation is required. LTS Plan Update could result in interference with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. Impact 4.6.9 Implementation of the proposed General LTS No mitigation is required. LTS Plan Update.could result in development in urbanized areas adjacent to or intermixed with wildlands. 2-10 City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR M M M M M M Chapter 2 Summary Hydrology and Water Quality Impact 4.7-1 Development under the proposed LTS No mitigation is required. LTS General Plan Update could result in an increase in pollutants in stormwater and wastewater, although water quality standards and waste discharge requirements would not be violated. Impact 4.7-2 Development of the proposed General LTS No mitigation is required. LTS Plan Update could create additional impervious surfaces, which could interfere with groundwater recharge. Development could substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge. Impact 4.7-3 Development under the proposed LTS No mitigation is required. LTS General Plan Update could alter the existing drainage pattern of the -Planning Area and potentially result in erosion and siltation. Impact 4.7-4 Development under the proposed LTS No mitigation is required. LTS General Plan Update could alter the existing drainage pattern of the Planning Area and potentially result in increased downstream flooding through the addition of impervious surfaces, exceeding the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems, or providing substantial additional sources of polluted runoff. Impact 4.7.5 Increases in stormwater runoff could LTS No mitigation is required. LTS require expansion of existing or construction of new storm drain facilities, the construction of which could result in significant environmental effects. Impact 4.7.6 Development under the proposed LTS No mitigation is required. LTS General Plan Update could result in the degradation of groundwater quality. Impact 4.7-7 Development under the proposed LTS No mitigation is required. LTS General Plan Update could place housing within a 100-year flood zone. City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 2-11 Table 2-2 Summary of Impacts Compared to Existing Conditions and Mitigation Measures siinaconce _55n canoe Impact Beforemoxffon Miligo0onmemm AffwMataffon Impact4.7-8 Development under the proposed LTS No mitigation is required. LTS General Plan Update could place structures within.a 100-year flood zone, but not in a manner that would substantially impede or redirectflows. Impact 4.7-9 Development under the proposed LTS No mitigation is required. LTS General Plan Update could expose people and structures to flood risks. Impact 4.7-10 Development under the proposed LTS No mitigation is required. LTS General Plan Update could expose people and structures to flood risks. Land Use and Planning Impact 4.84 Implementation of the proposed General LTS No mitigation is required. LTS Plan Update could involve new uses and structures that may result in intensification of development within the Planning Area that creates incompatibilities with adjacent land uses. Impact 4.8-2 Implementation of the proposed General LTS No mitigation is required. LTS Plan Update could physically divide an established community. Impact 4.8-3 Implementation of the proposed General LTS No mitigation is required. LTS Plan Update could conflictwith applicable land use I plans, policy, or regulations. - Noise Impact 4.94 Implementation of the proposed General PS No feasible mitigation measures are available. SU Plan Update would generate or expose persons to ambient noise levels in excess of sbridards established in the local general plan ornase ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies. Impact 4.9-2 Implementation of the proposed General PS No feasible mitigation measures are available. SU Plan Update would expose persons to vibration levels generated during construction activities that would exceed 72 VdB, 2-12 City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR M Table 2-2 Summary of Impacts Compared to Existing Conditions and Mitigation Measures Signi7rconce Impact Before wkiagon hiftaflonMeasures signfiicance Affermitigaffon Impact 4.9.3 Implementation of the proposed General PS No feasible mitigation measures are available. SU Plan Update would result in substantial permanent increases in traffic -related ambient noise levels. Impact 4.94 Implementation of the proposed General LTS No mitigation is required. LTS Plan Update could expose persons to substantial temporary or periodic ambient noise increases. Impact 4.9-5 Implementation of the proposed General PS No feasible mitigation measures are available. SU Plan Update would expose sensitive receptors in proximity to the John Wayne Airport to excessive noise levels. and Impact 4.10-1 Implementation of the proposed I PS I No feasible mitigation measures are available. I SU General Plan Update would induce substantial growth in an area either directly or indirectly. Public Services Impact 4.11-1 Implementation of the proposed I LTS I No mitigation is required. I LTS General Plan Update could increase the demand for fire protection services, which could result in the need for additional fire facilities. RArraafinn and Onen SnacA Impact 4.12-1 Implementation of the proposed LTS No mitigation is required. LTS General Plan Update could result in increased use of existing parks or recreational facilities that could accelerate physical deterioration of those facilities. Impact 4.12-2Implementation of the proposed LTS No mitigation is required. LTS General Plan Update could include new parks and recreational facilities to maintain acceptable service ratios. The proposed project could result in adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of these facilities. City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 2-13 a TransportationlTraffic Impact 4.13-1 Implementation of the proposed LTS No mitigation is required. LTS General Plan Update could result in a substantial increase in the number of vehicle trips, volume to rapacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections compared to existing conditions. Impact 4,13-2 Implementation of the proposed PS No feasible mitigation measures are available. SU General Plan Update would contribute to a substantial increase in deficient freeway segments and ramps. Impact 4.13-3 Implementation of the proposed LTS No mitigation is required. LTS General Plan Update could result in exceeding, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways. Impact 4.13-4 Implementation of the proposed LTS No mitigation is required. LTS General Plan Update could result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in locations that results in substantial safety risks. Impact 4.13-5 Implementation of the proposed LTS No mitigation is required. LTS General Plan Update could substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment). Impact 4.13.6 Implementation of the proposed LTS No mitigation is required. LTS General Plan -Update could result in inadequate emergency access. Impact 4.13-7Implementation of the proposed LTS No mitigation is required. LTS General Plan Update could result in inadequate parking capacity. 2-14 City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR I 1111110 I• = = 1111110 M 111110 I• 11111W m 111111E I• 11111110 11111IN M M Chapter 2 Summary Table 2-2 Summary of Impacts Compared to Existing Conditions and Mitigation Measures SfgrAkance S7gn&ance frnpact Beforeniffigalion MlkjcrffonMeasures A$erM ' aflon Impact 4.13.8 Implementation of the proposed LTS No mitigation is required. LTS General Plan Update could conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks). Utilities and Service Systems Impact 4.14.4 Increased population and development LTS No mitigation is required. LTS associated with the proposed General Plan Update could result in inadequate capacity of water treatment plants and water conveyance systems in the Planning Area. Impact 4.14.-2 Implementation of the proposed LTS No mitigation is required. LTS General Plan Update could result in increased demand for water supply within the Planning Area beyond existing entitlements. City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 2-15 II 3.1 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING AND LOCATION Located in the Southern California region, Newport Beach is at the western edge of Orange County, adjacent to the Pacific Ocean, as shown in Figure 3-1. Generally, Newport Beach, a charter City with approximately 83,120 residents, is bordered by Costa Mesa to the northwest, Huntington Beach to the west, Irvine to the northeast, and unincorporated portions of Orange County to the southeast. Regional access to the City is provided by several freeways. The 405 Freeway runs north to south within Southern California, and intersects both State Routes 73 (San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor [SJHTq) and State Route 55. State Route 55 extends south from State Route 91 and terminates in the City of Newport Beach. State Route 73 extends along the northern boundary of the City, connecting the 55 and 405 Freeways with Interstate 5. Highway 1 (Coast Highway) runs along the California coast and all the way through Newport Beach. The entire Planning Area includes the existing City boundaries and its sphere of influence (SOI).' The current City boundaries total 13,062 acres, excluding waterways. Approximately 53 acres of the area known as Banning Ranch is within the City boundaries, with another 361 acres of this property in the City's SOI, subject to Orange County jurisdiction. The entire property is surrounded by a one -foot strip within the City's jurisdiction. The Planning Area is illustrated in Figure 3-2. The City of Newport Beach General Plan Technical Background Report (TBR) provides existing data for the entire Planning Area. The TBR was published June 20042 and is available for review at the Planning Department and Central Library. The General Plan Update provides comprehensive land use, housing, circulation and infrastructure, public service, resource conservation, and public safety policies for the entire city and is intended to be a comprehensive update from the City's current General Plan, last updated in 1988. While proposed General Plan Update contains policies regarding future land use and development addressed from a citywide perspective, the majority of the proposed land use changes are limited to nine primary study areas, which cover about 10.5 percent of the City's land area. Accordingly, the EIR will comprehensively address the impacts of all policies throughout the City and, additionally, focus on those areas in which the most significant land use changes could occur. These areas are illustrated in Figure 3-3. ' I The term "sphere of influence" means an area outside a city where the probable physical boundaries and service area of a local agency might be expected to grow. ' 2 The TBR was published in June 2004 but relies on 2002 data. ' City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 3-1 Chapter 3 Project Description 3.1.1 Background ■ General Plan The General Plan is a state -required legal document (Government Code Section 65300) that provides guidance to decision makers regarding the conservation of resources and the future physical form and character of development for the city. It is the official statement of the jurisdiction regarding the extent and types of development of land and infrastructure that will achieve the community's physical, economic, social, and environmental goals. The General Plan expresses the City's goals and articulates the City's intentions with respect to the rights and expectations of the general public, property owners, community interest groups, prospective investors, and business interests. Although the General Plan consists of individual sections, or "elements," that address a specific area of concern, it also embodies a comprehensive and integrated planning approach for the jurisdiction. Under state law, each General flan must contain seven elements: ■ Land Use ■ Circulation ■ Housing ■ Conservation ■ Open Space ■ Noise ■ Safety Provisions of Orange County's Measure M require jurisdictions to adopt a Growth Management Element describing how public services and facilities will be provided to residents and businesses within each community. The City's has incorporated Growth Management policies into the Circulation Element to meet Measure M requirements. Table 3-1 includes a list of current elements of the General Plan and when they were last revised. Table 3-1 Current CunentEfemews Elements of the General Date otAdo n U ate Land Use 1988 with several amendments since Housing 2003 with amendments and re -certification in 2005 Recreation and Open Space 1998 Conservation of Natural Resources 1974 Circulation 1998 Public Safety 1975 Noise 1994 Growth Management 1992 Harbor and Bay 2001 3-2 City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 i 1 CITY of NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL PLAN UPDATE EIR Figure 3-1 REGIONAL LOCATION Legend City of Newport Beach City Boundary County Boundary dydiography Water Body Waterway toads State and Federal Highway Primary Road Nob:WR Aale�-G Slab Ptr 1. 6.N 'F g a 6 is Mee soucas cwra xay¢ aem� c+r awmr. Nkry z�: corm.. Mw ama: us car.nm�.a are m. UP Fsn Nqv R000l. Pa .mm: .4. Sb'wr: aE Ov Npaobt G6 v�aaion. Naw,m ie. ams. FM. I mm9 EIP 1 1 1 1 i 1 1 CITY of NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL PLAN UPDATE EIR Figure 3-2 PLANNING AREA (Legend �•��•� Planning Area Boundary City' Banning Ranch Sol Hydrogrophy 11 lelands and Submerged Lands Waterway OadS State and Federal Highway Streets tote I Portion o/ SonNng Ranch wMhn City Rmits (appiozimorkAy 45 acres). 2 City boun0ory inclutles o 1 foot stnp oround Bmn'rg Ronch. Wa. GR OaN Pgx"im � G Sure Pvn. tun A WCB�, �ml 4 0 0.5 1 KAHM •wucn' Gr d r+eno^ awn. �. JUY aim. CM 9ovbaV. M1l tOm. Caaaoa AxH:V W m Cm•• su•u� an•' CM au�tlea ZLO: M. Iknh f• w=:u EPPuicbei ca Py F.b n x P-W w Imn 0 EIP COSTA MESA UPPER rt Center/ n Island /ill ut116illrlllll111l�� Corona Arport Area CITY of NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL PLAN UPDATE EIR Figure 3-3 PLANNING SUB -AREAS Legend Sub-ArF�a rae. �s ma eme,,n,., � u sae rare. thee. wnes.:ee. 0 0.6 Mkm suss: csya rsm+eearn. cyy ew,avr. Mw xow. gym. ocu�u zus: soanvnsm r.Ae vm: sagas ocme ana, ano � namda mmaa. sad..as. ams. imra IEIP Chapter 3 Project Description It is important to note that all land use regulations, capital improvements, and other City actions pertaining to the physical development of the City must be consistent with the adopted General Plan. The General Plan policies for the SOI, however, are only advisory to Orange County as to the City's intentions for development; the County still maintains jurisdictional authority over the SOI areas unless they are annexed to the City. 3.2 STATEMENT OF OBJECTIVES The project seeks to achieve the objectives identified by the community during the extensive public outreach and participation process, as expressed in the Visioning Statement developed by the General Plan Advisory Committee (GPAC) and approved by the Planning Commission and the City Council. ■ Preserve and enhance Newport Beach's character as a beautiful, unique residential community. ■ Reflect a conservative growth strategy that > Balances needs for housing, jobs and services > Limits land use changes to a very small amount of the City's land area > Directs land use changes to areas where residents have expressed a willingness to consider change and where sustainable development can occur > Protects natural resources, open space, and recreational opportunities ■ Protect and enhance water quality. ■ Protect and enhance recreational opportunities and public access to open space and natural resources. ■ Modify land uses, densities, and intensities so that traffic generation is controlled. ■ Improve traffic flow without changing the character of the City. ■ Preserve and enhance parks, art, cultural and education facilities and programs that contribute to residents' quality of life. ■ Ensure the City has adequate municipal revenue to provide first rate municipal services, such as police, fire, lifeguard, library, recreation, refuse collection and recycling, and infrastructure maintenance. ■ Attract visitors to Newport Beach's harbor, beaches, hotels, restaurants, and shops with as little impact as possible on residents and natural resources. ■ Encourage revitalization of older and economically challenged commercial areas so that the areas continue to be community resources and have a positive impact on the value of nearby property and the local economy. ■ Maintain Newport Harbor as one of the premier small boat recreational boating harbors in the world, while causing little or no impact on the environment. ■ Control and contain noise and traffic impacts from operations at John Wayne Airport to protect the residents' quality of life and property values. ■ Modify the Land Use Element and other elements to reflect changes in the laNv and planning. practices that have occurred in the 17 years since the last comprehensive amendments were approved. ■ Provide effective means to ensure compliance with Section 423 of the Charter. City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 3.9 Chapter 3 Project Description 3.3 PROJECT CHARACTERISTICS 3.3.1 Elements and Components of the Proposed General Plan Update The proposed General Plan Update is a comprehensive update of the current General Plan. Elements of the existing General Plan have been re -organized by thematic topic for clarity and to avoid redundancy, as encouraged by the state's General Plan Guidelines. The updated City of Newport Beach General Plan is organized into the following elements: ■ Land Use ■ Housing ■ Circulation ■ Recreation ■ Natural Resources ■ Safety ■ Noise ■ Historic Resources ■ Arts and Cultural Resources ■ Harbor and Bay Growth Management Element goals and policies are incorporated into the Circulation/.Mobility Element. Goals and polices for the protection of the City's open spaces, currently found in the Recreation and Open Space Element, are incorporated into the Natural Resources Element. 3.3.2 Updated General Plan Potential Land Use Changes Existing land uses by major category and potential land use changes resulting from the update of the General Plan are described below. ■ Existing Land Uses Information regarding existing land uses and potential development within Newport Beach is presented below. More detail regarding the existing uses is presented in the General Plan TBR. The City of Newport Beach Planning Area contains 26,676 acres or 41.7 square miles. These are net acres and do not include streets and roadways, which account for approximately 20 percent of the total gross land acreage. Approximately 42 percent (11,119 acres) of the Planning Area is water, which includes the Upper and Lower Newport Bay and its channels, and the Pacific Ocean. The following discussion pertains to the 13,062 acres of developed and undeveloped land in the Planning Area. Existing land uses in the Planning Area have been classified into seven primary categories: ■ ieddendai-Residential uses include a mjx of housing developed at varying densities and types. Residential uses in the Planning Area include single-family, multiple -family, condominium, mobile, and senior housing. 3.10 City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR , Chapter 3 Project Description II U ■ Comnerciall0f/ice—This category includes commercial uses that offer goods for sale to the public (retail) and service and professional businesses housed in offices (accountants, architects, etc). Retail and commercial businesses include those that serve local needs, such as restaurants, neighborhood markets and dry cleaners, and those that serve community or regional needs, such as auto dealers and furniture stores. Visitor -serving retail uses such as regional shopping centers and hotels are also included in this category. ■ Industrial —The industrial category includes a mix of manufacturing and light industrial uses, some of which are found in business, research, and development parks. Light industrial activities include warehousing and some types of assembly work. This category also includes wholesaling and warehousing. ■ Governmental, Educational, and lns itutional Facilities (GEIFJ—Government buildings, libraries, schools and other public institutions are found in this category. Uses in this category support civic, cultural, and educational needs of residents. ■ Open Space —This category encompasses public and private recreational spaces, local and regional parks, and beaches. Recreational areas, such as golf courses, also contribute to open space uses in the Planning Area. ■ Vacant —Vacant lands are undeveloped lands (as of June 2003) that are not preserved in perpetuity as open space or for other public purposes. ■ Irlater--The bay, harbor, channels and reservoirs are included in this category. Existing land uses are listed below in Table 3-2. Proposed Land Use Changes Table 3-3 presents the proposed land uses for Newport Beach. As shown, City-wide changes would occur in the following land use categories: Residential (single- and multi -family), Commercial, Office, Industrial, Visitor Serving, Institutional, and Parks. In addition to the land uses listed in Table 3-3, 300 acres of Banning Ranch would be preserved as open space. Newport Beach is almost fully developed. Therefore, the General Plan focuses on how limited population and employment growth can be strategically accommodated to preserve the distinguishing and valued qualities of the community. For most of the City, the updated General Plan conserves the existing pattern of uses and establishes policies for protection and long-term maintenance of established neighborhoods. Generally, new development in accordance with the updated General Plan would result as re -use of economically underperforming properties and obsolete development, conversion of uses in response to market demand (e.g., office and industrial to residential) and more intense use of land in defined areas. Several subareas within Newport Beach determined to have special planning considerations were the subjects of special study during the update process. These areas are described below. The land use changes in each of the special study subareas, and citywide totals are presented in Table 3-3. It should be noted that the amount of development that could occur within the subareas does not add up to the citywide total because the subareas represent only 10.5% of the total land area of the City. City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 3'11 Chapter 3 Project Description Table Land Use Acres Percent oICNys Told Residential 6,436.0 41.6% Single -Family Detached 3,932.8 Single -Family Attached 625.3 Two -Family Residential 360.9 Multi -Family Residential 480,0 Mixed Residential 37.0 Commercial 1,164.6 8.8% Retail 3B2.0 Administrative; Professional, and Financial 473.0 Marine, and Auto Related 73.7 Visitor -serving 225.9 Industrial 114.4 0.9% Industrial 68.9 MuIO-Tenant Industrial 20:5 Industrial Business Park 25.0 Other 6,356.7 — Govemment,.Educational, Institutional Facilities 446.6 3.4% • Quasi -Public 53.5 0.4% • Right of Wa/Undesi nated 4:8 <1% Recreation & Environmental Open Space 4,516.4 34.6% Vacant Land a 1,260.2 9.6% Water 75.2 0.6% Total 13,061.7 100% SOURCE: EIP Associates GIs 2003 G The molodly of the vacant land represented in this table is within the Banning Ranch subarea. Subareas The proposed l and Use Element identifies the special study subareas as districts or corridors, depending on their physical form, functional role, and how they relate to the land or water adjoining them. Districts Districts are uniquely identifiable by their common functional role, mitt of uses, density/intensity, physical form and character, and/or environmentalsetting. Generally, they encompass areas that extend equally in length and breadth, While Newport Beach contains many subareas, the General Plan policies in the following areas focus on those that are likely to change over the next 20 years as existing viable land uses are enhanced, underperforming properties are revitalized, and opportunities are provided to accommodate the City's fair share of regional housing needs. Policies are directed to the management of these changes to assure that they complement the characteristics that are valued by Newport Beach's residents. 3.12 City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR Existing 12,616,827 453,530 266,270 3,592,080 5,513,429 0 22,920 305,540 97,740 Current GP 14,576,930 784,280 466,190 3,635,670 5,873,012 235,600 89,260 375,390 147,020 Proposed 12,867,500 1,025,865 294,725 3,675,670 4,911,197 0 12,000 80,656 185,696 Residential (dul MFR 21,477 2,472 188 245 0 0 178 8 292 8 Existing SFR(A) 18,702 108 820 0 1,191 257 384 Total Units 40,179 Z580 1,008 245 0 0 1,369 265 292 392 Current MFR 30,159 2,649 188 245 0 2,510 242 8 293 8 GP SFR(A) 19,570 98 837 225 1,190 352 584 Total Units 49,729 Z747 1,025 245 0 Z735 1,432 360 293 592 MFR 33,992 3,542 625 845 4,300 687 512 823 361 244 Proposed SFR(A) 20,402 98 837 688 1,196 291 579 Total Units 54,394 3,640 1,462 845 4,300 1 1,375 1,708 1 1,114 361 823 Commercial (sf) Existing 5,539,388 72,170 633,950 1,556,320 665,019 0 203,360 643,020 35,350 48,700 Current GP 7,412,132 72,170 779,800 1,861,980 871,500 50,000_ 217,340 669,110 50,030 66,380 Proposed 7,685,030 50,910 853,208 1,986,980 880,620 75,000 192,503 745,320 57,935 92,848 Visitor Serving (hotel -motel rooms) Existing 3,365 177 925 974 0 34 41 90 23 Current GP 5,676 204 1,110 984 0 34 41 90 53 Proposed 6,549 204 1,175 1,213 75 265 240 90 53 Industrial (sf) Existing 1,569,229 678,530 508,759 0 58,950 300 Current GP 2,234,242 1,191,722 551,930 164,400 0 0 Proposed 1,163,460 837,270 0 0 0 0 City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 3-13 Institutional (sf Existing 694,820 MUM 99,410 100,000 86,096 21,710 Current GP 893,213 1,235,797 105,260 105,000 97,000 32,010 Proposed 853,413 1,235,797 105,260 105,060 96,996 96.710 Parks (acres) Existing 133.5 0.2 0 Current GP 178.8 0.2 0 Proposed 254.7 1 30 3-14 City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR r Chapter 3 Project Description n 1 1 II I West Newport Mesa The Plan allows for the establishment of a number of distinct and cohesive districts. Adjoining Hoag Hospital and on the Newport Technology Center site, properties would be designated for medical -related uses including offices, labs, convalescent and long-term care facilities, and limited retail sales. At its northern edge abutting the City of Costa Mesa, properties would be encouraged to retain light manufacturing and research and development uses. Multi -family housing would be maintained and newly developed on underutilized residential, commercial, and industrial properties between these nodes. Newport Center/Fashion Island The Plan allows for expanded retail opportunities at Fashion Island, including an additional anchor department store and ancillary shops, another hotel or additions to existing hotels, and 600 additional housing units. Limited new capacity for office development (40,000 square feet) would be limited to minor expansion of existing buildings and could not be converted to retail use. Plan policies encourage improved pedestrian connections and streetscape amenities connecting the area's diverse districts John Wayne Airport Area The Plan allows for the maintenance and/or limited expansion of the currently developed mix of uses, including office, airport -supporting commercial, hotel, and public uses. Additionally, it allows the opportunity for the development of new residential neighborhoods as replacement of existing and allowed future uses and, in some cases, on underutilized surface parking lots. Policies establish criteria for the development of cohesive residential neighborhoods oriented around neighborhood parks and local - serving convenience commercial facilities and interconnected by a network of pedestrian -oriented streets. Banning Ranch The updated General Plan prioritizes the retention of the Banning Ranch property as open space, consolidating existing oil operations, restoring wetlands and habitat, and development of a community park with active playfields to serve adjoining neighborhoods. Should the property not be acquired for open space, the Plan considers the possible development of a mixed -density residential village, with housing oriented around a neighborhood park, convenience commercial, and small hotel, and preservation of the majority of the site as open space. Policies stipulate that any development would have to be located and designed to protect views, the bluffs, natural drainage, and important habitat. Balboa Peninsula The Plan differentiates Balboa Peninsula into a series of commercial, residential, mixed -use, and water - oriented districts. The Plan encourages enhancement of Lido Village as a pedestrian -oriented district of small retail shops, bay supporting uses, small lodging facilities (bed -and -breakfast and inns), and mixed - use buildings that integrate housing with retail uses. Properties inland of the bay front in Cannery Village containing a fragmented mix of housing, commercial, and industrial uses could be re -used as a primarily residential village of two family and townhome residential, with mixed -use and live/work structures at City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 3.15 intersections. Bay fronting properties east of Lafayette Avenue would continue to support water - dependent and marine -related uses. The Plan supports the retention of McFadden Square as an ocean and pier -oriented village containing visitor -serving retail, small overnight lodging facilities, and mixed -use buildings. The Newport Boulevard Corridor would contain retail commercial and mixed -use buildings. Policies provide for the development of improved streetscapes and a waterfront promenade to link the districts. Cumulatively, the updated General Plan would allow for reductions in the area's commercial and industrial capacity, which would be replaced by opportunities for new housing. For Balboa Village, the General Plan would' allow for the consolidation of commercial uses to enhance the area's economic vitality, which would be replaced by medium density housing (including townbomes and small4ot, attached single family) and mixed -use structures that would integrate housing with ground -level retail uses. Bay -fronting properties would be prioritized for matine-related and water -dependent uses. Programs for streetscape enhancements would be continued. Corridors Corridors share common characteristics of districts by their identifiable functional role, land use mix, density/intensity, physical form and character, and/or environmental setting. They differ in their linear configuration, generally with shallow depth parcels located along arterial streets. They are significantly impacted by traffic, often inhibiting access during peak travel periods. While the City is crossed by a number of commercial corridors, the General Plan's policies focus on those in which change is anticipated to occur during the next 20 years. Additionally, they provide guidance for the maintenance of corridors in which it is the objective to maintain existing types and levels of development. West Newport Highway Visitor- and neighborhood -serving commercial uses would be allowed in the area concentrated on the Pacific Coast Highway, near the Orange and Prospect Avenue intersections, with the intervening highway fronting properties developed for multi -family housing. The Plan encourages properties at the entry to the City to be enhanced as a "gateway" for amenities supporting Orange County River Park and/or new multi -family residential. Old Newport Boulevard The Plan allows for a mix of medical office and retail uses suppordng'Hoag Hospital, convenience retail, and mixed -use buildings that integrate housing with ground level retail or office uses on Old Newport Boulevard. Mariners' Mile The Plan provides for the differentiation of Mariners' Mile into distinct commercial, water -related, and mixed -use districts. Bayfronting properties would be prioritized for water -dependent and marine -related uses, including restaurants and service uses, with the development of housing on a limited portion of the properties. The Coast Highway frontages of all inland properties would be restricted to community - serving and marine -related commercial uses. Interior sites, generally between Riverside Avenue and the extension of Irvine Avenue, would be developed for neighborhood -serving commercial uses, mixed -use 3.16 City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR Chapter 3 Project Description buildings with housing above retail, and multi -family residential buildings. Streetscape improvements are proposed to enhance the area's pedestrian character, as well as its identity along Coast Highway. Policies also support the relocation of the City's parking lot and the Postal Distribution Center. Corona del Mar The Plan encourages development along this corridor to include a pedestrian -oriented "village" serving as the center of community commerce, culture, and social activity and providing identity for Corona del Mar. Other Land Use Changes While land use changes are proposed for other areas of the City by the updated General Plan, these areas would retain the basic land use character of existing uses. The area bounded by Irvine Avenue, 15`h Street, St. Andrews Road, and Coral Place is currently designated for multi -family and is developed with a mix of housing units, including older apartments, small lot units, and single-family detached units. The proposed General Plan Update would re -designate this area as single-family residential to allow for consistency with the current development trend in the area replacing higher -density apartments with small -lot residential and detached units. Along the southern frontage of Westcliff Drive, east of Irvine Avenue, and the western frontage of Dover Drive, south of Westcliff Drive the area would be re -designated from Administrative, Professional, and Financial Commercial uses to mixed use, allowing a mix of office and multi -family residential uses. Any new residential development in this area would be compatible with the existing residential uses behind these properties. The Caltrans Remnant property, bounded by the SR 73, MacArthur Boulevard, and University Drive is currently a vacant property and would be re -designated for commercial" use under the proposed General Plan Update. The north side of San Miguel Drive, east of San Joaquin Hills Road, and west of Newport Hills Drive, which is currently a single parcel formerly used as a child care facility, abutting muld-family residential uses, would be re -designated as multiple -family residential to be consistent with adjacent land uses. The property west of Big Canyon Reservoir, north of Pacific View Drive is currently developed with institutional (church) and senior affordable housing. Under the proposed General Plan Update, this area would be re -designated as multi -family residential also to promote consistency with adjacent land uses. 3.3.3 Transportation Improvements Several transportation -related improvements are included in the proposed General Plan Update. The improvements listed below in Table 3-4 would be implemented under the proposed General Plan Update to ensure that impacts resulting from buildout of the General Plan Update are minimized. City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 3-17 Chapter 3 Project Description 11 Intersection Adc tonal Intersection Improvements w1h holect 1. Bluff Rd. (NS) at Coast Hw. (EW) Provide two SB left -turn lanes and two SB right -turn lanes (2nd with overlap phase). Provide two EB left-tum lanes. Provide one WB right -turn lane. 2. 15th St. (NS) at Coast Hw. (EW) Provide 2nd SB right turn lane with overlap phase. Provide 2nd EB left turn lane. 3. Newport Bl. (NS) at Hospital Rd. (EW) Provide 2nd NB left turn lane. 4. Riverside Av. (NS) at Coast Hw. (EW) Provide 3rd EB through lane. 5. MacArthur Bi. (NS) at Campus Dr. (EW) Provide 2nd NB left turn lane. Restripe SB to provide 3.5 through lanes and 1.5 right turn lanes. 6. Von Karmen Av. (NS) at Campus Dr. (EW) Provide 2nd ES left turn lane. 7. Jamboree Rd. (NS) at Campus Dr, (EW) Provide NB 1st right turn lane with overlap phase. Provide 4th SB through lane. Provide WB right turn overlap phase for current right turn lane. B. Campus Dr. (NS) at Bristol St. N (EW) Provide 5th WB through lane, 9. Irvine Av. (NS) at Mesa Dr. (EW)—Funded Improvements University Dr. (EW) Provide 3rd NB through lane. Provide 3rd SB through lane. Provide 1st EB right turn lane. Provide 2nd WB left turn lane, Construct funded improvements, but EB right turn lane not necessary. Provide 3rd NB lhroughlane. Provide 3rd SB through lane. Restripe EB to include 1.5left turn lanes,1.5 through lanes, and 1 right turn lane. 10. Dover Dr. (NS) at Coast Hw. (EW) Provide 4th WB through lane. 11. MacArthur Bi. (NS) at Jamboree Rd, (EW) Provide 4th EB through lane. Provide 3rd WB left lurnlane. 12. Jamboree Rd. (NS) at Bristol St. S (EW) Provide 6th NB through lane. Provide 4th SB through lane. 13. MacArthur BI. (NS) at Ford Rd./Bonita Canyon Dr. (EM and San Joaquin Hills Rd, (EW) Provide 3rd SB left tum'lane. provide 3rd SB left turn lane. Provide 3rd EB left turn lane. Provide 4th NB ithrough lane. 3.3.4 Goals and Policy Changes The General Plan Update includes new policies in the Land Use Element, the Circulation Element, the Safety Element, the Natural Resources Element, and the Recreation Element. The new policies are briefly described below. Land Use Element The Land Use Element contains new General Plan policies related to Community Character. These policies encourage maintenance and enhancement of Newport Beach's residential neighborhoods, commercial districts, employment centers, corridors, and open spaces, and help assure that new development complements and reinforces these characteristics. New policies related to Urban Form are also contained in this Element These policies establish and reinforce a particular area's scale and development pattern. These policies are included in the General Plan Update to help establish or maintain physical and visual continuity and a sense of complete and identifiable neighborhoods and established strategies for areas of the City that require enhancement and revitalization. I J n 0 1 t u 3-18 City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR Chapter 3 Project Description ■ Circulation Element The Circulation Element contains new General Plan policies related to water transportation services and waterfront walkways. These policies encourage enhancement and maintenance of public water transportation services and expanded public water transportation uses and land support facilities. Policies related to waterfront walkways include encouraging the development of walk -ways along the Lido Marina Village boardwalk, along Rhine Channel, between Lido Village and Mariners' Mile, and along the Mariners' Mile waterfront. In addition, LOS policies for the intersections operating at unacceptable levels of service in the new Circulation Element are more clearly laid out compared to the Circulation Element of the existing General Plan. Recreation Element The Recreation Element contains new General Plan policies related to coastal recreation and support facilities. These policies encourage protection and enhancement of a wide range of recreational opportunities along the coast and beaches as well as the provision of adequate support facilities serving recreational opportunities within the coastal zone. The Recreation Element also contains policies that encourage the provision and maintenance of marine recreation related facilities that enhance the enjoyment of the City's natural resources and the provision and maintenance of public access for recreational purposes to the City's coastal resources. Many of these policies are in the existing Harbor and Bay element. Safety Element New General Plan policies related to hazardous materials, disaster planning, and coastal hazards are contained in the Safety Element. Policies related to hazardous materials minimize exposure of people and the environment to hazardous materials associated with methane gas extraction, oil operations, leaking underground storage tanks, and hazardous waste generators. Policies related to disaster planning include measures for effective emergency response to natural or human -induced disasters that minimizes the loss of life and damage to property, while also reducing disruptions in the delivery of vital public and private services during and following a disaster. Policies related to coastal hazards are included to ensure that adverse effects of coastal hazards related to tsunamis and rogue waves to people and property are minimized. 0 Natural Resources Element New General Plan policies related to water quality are contained in the Natural Resources Element. These policies establish the goal of enhancing and protecting the water quality of all natural water bodies, including coastal waters, creeks, bays, harbors, and wetlands. Additionally, the General Plan Update contains new policies related to management of the Upper Newport Bay. These policies help achieve the goal of protection and management of Upper Newport Bay commensurate with the standards applicable to our nation's most valuable natural resources. Many of these policies are in the existing Harbor and Bay Element. Other new policies in this element include measures related to air quality, archaeology and City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 3-19 paleontology, and energy conservation. Air Quality policies serve to reduce mobile source emissions, reduce air pollution emissions from stationary sources, and reduce air pollution emissions from aircraft. ■ Harbor and Bay The goals and policies in the existing Harbor and Bay Element will be retained as a separate element, and will also incorporate policies in the Land Use, Circulation, Recreation, Safety, and Natural Resources Elements of the General Plan Update. The goals and policies pertaining to Harbor and Bay issues are intended to guide the content of regulations related to development of, and the activities conducted on, the water. Additional goals and policies recognize the important component of land use decisions related to waterfront property around Newport Harbor. The aim of Harbor and Bay related goals and policies is to preserve the diversity and charm of existing uses without unduly restricting the rights of the waterfront property owner. Goals and policies related to the Harbor and Bay have been organized to address both water and land related issues. ■ Historical Resources Element This new Element addresses the protection and sustainability of Newport Beach's historic and paleontological resources. Goals and policies presented within this Element are intended to recognize, maintain, and protect the community's unique historical, cultural, and archaeological sites and structures. ■ Arts and Cultural Resources Element The goals and policies of the new Arts and Cultural Element are intended to be a guide for meeting the future cultural needs of the community. This Element is intended to serve as a mechanism for integrating these resources in order to provide improved and expanded arts and cultural facilities and programs to the community. ■ Alternatives In accordance with Section 15126.E of the CEQA Guidelines, alternatives to the proposed General Plan Update are analyzed. Four alternatives that would feasibly attain the most basic project objectives while avoidirig or substantially lessening some of the significant effects of the project were analyzed. An environmentally superior alternative is also identified. These alternatives include the following: ■ Alternative 1: No Project/No Development —With this alternative, development under the proposed General Plan Update would not occur. The Planning Area would remain developed with existing land uses. Y Alternative 2: No Project/No Action (Existing General Plan) —With this alternative, development under the proposed General Plan Update would not occur. Development would be guided by continued implementation of the ex isting,General Plan. ■ Alternative 3: GPAC Recommendations —With this alternative, development under the General Plan would consist of the land use recommendations formulated by GPAC. The Alternatives Chapter of the EIR will provide a detailed breakdown of the proposed land uses under this Alternative. 3.20 City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR ' Chapter 3 Project Description ■ Alternative 4: Subarea Only Minimum —With this alternative, development under the General Plan would consist of a mixture of land -use intensities for the various subareas. The Alternatives ' Chapter of the EIR will provide a detailed breakdown of the proposed land uses under this Alternative. II II II II II II II II i1 ' City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 3-21 I ' 4.0 INTRODUCTION TO ANALYSIS I 1 F 0 This section provides an overview of the analysis that is provided in Chapter 4. Existing Conditions This subsection describes existing conditions that may be subject to change as a result of implementation of the proposed General Plan Update. This subsection provides the context for assessing potential environmental impacts resulting from implementation of the General Plan Update. ■ Thresholds of Significance Before potential impacts are evaluated for significance, the threshold that will serve as the basis for judging impact significance is presented. Thresholds of Significance used for the evaluation of impacts include those thresholds presented in Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines. The City of Newport Beach relies on these thresholds as those that are appropriate for evaluating the significance of impacts in the City. ■ Regulatory Framework Regional and statewide regulations that govern development activities that are designed to ensure protection of resources, public and private property, and the local population are described. Examples of these regulations include the 2003 Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP), Uniform Building Code, and National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit system, among others. ■ Impacts The project impacts discussion describes potential consequences to each resource that would result from implementation of the General Plan Update. Potential environmental impacts have been classified in the following categories: ■ Less Than Significant —Results in no substantial adverse change to existing environmental conditions ■ Potentially Significant —Constitutes a substantial adverse change to existing environmental conditions that can be mitigated to less -than -significant levels by implementation of feasible mitigation measures or by the selection of an environmentally superior project alternative ' City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 4-1 Chapter 4 Environmental Analysts Significant and Unavoidable —Constitutes a substantial adverse change to existing environmental conditions that cannot be fully mitigated by implementation of all feasible mitigation measures, or by the selection of an environmentally superior project alternative ■ Cumulative Impacts This discussion (contained within each environmental resource section of Chapter 4) describes potential impacts from the proposed General Plan Update which, in combination with development in the area, surrounding the Planning Area. In many cases, development under the General Plan Update serves as the context for cumulative analysis, as it includes all development within the Planning Area over the next 25 years. For some environmental resource areas, however, the cumulative context extends beyond the borders of the Planning Area and may be the boundaries of a particular service provider (such as the Irvine Ranch Water District) or the entire County. M Mitigation Measures and Residual Impacts If potential impacts are considered potentially significant and it is determined that implementation of General Plan policies would not reduce impacts, mitigation measures are proposed to reduce or avoid these impacts. This section also describes the level of significance of impacts following the implementation of inhdgadon measures. Impacts are defined as either significant but mitigable or significant and unavoidable. Significant but midgable impacts are those impacts that could be reduced to a less -than -significant level with the incorporation of mitigation measures. Significant and unavoidable impacts are those impacts that would remain significant either due to the unavailability of feasible mitigation measures to reduce impacts or inability for mitigation measures to reduce impacts to a less - than -significant level. 4-2 City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR ' 4.1 Aesthetics and Visual Quality 1 J 1 4.1 AESTHETICS AND VISUAL QUALITY 4.1.1 Introduction This section describes current visual conditions in and around the City of Newport Beach and evaluates the potential aesthetic and visual impacts of the proposed General Plan Update. Data for this section were taken from the 2004 Technical Background Report, the 2005 Local Coastal Program, and other documents prepared for the City. During the Initial Study process, it was determine that the proposed project could have potentially significant impacts related to effects on a scenic vista or degradation of existing visual character of the project area. It was also determined during the Initial Study process impacts related to damage to scenic resources within a State scenic highway and creation of new sources of light and glare would be less than significant. However, all CEQA criteria were analyzed in this Draft EIR. Full bibliographic entries for all reference materials are provided in Section 4.1.6 (References) of this section. One comment letter associated with hazards and hazardous materials was received in response to the Initial Study/Notice of Preparation (IS/NOP) circulated for the proposed General Plan Update. The John Wayne Airport GWA) requested that the DEIR provide an analysis of obstruction lighting and marking requirements, considering JWA's existing and future airport operations and the proximity of this subarea to this airport. 4.1.2 Existing Conditions Visual resources are an important component of the quality of life of any geographic area. As users experience a place, their primary sensory interaction with that place is visual in nature, and a wide variety of shapes, colors, and textures, composed by topography, structures, roadways, and vegetation, forms the views of and from the City. The City of Newport Beach is sited on a coastal plain and is bounded on three sides by developed urban lands of Huntington Beach, Costa Mesa, and Irvine. The rolling green hills of Crystal Cove State Park create views to the east and form the City boundary at the east, while the Pacific Ocean fills the views to the southwest. Development in Newport Beach has been designed to capture views of the ocean, capitalizing on the ridgelines and hillsides as vantage points. The Upper and Lower Newport Bay, draining an area of 118 square miles via the San Diego Creek and Santa Ana Delhi Channel, bisects the City, and creates a dominant physical land feature that includes estuaries, beaches, the harbor, coastal bluffs, and meandering waterways unique to Newport Beach. From the higher elevations in the City, views to the north include the San Joaquin Hills and, in the distance, the Santa Ana Mountains. This combination of hills, canyons, bluffs, and water features create a visually dynamic landscape. 1 City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 4.1-1 Chapter 4 Environmental Analysis ■ Open Space Open space areas provide visual relief from urbanized areas and scenic view opportunities for motorists, pedestrians, and residents. Open space is distributed throughout Newport Beach including the beach, bay, parks and underdeveloped areas such as Banning Ranch, and canyons, hillsides, and bluffs of Newport Ridge/Coast. Ocean/Harbor/Bay Water bodies constitute a major aesthetic asset as the ocean, creeks, and bay can be seen from many parts of Newport Beach. The Pacific Ocean provides the predominant visual setting for the majority of Newpores scenic attributes. The ocean can be seen from residences atop coastal bluffs and hilltop ridges, from the upper floors of offices and hotel buildings, and can be enjoyed by visitors of the beaches, Fashion Island, and from some of the major north/south corridors. Associated with the ocean, the bay and harbor areas also provide picturesque natural and nautical views. These waterways provide scenic elements such as estuaries, small islands, beaches, coastal bluffs, channels, tide pools, the harbor, etc. At a larger scale, they also provide sweeping views. Newport Beach includes many areas that are environmentally sensitive in nature. Many of these are water -associated habitats such as marine intertidal and subtidal, riparian, or marsh areas. Intertidal areas consist of platform intertidal reefs and pocket sandy beaches, with conspicuous offshore rocks, stacks, and arches. Undeveloped plant and animal habitat areas provide attractive landscapes that also contribute to the City's visual quality. The habitat areas listed below (partial list) contribute to the City's visual resources, and are also discussed in the Biological Resources Section (Section 4.3): ■ Semeniuk Slough '(Santa Ana River Marsh) ■ North Star Beach ■ West Bay ■ Upper Newport Bay Ecological Reserve and DeAnza/Bayside Marsh Peninsula ■ San Diego Creek ■ Buck Gully Coastal Views Newport Beach is located in a unique physical setting that provides a variety of spectacular coastal views, including those of the open waters of the ocean and bay, harbor, sandy beaches, rocky shores, wedands, canyons, and coastal bluffs. The City has historically been sensitive to the need to protect and provide access to these scenic and visual resources and has developed a system of public parks, piers, trails, and viewing areas. Coastal views are also provided from a number of streets and highways and, due to the grid street pattern in West Newport, Balboa Peninsula, Balboa Island, Newport Heights, and Corona del Mar, many north/south-tending streets provide view corridors to the ocean and bay. Figures 4.1-1 through 4.1-3 show prominent coastal viewing locations throughout the City as identified through public view points and coastal view roads. 4.1-2 City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR , 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 CITY of NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL PLAN UPDATE EIR Figure 4.1-1 M COASTAL VIEWS AP 1 OF 3 (WEST NEWPORT AREA) Legend Public View Point ti Coastal View Road ,•. Coastal Zone Boundary �•.. City Boundary 0%, Shoreline Height Limitation Zone Proposed Park K Public Beach or Park g M ea 9w� ga1rwpon �++M`.� ^a.rsn F.eaL wu�N. coos F.W N lw6 EIP 1 1 1 i 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 i 1 1 1 1 1 CITY of NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL PLAN UPDATE EIR Figure 4.1-2 COASTAL VIEWS MAP 2 OF 3 (UPPER NEWPORT BAY) Legend Public View Point Coastal View Road Coastal Zone Boundary City Boundary Shoreline Height Limitation Zone Proposed Park Public Beach or Park Yda: GE LW RClacltn � G SMe Pgro. ItYw O. WA9d. Foef. g EIP A Cay or Costa Mesa Cdy alnme cy of Laguna eeacn '. r i CF/A NNEC G CITY of NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL PLAN UPDATE EIR Figure 4.1-3 COASTAL VIEWS MAP 3 OF 3 (HARBOR AREA) Legend Public View Point f'\.l Coastal View Road Coastal Zone Boundary J City Boundary �*, Shoreline Height Limitation Zone {;. Proposed Park K Public Beach or Park I We:G o fte C Ave Penal 6.W 3.F g 1 Mlles hate: ara rrarrc i aeacn;+bn r+awvnweaL t+Pe. ems. I M.O3 W.1mN I 7]1 & EIP 4.1 Aesthetics and Visual Qualify I Scenic Coastal Vistas The wide-open vistas in the City of Newport Beach are associated with natural features, such as the ocean and bay, both dominant visual images within the City. Internally, north/south, streets provide unique vistas that characterize individual neighborhoods. Significant vistas, as identified in the City's Local Coastal Program, include public coastal views from the following roadway segments: ■ Avocado Avenue from San Joaquin Hills Road to Coast Highway ■ Back Bay Drive ■ Balboa Island Bridge ■ Bayside Drive from Coast Highway to Linda Island Drive ■ Bayside Drive at Promontory Bay ■ Coast Highway/Santa Ana River Bridge ■ Coast Highway/Newport Boulevard Bridge and Interchange ■ Coast Highway from Newport Boulevard to Marino Drive (Bayshores) ■ Coast Highway/Newport Bay Bridge ■ Coast Highway from Jamboree Road to Bayside Drive ■ Coast Highway from Pelican Point Drive to city limits ■ Eastbluff Drive from Jamboree Road to Back Bay Drive ■ Irvine Avenue from Santiago Drive to University Drive ■ Jamboree Road from Eastbluff Drive/University Drive to Bayview Way ■ Jamboree Road in the vicinity of the Big Canyon Park ■ Jamboree Road from Coast Highway to Bayside Drive ■ Lido Island Bridge ■ MacArthur Boulevard from San Joaquin Hills Road to Coast Highway ■ Marguerite Avenue from San Joaquin Hills Road to Fifth Avenue ■ Newport Boulevard from Hospital Road/Westminster Avenue to Via Lido ■ Newport Center Drive from Newport Center Drive E/W to Farallon Drive/Granville Drive ■ Newport Coast from Pelican Hill Road North to Coast Highway ■ Ocean Boulevard ■ Pelican Hills Road South ■ San Joaquin Hills Road from Newport Ridge Drive to Spyglass Hill Road ■ San Miguel Drive from San Joaquin Hills Road to MacArthur Boulevard ■ State Route 73 from Bayview Way to the easterly city limit ■ Superior Avenue from Hospital Road to Coast Highway ■ University Drive from Irvine Avenue to the Santa Ana —Delhi Channel ■ Vista Ridge Road from Ocean Heights to Altezza Drive Topographic Features Newport Beach, particularly the coastal zone, contains distinctive topographic features such as bluffs, cliffs, hillsides, canyons, and other significant natural landforms, which play an important part of the scenic and visual qualities of the City. The central and northwestern pardons of the City are situated on a broad mesa that extends southeastward to join the San Joaquin Hills, commonly known as Newport Mesa. This upland has been deeply dissected by stream erosion, resulting in moderate to steep bluffs along the Upper Newport Bay estuary, one of the most striking and biologically diverse natural features in Orange County. The nearly flat-topped mesa rises from about 50 to 75 feet above mean sea level at City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 4.1-9 Chapter 4 Environmental Analysis the northern end of the estuary in the Santa Ana Heights area, to about 100 feet above sea level in the Newport Heights, Westcliff, and Eastbluff areas. Along the southwestern margin of the City, sediments flowing from the Santa Ana River and San Diego Creek, the two major drainage courses that transect the mesa, have formed the beaches, sandbars, and mudflats of Newport Bay and West Newport. In the southern part of the City, the San Joaquin Hills rise abruptly from the sea, separated from the present shoreline by a relatively flat, narrow shelf. Originally formed by wave abrasion, this terrace is now elevated well above the water and is bounded by steep bluffs along the shoreline. The coastal platform occupied by Corona Del Mar ranges from about 95 to 100 feet above sea level. Mountains and Canyons The Santa Ana Mountains are located northeast of the City. The San Joaquin Hills frame the City's easterly border. The Santa Ana Mountains are within the Cleveland National Forest and provide long- range views, forming the northern backdrop to the City. Views of these mountains are particularly significant from the newer developments on the City's northern side. Slopes rising up from coastal plains provide a dramatic contrast to the generally flat topography at the coastline and visually dominate the majority of the relatively low -scale urban development at the beachfront. Canyons and gullies formed by water coursing from the mountains to the ocean similarly provide stunning contrast to the coastal tidelands and beaches. The majority of the undeveloped headlands lie in the eastern portion of the City in the area known as Newport Coast/Ridge. Within the coastal zone, Big Canyon, Buck Gully, and Morning Canyon comprise the three significant canyons with steep slopes and vegetation which provide distinctive features on the shoreline. Big Canyon is protected as a nature park. However, Buck Gully and Morning Canyon are under private ownership and there is extensive residential development on the slopes of both canyons. In addition to these three canyons, Ridge Park, Los Trancos, Muddy Canyon, and Pelican Hill also contribute to the topographic landforms that render spectacular views of the City. Coastal Bluffs Coastal bluffs are a prominent landform in Newport Beach and are considered significant scenic and environmental resources. There are ocean facing coastal bluffs along the shoreline of Corona del Mar, Shorecliffs, and Cameo Shores. There are also coastal bluffs facing the wetlands of Upper Newport Bay, Semeniuk Slough, and the degraded wetlands of the Banning Ranch property. Lower Newport Bay In, addition, coastal bluffs surround Lower Newport Bay. These can be seen along Coast Highway from the Semeniuk Slough to Dover Drive, along Bayside Drive in Irvine Terrace, and in Corona del Mar above the Harbor Entrance. These bluffs faced the open ocean before the Balboa Peninsula formed and are now generally separated from the shoreline. 4.1.10 City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR , 11 �1 !J Upper Newport Bay Most of the coastal bluff top lands have been subdivided and developed over the years. However, many have been preserved as parkland and other open space. Also, most of the faces of the coastal bluff surrounding the Upper Newport Bay have been protected by dedication to the Upper Newport Bay Nature Preserve or dedicated as open space as part of planned residential developments. Eastbluff Remnant, Mouth of Big Canyon, Castaways, Newporter North, and Newport Beach Marine Life Refuge are undeveloped open spaces. In other areas, including Newport Heights, Cliff Haven, Irvine Terrace, Corona del Mar, Shorecliffs, and Cameo Shores, the coastal bluffs fall within conventional residential subdivisions. Development on these lots occurs mainly on a lot -by -lot basis. As a result, some coastal bluffs remain pristine and others are physically or visually obliterated by structures, landform alteration or landscaping. Residential development has begun to affect coastal bluff areas due to the siting and scale of some new and renovated homes. While some development has maintained the natural character of the coastal bluffs, other developments have been larger and more visually prominent, potentially impacting views of those bluffs. Parks and View Parks The City currently contains more than forty parks, in addition to ecological preserves and beaches, which together provide more than 441 acres of parkland and passive open space. Recreation and open space are discussed in greater detail in Chapter 4.12 (Recreation and Open Space) of this EIR. A portion of the Crystal Cove State Park is also within the City and provides open space views for Newport Beach residents. Much of the built environment within the City is scenic because of its setting, the presence of low-rise buildings that preserve views, and wide landscaped roadways. View parks have been created specifically to take advantage of a significant view. View parks are small, one-half to three acre in size passive parks, and are often located on coastal bluffs to focus upon ocean or bay views. View parks in Newport Beach include the following: ■ West Newport. The Sunset View Park provides an ocean view trail along the bluff top above the lower campus of Hoag Hospital. This park is accessible from Superior Avenue. ■ Newport Heightsl CliHaven. Cliff Drive Park, Ensign Park, and Kings Road Park are located on the bluff top above Mariners' Mile and Coast Highway. These parks provide views of the Lower Bay and the Pacific Ocean. Cliff Drive Park and Ensign Park are accessible from Cliff Drive. Kings Road Park is accessible from Kings Road. ■ Corona del Mar. The park begins at Lookout Point above Pirate's Cove and runs along Ocean Boulevard to Inspiration Point at the end of Orchid Avenue. ■ Upper Newport Bay. Castaways Park is a 17.4-acre view park. Castaways Park has bike and hiking trails and overlooks that provide panoramic views of the Newport Bay and the Pacific Ocean. Castaways Park is accessible from Dover Drive and Polaris Drive. Castaways Park contains environmentally sensitive habitats, which are separated and protected from public recreation and viewing areas. ' City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 4.1-11 Chapter 4 Environmental Analysis ■ Upper Back Ba % An 11-acre passive open space and view park is located on the bluff above the Newport Dunes. Upper Back Bay View Park is located at the northwest corner of the intersection of Coast Highway and Jamboree Road. This park provides views of the bay and serves as a staging area for bicyclists and pedestrians. ■ 1Y/estcgPaik, Galaxy Park, and Bayoiew Park ate bluff -top parks that provide views of the Upper Newport Bay. Westcliff Park is accessible from Polaris Drive. Galaxy Park is accessible from Galaxy Drive. Bayview Park is accessible from Mesa Drive. ■ The UpperNmport Bay Nature Preseme is a 140-acre regional park that surrounds the Upper Newport Bay Ecological Preserve. The park provides hiking, bike, and equestrian trails and is accessible from Irvine Avenue, University Drive, Bayview Way,. and Back Bay Drive. ■ Newporter IOWI is a 12-acre passive open space area located on the bluff above Shellmaker Island. The 4-acre Newporter North View Park is adjacent and provides a bluff top trail and overlook. The Newport North View Park is accessible from San Joaquin Hills Road. Both areas are part of the Newporter North ESA and the provision of additional public access must be consistent with the protection of natural resources in this area. Undeveloped Land The Banning Ranch property is located primarily on unincorporated County of Orange land and is surrounded by the City of Newport Beach. For at least 50 years, the site has been used as an oil production field. Today, the site contains the remnants of old wells and pipelines. Some oil production, however, still occurs on site. The site is characterized by a mesa area, coastal bluffs, and lowlands, which are part of the Santa Ana River floodplain. While the site is degraded considerably, its scenic quality as a "natural" area has been identified as contributing to Newport Beach's scenic resources. The protected canyons, hills, and bluffs of the eastern portion of the city are also recognized for their scenic quality. As identified previously under Mountains and Ridges, topographic landforms of the Newport Coast and Newport Ridge region contribute significantly to the aesthetic quality that residents value. The canyons and hillsides associated with Buck Gully, Morning Canyon, Ridge Park, Los Trancos, Muddy Canyon, and Pelican Hill provide impressive views for visitors and residents. The Irvine Ranch Land Reserve contains more than 50,000 acres of permanently protected open space in Orange County. The reserve includes portions of the Upper Newport Bay and large pardons of Newport Coast and Newport Ridge. In addition, Crystal Cove State Park is also located within the reserve area, but is publicly -owned as a State Park. ■ Urban Visual Character While scenic vistas encompass long range views and often emphasize large-scale natural features, viewers are also affected by their more immediate visual surroundings. Local aesthetics, typically found on a neighborhood level, comprise the City's urban visual character. Development densities and types, distinctive neighborhoods and commercial districts, unique architectural elements, prominent public institutions/landmarks, and other elements all contribute to the City's unique aesthetic quality. 4.1-12 City of Newport Beach General Plan,Update EIR ' ', Development Patterns The City of Newport Beach ranges in development intensity from highly developed to relatively pristine. Older neighborhoods in the southwestern part of the City, particularly those along the Balboa Peninsula, have small lots and mixed commercial and residential land uses. In the eastern part of the city, development is less dense and is predominantly single-family residential. Compact, highly developed areas are often visually complex, containing many buildings, signs and landscape elements within a small space. Less dense areas contain fewer buildings and due to space between buildings, may provide relatively more views of the surrounding natural areas. Many of the City's commercial neighborhoods are auto -oriented, with wide streets, and visible parking lots/structures. Pedestrian neighborhoods in Newport Beach tend to have fewer parking lots, smaller scale buildings, and more architectural details than auto -oriented districts. Many of the pedestrian neighborhoods, especially those along the coast, contain older architecture and visually prominent tourist amenities (for example, the Fun Zone in Balboa Village). As previously noted, many open spaces have been preserved, notably at Newport Coast and Ridge, along the coast, around Newport Bay, and in Crystal Cove State Park. On a neighborhood scale, parks provide greenspace and visual relief from the built environment and are an important element of the City's visual character. Scenic Highways California's Scenic Highway Program was created by the Legislature in 1963. Its purpose is to preserve and protect scenic highway corridors from change that would diminish the aesthetic value of lands adjacent to highways. Scenic corridors typically pertain to highways and visible lands outside the highway right-of-way generally described as the view from the road. There are no officially designated scenic vistas or scenic highways within Newport Beach. However, State Route 1 (SR-1) is identified as Eligible for State Scenic Highway designation. A State scenic highway changes from eligible to officially designated when the local jurisdiction adopts a scenic corridor protection program, applies to the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) for scenic highway approval, and receives notification from Caltrans that the highway has been designated as a Scenic Highway. The city must also adopt ordinances to preserve the scenic quality of the corridor or document such regulations that already exist in local codes. The City identifies coastal views such as Coastal View Roads and Public View Points. These areas are identified in the Coastal Land Use Plan Coastal Views Figure 4.1-1 through Figure 4.1-3. ® Light and Glare The City of Newport Beach is primarily built -out; therefore, a significant amount of ambient light from urban uses already exists. Similar to other developed urban areas, sources of light and glare include neon signs, glass building facades, streetlights, parking lot lighting, automotive headlights, etc. '1 City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 4.1-13 Chapter 4 Environmental Analysis 4.1.3 Regulatory Setting ■ Federal No existing federal regulations pertain to the visual resources within the proposed General Plan Update area. ■ State California Coastal Act Policy 30251 According to the California Coastal Act Policy 30251, the scenic and visual qualities of coastal areas shall be considered and protected as resources of public importance. Permitted development shall be sited and designed to protect views to and along the ocean and scenic coastal areas to minimize the alteration of natural land forms, to be visually compatible with the character of surrounding areas, and, where, feasible, to restore and enhance visual quality in visually degraded areas. New development in highly scenic areas such as those designated in the California Coastline Preservation and Recreation Plan prepared by the Department of Parks and Recreation and by local government shall be subordinate to the character of its setting.; Caltrans Scenic Highways The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) defines a scenic highway as any freeway, highway, road, or other public right -of --way, that traverses an area of exceptional scenic quality. Suitability for designation as a State Scenic Highway is based on vividness, intactness, and unity. As discussed previously, there are no officially designated scenic highways within Newport Beach. ■ Local Shoreline Height Limitation zone Concern over the intensity of development around Lower Newport Bay led to the adoption of a series of ordinances in the early 1970's that established more restrictive height and bulk development standards around the bay. The intent was to regulate the visual and physical mass of structures consistent with the character and visual scale of Newport Beach. As a result, new development within the Shoreline Height Limitation Zone is limited to a height of 35 feet. Residential development is limited to a height of 24 to 28 feet and non-residential development is limited' to a height of 26 to 35 feet. Outside of the Shoreline Height Limitation Zone, heights up to 32 feet are permitted within the planned community districts. There is also one property, the Newport Beach Marriott Hotel in Newport Center, which is in the coastal zone and also within the High Rise Height Limitadon Zone, which permits heights up to 375 feet. } California Coastal Act of1976 —Article 6 - Section 30251 PRC, http://tvtvw.coastal.ca.gov/fedcd/cach3.pdf, Accessed February 2, 2006. 4.1.14 City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR I 4.1 Aesthetics and Visual Quality Floor Area Ratios Floor areas are strictly limited citywide. In the coastal zone, residential development is limited to floor areas ranging from 1.5 to 2.0 times the buildable area of the parcel (the land minus required setback yards), which typically translates to actual floor area ratios of 0.95 to 1.35. Nonresidential development floor area ratios range from 0.30 to 1.25. Signs and Utilities The City recently adopted new sign regulations. These sign regulations include limitations on freestanding signs and prohibit roof signs, which have the greatest,potential to impact coastal and scenic visual resources. In some of the older neighborhoods, electrical, telephone, and other utility lines are still located above ground. The City requires utilities to be placed underground in all new developments and has ongoing programs to remove and underground overhead utilities through the establishment of underground utility assessment districts. 4.1.4 Thresholds of Significance The following thresholds of significance are based on Appendix G of the 2005 CEQA Guidelines. For purposes of this EIR, implementation of the proposed project would have a significant adverse impact on aesthetic/visual quality if it would result in any of the following: ■ Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista ■ Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a State scenic highway ■ Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings ■ Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views 4.1.5 Project Impacts, Mitigation Measures, and Proposed Policies Effects Not Found to Be Significant The IS/NOP prepared for the proposed project did not identify any effects not found to be significant associated with Aesthetics and Visual Quality. Therefore, all thresholds are addressed in this section. City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 4.1-15 Chapter 4 Environmental Analysis ■ Project Impacts Threshold Would the proposed project have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? Impact 4.1-1 Scenic vistas could potentially be obstructed as the result of new development. Although there are no officially designated scenic vistas in the City, many natural features such as the ocean and bay provide open coastal views. As discussed previously, the City has identified particular roadway segments that provide coastal views as significant vistas. In addition, parks and viewing areas throughout the City also provide significant views. While future development within the City would generally consist of infill and intensification of uses within a primarily built -out area, development under the proposed project could affect views to the identified vistas. Specifically, if new developments blocked' or obscured views from any of the significant public viewpoints, then impacts would be potentially significant. However, development projects would undergo further environmental and design review on a project - by -project basis to ensure that scenic vistas and resources are not adversely affected. In addition, policies outlined in the proposed General Plan Update would protect scenic vistas in the City. In particular, Policy NR 22.1 would maintain the Shoreline Height Limitation Zone to protect views of the water, and could consider amending the boundary of this Zone where public views would not be impacted. For example, Policy LU 6.19.13 would consider the modification of the boundary of the Shoreline Height Limitation Zone (26) to accommodate higher mixed use buildings, where these are located adjacent to bluffs and the viewshed "envelope" is maintained. Policy NR 20.3 would protect and enhance public views from the roadway segments identified previously that provide significant vistas. Policy LU 1.1, Policy LU 1.6, and Policy NR 20.1 require that views from public areas be preserved and where, feasible, enhanced. In addition, Policy LU 6.19.9 requires that buildings be located and sites designed to provide adequate and unobstructed views significant visual corridors of the Bay from Coast Highway (Marinets' Mile). Further, new development would also be required to protect existing scenic areas. For example, under Policy NR 20.2, new development would be requited to restore and enhance the visual quality in visually degraded areas, where feasible, and provide view easements or corridors designed to protect public views or to restore public views in developed areas, where appropriate. Policy NR 20.4 would design and site new development, including landscaping, on the edges of public view corridors, including those down public streets, to frame, accent, and minimize impacts to public views. As such, existing and future development would be regulated by the proposed General Plan Update policies, and scenic vistas would not be adversely affected. Therefore, impacts to scenic vistas wouldbe less than significant. Threshold Would the proposed project substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a State scenic highway? Implementation of the proposed General Plan Update would not degrade scenic resources within a state- or locally designated scenic highway or corridor. 4.1-16 City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 4.1 Aesthetics and Visual Quality As discussed previously, there are currently no officially designated scenic highways within the City of Newport Beach. However, SR-1 is identified by the City as eligible for State Scenic Highway designation. A State scenic highway changes from "eligible" to "officially designated" when the local jurisdiction adopts a scenic corridor protection program, applies to Caltrans for scenic highway approval, and receives notification from Caltrans that the highway has been designated as a Scenic Highway. The City must also adopt ordinances to preserve the scenic quality of the corridor or document that such regulation already exists in local codes. If in the future, the City decides to pursue these actions, it would also be required to take actions to preserve views within the corridor. However, these procedures are beyond the scope of the proposed General Plan Update. Consequently, because no scenic highways are currently designated within the City, implementation of the proposed General Plan Update would have no impact. Threshold Would the proposed project substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? Impact 4.1-2 Development under the proposed General Plan Update could change the visual character of portions of the City. The proposed General Plan Update provides more direct aesthetic guidance compared to the existing General Plan. The proposed land use changes tend to establish the aesthetic character of an area. While all land uses would be required to adhere to appropriate design and height guidelines associated with land use designations, the General Plan Update establishes policies (such as community character) that are area -specific. As discussed below, the proposed General Plan Update clearly defines (both physically and visually) the community character of the City in various subareas, and sets forth urban form policies to ensure that the City retains its unique aesthetic qualities that its residents value. Urban Areas The proposed General Plan Update would concentrate infill development and redevelopment in several specified subareas including Newport Center/Fashion Island, Balboa Village, Balboa Peninsula, West Newport Mesa, West Newport Highway, Mariners' Mile, and the Airport Area as well as in a few smaller areas throughout the remainder of the City. In addition, as discussed further below under the Open Space Areas sub -section of this impact, while the proposed General Plan Update prioritizes the retention of the Banning Ranch property as open space, the proposed project also considers the possible development of a mixed density residential village should the property not be acquired for open space. Visual Quality Some of the identified subareas would not be considered areas with existing high visual or scenic quality. Examples of conditions that may currently detract from local visual character include: building facades that are faded and in poor repair, sparse or under -maintained landscaping, poorly maintained mobile homes, and dated or incongruent architecture (which could be historic, though not currently distinguished as such). In areas such as this, which are typically economically underperforming, proposed General Plan Update Policy LU 3.2, aims to enhance existing neighborhoods, districts, and corridors, City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 4.1-17 Chapter 4 Environmental Analysts allowing for re -use and infill with uses that are complementary in type, forth, scale, and character. In addition, the proposed General Plan Update would aim to improve aesthetics in these areas through both redevelopment and incentives for others to improve maintenance. For example, the West Newport Highway area would be subject to Policies LU 6.17.3 and 6.17.4, which would provide redevelopment incentives for commercial properties as well as improved visual image and quality, respectively. Further, Policy NR 20.2 would require new development to restore and enhance the visual quality in visually degraded areas, where feasible, and provide view easements of corridors designed to protect public views or to restore public views in developed areas, where appropriate. Other subareas are considered to have high existing visual quality. The architecture and landscaping is attractive, the area is visually diverse, and the different land uses in the area are harmoniously arranged so as to complement neighboring uses. Corona del Mar and Newport Center/Fashion Island are areas that might be considered to have high overall visual quality. In these areas, new development allowed under the proposed General Plan Update would be done in such a way as to fit into the existing visual setting. Policy LU 1.1 requires that new development "maintain and enhance" existing development. Proposed New Uses Mixed Use In addition to enhancing existing development, mixed -use development which is relatively new in the City, is a more prominent theme permitted within the identified subareas. Mixed -use developments integrate housing and commercial or office uses in proximity to one another, and tend to unify fragmented areas. While mixed -use developments could represent a change to the existing visual setting of urban areas, the community character and the associated aesthetics of urban infill development could be enhanced by these new districts. For example, Policy LU 5.3.1 requires that mixed -use buildings be designed to convey a high level of architectural and landscape quality and ensures compatibility among their uses in consideration of various principles, including the visual and physical integration of residential and non-residential uses. High -Density Residential Another new use proposed under the General Plan Update includes higher density residential development in the Newport Center/Fashion Island area, the Airport Area and West Newport Mesa. Proposed General Plan Update policies would ensure that these new uses would not interrupt the existing aestheric setting of the City, and instead, would provide for more pedestrian -oriented features. In Newport Center/Fashion Island, Policy LU 6.14.4 would encourage some new development to be located and designed to orient to the inner side of Newport Center Drive, establishing physical and visual continuity that would diminish the dominance of surface parking lots and encourage pedestrian activity. Pedestrian access and connections among uses would also be encouraged and improved through Policy LU 6.14.5, with the provision of additional walkways and streetscape amenities concurrent with the development of expanded and new uses. Further, visual and physical connectivitywith adjoining uses would be provided through Policy LU 6.14.6, where new buildings shall be located on axes connecting Newport Center Drive with existing buildings. 4.1-18 City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 4.1 Aesthetics and Visual Quality In the Airport Area, Policy LU 6.15.7 would encourage and, when subject to redevelopment, require property owners within the Campus Tract to upgrade the street frontages of their properties with landscape, well -designed signage, and other amenities that improve the area's visual quality. Additional General Plan policies (LU 6.15.10 through 6.15.14) guide the minimum size, density, and process of allowed residential development within the Airport Area. Consequently, the higher density residential development that would be permitted in these areas would have policies guiding and regulating the visual and aesthetic character of the development to ensure compatibility. Defining features of both areas would include more buildings and fewer surface parking lots. Summary Proposed General Plan Update policies (both City-wide and area -specific) would establish criteria for the development of cohesive neighborhoods oriented around neighborhood parks and local -serving commercial facilities, interconnected by a network of pedestrian -oriented streets. A citywide policy example includes Policy NR 22.2, which would continue to regulate the visual and physical mass of structures consistent with the unique character and visual scale of Newport Beach. An area -specific policy example includes Policy LU 6.19.6 for Mariners' Mile, which would implement landscape, signage, lighting, sidewalk, pedestrian crossing, and other amenities in order visually define the corridors' identity and quality. All new developments would undergo a subsequent environmental review consisting of a case -by -case analysis of visual impacts. In addition to policies listed above, the proposed General Plan Update would include policies associated with aesthetic improvements such as landscaping, pedestrian amenities, and design standards for architecture and lighting. Not only would developments be required to conform to General Plan Update standards, they would also be subject to existing building and development standards specified in the City's Municipal Code, and in many areas, to the Local Coastal Program (LCP) design standards authorized by the Local Coastal Plan. Thus, the visual character would change as development intensity increased, but the impact would not be considered significantly adverse. In general, the proposed General Plan Update would provide development opportunities which would complement and enhance the City's existing visual character. Development would be required to conform to "[a] development pattern that retains and complements the City's residential neighborhood, commercial and industrial districts, open spaces, and natural environment" (Proposed General Plan Update, Goal 3 of the Land Use Element). Therefore the proposed General Plan Update would have a less-than-sigh&cant impact on the visual character of developed urban areas. Open Space Areas No existing public open space excluding Banning Ranch, which is discussed below, would be converted from its current use to any other land use as a result of the proposed General Plan Update. Citywide Policy NR 17.1 would protect, conserve, and maintain designated open space areas that define the City's urban form, serve as habitat for many species, and provide recreational opportunities. In addition, Policy NR 17.2 considers the conversion of public sites designated for open space to other uses only when the City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 4.1-19 conversion will meet a significant need, and there are no alternative sites that could feasibly meet that need. The proposed General Plan Update would protect open spaces through land use and natural resources policies, and thus, the existing aesthetic qualities of the open space areas of the City would be maintained. For example, Policy LU 1.3 would protect the natural setting that contributes to the character and identity of Newport Beach and the sense of place it provides for its residents and visitors. This policy aims to preserve open space resources, beaches, harbor, parks, bluffs, preserves, and estuaries as visual, recreational and habitat resources. Policy LU 1.6 requires public views, including scenic and visual resources such as open space, mountains, canyons, ridges, the ocean, and the harbor, be preserved and where possible, enhanced from public vantage points. In addition, with respect to coastal bluffs, Policy LU 6.19.12 requires that development projects locate and design buildings to maintain the visual quality and maintain the structural integrity of the bluff faces. There are several policies within the Natural Resources Element that encourage the preservation of natural landforms such as coastal bluffs and, thus, maintain and enhance the open space areas within the City. For example, Policy NR 23.1 would preserve cliffs, canyons, ,bluffs, significant rock outcroppings, and site buildings to minimize alteration of the site's natural topography and preserve the features as a visual resource. In addition, Policy NR 23.3 requires new planned communities to dedicate or preserve as open space the coastal bluff face and an area inland from the edge of the coastal bluff adequate to avoid or minimize visual impacts. In light of these factors, the proposed General Plan Update would have a less-than-signi6cantimpact on public open space visual character. Banning Ranch The Banning Ranch property is currently developed with oil production uses and associated structures, including large storage tanks. However, much of Banning Ranch consists of open space. As such, the existing conditions in Banning Ranch contribute to overall natural aesthetics within the City. Development of the Banning Ranch property would only be allowed if the property is not acquired for open space. Policy LU 3.4 prioritizes the retention of Banning Ranch as an open space amenity for the City and region, consolidating oil operations, enhancing wetland and other habitats, and providing parkland amenities to serve nearby neighborhoods. If the property cannot be acquired in a timely manner, the development of a compact residential village that preserves the majority of the site as open space and restores critical habitat is allowed in accordance with Policies LU 6.3.1 through 6.5.5. Under both land use options proposed for Banning Ranch, Policies LU 6.5.1 and 6.5.3 would both apply to the area, and would relocate and cluster oil operations, as well as restore and enhance wetlands and wildlife habitats. Both of these policies would improve the overall aesthetic quality of the area. While both options (open space and high quality residential development) would protect visually important open space components of the existing area, the visual impacts of retaining the site as open space would be less than if development were to be allowed in the area, Thus, if Banning Ranch is ultimately acquired as open space for the City, visual impacts would be less than significant. However, if the site is ultimately developed, new land uses would include residential, limited commercial, overnight accommodations, and community parks designed in such a way as to provide a cohesive urban form that 4.1.20 City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR I 4.1 Aesthetics and Visual Quality provides the sense of a complete and identifiable neighborhood (Policy LU 6.4.5). Most importantly, Policy LU 6.5.5 requires that development be located and designed to prevent residences on the property from dominating public views of the bluff faces from Coast Highway, the ocean, wetlands, and surrounding open spaces. In addition, as discussed above, the consolidation of oil operations as well as the restoration of wetlands and habitat areas would improve the visual quality of the area. While new development would represent a change from the existing land uses, with implementation of the proposed General Plan Update policies, the potential visual impacts of new development in the Banning Ranch area would be minimized. Consequently, development in Banning Ranch under the proposed General Plan Update would have less -than -significant impacts on the visual quality of the area. Threshold Would the proposed project create a new source of substantial light and glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views? Impact 4.1-3 New sources of light and glare would be created in the Banning Ranch subarea by new developments under the proposed General Plan Update. The City of Newport Beach is primarily built -out, and a significant amount of ambient light from urban uses already exists. However, new development permitted under the proposed General Plan Update could create new sources of light and glare from any of the following: exterior building lighting, lighted recreation facilities (such as outdoor ball fields), parking lots/structures, glare from reflective building surfaces, or the headlights of vehicular traffic. As a result, these new sources of light or glare could affect the day or nighttime views of adjacent sensitive land uses. These sensitive land uses could generally be considered as undeveloped lands and residential uses adjacent to commercial or industrial areas. Daytime Glare Glare could be produced by the increased amount of surface area of proposed commercial and residential structures, which could reflect or concentrate sunlight and result in a potentially significant impact. However, Policy LU 5.5.2 would require that new and renovated buildings be designed to avoid the use of styles, colors, and materials that unusually impact the design character and quality of their location such as the use of reflective surfaces that increase heat gain of adjoining buildings and ambient glare. Implementation of design features required by Policy 5.5.2, including the use of non -reflective textured surfaces on building exteriors, as well as avoidance of the use of reflective glass, would reduce impacts resulting from daytime glare from new development to a less -than -significant level. Ambient Nighttime Light Levels and Vehicle Headlights As implementation of the project would primarily result in infill of vacant or underutilized parcels, as well as intensification and reuse of existing sites, the majority of new development would be located in areas that commonly experience at least minimal impacts from existing light sources. The only exception to this would be development in the Banning Ranch area, which is currently developed with oil production uses and associated structures and is discussed further below. City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 4.1-21 There would be some construction of residential uses next to commercial uses. For example, in Balboa Peninsula, the updated General Plan would allow for reductions in the area's commercial and industrial capacity, which would be replaced by opportunities for new housing. For Balboa Village, the General Planwould allow for the consolidation of commercial uses, which would be replaced by medium density housing and mixed -use structures that would integrate housing with ground -level retail uses. As older uses are phased out over time, light conflicts could occur. Another example could include the waterfront development in Mariners' Mile, which could produce light impacts on the existing neighborhood above. Commercial facilities typically involve substantial amounts of lighting for the building exterior and parking lots. Additionally, the potential introduction of new pl'ayfields (and associated field lighting) could result in light spillover onto adjacent properties. However, the proposed General Plan Update contains policies to address these potential nighttime lighting impacts. Most importantly, LU Policy 5.5.3 requires that outdoor lighting be located and designed to prevent spillover onto adjoining properties or significantly increase the overall ambient illumination of their 'location. In addition, Policy LU 5.1.1 requires the establishment of development regulations that insute compatibility of residential development with other land uses. Policies such as LU 6.1.3 and 6.2.5 allow for the integration of uses to be designed specifically to assure development compatibility by addressing issues such as lighting. Also, existing municipal code regulations require that light be shielded and confined within site boundaries to prevent spillage. Therefore, with implementation of the above -mentioned policies, nighttime lighting impacts and potential spillover would be less than signMcant. Banning Ranch While the proposed policies would reduce nighttime lighting impacts in most areas of the City as result of future development opportunities, Banning Ranch could be an exception to this if the area is not acquired for open space. Because Banning Ranch is currently underdeveloped and located adjacent to sensitive residential uses, the introduction of residential and commercial development would also introduce new sources of nighttime lighting, which would affect the existing adjacent uses. In addition, the new sources of nighttime lighting could also affect the sensitive habitat areas within the site as a majority of Banning Ranch would remain open space. While spillover would be minimized by the proposed policies and existing regulations, the substantial increase of lighting alone would present a significant impact to the Banning Ranch area, with no feasible mitigation available to reduce the impacts. Consequently, if Banning Ranch remains open space, lighting impacts would be less than significant, however, if development ultimately occurs in Banning Ranch (including the development of an active park with nighttime lighting), the increased light effects caused by new development would be significant and unavoidable. ■ Cumulative Impacts The geographic context for cumulative visual impacts that would occur under the proposed General Plan Update is southwestern Orange County, particularly Newport Beach and adjacent cities, such as Huntington Beach, Costa Mesa, and Irvine. 4.1-22 City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 4.1 Aesthetics and Visual Quality Development under the proposed General Plan Update, in combination with all other development in the area, could affect scenic resources or viewsheds. However, since proposed General Plan Update policies require that natural landforms and features be preserved and that viewsheds be maintained (proposed General Plan Update Policies LU 1.3 and LU 1.6), contributions to adverse impacts to scenic vistas as a result of the General Plan Update would not be cumulatively considerable. Therefore, in this regard the General Plan's impact would be less than significant. As noted earlier in this analysis, the City of Newport Beach does not contain or adjoin any scenic highways. No signi6eanticupacts on scenic highways, cumulative or otherwise, would occur as a result of the proposed General Plan Update. While most of the Newport Beach developments would take place in already urbanized areas, portions of the Banning Ranch area, currently underdeveloped, could be developed as a residential village Nvith some commercial land uses (if the property is not acquired for open space). Although a majority of the site would be preserved as open space if development did occur, the cumulative impacts associated with the loss of open space would still be considered potentially significant. Although development in this portion of the City would convert underdeveloped and vacant lands to urban uses, implementation of proposed General Plan Update policies would minimize the degradation of the visual quality of the area, and the projeces contribution to this impact would not be cumulatively considerable. This project impact would be less than significant. Cumulative development within southwestern Orange County could result in some increase in daytime glare or in the creation of new sources of light that could affect nighttime views. Under the proposed General Plan Update, future developments and associated specific building materials and configurations are uncertain. However, LU Policy 5.5.2 requires new and renovated buildings be designed to reduce ambient glare. Further, future projects would in many cases be subject to CEQA review and may require mitigation for these effects, which would likely reduce the impacts to a less -than -significant level. Consequently, cumulative daytime glare within the area would be less than significant. As implementation of the proposed General Plan Update would not result in a significant daytime glare impact, the proposed project would not result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to this impact. Therefore, cumulative impacts associated with daytime glare would not be cumulatively considerable and would be less than significant. Existing commercial and residential uses have resulted in a cumulative increase in nighttime lighting within southwestern Orange County. The cumulative effect of this past development has resulted in a cumulative loss of available nighttime views. Future development would occur among existing urban uses, which would already be subject to lighting from existing development and vehicle headlights. However, minimal nighttime lighting currently exists in the Banning Ranch area. Even though a majority of the site would be preserved as open space if developed, and the direct illumination of adjacent uses would be minimized through requirements designed to prevent spillover light on surrounding areas, ambient nighttime lighting levels in southwestern Orange County would increase due to increased overall development and associated vehicle headlights. Because implementation of the proposed General Plan Update could result in new sources of nighttime lighting within this area, the proposed project would 11 City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 4.1.23 represent a cumulatively considerable contribution to this impact, and the cumulative nighttime lighting impact would be slgnl&cant and unavoidable. ® Proposed General Plan Update Policies Policies within the Land Use, Natural Resources, and Harbor and Bay Elements of the proposed Newport Beach General Plan Update would directly or indirectly minimize the visual quality effects of prospective growth within the City. The aesthetics -related policies that are applicable to the project are included below. Land Use Element Goal LU 1 A unique residential community with diverse coastal and upland neighborhoods, which values its colorful past, high quality of life, and community bonds, and balances the needs of residents, businesses, and visitors through the recognition that Newport Beach is primarily a residential community. Policy LU 1.1 Unique Environment Maintain and enhance the beneficial and unique character of the different neighborhoods, business districts, and harbor that together identify Newport Beach. Locate and design development to reflect Newport Beach's topography, architectural diversity, and view sheds. Policy LU 1.2 Citywide Identity While recognizing the qualities that uniquely define its neighborhoods and districts, promote the identity of the entire City that differentiates it as a special place within the Southern California region. Policy LU 1.3 Natural Resources Protect the natural setting that contributes to the character and identify of Newport Beach and the sense of place it provides for its residents and visitors. Preserve open space resources, beaches, harbor, pants, bluffs, preserves, and estuaries as visual, recreational and habitat resources. Policy LU 1.6 Public Views Protect and, where feasible, enhance significant scenic and visual resources that include open space, mountains, canyons, ridges, ocean, and harbor from public vantage points. 4.1-24 City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 4.1 Aesthetics and Visual Quality I 1 I I I L'i 1 I Goal LU 3 A development pattern that retains and complements the City's residential neighborhoods, commercial and industrial districts, open spaces, and natural environment. Policy LU 3.1 Neighborhoods, Districts, Corridors, and Open Spaces Maintain Newport Beach's employment districts, con districts. Policy LU 3.2 Growth and Change pattern of residential neighborhoods, business and mercial centers, corridors, and harbor and ocean Enhance existing neighborhoods, districts, and corridors, allowing for re -use and infill with uses that are complementary in type, form, scale, and character. Changes in use and/or density/intensity should be considered only in .those areas that are economically underperforming, are necessary to accommodate Newport Beach's share of projected regional population growth, improve the relationship and reduce commuting distance between home and jobs, or enhance the values that distinguish Newport Beach as a special place to live for its residents. The scale of growth and new development shall be coordinated with the provision of adequate infrastructure and public services, including standards for acceptable traffic level of service. Policy LU 3.3 Opportunities for Change Provide opportunities for improved development and enhanced environments for residents in the following districts and corridors, as specified in Polices 6.3.1 through 6.22.7: ■ West Newport: consolidation of retail and visitor -serving commercial uses, with remaining areas developed for residential units ■ West Newport Mesa: re -use of underperforming commercial and industrial properties for offices and other uses that support Hoag Hospital's medical activities, improvement of remaining industrial properties adjoining the City of Costa Mesa, and development of residential in proximity to jobs and services ■ Santa Ana Heights: use of properties consistent with the adopted Specific Plan and Redevelopment Plan ■ John Wayne Airport Area: re -use of underperforming industrial and office ' properties and development of cohesive residential neighborhoods in proximity to jobs and services ■ Fashion Island/Newport Center: expanded retail uses and hotel rooms and development of residential in proximity to jobs and services, while limiting increases in office development I� II ■ Balboa Peninsula: more efficient patterns of use that consolidate the Peninsula's visitor -serving and mixed uses within the core commercial districts; encourage marine -related uses especially along the bay front; integrate residential with retail uses in Lido Village, McFadden Square, and ICity of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 4.1.25 Chapter 4 Environmental Analysis Balboa Village; re -use interior parcels in Cannery Village for residential and limited mixed -use and live/work buildings; and redevelop underperforming properties outside of the core commercial districts along the Balboa Boulevard corridor for residential. Infill development shall be designed and sited to preserve the historical and architectural fabric of these districts ■ Mariners' Mile: re -use of underperforming properties for retail, visitor - serving, and marine -related uses, integrated with residential ■ Corona del Mar: enhancement of public improvements and parking Policy LU 3.4 Banning Ranch Prioritize the retention of Banning Ranch as an open space amenity for the City and region, consolidating oil operations, enhancing wetland and other habitats, and providing parkland amenities to serve nearby neighborhoods. If the property cannot be acquired in a timely manner, allow for the development of a compact residential village that preserves the majority of the site as open space and restores critical habitat in accordance with Policies 6.3.1 through 6.5.5. Goal5.1 Residential neighborhoods that are well -planned and designed, contribute to the livability and duality of life of residents, respect the natural environmental setting, and sustain the qualities of place that differentiate Newport Beach as a special place in the Southern California region. Policy LU 5.1.1 Compatible but Diverse Development Establish property development regulations for residential projects to create compatible and high quality development that contributes to neighborhood character. Policy LU 5.1.2 Compatible Interfaces Require that the height of development in nonresidential and higher density residential areas transition as it nears lower density residential areas to minimize conflicts at the interface between the different types of development. Policy LU 5.1.3 Neighborhood Identification Encourage and support the identification of distinct residential neighborhoods. Policy LU 5.1.4 Neighborhood Maintenance Promote the maintenance of existing residential units through code enforcement and promotion of County and local rehabilitation programs, and public education. This may include providing information, guidance, and assistance where feasible. 4.1-26 City of Newport Beach General Plan Update OR I 4.1 Aesthetics and Visual Quality Policy LU 5.1.5 Character and Quality of Single Family Residential Dwellings Require that residential units be designed to sustain the high level of architectural design quality that characterizes Newport Beach's neighborhoods in consideration of the following principles: ■ Articulation and modulation of building masses and elevations to avoid the appearance of "box -like" buildings ■ Compatibility with neighborhood development in density, scale, and street facing elevations ■ Architectural treatment of all elevations visible from public places ■ Entries and windows on street facing elevations to visually `open" the house to the neighborhood ■ Orientation to desirable sunlight and views Policy LU 5.1.6 Character and Quality of Residential Properties Require that residential front setbacks and other areas visible from the public street be attractively landscaped, trash containers enclosed, and driveway and parking paving minimized. Policy LU 5.1.9 Character and Quality of Multi -Family Residential Require that multi -family dwellings be designed to convey a high quality architectural.character in accordance with the following principles: Building Elevations ■ Treatment of the elevations of buildings facing public streets and pedestrian ways as the principal fagades with respect to architectural treatment to achieve the highest level of urban design and neighborhood quality ■ Architectural treatment of building elevations and modulation of mass to convey the character of separate living units or clusters of living units, avoiding the appearance of a singular building volume ■ Provide street- and path -facing elevations with high -quality doors, windows, moldings, metalwork, and finishes Ground Floor Treatment Where multi -family residential is developed on large parcels such as the Airport Area and West Newport Mesa: ■ Set ground -floor residential uses back from the sidewallc or from the right- of-way, whichever yields the greater setback to provide privacy and a sense of security and to leave room for stoops, porches and landscaping ■ Raise ground -floor residential uses above the sidewalk for privacy and security but not so much that pedestrians face blank walls or look into utility or parking spaces ■ Encourage stoops and porches for ground -floor residential units facing public streets and pedestrian ways City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 4.1-27 ■ Where multi -family residential is developed on small parcels, such as the Balboa Peninsula, the unit may be located directly along the sidewalk frontage and entries should be setback or elevated to assure adequate security (as shown below). Roof Desiga ■ Modulate roof profiles to reduce the apparent scale of large structures and to provide visual interest and variety. Parkin ■ Design coveted and enclosed parking areas to be integral with the architecture of the residential units' architecture. r' rIRM'I Z ■ Incorporate usable and functional private open space for each unit. ■ Incorporate common open space that creates a pleasant living environment with opportunities for recreation. Goal5.2 Commercial centers and districts that are well -designed and planned, exhibit a high level of architectural and landscape quality, and are vital places for shopping and socialization. Policy LU 5.2.1 Architecture and Site Design Require that new development within existing commercial districts centers and corridors complement existing uses and exhibit a high level of architectural and site design in consideration of the following principles: ■ Seamless connections and transitions with existing buildings, except where developed as a free-standing building ■ Modulation of building masses, elevations, and rooflines to promote visual interest ■ Architectural treatment of all building elevations, including ancillary facilities such as storage, truck loading and unloading, and trash enclosures ■ Treatment of the ground floor of buildings to promote ,pedestrian activity by avoiding long, continuous blank walls, incorporating extensive glazing for transparency, and modulating and articulating elevations to promote visual interest ■ Clear identification of storefront entries ■ Incorporation of signage that is integrated with the buildings' architectural character ■ Architectural treatment of parking structures consistent with commercial buildings, including the incorporation of retail in the ground floors where the parking structure faces a public street or pedestrian way ■ Extensive on -site landscaping, including mature vegetation to provide a tree canopy to provide shade for customers 4.1-28 City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR , 4.1 Aesthetics and Visual Quality ■ Incorporation of plazas and expanded sidewalks to accommodate pedestrian, outdoor dining, and other activities ■ Clearly delineated pedestrian connections between business areas, parking, and to adjoining neighborhoods and districts (paving treatment, landscape, wayfinding signage, and so on) ■ Integration of building design and site planning elements that reduce the consumption of water, energy, and other nonrenewable resources Policy LU 5.2.2 Buffering Residential Areas Require that residential areas be buffered from adjoining nonresidential uses to the extent feasible, such as retail commercial and industrial, through the establishment of performance -based regulations, the removal of nonconforming uses, and other tools such as landscape screening. Policy LU 5.2.3 Alley Design Improve and enhance the aesthetic quality of alleys without impacting service access. Goal5.3 Districts where residents and businesses are intermixed that are designed and planned to assure compatibility among the uses, that they are highly livable for residents, and are of high quality design reflecting the traditions of Newport Beach. Policy LU 5.3.1 Mixed Use Buildings Require that mixed -use buildings be designed to convey a high level of architectural and landscape quality and ensure compatibility among their uses in consideration of the following principles: ■ Design and incorporation of building materials and features to avoid conflicts among uses, such as noise, vibration, lighting, odors, and similar impacts ■ Visual and physical integration of residential and nonresidential uses ■ Architectural treatment of building elevations and modulation of their massing ■ Separate and well-defined entries for residential units and nonresidential businesses ■ Design of parking areas and facilities for architectural consistency and integration among uses ■ Incorporation of extensive landscape appropriate to its location; urbanized streetscapes, for example, would require less landscape along the street frontage but integrate landscape into interior courtyards and common open spaces 11 ' City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 4.1.29 Chapter 4 Environmental Analysis Policy LU 5.3.3 Parcels Integrating Residential and Non -Residential Uses Require that properties developed with a mix of residential and nonresidential uses be designed to achieve high levels of architectural quality in accordance with policies 5.1.8 and 5.2.2 and planned to assure compatibility among the uses and provide adequate circulation and parking. Residential uses should be seamlessly integrated with nonresidential uses through architecture, pedestrian walkways, and landscape. They should not be completely isolated by walls or other design elements. Goal5.5 Neighborhoods, districts, and corridors containing a diversity of uses and buildings that are mutually compatible and enhance the quality of the City's environment Policy LU 5.5.2 Form and Environment Require that new and renovated buildings be designed to avoid the use of styles, colors, and materials that unusually impact the design character and quality of their location such as abut changes in scale, building form, architectural style, and the use of surface materials that raise local temperatures or adversely modify wind patterns. Policy LU 5.5.3 Ambient Lighting Require that outdoor lighting be located and designed to prevent spillover onto adjoining properties or significantly increase the overall ambient illumination of their location. Goal6.1 A diversity of governmental service, institutional, educational, cultural, social, religious, and medical facilities that are available for and enhance the quality of life for residents and are located and designed to complement Newport Beach's neighborhoods. Policy LU 6.1.3 Architecture and Planning that Complements Adjoining Uses Ensure that the City's public buildings, sites, and infrastructure are designed to be compatible in scale, mass, character, and architecture with the district or neighborhood in which they are located, following the design and development policies for private uses specified by this Plan. Design impacts on adjoining uses shall be carefully considered in development, addressing such issues as lighting spillover, noise, hours of operation, parking, local traffic impacts, and privacy. 4.1.30 City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR , I ' i 4,1 Aesthetics and Visual Quail Goal6.2 Residential neighborhoods that contain a diversity of housing types and supporting uses to meet the needs of Newport Beach's residents and are designed ' to sustain livability and a high quality of life. ' Policy LU 6.2.5 Neighborhood Supporting Uses Allow for the integration of uses within residential neighborhoods that support and are complementary to their primary function as a living environment such ' as schools, parks, community meeting facilities, religious facilities, and comparable uses. These uses shall be designed to assure compatibility with adjoining residential addressing such issues as noise, lighting, and parking. Goals 6.3 and 6.4 pertain to the Banning Ranch policies identified below. ' Goal6.3 Preferably a protected open space amenity, with restored wetlands and habitat areas, as well as active community parklands to serve adjoining neighborhoods. II II II II II II II Policy LU 6.3.1 Primary Use Open space, including significant active community parklands that serve adjoining residential neighborhoods if the site is acquired through public funding. Goal6.4 If acquisition for open space is not successful, a high -quality residential community with supporting uses that provides revenue to restore and protect wetlands and important habitats Policy LU 6.5.4 Relationship of Development to Environmental Resources Development should be located and designed to preserve and/or mitigate for the loss of wetlands and drainage course habitat. It shall be located to be contiguous and compatible with existing and planned development along its eastern property line, preserving the connectivity of wildlife corridors, and set back from the bluff faces, along which shall be located a linear park to provide public views of the ocean, wetlands, and surrounding open spaces. Policy LU 6.5.5 Public Views of the Property Development shall be located and designed to prevent residences on the property from dominating public views of the bluff faces from Coast Highway, the ocean, wetlands, and surrounding open spaces. City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 4.1-31 Goal6.13 An economically viable pedestrian oriented village that serves local residents, visitors, and provides residential in proximity to retail uses, entertainment, and recreation Policy LU 6.13.4 Streetscapes Promote the completion of enhancements to Balboa Village's streetscapes to enhance the area's visual quality and character as a pedestrian-oriehted environment. Goal6.14 A successful mixed -use district that integrates an economic and commercial centers serving the needs of Newport Beach residents and the sub -region, with expanded opportunities for residents to live close to jobs, commerce, entertainment, and recreation, and is supported by a pedestrian -friendly environment Policy LU 6.14.4 Urban Form Encourage that some new development be located and designed to orient to the inner side of Newport Center Drive, establishing physical and visual continuity that diminishes the dominance of surface parking lots and encourages pedestrian activity. Policy LU 6.14.5 Pedestrian Connectivity and Amenity Encourage that pedestrian access and connections among uses within the district be improved with additional walkways and streetscape amenities concurrent with the development of expanded and new uses. Policy LU 6.14.6 Fashion Island Architecture and Streetscapes Encourage that new development in rasluon Island complement and be of equivalent or higher design quality than existing buildings. Additionally, new buildings shall be located on axes connecting Newport Center Drive with existing buildings to provide visual and physical connectivity with adjoining uses, where practical. Goal 6.15 A mixed -use community that provides jobs, residential, and supporting services in close proximity, with pedestrian -oriented amenities that facilitates walking and enhance livability Policy LU 6.15.6 Auto -Rental and Supporting Uses Work with auto rental and supporting uses to promote the consolidation and visual improvement of auto storage, service, and storage facilities. 4.1.32 City of Newport Beach General Pion Update EIR ' 4.1 Aesthetics and Visual Quality Policy LU 6.15.7 Site Planning and Architecture Encourage and, when subject to redevelopment, require property owners within the Campus Tract to upgrade the street frontages of their properties with landscape, well -designed signage, and other amenities that improve the area's visual quality. Policy LU 6.15.10 Number and Size of Residential Villages (refer to Figure LU23) Allow development of a maximum of four (4) mixed use residential villages, each centered on a neighborhood park and other amenities (as conceptually illustrated in Figure LU23). The first phase of residential development in each neighborhood shall encompass at least 10 gross acres of land, exclusive of existing rights -of -way. The 10 acres may include multiple parcels provided that they are contiguous or face one another across an existing street. The 10 acre requirement may be waived for projects of at least 5 acres if a concept plan is prepared that integrates existing and new uses into a cohesive mixed -use neighborhood and achieves the objectives for the Airport Area. Goal6.17 A corridor that includes a gateway to the City with amenities that support the Orange Coast River Park, as well as commercial clusters that serve local residents and coastal visitors at key intersections, interspersed with compatible residential development Policy LU 6.17.3 Redevelopment Incentives Permit commercial properties to be developed at a maximum floor area ratio of 1.0 as an incentive for their redevelopment. Policy LU 6.17.4 Improved Visual Image and Quality Implement streetscape improvements to enhance the area's character and image as a gateway to Newport Beach and develop a stronger pedestrian environment at the commercial nodes. Policy LU 6.17.5 Streetscape Require that upgraded and redeveloped properties incorporate landscaped setbacks along arterial streets to improve their visual quality and reduce impacts of the corridor's high traffic volumes. Goal6.18 A corridor of uses and services that support Hoag Hospital and adjoining residential neighborhoods Policy LU 6.18.4 Property Design Require that buildings be located and' designed to orient to the Old Newport Boulevard frontage, while the rear of parcels on its west side shall incorporate ' City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 4.1.33 landscape and design elements that are attractive when viewed from Newport Boulevard. Goal 6.19 A corridor that reflects and takes advantage of its location on the Newport Bay waterfront, supports and respects adjacent residential neighborhoods, and exhibits a quality visual image for travelers on Coast Highway Policy LU 6.19.6 Corridor Identity and Quality Implement landscape, signage, lighting, sidewalk, pedestrian crossing, and other amenities consistent with the Mariner's Mile Specific Plan District and Mariner's Mile Strategic Vision and Design Plan. Policy LU 6.19.9 Bay Views Require that buildings be located and sites designed to provide clear views of and access to the Harbor and Bay from the Coast Highway and Newport Boulevard rights -of -way in accordance with the following principles, as appropriate: ■ Clustering of buildings to provide open view and access corridors to the Harbor ■ Modulation of building volume and masses ■ Variation of building heights ■ Inclusion of porticoes, arcades, windows, and other "see -through" elements in addition to the defined open corridor ■ Minimization of landscape, fencing, parked cars, and other nonstructural elements that block views and access to the Harbor ■ Prevention of the appearance of the public right-of-way being walled off from the Harbor ■ Inclusion of setbacks that in combination with setbacks on adjoining parcels cumulatively form functional view corridors ■ Encouragement of adjoining properties to combine their view corridors that achieve a larger cumulative corridor than would have been achieved independently ■ A site -specific analysis shall be conducted for new development to determine the appropriate size, configuration, and design of the view and access corridor that meets these objectives, which shall be subject to approval in the Development Plan review process. Policy LU 6.19.12 Properties Abutting Bluff Faces Require that development projects locate and design buildings to maintain the visual qualityand maintain the structural integrity of thebluff faces. 4.1-34 City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR I 4.1 Aesthetics .. Visual Quality ' Policy LU 6.19.13 Building Heights ' Consider the modification of the boundary of the Shoreline Height Limitation Zone (26� to accommodate higher mixed use buildings, where these are located adjacent to bluffs and the viewshed "envelope" is maintained. Natural Resources Element Goal NR 17 Maintenance and expansion of designated open space resources. NR 17.1 Open Space Protection Protect, conserve, maintain, designated open space areas that define the City's urban form, serve as habitat for many species, and provide recreational opportunities. NR 17.2 Other Uses of Public Sites Designated for Open Space ' Consider conversion of public sites designated for open space to other uses only when the conversion will meet a significant need, and there are no alternative sites that could feasibly meet that need. NR 17.3 New Open Space Areas Consider opportunities to expand designated open space areas within the City. Goal NR 20 Preservation of significant visual resources. ' NR 20.1 Enhancement of Significant Resources II F] 1 I] Protect and, where feasible, enhance significant scenic and visual resources that include open space, mountains, canyons, ridges, ocean, and harbor from public vantage points, as shown in Figure NR3. NR 20.2 New Development Requirements Require new development to restore and enhance the visual quality in visually degraded areas, where feasible, and provide view easements or corridors designed to protect public views or to restore public views in developed areas, where appropriate. NR 20.3 Public Views Protect and enhance public views from the following roadway segments (shown in Figure NR3), and other locations may be identified in the future: ■ Avocado Avenue from San Joaquin Hills Road to Coast Highway ■ Back Bay Drive ■ Balboa Island Bridge ■ Bayside Drive from Coast Highway to Linda Island Drive ' City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 4.1.35 Chapter 4 Environmental Analysis ■ Bayside Drive at Promontory Bay ■ Coast Highway/Santa Ana River Bridge ■ Coast Highway/Newport Boulevard Bridge and Interchange ■ Coast Highway from Newport Boulevard to Marino Drive (Bayshores) ■ Coast Highway/Newport Bay Bridge ■ Coast Highway from jamboree Road to Bayside Drive ■ Coast Highway from Pelican Point Drive to city limits ■ Eastbluff Drive from jamboree Road to Backbay Drive ■ Irvine Avenue from Santiago Drive to University Drive ■ jamboree Road from Eastbluff Drive/University Drive to Bayview Way ■ jamboree Road in the vicinity of the Big Canyon Park ■ jamboree Road from Coast Highway to Bayside Drive ■ Lido Isle Bridge ■ MacArthur Boulevard from San Joaquin Hills Road to Coast Highway ■ Marguerite Avenue from San Joaquin Hills Road to Fifth Avenue ■ Newport Boulevard from Hospital Road/Westminster Avenue to Via Lido ■ Newport Center Drive from Newport Center Drive E/W to Farallon Drive/Granville Drive ■ Newport Coast from Pelican Hill Road North to Coast Highway ■ Ocean Boulevard ■ Pelican Hills Road South ■ San Joaquin Hills Road from Newport Ridge Drive to Spyglass Hill Road ■ San Miguel Drive from San Joaquin Hills Road to MacArthur Boulevard ■ State Route 73 from Bay -view Way to the easterly City limit ■ Superior Avenue from Hospital Road to Coast Highway ■ University Drive from Irvine Avenue to the Santa Ana —Delhi Channel ■ Vista Ridge Road from Ocean Heights to Altezza Drive NR 20.4 Public View Corridor Landscaping Design and site new development, including landscaping, on the edges of public view corridors, including those down public streets, to frame, accent, and minimize impacts to public views. NR 20.5 Public View Corridor Amenities Provide public trails, recreation areas, and viewing areas adjacent to public view corridors, where feasible. 4.1.36 City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 4.1 Aesthetics and Visual Quality Goal NR 21 Minimize visual impacts of signs and utilities. Policy NR 21.1 Signs and Utility Siting and Design Design and site signs, utilities, and antennas to minimize visual impacts. Policy NR 21.2 Illegal Signs and Legal Nonconforming Signs Implement programs to remove illegal signs and amortize legal nonconforming signs. Policy NR 21.3 Overhead Utilities Support programs to remove and underground overhead utilities, in new development as well as existing neighborhoods. Goal NR 22 Maintain the intensity of development around Newport Bay to be consistent with the unique character and visual scale of Newport Beach. NR 22.1 Shoreline Height Limitation Zone Maintain the Shoreline Height Limitation Zone to protect views of the water. Consider amending the boundary of this Zone where public views would not be impacted. NR 22.2 Regulation of Structure Mass Continue to regulate the visual and physical mass of structures consistent with the unique character and visual scale of Newport Beach. Goal NR 23 Development respects natural landforms such as coastal bluffs. Policy NR 23.1 Maintenance of Natural Topography Preserve cliffs, canyons, bluffs, significant rock outcroppings, and site buildings to minimize alteration of the site's natural topography and preserve the features as a visual resource. Policy NR 23.2 Bluff Edge Setbacks Maintain approved bluff edge setbacks for the coastal bluffs within the communities of Castaways, Eastbluff, Park Newport, Newporter North (Harbor Cove), and Bayview Landing and neighborhoods from Jamboree Road to Corona del Mar, north of Bayside Drive, to ensure the preservation of scenic resources and geologic stability Policy NR 23.3 Open Space Dedication or Preservation for New Planned Communities Require new planned communities to dedicate or preserve as open space the coastal bluff face and an area inland from the edge of the coastal bluff II ' City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 4.1-37 adequate to provide safe public access and to avoid or minimize visual impacts. Policy NR 23.4 New Development on Blufftops Require all new blufftop development located on a bluff subject to marine erosion to be set back based on the predominant line of development. This requirement shall apply to the principal structure and major accessory structures such as guesthouses and pool's. The setback shall be increased where necessary to ensure safety and' stability of the development. PolicyNR 23.5 New Accessory Structures on Blufftops On bluffs subject to marine erosion, require new accessory structures such as decks, patios and walkways that do not require structural foundations to be sited at least 10 feet from the bluff edge. Require accessory structures to be removed or relocated landward when threatened by erosion, instability or other hazards. Policy NR.23.6 Canyon Development Standards Establish canyon development setbacks based on the predominant line of existing development for Buck Gully and Morning Canyon. Do not permit development to extend beyond the predominant line of existing development by establishing a development stringline where a line is drawn between nearest adjacent corners of existing structures on either side of the subject property. Establish development stringlines for principle structures and accessory improvements. Policy NK23.7 New Development Design and Siting Design and site new development to minimize the removal of native vegetation, preserve rock outcroppings, and protect coastal resources. Harbor and Bay Element Goal HB3 Enhanced and updated waterfront commercial"areas. Policy HB 3.1 Building Improvements and Programs Preserve and/or enhance existing water -enhanced, water- related and water - dependent commercial uses and marine oriented commercial areas through building improvements and programs that preserve the design and character of the Harbor. 4.1.38 City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 41 Aesthetics and Visual Quality ' Goal HB4 Preservation of existing commercial uses in the Harbor to maintain and enhance the charm and character of the Harbor and to provide support services for visitors, ' recreational boaters, and other water -dependent uses. ' Policy HB 4.3 Entertainment and Tour Vessels Support continued operation of entertainment and tour boats subject to reasonable regulations designed to ensure the operations don't have an adverse ' impact, such as unsafe navigation, impaired water quality, reduced visual quality, excessive noise, unsafe street traffic conditions, or parking shortages on the environment and land uses surrounding the harbor. Goal HB9 A variety of beach/bulkhead profiles that characterize its recreational, residential, and commercial waterfronts. Policy HB 9.1 Design of New or Renovated Bulkheads Balance private property rights, natural harbor tidal and current forces and other coastal processes (such as erosion and accretion) and harbor aesthetics with other policies when considering designs for new or renovated bulkhead permits. Policy HB 9.2 Protection of Beach Profile Permit and design bulkheads and groins to protect the character of the existing beach profiles and to restore eroded beach profiles found around the Harbor and island perimeters, and the safe navigation and berthing of vessels. Policy HB 9.3 Structures Impacting Visual Resources Limit structures bayward of the 'bulkhead line to piers, floats, groins, appurtenances related to marine activities, and public walkways. Policy HB 9.4 Abandoned Vessels Utilize City, county, state, and federal regulations to remove derelict, abandoned and unseaworthy vessels from City controlled tidelands promptly. Impacts and Mitigation Measures The majority of impacts associated with aesthetics would be less than significant after implementation of proposed General Plan Update policies, and no mitigation would be required. However, as discussed above, while light spillover would be minimized by the proposed policies and existing regulations, the substantial increase of lighting alone would present a significant impact to the Banning Ranch area, if the area is ultimately developed, with no feasible mitigation available to reduce the impacts. I' City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 4.1.39 Level of Significance Affer Policies/Mifigafion Measures If Banning Ranch is ultimately developed with new residential and commercial uses, the impact of nighttime lighting would be significant and unavoidable, as no additional feasible mitigation measures are available to reduce light impacts. However, all other project impacts associated with aesthetics and visual resources would be less than significant under the proposed Newport Beach General Plan Update. Policies in the General Plan would reinforce design standards, protect visual character and views, and enhance the City's existing aesthetic qualities while simultaneously accommodating projected growth. 4.1.6 References EIP Associates. 2004. Technical Background Dort. Newport Beach, City of. 2005. Local Coastal Pangrmn—Coastal Land Use Plan. Adopted 13 December. Newport Beach, City of. 2004. Newfiort Beach. Cttn-ent Conditions, Future Choices. 4.1-40 City of NeWport Beach General Plan Update EIR ' 4.2 Air Quality 4.2 AIR QUALITY 4.2.1 Introduction This section evaluates the potential impacts on air quality resulting from the proposed General Plan Update. This includes the potential for the proposed General Plan Update to conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan, to violate an air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation, to result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is in nonattainment, expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations, or create objectionable odors that would affect a substantial number of people. Data for this section were taken from the 2004 Technical Background Report, the 2005 Local Coastal Program, and other documents prepared for the City. During the Initial Study process, it was determined that the proposed project could have potentially significant impacts for all five of the air quality CEQA criteria for determining significance. All potential impacts were analyzed in this Draft EIR. Full bibliographic entries for all reference materials are provided in Section 4.2.7 (References) of this section. One comment letter related to Air. Quality was received in response to the IS/NOP circulated for the proposed General Plan Update. The South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) recommended that analysis of the potential air quality impacts associated with the proposed project should be included in this EIR. Recommendations for the calculation of construction and operational impacts would not apply to this EIR as analysis of the proposed project is at the programmatic level. 4.2.2 Existing Conditions ■ Regional Climate The Planning Area is located within the South Coast Air Basin (Basin), named so because its geographical formation is that of a basin, with the surrounding mountains trapping the air and its pollutants in the valleys and basins below. This area includes all of Orange County and the nondesert portions of Los Angeles, San Bernardino, and Riverside Counties. The regional climate within the Basin is considered semi -arid and is characterized by warm summers, mild winters, infrequent seasonal rainfall, moderate daytime onshore breezes, and moderate humidity. ' ■ Local Climate The Planning Area is located in central coastal Orange County. The typical daily wind pattern in the i' Basin is a daytime onshore sea breeze (from the west) followed by a nighttime land breeze in the opposite direction. On practically all spring and early summer days, the winds are strong enough to flush much of the air pollutants from the Basin. However, from late summer through the winter months, the ' City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 4.2.1 wind speeds decrease, the flushing is much less pronounced, and higher levels of air pollutants can build UP. ® Air Quality Background Air pollutant emissions within the Basin are generated by stationary sources (e.g., industrial processes, power generation), mobile sources (e.g., automobiles, trucks, aircraft, trains), and natural sources (e.g., dust suspension from high winds). Both the federal and state governments have established outdoor ambient air quality standards for several of the most common air pollutants in order to protect public health. Each of these air pollutants is identified and briefly described below: ■ Oxon is a gas that is formed when volatile organic emoonnds (h/OCs) and nihvgen oxides (NOX) undergo photochemical reactions in the presence of sunlight, internal combustion engine exhaust accounts for a majority of such compounds. Ozone concentrations are generally highest during the summer months when direct sunlight, light wind, and warm temperature conditions are favorable to ozone formation. ■ Carbon Monoxide (CO) is a colorless, odorless gas produced by the incomplete combustion of motor vehicle fuels. The highest ambient CO concentrations are generally found near congested transportation corridors and intersections in the winter. ■ Nihngeu Dioxide V02) is a reactive, oxidizing gas capable of damaging cells 'lining the respiratory tract and is an essential ingredient in the formation of ozone. It is emitted as a by-product of fuel combustion. ■ Rerfiirable Particulate [bfatter (PM1d and Fine Particulate Matter (P1v121) consist of extremely small, suspended particles or droplets with diameters less than 10 microns and less than 2.5 microns, respectively. Most particulate matter in urban areas is produced by fuel combustion, motor vehicle travel, and construction activities. ■ Salfu r dioxide (SOJ is a colorless, extremely irritating gas. It enters the atmosphere as a result of burning sulfur -containing fuels and from certain industrial processes (e. g., oil refining). ■ Lead (Pb) is present in the atmosphere in particulate form. Its primary source is the combustion of leaded gasoline, but other sources also contribute (e.g., recycling of batteries, manufacture of paint, ink, ceramics, ammunition, etc). ® Health Effects of Air Pollutants Ozone Individuals exercising outdoors, children and people with preexisting lung disease, such as asthma and chronic pulmonary lung disease, are considered to be the most susceptible sub -groups for ozone effects. Short-term exposures (lasting for a few hours) to ozone at levels typically observed in Southern California can result in breathing pattern changes, reduction of breathing capacity, increased susceptibility to infections, inflammation of the lung tissue, and some immunological changes. Elevated ozone levels are also associated with increased school absences. In recent years, a correlation between elevated 4.2-2 City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 4.2 Air Quality ' 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 high ozone communities. Ozone exposure under exercising conditions is known to increase the severity of the above mentioned observed responses. Animal studies suggest that exposure to a combination of pollutants that include ozone may be more toxic than exposure to ozone alone. Although lung volume and resistance changes ' observed after a single exposure diminish with repeated exposures, biochemical and cellular changes appear to persist, which can lead to subsequent lung structural changes. tCarbon Monoxide Individuals with a deficient blood supply to the heart are the most susceptible to the adverse effects of CO exposure. The effects observed include earlier onset of chest pain with exercise, and electrocardiograph changes indicative of worsening oxygen supply to the heart. ' Inhaled CO has no direct toxic effect on the lungs, but exerts its effect on tissues by interfering with oxygen transport and competing with oxygen to combine with hemoglobin present in the blood to form carboxyhemoglobin (COHb). Hence, conditions with an increased demand for oxygen supply can be ' adversely affected by exposure to CO. Individuals most at risk include patients with diseases involving heart and blood vessels, fetuses, and patients with chronic hypoxemia (oxygen deficiency) as seen in high ' altitudes. Reduction in birth weight and impaired neurobehavioral development have been observed in animals ' chronically exposed to CO, resulting in COHb levels similar to those observed in smokers. Recent studies have found increased risks for adverse birth outcomes with exposure to elevated CO levels. These include pre -term births and heart abnormalities. Particulate Maffer ' A consistent correlation between elevated ambient fine particulate matter (PMro 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 long-term exposure to particulate matter. The elderly, people with pre-existing respiratory or cardiovascular disease and children appear to be more susceptible to the effects of high levels of PM,p and PMz5• ' City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 4.2.3 Chapter 4 Environmental Analysis Nitrogen Dioxide Population -based studies suggest that an increase in acute respiratory illness, including infections and respiratory symptoms in children (not infants), is associated with long-term exposures to NOz 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 NOZ in healthy subjects, Larger decreases in lung functions are observed in individuals with asthma or chronic obstructive pulmonaty disease (e.g., chronic bronchitis, emphysema) than in healthy individuals, indicating a greater susceptibility of these sub -groups. In animals, exposure to levels of NO2 considerably higher than ambient concentrations results in increased susceptibility to infections, possibly due to the observed changes in cells involved in maintaining immune functions. The severity of lung tissue damage associated with high levels of ozone exposure increases when animals are exposed to a combination of ozone and NO2. Sulfur Dioxide A few minutes exposure to low levels of 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 SOZ. In contrast, healthy individuals do not exhibit similar acute responses even after exposure to higher concentrations of SOz. 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 SOz from those of fine particles have not been successful. It is not clear whether the two pollutants act synergistically or one pollutant alone is the predominant factor. Lead Fetuses, infants, and children are more sensitive than others to the adverse effects of Pb exposure. Exposure to low levels of Pb can adversely affect the development and function of the central nervous system, leading to learning disorders, distractibility, inability to follow simple commands, and lower intelligence quotient. In adults, increased Pb levels are associated with increased blood pressure. Pb poisoning can cause anemia, lethargy, seizures and death, although it appears that there are no direct effects of Pb on the respiratory system. Pb can be stored in the bone from early age environmental exposure, and elevated blood Pb levels can occur due to breakdown of bone tissue during pregnancy, hyperthyroidism (increased secretion of hormones from the thyroid gland) and osteoporosis (breakdown of bony tissue). Fetuses and breast-fed babies can be exposed to higher levels of Pb because of,previous environmental Pb exposure of their mothers. 4.2.4 City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 4.2 Air Quality Odors The science of odor as a health concern is still new. Odorant compounds can irritate the eye, nose, and throat, which can reduce respiratory volume. Second, some odors can stimulate sensory nerves to cause neurochemical changes that might influence health, for instance by compromising the immune system. Finally, unpleasant odors can trigger memories or attitudes linked to unpleasant odors, causing cognitive and emotional effects such as stress. Potential operational airborne odors relevant to implementation of the proposed General Plan Update include cooking activities associated with the new residential and restaurant uses. These odors could be similar to existing housing and food service uses throughout the City are generally confined to the immediate vicinity of buildings. Other potential sources of odors include trash receptacles. Toxic Air Contaminant Emissions Toxic air contaminants (TAC) are airborne substances that are capable of causing chronic (i.e., of long duration) and acute (i.e., severe but of short duration) adverse effects on human health. They include both organic and inorganic chemical substances that may be emitted from a variety of common sources including gasoline stations, motor vehicles, dry cleaners, industrial operations, painting operations, and research and teaching facilities. Toxic air contaminants are different than the "criteria" pollutants previously discussed in that ambient air quality standards have not been established for them, largely because there are hundreds of air toxics and their effects on health tend to be local rather than regional. Lifetime cancer risk is defined as the increased chance of contracting cancer over a 70-year period as a result of exposure to a toxic substance or substances. It is the product of the estimated daily exposure of each suspected carcinogen by its respective cancer unit risk. The end result represents a worst -case estimate of cancer risk. The California Air Resources Board (ARB) has produced a series of estimated inhalation cancer risk maps based on modeled levels of outdoor composite toxic pollutant levels. The 2000 map (the most recent map available) indicates that the City of Newport Beach is exposed to an estimated inhalation cancer risk of more than 250 persons per million. These risk maps depict inhalation cancer risk due to modeled outdoor toxic pollutant levels, and do not account for cancer risk due to other types of exposure. The largest contributors to inhalation cancer risk are diesel engines. ■ Regional Air Quality The Southern California Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) is responsible for bringing air quality within the Basin into conformity with the federal and state standards. The Basin is a nonattainment area for the federal ozone and PMro standards. It has recently improved from nonattainment to attainment for the federal NO2 standard, and is about to be designated an attainment area for CO. The Basin is a nonattainment area for the state ozone, CO (Los Angeles County only), and PM,,. Regional air quality throughout the Basin has improved substantially over the 1980's and 1990's, even as substantial growth has occurred. City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 4.2.5 Chapter 4 Environmental Analysis ■ Local Air Quality Ambient air pollutant concentrations of ozone, CO, NO2, and SO, ate monitored near the Planning Area by a SCAQMD station in Costa Mesa. Table 4.2-1 identifies the federal and state ambient air quality standards and provides a summary of ambient air quality measured at Costa Mesa from 2001 to 2003. Ozone Maximum 1-hourconcentration 0.098 0,087 0.107 Number of days exceeding federal 1-hour standard >0.12 ppm 0 0 0 Number of days exceeding state 1-hour standard >0.09 ppm 1 0 4 Maximum 8-hour concentration 0,073 0.070 0.088 Number of days exceeding federal 8-hour standard >0.08 ppm 0 0 1 Carbon Monoxide (CO) Maximum 1-hour concentration 6 5 7 Number of days exceeding federal 1-hour standard >35.0 ppm 0 0 0 Number of days exceeding state 1-hour standard >20.0 ppm 0 0 0 Maximum 8-hour concentration 4.64 4.29 5.90 Number of days exceeding federal 8-hour standard >9.0 ppm 0 0 0 Number of days exceeding state 8-hour standard >9.0 ppm 0 0 0 Dioxide Maximum 1-hour concentration 1 1 0.082 0.106 0.107 Number of days exceedin4 state 1-hour standard 1 >0.25 Dom 1 0 0 0 Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) Maximum24-hour concentration 1 0.005 0.011 0.012 Number of days exceeding federal 24-hour standard >0.14 ppm 0 0 0 Number of days exceeding state 24-hour standard >0.04 ppm 0 0 0 SOURCE: ARB2004,www.crb.co.gov/adam/Cgi-bin/db2www/Qdomtop4b.d2w/Branch. ppm = pads by volume per million of air, Ambient concentrations of PMio, and PM2s are not monitored In SRA 18. The California Alt Resources Board (ARB) has produced a series of cancer risk maps based on modeled levels of composite TAC inhalation exposures. Residents of Newport Beach are exposed to an estimated risk of more than 250 chances in a million of developing cancer from the inhalation of TACs. This is generally higher than what is estimated by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to be the national average, in which case the risk is more than 25 chances in a million in urban areas and more than 4.2.6 City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 4.2 Air Quality 50 chances in a million in transportation corridors.' However, the risk in the City of Newport Beach is lower than the state and regional cancer risk. The estimated regional cancer risk from air toxics in the South Coast Air Basin is approximately 1,000 chances in a million.' The estimated risk from air toxic contaminants statewide, based on being exposed to an annual average concentration for 70 years, is approximately 750 chances in a million e The largest contributor to inhalation cancer risk is small - diameter particulate matter produced by diesel engines. 0 Sensitive Receptors Federal and state ambient air quality standards have been set to protect the most sensitive persons from illness or discomfort. Residential areas, schools, playgrounds, child care centers, athletic facilities, hospitals, long-term health care facilities, rehabilitation centers, convalescent centers, and retirement homes are especially likely to include persons sensitive to air pollutants. Each of these land use types is present within the Planning Area. Land Use Planning and Air Quality Land use patterns and development density affect the amount of air pollutants that are generated in communities. Segregation of land uses within a community reduces the opportunities to walk, ride bicycles and use public transportation and increases the number of motor vehicle trips. Communities with low development densities have longer average trip distances and fewer opportunities for efficient public transportation services. Thus, land use segregation and low density, both characteristics of the Newport Beach Planning Area; increase air pollutant emissions. Low -density uses also produce more air pollutant emissions from the use of natural gas for space and water heating, and from the use of landscape maintenance equipment. In job -rich communities like Newport Beach, there is an increased potential for air pollutant emissions as non-resident employees commute long distances to/from their homes and work. 4.2.3 Regulatory Framework Air quality within the air basins is addressed through the efforts of various federal, state, regional, and local government agencies. These agencies work jointly, as well as individually, to improve air quality through legislation, regulations, planning, policy -making, education, and a variety of programs. The agencies responsible for improving the air quality within the air basins are discussed below. 1 ' d Environmental Protection Agency, 2006. National -Scale Air Toxics Assessment for 1999: Estimated Emissions, Concentrations and Rick. February 22, 2006 5 Air Resources Board's Air Quality and Land Use Handbook: A Community Health Perspective (April 2005). 'Air Resources Board Roseville Rail Study, Stationary Source Division, October 14, 2004. ' City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 4.2-7 ■ Federal Regulations U.S. Environmental Protection Agency The United States EPA is responsible for setting and enforcing the National Ambient Air Quality Standards for atmospheric pollutants. It regulates emission sources that are under the exclusive authority of the federal government, such as aircraft, ships, and certain locomotives. The EPA also maintains jurisdiction over emissions sources outside state waters (outer continental shelf), and establishes various emissions standards for vehicles sold in states other than California. As part of its enforcement responsibilities, the EPA requires each state with federal nonattainment areas to prepare and submit a State Implementation Plan (SIP) that demonstrates the means to attain the federal standards. The SIP must integrate federal, state, and local plan components and regulations to identify specific measures to reduce pollution, using a combination of performance standards and market -based programs within the timeframe identified in the SIP. ■ State Regulations California Air Resources Board The ARB, a part of the California Environmental Protection Agency, is responsible for the coordination and administration of both federal and state air pollution control programs within California. In this capacity, the ARB conducts research, sets California Ambient Air Quality Standards, compiles emission inventories, develops suggested control measures, provides oversight of local programs, and prepares the SIP. The ARB establishes emissions standards for motor vehicles sold in California, consumer products (such as hair spray, aerosol paints, and barbecue lighter fluid), and various types of commercial equipment. It also sets fuel specifications to further reduce vehicular emissions. Southern California Association of Governments The Southern California Association of Governments (SLAG) is a council of governments for Imperial, Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, and Ventura Counties. It is a regional planning agency and serves as a forum for regional' issues relating to transportation, the economy and community development, and the environment. Although SCAG is not an air quality management agency, it is responsible for developing transportation, land use, and energy conservation measures that affect air quality. The organization also promotes using carpools, buses, trains, and other alternative forms of transportation throughout the region. SCAG's Regional Comprehensive Plan and Guide (RCPG) provides growth forecasts that are used in the development of air quality —related land use and transportation control strategies by the SCAQIvM. The RCPG is a framework for decision -making for local governments, assisting them in meeting federal and state mandates for growth management, mobility, and environmental standards, while maintaining consistency with regional goals regarding growth and changes through the year 2015, and beyond. 4.2.8 City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 4.2 Air Quality Policies within the RCPG include consideration of air quality, land use, transportation, and economic relationships by all levels of government. South Coast Air Quality Management District The SCAQMD is the agency principally responsible for comprehensive air pollution control in the South Coast Air Basin. To that end, the SCAQMD, a regional agency, works directly with SCAG, county transportation commissions, local governments, and cooperates actively with all federal and state government agencies. The SCAQMD develops rules and regulations, establishes permitting requirements, inspects emissions sources, and enforces such measures though educational programs or fines, when necessary. The SCAQMD is directly responsible for reducing emissions from stationary (area and point), mobile, and natural sources. It has responded to this requirement by preparing a series of Air Quality Management Plans (AQMPs). The most recent of these was adopted by the Governing Board of the SCAQMD on August 1, 2003. This AQMP, referred to as the 2003 AQMP, was prepared to comply with the federal and state Clean Air Acts and amendments, to accommodate growth, to reduce the high pollutant levels in the Basin, to meet federal and state ambient air quality standards, and to minimize the fiscal impact that pollution control measures have on the local economy. It identifies the control measures that will be implemented to reduce major sources of pollutants. These planning efforts have substantially decreased the population's exposure to unhealthful levels of pollutants, even while substantial population growth has occurred within the Basin. As discussed on pages 2-5 through 2-7 of the 2003AOMP, levels of ambient pollutants monitored throughout the Basin have decreased substantially since 1980.The future air quality levels projected in the 2003 AQMP are based on several assumptions. For example, the SCAQMD assumes that general new development within the Basin will occur in accordance with population growth and transportation projections identified by SCAG in its most current version of the RCPG, which was adopted in March 1996. The AQMP also assumes that general development projects will include strategies (mitigation measures) to reduce emissions generated during construction and operation. ■ Local Regulations City of Newport Beach Local jurisdictions, such as the City of Newport Beach, have the shared responsibility to help develop and implement some of the control measures of the AQMP. Transportation -related strategies for congestion management, low emission vehicle infrastructure, and transit accessibility and non - transportation -related strategies for energy conservation can be encouraged by policies of local governments. A summary of the AQMP control measures that are partially within the jurisdiction of local governments to implement is provided in Table 4.2-2. City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 4.2.9 Miscellaneous Sources MSC-01 I Promotion of Lighter Colored Roofing and Road Materials and Tree Planting Programs I Energy Conservation SOURCE: SCAQMD 2003AirQuality Management Plan. 4.2.4 Thresholds of Significance The following thresholds of significance are based on Appendix G of the 2005 CEQA Guidelines. For purposes of this EM implementation of the proposed project may have a significant adverse impact on air quality if it would result in any of the following: ■ Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan ■ Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation ■ Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non -attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard ■ Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations ■ Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people The SCAQMD is principally responsible for comprehensive air pollution control in the South Coast Air Basin and recommends that projects should be evaluated in terms of air pollution control thresholds established by the SCAQMD and published in the CEQA Air Quality Handbook. These thresholds were developed by the SCAQMD to provide quantifiable significance levels for comparison with projects. The City of Newport Beach utilizes the SCAQbID's thresholds that are recommended at the time that development projects are proposed to assess the significance of quantifiable impacts. The following quantifiable thresholds are currently recommended by the SCAQMD and are used to determine the significance of air quality impacts associated with the proposed General Plan Update. M Construction Emissions Thresholds The SCAQMD currently recommends that projects With construction -related emissions that exceed any of the following emissions thresholds should be considered potentially significant. These thresholds apply to individual development projects only; they do not apply to cumulative development: ■ 550 pounds per day of carbon monoxide (CO) ■ 75 pounds pet day of volatile organic compounds (VOC) ■ 100 pounds per day of nitrogen oxides (NOS ■ 150 pounds per day of sulfur oxides (SO.,.) ■ 150 pounds per day of Fine Suspended Particulate Matter (PM„� 4.2-10 City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 1 4.2 Air Quality 121 Operational Emissions Thresholds The SCAQMD currently recommends that projects with operational emissions that exceed any of the following emissions thresholds should be considered potentially significant. These thresholds apply to individual development projects only; they do not apply to cumulative development: ■ 550 pounds per day of CO ■ 55 pounds per day of VOC ■ 55 pounds per day of NOx ■ 150 pounds per day of SOx ■ 150 pounds per day of PM,o In order to assess cumulative impacts, the SCAQMD recommends that projects be evaluated to determine whether they would be consistent with Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) performance standards and emission reduction targets. If a project incorporates design features, land use characteristics, and/or mitigation measures that reduce emissions of CO, VOC, NOx, SOx, and PM, by at least one percent, then it would not result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of criteria pollutants. If a project does not reduce these operational emissions by one percent, then it would result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of criteria pollutants for which the project region is in nonattainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard. 4.2.5 Project Impacts, Mitigation Measures, and Proposed Policies IM Effects Not Found to Be Significant The IS/NOP prepared for the proposed project did not identify any effects not found to be significant associated with Air Quality. Therefore, all thresholds are addressed in this section. 0 Project Impacts Threshold Would the project conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? Impact 4.2-1 Implementation of the proposed General Plan Update would conflict with or obstruct implementation of the Air Quality Management Plan. The 2003 Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) discussed in Section 4.24 (Regulatory Setting) was prepared to accommodate growth, to reduce the high levels of pollutants within the areas under the jurisdiction of SCAQMD, to return clean air to the region, and to minimize the impact on the economy. Projects that are considered to be consistent with the AQMP would not interfere with attainment because this growth is included in the projections utilized in the formulation of the AQMP. Therefore, projects, uses, and activities that are consistent with the applicable assumptions used in the development City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 4.2-11 of the AQMP would not jeopardize attainment of the air quality levels identified in the AQMP, even if they exceed the SCAQMD's recommended daily emissions thresholds. Projects that are consistent with the projections of employment and population forecasts identified in the Growth Management Chapter of the Regional Comprehensive Plan and Guide (RCPG) prepared by the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) are considered consistent with the AQbIP growth projections, since the Growth Management Chapter forms the basis of the land use and transportation control portions of the AQMP. The City of Newport Beach is located within the Orange County subregion of the RCPG. As discussed in Section 4.10 (Population and Housing) of this EIR, implementation of the proposed General Plan Update would induce substantial population growth through increased residential development beyond projected population levels for the City. The potential net increase of 14,215 residential units would result in a population increase of approximately 31,131 residents. This population increase would result in a total population of 103,753 persons at buildout of the proposed General Plan Update, which would represent a 43 percent increase in population over 2002 population. The SLAG -projected population for Newport Beach is 94,167 by 2030, and the population resulting from the proposed General Plan Update buildout would be approximately 10 percent higher than SCAG projections. The projected net population increase of 31,131 residents would represent an increase of approximately less than one percent over what is projected by SCAG for Orange County as well as the entire SCAG region for 2030. However, as the AQMP growth projections are based on SCAG population levels, the increase in population growth associated with the proposed plan would not have been accounted for in the AQMP. Therefore, implementation of the proposed General Plan Update would not be consistent with AQMP attainment forecasts and attainment of the standards could be delayed. Another measurement tool in determining consistency with the AQMP is to determine how a project accommodates the expected increase in population or employment. Generally, if a project is planned in a way that results in the minimization of vehicle miles traveled (VMT), both within the project area and the surrounding area in which it is located, and consequently the minimization of air pollutant emissions, that aspect of the project is consistent with the AQMP. Goals and policies contained in the General Plan Update would serve to promote a mixed -use, pedestrian -friendly district for Balboa Peninsula, Airport Area, Newport Center/Fashion Island, Mariners' Mile and which could contribute to decreases in vehicle miles traveled. Land Use Policy 3.3 identifies opportunities for mixed use development in these subareas and encourages a mixed -use district which would integrate economic and commercial centers, serving the needs of Newport Beach residents and the sub -region, with expanded opportunities for residents to live close to jobs, commerce, entertainment, and recreation, and is supported by a pedestrian -friendly environment. Specifically, Policy LU 6.14.5 encourages improved pedestrian connections and streetscape amenities, and Policy LU 6.15.9 allows the development of multi -family residential units and mixed -use buildings that integrate residential with commercial uses, and supporting retail, grocery stores, and parldands. Integration of residential uses I IF I 1 I I I 11 4.2.12 City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 4,2 Air Quality with commercial and entertainment uses, along with pedestrian -oriented development, would encourage pedestrian activities and discourage vehicle trips. The proposed General Plan Update also includes specific policies in the Natural Resources Element aimed at reducing vehicle miles traveled, providing alternative methods of transportation, encouraging the use of alternative fuel vehicles, as well as land uses that encourage pedestrian use through placement and design. Policy NR6.1, NR6.2, and NR6.3 would reduce vehicle trips through land use planning through mixed -use development or siting of amenities in proximity to residential or employment areas. Policy NR 6.4 and NR 6.5 would promote Transportation Demand Management programs, which encourages the use of alternative transportation modes, and coordination with transit agencies to promote mass transit use. These planning policies would serve to encourage the use of transit, reduce the number of vehicle trips and miles traveled, and create further opportunities for residents and employees of the City to walk and bike to work or shop. Based on the above information, the proposed General Plan Update would be consistent with the 2003 AQMP in the reduction of vehicle miles traveled, but would be inconsistent with the 2003 AQMP, because buildout of the proposed project would result in population levels above those uses in the 2003 AQMP. Therefore, because the proposed General Plan Update would conflict with implementation of the 2003 AQMP, this impact would be significant. Threshold Would the project violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? Impact 4.2-2 Implementation of the proposed General Plan Update would result in construction emissions that would contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation. Implementation of the proposed General Plan Update would result in new emissions being generated from construction activities. The thresholds of significance that have been recommended by the SCAQMD for these new emissions were developed for individual development projects. Under the proposed General Plan Update, varying amounts of construction would likely occur every year until buildout of the proposed General Plan Update. Many of the individual projects would be small and generate construction emissions that do not exceed the SCAQMD's recommended thresholds of significance. Although the City would not consider these projects to cause a potentially significant air quality impact, it will require each project to implement the proposed General Plan Update policies that address air quality in order to minimize emissions. Other projects will be large enough to generate construction emissions that exceed these thresholds. Through the environmental review process for individual projects, additional mitigation may also be required to further reduce emissions and potential impacts; however, even with mitigation it may not be possible to mitigate to a less -than -significant level. In the case of the proposed General Plan Update, which is an individual project under CEQA, it is expected that a number of construction projects could occur every year. It would be difficult, if not impossible, to quantify the emissions related to construction activities under the proposed General Plan City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 4.2.13 Update as the amount and timing of each construction event is not known at this time. Because the thresholds are established for individual development projects, and it is assumed that some of the projects that would be implemented under the proposed General plan Update could individually exceed the SCAQMD thresholds, the total amount of construction within the Planning Area under the proposed General Plan Update could also exceed the SCAQMD's recommended thresholds of significance, and this impact would be significant. Implementation of proposed General Plan Update policies NR 8.1 through NR 8.5 would help reduce construction -related impacts by reducing air pollutant emissions from construction activities. These policies call for the maintenance of construction equipment, the use of non-polluting and non -toxic building equipment, and minimizing fugitive dust. However, this impact would not be reduced to a less - than -significant level. This impact would remain significant and unavoidable. Air emissions associated with the proposed General Plan Update would also occur as a result of operation of new land uses. The thresholds of significance that have been recommended by the SCAQMD for these new emissions were developed for individual development projects and are based on the SCAQMD's New Source Review emissions standards for individual sources of new emissions such as boilers and generators. They do not apply to cumulative development or multiple projects. The SCAQMD does not recommend calculation of operational emissions for a planning document, such as the proposed General Plan Update. Threshold Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non -attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard; Impact 4.2-3 Implementation of the proposed General Plan Update would result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of criteria pollutants for which the region is in nonattaimnent under an applicable national or state ambient air quality standard. The SCAQMD's CEQA Air Quality Handbook identifies possible methods to determine the cumulative significance of land use projects (i:e., whether the contribution of a project is cumulatively considerable). These methods differ from the methodology used in other cumulative impact analyses in which all foreseeable future development within a given service boundary or geographical area is predicted and its impacts measured. The SCAQMD has not identified thresholds to which the totall emissions of all cumulative development can be compared. Instead, the SCAQMD's methods are based on performance standards and emission reduction targets necessary to attain federal and state air quality standards as predicted in the AQMP. As discussed previously under Impact 4.2-1, according to the CEQA Air Quality Handbook, projects that are consistent with the 2003 AQMP performance standards and emission reduction targets would be considered less than significant unless there is other pertinent information to the contrary. The method employed for this impact is an analysis of consistency with specific AQMP performance standards and emission reduction targets. If implementation of the proposed General Plan Update provides at least a one percent per year reduction in project emissions of CO, VOC, NOx, SOx, and PM10, then it would 4.2.14 City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 4.2 Air Qualify not result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is in nonattainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard. Construction emissions reductions measures, as estimated by the CEQA Air Quality Handbook, remove 0.1 percent to 98.0 percent of construction equipment emissions and 7.0 percent to 92.5 percent of fugitive dust emissions. Similarly, the effectiveness of control policies aimed at operational emissions associated with water heating and space heating/cooling would be approximately 1.5 to 14 percent, and motor vehicle trip reduction policies could reduce potential emissions by 0.1 percent and up to 40 percent. Policies that are aimed at air quality reduction are included in the Natural Resources Element of the proposed General Plan Update (see below). In particular, Natural Resources policies under Goal NR6 would reduce mobile source emissions through the reduction of vehicle travel, cleaner vehicles, and promotion of alternative transportation; policies under Goal 7 would reduce emissions from stationary sources by promoting best management practices and efficiency to minimize pollution, incentives for new technologies, and discouraging the use of blowers by the City and private users; and policies under Goal NR 9 would reduce air pollution emissions from aircraft associated with the John Wayne Airport. Other policies related to energy conservation, land use design, and circulation would also indirectly reduce air pollution emissions. The policies contained in the proposed General Plan Update would be consistent with the measures, programs, and policies of the 2003 AQMP. Although it can be reasonably assumed from the CEQA Air Quality Handbook data that the proposed policies would reduce the potential emissions that would otherwise be generated within the City by at least one percent on an annual basis, given the general nature of the proposed General Plan Update, it is not possible to quantify the exact reduction in emissions that would be provided by these policies. Therefore, the proposed General Plan Update may not meet the performance standard for annual emissions reductions and could result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of one or more criteria pollutants for which the project region is in nonattainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard, and this impact would be significant. Threshold Would the project expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? Impact 4.2-4 Implementation of the proposed General Plan Update could expose sensitive receptors to substantial CO concentrations. SCAQMD recommends the use of CALINE4, a dispersion model for predicting CO concentrations, as the preferred method of estimating pollutant concentrations at sensitive receptors near congested roadways and intersections. For each intersection analyzed, CALINE4 adds roadway -specific CO emissions calculated from peak -hour turning volumes to the existing ambient CO air concentrations. For this analysis, CO concentrations were calculated based on a simplified CALINE4 screening procedure developed by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District and utilized by SCAQMD. The simplified model is intended as a screening analysis in order to identify a potentialCO hotspot and assumes worst - case conditions and provides a screening of maximum, worst -case CO concentrations. The SCAQMD defines typical sensitive receptors as residences, schools, playgrounds, childcare centers, athletic facilities, long-term health care facilities, rehabilitation centers, convalescent centers, and City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 4.2.15 Chapter 4 Environmental Analysis retirement homes. When evaluating potential air quality impacts to sensitive receptors, the SCAQMD is primarily concerned with high localized concentrations of CO. Motor vehicles, and traffic -congested roadways and intersections are the primary source of high localized CO concentrations. Localized areas where ambient concentrations exceed federal and/or state standards for CO are termed CO "hotspots. " Implementation of the proposed General Plan Update is not expected to expose existing or future sensitive uses within the City to substantial CO concentrations. As shown in Table 4.2-3, based on CO modeling using the simplified CALINE4 methodology at the 17 intersections expected to operate at LOS D or worse, CO concentrations would be substantially below the national 35.0 ppm and state 20.0 ppm 1-hour ambient air quality standards, and the national and state 9.0 ppm 8-hour ambient air quality standards when growth envisioned under the proposed General Plan Update occurs. Therefore, sensitive receptors within the City would not be exposed to substantial pollutant concentrations, and the potential impacts of the proposed General Plan Update would be less than signiffcant. Table 4.2-3 Carbon Monoxide Intersection Concentrations at Selected Intersections Carbon Monoxide Concentrations (ppm) i-Hour AverdgMExist 00 1-Hour Average GP Update BuildoW 030) 8-Hour AvwmeExW (20061 8-Hour Average GP Update BuldoW 030 Newport Boulevard & Hospital Road 8.5 5.4 6.7 4.4 Riverside Avenue & Pacific Coast Highway 9.9 5.6 7.9 4.5 Tustin Avenue & Pacific Coast Highway 8.7 5.6 7.1 4.5 MacArthur Boulevard & Campus Drive 8,2 5.7 6.8 4.6 MacArthur Boulevard & Birch Street 8.2 5.4 6.7 4.4 Von Kannan Boulevard & Campus Drive 8.2 5,4 6.7 4.4 Jamboree Road & Campus Drive 9.5 5.9 7,6 4.7 Campus Drive & Bristol Skeet North 10.2 5.8 8.1 4.7 Irvine Avenue & Mesa Drive 9.0 5.6 7.3 4.6 Irvine Avenue & University Drive 8.8 5.6 7.2 4.5 Irvine Avenue & Weslcliff Drive 8.5 5.4 7.0 4.3 Dover Drive & Pacific Coast Highway 9.5 5.9 7.7 4.7 Bayside Drive & Pacific Coast Highway 9.3 5.7 7.5 4.6 MacArthur Boulevard & Jamboree Road 9.5 5.7 7.6 4.6 MacArthur Boulevard & Ford Road/Bonita Canyon Drive 10.0 5.7 8.0 4.6 MacArthur Boulevard & San Joaquin Hills Road 10.1 5.8 8.1 4.6 Marguerite Avenue & Pacific Coast Highway 8.9 &5 7.2 4.4 SOURCE; EIP Associates, 2005; Calculation sheets are provided in Appendix B National 1-hour standard is 35.0 parts per million. Stale 1-hour standard is 20.0 parts per mllion. Federal 8-hour standard is 9.0 parts per million. State 8-hour standard is 9.0 parts per million. 4.2-16 City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 4.2 Air Quality II II 1 Threshold Would the project create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? Impact 4.2-5 Implementation of the proposed General Plan Update could create objectionable odors that could affect a substantial number of people. Construction activities occurring under the proposed General Plan Update would generate airborne odors associated with the operation of construction vehicles (i.e., diesel exhaust) and the application of architectural coatings. However, these odors are not generally considered to be especially offensive. Emissions would occur during daytime hours only and would be isolated to the immediate vicinity of the construction site and activity. As such, they would not affect a substantial number of people as impacts related to these odors are limited to the number of people living and working nearby the source. However, due to the types of odors that would occur in the City, the exposure of substantial people to the source would not constitute an impact. Potential operational airborne odors could result from cooking activities associated with the new residential and restaurant uses within the City. These odors would be similar to existing housing and food service uses throughout the City and would be confined to the immediate vicinity of the new buildings. Restaurants are also typically required to have ventilation systems that avoid substantial adverse odor impacts. The other potential source of odors would be new trash receptacles within the community. The receptacles would be stored in areas and in containers as required by City and Health Department regulations, and be emptied on a regular basis, before potentially substantial odors have a chance to develop. Consequently, implementation of the proposed General Plan Update would not create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people within the City and potential impacts would be less than significant. 4.2.6 Cumulative Impacts The geographic context for air quality impacts is Source Receptor Area (SRA) 18 of the Basin. This area includes the Planning Area for the proposed General Plan Update. The analysis accounts for all anticipated cumulative growth within this geographic area. However, the significance of cumulative air quality impacts is typically determined according to the project methodology employed by the SCAQMD, as the regional -body with authority in this area, and which has taken regional growth projections into consideration. Cumulative development, including the proposed General Plan Update would result in a potentially significant impact in terms of conflicting with, or obstructing implementation of, the 2003 AQMP as development would result in population levels above those used in preparation of the AQMP. The AQMP was prepared to accommodate growth, to reduce the high levels of pollutants within the areas under the jurisdiction of SCAQMD, to return clean air to the region, and to minimize the impact on the economy. Growth considered to be consistent with the AQMP would not interfere with attainment because this growth is included in the projections utilized in the formulation of the AQMP. Consequently, if growth in the Basin is not within the projections for growth identified in the Growth Management Chapter of the RCPG, implementation of the AQMP would be obstructed by such growth. City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 4.2-17 Chapter 4 Environmental Analysis As growth in the Basin would exceed these projections, at least in the Planning Area, this is considered to be a significant cumulative impact. Since growth under the proposed General Plan Update is inconsistent with growth under the RCPG, the impact of the proposed General Plan Update is cumulatively considerable. This is considered a signiffcantimpact. With regard to daily operational emissions and the cumulative net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the region is in nonattainment, this is considered to be a potentially significant cumulative impact, due to nonattainment of ozone, CO, and PM10 standards in the Basin. With regard to the contribution of the proposed General Plan Update, the SCAQMD has recommended methods to determine the cumulative significance of new land use projects. The SCAQMD's methods are based on performance standards and emission reduction targets necessary to attain federal and state air quality standards as predicted in the AQMP. Under the SCAQIM methodology, as set forth in SCAQNM's CEQA Air Quality handbook, because it is unknown whether the policies, in the proposed General Plan Update would provide more than a one percent per year reduction in daily construction and operational emissions of criteria pollutants within the Planning Area, the proposed General Plan Update would have the potential to contribute to a cumulatively considerable net increase of a criteria pollutant. As discussed in Impact 4.2-3, the contribution of daily construction and operational emissions from the proposed project could be cumulatively considerable. This cumulative impact is considered to be significant. Cumulative development is not expected to expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. Thus, this is considered to be a less -than -significant cumulative impact. As discussed under Impact 4.2-4, future ambient CO concentrations resulting from the proposed project would be substantially below national and state standards. These future predictions take into account cumulative development that would occur in SRA 18. Therefore, the projeces contribution to the impact is considered less than cumulatively considerable, and the cumulative impact would be less than significant. Cumulative development would not have a potentially significant impact in terms of the creation of objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people. Thus, this is considered to be a less -than - significant cumulative impact. Projects projected to be built in the Planning Area include residential, office, and commercial developments, and could include restaurants. Odors resulting from the construction of projects that would occur upon implementation of the General Plan Update are not likely to affect a substantial number of people, due to the fact that construction activities occur in a limited area and do not usually emit odors that are considered to be offensive. Other odor impacts resulting from these projects ate also not expected to affect a substantial amount of people, as garbage from these projects would be stored in areas and in containers as required by City and Health Department regulations, and restaurants are typically required to have ventilation systems that avoid substantial adverse odor impacts. Cumulative odor impacts would thus be less than significant. ® Proposed General Plan Update Policies The Natural Resources and Land Use Elements of the proposed General Plan Update include policies that would address issues related to existing and future air quality within the City of Newport Beach. The policies that are applicable to the project are included below. 4.2-18 City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 4.2 Air Quality Natural Resources Element Air Quality Goal NR 6 Reduced mobile source emissions Policy NR 6.1 Walkable Neighborhoods Provide for walkable neighborhoods to reduce vehicle trips by siting amenities such as services, parks, and schools in close proximity to residential areas. Policy NR 6.2 Mixed -Use Development Support mixed -use development consisting of commercial or office with residential uses in accordance with the Land Use Element that increases the opportunity for residents to live in proximity to jobs, services, and entertainment. Policy NR 6.3 Vehicle -Trip Reduction Measures Support measures to reduce vehicle -trip generation such as at -work day care facilities, and on -site automated banking machines. Policy NR 6.4 Transportation Demand Management Ordinance Implement the Transportation Demand Management Ordinance which promotes and encourages the use of alternative transportation modes, and provides those facilities such as bicycle lanes that support such alternate modes. Policy NR 6.5 Local Transit Agency Collaboration Collaborate with local transit agencies to: develop programs and educate employers about employee rideshare and transit; establish mass transit mechanisms for the reduction of work -related and non -work related vehicle trips; promote mass transit ridership through careful planning of routes, headways, origins and destinations ,and types of vehicles; and develop bus shelters, bicycle lanes, and other bicycle facilities. Policy NR 6.6 Traffic Signal Synchronization Encourage synchronization of traffic signals throughout the City and with adjoining cities and counties to allow free flow of traffic. Policy NR 6.7 City Fleet Vehicles Implement the program to replace existing vehicles in the City fleet with clean vehicles that are commercially available and will provide needed services. City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 4.2.19 Policy NR 6.8 Accessible Alternative Fuel Infrastructure Support the development of alternative fuel infrastructure that is available and accessible to the public, and provide incentives for alternative fuel velvcles. Policy NR 6.9 Education on Mobile Source Emission Reduction Techniques Provide education to the public on mobile source emission reduction techniques such as using alternative modes of transportation. Goal NR 7 Reduced air pollution emissions from stationary sources. Policy NR 7.1 Fuel Efficient Equipment Support the use of fuel efficient hearing equipment and other appliances. Policy NR 7.2 Source Emission Reduction Best Management Practices Require the use of Best Management Practices (BMP) to minimize pollution and to reduce source emissions. Policy NR 7.3 Incentives for Air Pollution Reduction Provide incentives to promote siting or to use clean air technologies and building materials (e.g., fuel cell technologies, renewable energy sources, UV coatings, hydrogen fuel). Policy NR 7.4 Use of Blowers Consider eliminating the use of blowers by the City, and discourage their use on private property. Goal NR 8 Reduced air pollutant emissions from construction activities Policy NR 8.1 'Construction Equipment Require developers to use construction equipment that use low polluting fuels, engines, and exhaust controls to the extent available and feasible. Policy NR 8.2 Maintenance of Construction Equipment Require developers maintain construction in good operating condition to minimize air pollutants. Policy NR 8.3 Construction Equipment Operation Require developers to turn off construction equipment when not in use for an extended time period. 4.2.20 City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 4.2 Air Quality Policy NR 8.4 Non -Polluting and Non -Toxic Building Materials Require developers to use building materials, paints, sealants, mechanical equipment, and other improvements that yield low air pollutants and are non- toxic. Policy NR 8.5 Fugitive Dust Require developers to use construction practices that minimize fugitive dust and do not impact adjoining uses, such as watering of exposed surfaces, covering stock piles with tarps, limitation of vehicle speeds, sweeping of adjacent streets, and similar techniques. Goal NR 9 Reduced air pollution emissions from aircraft Policy NR9.1 Efficient Airport Operations Work with John Wayne Airport to continue efficient airport operations through high gate utilization and other methods. Policy NR9.2 Aircraft and Equipment Emission Reduction Work with John Wayne Airport to encourage development and use of emission reduction aircraft and other equipment. Land Use Element Goal LU 3 A development pattern that retains and complements the City's residential neighborhoods, commercial and industrial districts, open spaces, and natural environment. Policy LU 3.3 Opportunities for Change Provide opportunities for improved development and enhanced environments for residents in the following districts and corridors, as specified in Polices 6.3.1 through 6.22.7: ■ West Newport: consolidation of retail and visitor -serving commercial uses, with remaining areas developed for residential units ■ West Newport Mesa: re -use of underperforming commercial and industrial properties for offices and other uses that support Hoag Hospital's medical activities, improvement of remaining industrial properties adjoining the City of Costa Mesa, and development of residential in proximity to jobs and services ■ Santa Ana Heights: use of properties consistent with the adopted Specific Plan and Redevelopment Plan ■ John Wayne Airport Area: re -use of underperforming industrial and office properties and development of cohesive residential neighborhoods in proximity to jobs and services City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 4.2-21 Chapter 4 Environmental Analysis ■ Fashion Island/Newport Center: expanded retail uses and hotel rooms and development of residential in proximity to jobs and services, while limiting increases in office development ■ Balboa Peninsula: more efficient patterns of use that consolidate the Peninsula's visitor -serving and mixed uses within the core commercial districts; encourage marine -related uses especially along the bay front, integrate residential with retail uses in Lido Village, McFadden Square, and Balboa Village; re -use interior parcels in Cannery Village for residential and limited mixed -use and live/work buildings; and redevelop underperforming properties outside of the core commercial districts along the Balboa Boulevard corridor for residential. Infill development shall be designed and sited to preserve the historical and architectural fabric of these districts ■ Mariners' Mile: re -use of underperforming properties for retail, visitor - serving, and marine -related uses, integrated with residential ■ Corona del Mar: enhancement of public improvements and parking Goal LU 5.3 Districts where residents and businesses are intermixed that are designed and planned to assure compatibility among the uses, that they are highly livable for residents, and are of high -quality design reflecting the traditions. of Newport Beach. Policy LU 5.3.1 Mixed Use Buildings Require that mixed -use buildings be designed to convey a high level of architectural and landscape quality and ensure compatibility among their uses in consideration of the following principles: ■ Design and incorporation of building materials and features to avoid conflicts among uses, such as noise, vibration, lighting, odors, and similar impacts ■ Visual and physical integration of residentialand nonresidential uses ■ Architectural treatment of building elevations and modulation of their massing ■ Separate and well-defined entries for residential units and nonresidential businesses r Design of parking areas and facilities for archtectural consistency and integration among uses ■ Incorporation of extensive landscape appropriate to its location; urbanized streetscapes, for example, would require less landscape along the street frontage but integrate landscape into interior courtyards and common open spaces Policy LU 5.3.2 Mixed -Use Building Location and Size of Nonresidential Uses Require that 100 percent of the ground floor street frontage of mixed -use buildings be occupied by retail and other compatible nonresidential uses, unless specified otherwise by LU 6.0 fora district or corridor. 4.2.22 City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR ' 4,2 Air Quality I Policy LU 5.3.3 Parcels Integrating Residential and Nonresidential Uses Require that properties developed with a mix of residential and nonresidential uses be designed to achieve high levels of architectural quality in accordance with policies 5.1.8 and 5.2.2 and planned to assure compatibility among the uses and provide adequate circulation and parking. Residential uses should be seamlessly integrated with nonresidential uses through architecture, pedestrian walkways, and landscape. They should not be completely isolated by walls or other design elements. Goal LU 6.14 A successful mixed -use district that integrates an economic and commercial centers serving the needs of Newport Beach residents and the subregion, with expanded opportunities for residents to live close to jobs, commerce, entertainment, and recreation, and is supported by a pedestrian -friendly environment. Policy LU 6.14.5 Pedestrian Connectivity and Amenity Encourage that pedestrian access and connections among uses within the district be improved with additional walkways and streetscape amenities concurrent with the development of expanded and new uses. Policy LU 6.15.9 Residential and Supporting Uses Accommodate the development of multi -family residential units, including work force housing, and mixed -use buildings that integrate residential with ground level office or retail uses in areas and supporting retail, grocery stores, and parklands. This may occur as replacement of existing buildings or as infill on parking lots, provided that the parking is replaced in a structure located on - site. ■ Impacts and Mitigation Measures The proposed General Plan Update policies listed above would not reduce future population levels as predicted for buildout of the proposed General Plan Update and there would be no feasible mitigation to reduce the impact of an increased population on implementation of the AQMP. The proposed General Plan Update policies would reduce air pollutant emissions associated with construction under the proposed General Plan Update to the maximum extent feasible (as discussed in Impact 4.2-2). They would not, however, reduce the total emissions generated by new uses within the City to levels that are less than the SCAQIvM's recommended thresholds of significance for construction of individual development projects. There are no additional feasible mitigation measures available. Implementation of the proposed General Plan Update policies would apply to activities associated with operation of the projects that would occur under the proposed General Plan Update; however, implementation of the policies would not reduce the impact to a less -than -significant level. No additional mitigation is considered feasible to reduce this potential impact. City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 4.2-23 Chapter 4 Environmental Analysis Level of Significance After Policies/Mitigation Measures The proposed General Plan Update policies listed above would not reduce future population levels as predicted for buildout of the proposed General Plan Update and there would be no feasible mitigation to reduce the impact of an increase population on implementation of the Air Quality management plan (AQMP). Therefore, Impact 4.2-1 would be considered sign&cant and unavoidable. The proposed General Plan Update policies and mitigation measures listed above would reduce air pollutant emissions associated with construction under the proposed General Plan Update to the maximum extent feasible. They would not, however, reduce the total emissions generated by new uses within the City to levels that are less than the SCAQMD's recommended thresholds of significance for construction of individual development projects. Because the policies and mitigation measures would not reduce this potential impact (Impact 4.2-2) construction air quality impacts would remain significant and unavoidable. Cumulative impacts associated with construction air pollutant emissions would also remain significant and unavoidable. Implementation of the proposed General Plan Update policies would apply to activities associated with operation of the projects that would occur under the proposed General Plan Update; however, implementation of the policies would not reduce the impact to a less -than -significant level. Because no additional mitigation is considered feasible to reduce this potential impact, air quality impacts would remain significant and unavoidable. 4.2.7 References California.1999. Department of Transportation, Califonda LINE Source Dispersion Model, version 4, v.1.31. April 2005. Air Resources Board, Trarispodatiou and Land Use Ngrais lblodel, URBEMIS 2002, version 8.7.0. April South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). 1993. CEeQAAir Onality Handbook. 2003.2003 Air Onality Management Plan. ND. AirOualit3, Analysis Giddance Handbook. Portions available for review at http://www.agmd.gov/cega/hdbk.html Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG). 2004 RTP Grm1dG Forecasts. http://,tnvw.scag.ca.gov/forecast/downloads/2004GF.xls, Accessed August 2005. 4.2-24 City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR ' 4.3 Biological Resources III 4.3 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 4.3.1 Introduction This section evaluates the impacts of the proposed General Plan Update associated with biological resources within the City of Newport Beach. Existing data sources used to prepare this section were taken from a California Natural Diversity Database search for the U.S. Geological Survey's (USGS) 7.5- minute quadrangles for Newport Beach, Tustin, and Laguna Beach and biological resources reports prepared for the City of Newport Beach General Plan Update Technical Background Report including City of Newport Beach, California, Local Coastal Plait —Biological Appendix (Chambers Group and Coastal Resources Management 2002, December), the City of Newpai Beach, California, General Plan Update — Newport Beach Biological Resources (Chambers Group and Coastal Resources Management 2003, January), and the City of Newport Beach, Ca/ifoniia, General Plait Update—Neippod Beach Biological Resources Addendum (EIP Associates 2003, December). The Biological Resources Addendum has been included as Appendix Cl. Full bibliographic entries for all reference materials are provided in Section 4.3.6 (References) of this section. During the Initial Study process, it was determined that the proposed General Plan Update could result in adverse impacts on biological resources including effects on candidate, sensitive, or special status species, riparian habitats, and jurisdictional waters of the United States. The Initial Study also identified potential impacts related to the alteration of wildlife corridors and consistency with established policies and plans. One comment letter associated with biological resources was received in response to the IS/NOP circulated for the proposed General Plan Update. The Environmental Quality Affairs Citizens Advisory Committee for the City of Newport Beach requested that the DEIR include an analysis of potential impacts on sensitive wildlife and plant species. Section 4.3.5 (Project Impacts, Mitigation Measures, and Proposed Policies) provides such an analysis. 4.3.2 Existing Conditions ■ Regional Characteristics The City of Newport Beach, with a population of approximately 83,120,7 is an area of 13,062 acres located at the western edge of Orange County, adjacent to the Pacific Ocean, as shown in Figure 3-1. Generally, Newport Beach is bordered by Costa Mesa to the northwest, Huntington Beach to the west, Irvine to the northeast, and unincorporated portions of Orange County and Laguna Beach to the southeast. The following descriptions of climate, geomorphology, and existing preserved open space have been provided for background on the regional setting of the resources within the Planning Area. 7 California. 2005. Department of Finance. Table 2: E-5 City/County Population and Housing Estimates. 1 January. ' City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 4.3-1 Chapter 4 Environmental Analysis Watersheds The Planning Area is located within the boundaries of four watersheds, each of which contain an interconnected system of surface water resources that feed into the underlying groundwater aquifer or drain into the ocean. The main tributaries and groundwater resources located within the Planning Area are discussed in detail below. The watersheds within the Planning Area include the Newport Bay, Newport Coast, Talbert, and San Diego Creek watersheds. Both the Newport Bay and Newport Coast watersheds cover most of the Planning Area, with the remaining smaller portions covered by the Talbert and San Diego Creek watersheds. Section 4.7 (Hydrology and Water Quality) of this EIR contains detailed descriptions of these four watersheds. Climate The climate of Southern California is described as Mediterranean, a wet -winter, dry -summer climate. Extremely dry summers are caused by the sinking air of the subtropical highs and may last for up to five months. Average mountain temperature in Southern California ranges from 32 to 60 degrees Fahrenheit (°F), getting colder with an increase in elevation. Along the coast, temperatures average 53-65°F. Freezing weather may sometimes occur in the winter, but only for short durations. Most of the 12-40 inches per year of precipitation is in the form of rain, fall, winter, and spring receiving equal amounts (Blue Planet Biomes, 2005). Any snow that may fall in the winter melts very quickly. The precipitation also increases with elevation. During the summer, the coastline usually experiences more moderate weather and more moisture from fog than interior regions. Within Mediterranean climates there can be dramatic differences in rainfall from year to year. Consequently, the plant communities growing in these regions often consist of drought -tolerant, woody shrubs and trees, and annual, fall -sprouting grasses (Ritter 2006). Geomorphology Topography The local topography in the Planning Area ranges from gently sloping areas in the northwest portion of the City to steeper topography in the eastern and southern areas. Over 50 percent of the Planning Area, including most of the northern and western pardons, as well as some portions of the Newport Coast area, have a slope gradient that range up to approximately 10 degrees. Slopes increase with proximity to the Newport Mesa and San Joaquin Hills, and areas with more severe slopes are generally concentrated in the southern and eastern portions of the City. The bluffs that border the water -bodies in the City, including Newport Bay and City streams, have a slope gradient ranging from 10 to 40 degrees. Similarly, most of the San Joaquin Hills have a slope gradient of 10 to 40 degrees. Parts of the San Joaquin Hills located near the southern border of the City of Newport Beach have a slope gradient of 40 degrees and greater. Elevations across the City range from approximately 0 to 394 feet in the areas comprised of West Newport, Balboa Peninsula, and Newport Bay to approximately 2,460 to 3,281 feet in the high relief terrain areas of the SanJoaquin Hills in the eastern portion of the City. 4.3.2 City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 4.3 Biological Resources 0 Habitat Types Several different plant communities/habitats occur within the Planning Area. Each plant community is determined by the balance (percentages) of particular plant species within a respective area. The following summarizes several of the plant communities known to exist within the limits of the project. Scrub Habitats Scrub habitats are characterized by an 80 percent or greater coverage by shrub species. Subtypes of scrub are determined by the dominant shrub species. This type of community often occurs on gentle to steep slopes, and tends to be drought -deciduous', low -growing, and gray -green in color (Chambers 2003). Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub This community can be defined as low, drought -deciduous, and evergreen shrubs that occur generally below 3,000 feet in elevation on steep to moderate, south -facing, exposed slopes of the western mountains. Shrubs are more widely spaced than those typical of chaparral and do not have the characteristic rigidness or thick drought -resistant leaves. Coastal scrub communities are characterized by low shrubs and an absence of trees. Types of shrubs include either pure stands or mixtures of low, thick - leaved evergreens and coarse, deciduous species that drop their leaves in response to periodic drought conditions. Dominant species include California sagebrush (Artemisia californica), California buckwheat (Etigolum fasdeulatum), costal goldenbush (Isocoma nien*sit), island mallow (Lavatera assutgentiflora), deerweed (Lotus scoparins), mesa bushmallow (Malacotharnntu fasdealams), laurel sumac (Malomw lamina), lemonadeberry (Rhos integtifolia), white sage (Salvia apiana), and small -flowered needle grass (Nassella lepida). Diegan coastal sage scrub integrates with chaparral communities at higher elevations and Riversidian sage scrub in drier inland areas (Holland 1986). Wildlife Use of Coastal Sage Scrub Coastal sage scrub is considered a sensitive habitat because it supports a diverse fauna and has potential to support numerous threatened, endangered, or rare species, and has been acknowledged as such by its inclusion in the Central and Coastal Orange County Natural Community Conservation Plan (NCCP) (Orange County 1996). Among these are the coastal cactus wren (Canrpylorlyttchus bnoweicapillus sandiegensis), San Diego horned lizard (Phrynosoma coronatum blainvillet), orange -throated whiptail (Cnemidophorus lypertlyrus), coastal western whiptail (Cnemidophorus tigris multisadatus), BeTs sage sparrow (Amphispila belli), coastal California gnatcatcher, and the southern California rufous -crowned sparrow (Aitttophila noceps canescens). Scrub habitats are also important to larger species such as mule deer (Odocoileas bwdonus) and mountain lions (Felicconcolor). 8 Drought -deciduous species are those that that drop their leaves in response to periodic drought conditions. City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 4.3.3 Chaparral Habitats The presence of chaparral shrub species over 50 percent or more of an area indicates the presence of a chaparral vegetative community. Chaparral vegetation is typically thick, 4- to 12-foot tall evergreen woody shrubs and/or dwarf trees (Holland 1986). The community is composed mainly of species that are adapted to seasonal and periodic drought by having hardened leaves that resist water loss at high temperatures and/or low moisture. Southern Mixed Chaparral The coastal form of this community, which may contain coastal sage shrub species as its understory, is comprised primarily of toyon (Heterweles arbatlfolia), laurel sumac, and lemonadeberry in dense stands on moderately -wet north -facing slopes. In addition, holly leafed tedberry (Rliaewns ilidfolia), fuchsia -flowered gooseberry (Ribes spedosaw), and scrub oak (Qtrerres berberidifolia) are typical of this community (Chambers 2003). Wildlife Use of Chaparral High -quality chaparral supports a diverse fauna. Chaparral provides suitable shelter, basking sites, and foraging habitat for reptiles like the western rattlesnake (Crotalns viddis), common kingsnake (Laaipropelds getebts), rosy boa (Charm ldvirgata), coastal western whiptaH, striped,racer (Masticopbis lateralis), northern red -diamond rattlesnake (Crotalns reber rnber , and western fence lizard (Scelopores occidentalis). Avian species that characteristically nest in chaparral include wrentit (Cbawaea fasdwta), California quail (Callpepla caltyandca), blue -gray gnatcatcher (Polioptila caerelea), black -chinned sparrow (Spkella ahngelads), spotted towhee (Pipilo waculatas), and California thrasher (Toxostowa redivivwe). Small mammals are common in chaparral and include brush rabbit (Sylvilagus badrwaw), California kangaroo rat (Dpodonys califondcus), and woodrat (Neotowa sp). Several predators will use chaparral opportunistically, foraging on the reptiles, birds, and small mammals. These include Cooper's hawk (Accipiter coopetit), sharp -shinned hawk (Acdpiter striates), bobcat (Fells rifts), and coyote (Canis latrans). Riparian and Wetland Habitats Riparian communities are those that require abundant moisture during all or most of the year and, as a result, occur along pefeitnial and intermittent streams or rivers. Riparian habitats, including forest, woodland, and scrub subtypes, may or may not be classified as wetland habitat; however; this habitat type is distributed in waterways and drainages where a permanent supply of water (on the surface or below ground) typically exists. These communities generally consist of one or more deciduous tree species with an assorted understory of shrubs and herbs that are restricted to the banks and floodplains of these waterways (Holland and Keil 1995). Riparian communities generally occur among mid to large -order streams below 4,000 feet in elevation, primarily within the foothills and valleys. Riparian vegetation types and size vary along stream channels. Along small stream channels the extent of the riparian community may only be a thin band of vegetation within or directly adjacent to the channel, whereas along larger streams or rivers the ripatian habitat can be in the form of dense woodlands that axe 4.3.4 City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR quite extensive (Holland and Keil 1995). Height of these communities can vary from 3 to 10 feet in scrub habitats, to over 100 feet tall in riparian forest habitats (Grenfell 1988). ' Riparian forests generally have closed canopies dominated by broadleaved, winter -deciduous trees. In the ' Project Area, these forests are dominated by white alder (Abuts rhombifoka), and big leaf maple (Ater macrophyllum). Closer to the coast, white alder is replaced by red alder (Ahrns rubm). Evergreen hardwoods such as California bay and coast live oak will commonly occur along the edges of riparian corridors. ' Willow Riparian Scrub (Southern Willow Scrub) ' Willow riparian scrub is dominated by willow trees (Salix spp) and also may contain gooseberry (gibes spp), Mexican elderberry, and an understory of herbaceous water -dependant plants. Arroyo willow (Salix lasiolepis) is the dominant species within perennial and intermittent stream channels at elevations up to ' about 2,450 feet. Goodding's black willow (Salix gooddingiz) occurs along streambanks and in wet places within drier habitats at elevations below about 1,500 feet (Faber and Keller 1985). ' Southern Cottonwood Riparian Forest This community occurs on floodplains along major streams and creeks and is dominated by cottonwoods ' (Poptthu fremondi, P. trichocavpa), black willow, and red willow (Salix laevigata). Occasionally, a second canopy layer of arroyo willow, mulefat, poison oak (Twdcondendron diversilobum), western false indigo (Amorpha fiudcosa), and desert wild grape (TVitusgirdiana) is present. The understory is usually composed of ' giant creek nettle (Urtica holosericea), branching phacelia (Phacelia tamosissima), dock (Rnmex sp.), and blackberry (Rebus sp.). In addition, several invasive species, including giant reed (Arundo donax), castor ' bean (Biadus commnnis), and tree tobacco (Nicodanaglanca), are typical of this plant community (Chambers 2003). Southern Arroyo Willow Forest This community is typical of floodplains along major streams and rivers. Arroyo willow, which forms a closed canopy, is the dominant species in this community. The understory vegetation is generally comprised of nettle, poison oak, mugwort, western ragweed, dock, mustard (Brassica sp.), nightshade (Solanum sp.), poison hemlock (Corium maculatum), milk thistle (Silybum marianum), and blackberry. ' Southern Coastal Salt Marsh Coastal salt marshes develop along the intertidal shores of bays and estuaries. Estuaries occur where a river meets the sea, and the water is somewhat brackish. Salt marsh plants are adapted to a harsh, semi - aquatic environment and saline soils. Species composition and distributions in the salt marsh are ' governed by salinity gradients in combination with the amount of intertidal exposure (California Resources Agency 2005). Common species within this vegetation community include pickleweed ' (Saliconda sp.) and saltgrass (Distieblis sp.) (Sawyer and Keeler -Wolf 1995). ' City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 4.3-5 Chapter 4 Environmental Analysis Coastal Freshwater Marsh Coastal freshwater marshes are sometimes found in association with salt marshes. Typical freshwater marsh plants include numerous species of sedges; these grass -like plants often exceed' five feet in height (California Resources Agency 2005). Slough sedge (Carex obmpta) is one of the most common. Other typical species include cattails (T)pha latlfolia), bushy, needle -leaved rushes (Jimcnsphaeocephalns), aquatically adapted wildflowers such as yellow pond -lily (Ncphar polysepalmu), water buttercup (Ranmtculas orthorlyuchns), and succulent water parsley (Oenawbe sanvewosa) are also typical freshwater matsh inhabitants. Most species have developed air tubes to their roots, buoyant leaves, or porous leaf coverings that enhance gas exchange. In contrast to salt marshes, freshwater marshes have little if any water movement. Wildlife Use of Riparian and Wetland Habitats The frequently abundant water that is available in riparian communities and seeps and springs provides breeding habitat for many amphibian species, including Pacific slender salamander (Bahachoseps padficns major , coast range newt (Taricha tomsa tomsa), arroyo toad (Bnfo wiemseaphus cagondchs), western toad (Brio Koreas), and numerous species of treefrogs (Hyla spp). Reptiles that depend on or are closely associated with water include the two -striped garter snake (Thaalnophis hamnrondit), red racer (eoachwhip) (Masdeophis flagelhmrpicens), and southwestern pond turtle (Clenwysmarrnoratapallida) (Stebbins 2003). Resident bird species that are commonly found in riparian areas include the mourning dove, woodpeckers (Picoides sp), black phoebe (Sayonds nigrrcaus), orange -crowned warbler (Ver»jivara celata), and song sparrow. Several of these species nest or roost in riparian areas and •feed in adjacent habitat types, such as annual grassland and agricultural fields. Mammals found within riparian woodland habitat may include the Virginia opossum (Didelphis vhgidana), raccoon (Pmcyon loto> , broad -footed mole (Scapanns ladmanns), woodrats, striped skunk (Mephitis mephitis), and gray fox (Procyon cinereoargenteus). The abundance of birds and small mammals provides prey for several raptor species that nest and/or forage in riparian communities, including Cooper's hawk, sharp -shinned hawk, western screech owl (Ohu keunicotti:), and red -shouldered hawk (Buteo lineams). In addition to providing high value wildlife habitat, riparian corridors provide local movement corridors between patches of fragmented habitat. Riparian habitats are considered a sensitive habitat type and are monitored closely by the CDFG. Grassland Habitats Grassland consists of low herbaceous vegetation dominated by grasses. It grows in deep, well -developed soils on gentle slopes and flats, mostly at low elevations. There are three types of grassland in the Planning Area including native grassland, nonnative annual grassland, and xuderal grassland, Each type of grassland is further discussed below. Native Grassland (Needlegrass Grassland) Native grasslands are treeless areas dominated by perennial bunchgrasses and interspersed with native annual herbs and wildflowers (Holland and Kell 1995). Native grassland habitat is most often found at elevations below 1,500 feet, and is a mid -height (to 2 feet tall) grassland. In California, the dominant 4.3.6 City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR bunchgrass is the perennial, tussock -forming purple needlegrass (Nassellapulebra) (Holland 1986). Native grasslands usually occur on fine -textured (often clay) soils that are moist or even waterlogged during the winter, but very dry in the summer. Historically, native grasslands were much more widespread throughout California than today. The introduction of nonnative grasses and forbs, livestock grazing, and alteration of the natural fire regime are factors that resulted in the displacement of native bunchgrass, other native grasses, and forbs by introduced species (Heady 1988). Native and nonnative annual grasslands, as well as coastal scrub habitats, form transitional stages but are found primarily in rich -soiled valley bottoms and lower foothills. Generally, perennial grasses, such as needlegrasses (Nassella spp), dominate these communities. Native grasslands also provide a matrix for a host of native grasses and forbs including ryegrass (Elymus glaucrts), junegrass (Koeleria macrantha), mariposa lily (Calochortus spp), brodiaea (Brodiaea sp), checker bloom (Sidalcea malvaeflora ), one-sided bluegrass (Poa secunda), blue wild -rye (Elymusglarrcus), and melic grasses (Melica spp). These native species are often interspersed with nonnative annual grasses such as wild oats and bromes. Once covering one -fifth of the state, today native perennial grasslands cover approximately 0.1 percent of that area (CNPS 2005). Native grasslands that exist in California today are considered sensitive by resource agencies. Nonnative Annual Grassland Annual grasslands are virtually treeless areas dominated by nonnative annual grasses. Annual grasslands occur from sea level to about 3,600 feet (Kie 1988). Annual grasslands occur throughout California and have largely replaced the perennial, native grasslands. European grasses dominate the nonnative annual grassland habitat present within southern California (Holland, 1986). Characteristic species within the Planning Area include wild oats, ripgat brome, foxtail chess (Bromus madritensis), and cheat grass (Brornus tectonov), barley (Hordemar sp), and fescue (Vupia sp). Other species commonly associated with nonnative grasslands include filaree (Erodium bohys), sweet fennel (Foenicafrtm vulgare), mustards, and thistles (Cardmts spp, Centaurea caldirapa, and others). Nonnative annual grasslands occur primarily in the deeper -soiled, clay -loam bottomlands bordering riparian communities and on the lower hillsides where they meet coastal live oak woodlands, chaparral, and coastal scrub communities. They generally constitute lands that are highly modified by humans' repeated disturbance. Ruderal Grassland Though not a true habitat community as defined by Holland (1986), ruderal grasslands are common within urbanized landscapes. These areas contain herbaceous vegetation dominated by highly adaptive and invasive species with few, if any, native species. Ruderal habitat is found most frequently in areas disturbed by human activities such as roadways, maintained ditches, and areas frequently cleared of vegetation. Characteristic ruderal species identified in the Planning Area include wild oats, ripgut brome, yellow star thistle (Centaurea solstitialis), bindweed (Convolmlrts amensis), California wild rose (Rosa califondw), sow thistle, mustard, alyssum, lambs quarters, sunflower, telegraph weed, giant horseweed, common knotweed (Poly arenastrunr), bermuda grass (Cynodon dactylon), wild radish (Rapbanus sadws), and clover (Meklotus sp). ' City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 4.3.7 Wildlife Use of Grasslands Grasslands provide food and refuge for numerous wildlife species. Those species that formerly relied on native grasslands for nesting now also use annual grasslands. Native and nonnative grasslands and herbaceous understoties provide habitat for a number of bird species including the grasshopper sparrow (Anneod)-amus sauannamm), western meadowlark (Starnella neglecta), horned lark (Eremaphila apesi s), and western burrowing owl (Atbene aedcelatia loegea). Grasslands produce large numbers of seeds that are a valuable food source for many bird species including American pipit (Anther nlbescens), lark sparrow (Chondestesgrawmacres) and savannah sparrow (Passetraltrs sandnlicbepsis). Rodents common within grasslands include deer mouse (Permlyscus maniadates), California vole (MicmMx califondais), Botta's pocket gopher (Thomonys bottae eigracaes), San Diego pocket mouse (Pemgnatbns fallax fallaa), and California ground squirrel (Spetwopbibts beecb}Vi). These and other rodents become the prey base for various resident raptors, such as golden eagle (Aquila cbrysaetos), red-tailed hawk, white-tailed kite (Elanns leumnu), ferruginous hawk (Brtteo regalis), and northern harrier (Cirens cyanens) that utilize wide, open grasslands as foraging habitat. Coyote, Pacific gopher snake (Pitnotbis melanolenau), western yellow -bellied racer (Comber constrictor nmrnion), and western rattlesnake also feed on small rodents present in grasslands. Ornamental Ornamental landscaping consists of areas supporting introduced trees, shrubs, flowers, and turf grass. Ornamental landscaping occurs in green belts, parks, and horticultural plantings throughout Orange County. Typical species include gum trees (Eecalyptru sp.), pepper trees (Selbinns sp), Canary Island date palm (Phoenix cauariauis), and Mexican fan palm (IMashbrgtatia robnsta) (Chambers 2003). Disturbed Disturbed areas are either devoid of native vegetation, (cleared or graded) including dirt roads, or dominated by a sparse cover of ruderal vegetation. These areas also include paved and upaved roads, as well as developed areas (offices, residences, etc.) (Chambers 2003). 0 Sensitive Biological Resources Special Status Species Literature Survey Information regarding the occurrences of special -status species in the vicinity of the Project Area was obtained from searching the California Department of Fish and Game's (CDFG) Natural Diversity Data Base (CNDDB, July 2005) and California Native Plant Society's Electronic Inventory (CNPSEI July 2005) for the USGS 7.5-minute quadrangles for Newport Beach, Tustin, and Laguna Beach. These databases contain records of reported occurrences of federal- or state -listed endangered, threatened, rare, or proposed endangered or threatened species, federal species of concern, state species of special concern, or otherwise sensitive species or habitat that may occur within or in the immediate vicinity of the Planning Area. Fists from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service ([JSFWS) and CDFG were also 4.3-8 City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 4.3 Biological Resources ' reviewed, and lists of sensitive wildlife and plant species potentially occurring within the Planning Area ' were developed. This search range encompasses a sufficient distance to accommodate for regional habitat diversity and to overcome the limitations of the CNDDB. The CNDDB is based on reports of actual occurrences and does not constitute an exhaustive inventory of every resource. ' Additional background information on biological resources was derived from: ■ City of Newport Beach General Plan Update Technical Background Report —'Newport Beach ' Biological Resources, January 2003 ■ The Southern Coastal Sage Scrub Natural Community Conservation Plan ■ Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) ' Additional botanical information came from the Preliminary Descriptions of the Terrestrial Natural Communities of California (Holland 1986), the List of California Terrestrial Natural Communities Recognized by the Natural ' Diversity Data Base (CDFG 2004, January), the Jepson Manual of Higher Plants of California (Hickman 1993), and A Manual of California Vegetation (Sawyer and Keeler -Wolf 1995). Based upon the results of the literature review, record searches, and site -specific surveys, a list of special -status plant and animal species ' and habitats with the potential to occur within the Planning Area was developed for analysis (Appendix C2). ' The CNDDB search for these quadrangles results in 1 amphibian, 1 fish, 8 invertebrates, 7 reptiles, 16 birds, 12 mammals, and 33 plant species. However, it should be noted that some of these species are restricted to habitats not found within the Planning Area. ' ■ Marine Resources ' The marine resources of the Planning Area and surrounding ocean waters include plants and animal's of marshes and wetlands living in Upper Newport Bay, the developed channels, beaches, and hardscape of ' Lower Newport Bay (Newport Harbor), and the intertidal and subtidal landforms (sandy beaches, rocky intertidal, sandy subtidal, and subtidal reefs) along the coast of Newport Beach between the Santa Ana River and the boundary between the City and unincorporated Orange County. Many of these areas are ' considered wetland habitat by the state of California and federal wetland definitions are protected by a no -net loss wetlands policy. ' Sensitive Marine Species ' Several species of marine mammals are present in the waters near the shore along the Newport coastline. All marine mammals are protected by the Marine Mammal Protection Act. Protected marine mammals that are most likely to occur in the City are: California sea lion, Harbor seal, California gray whale, Killer ' whale, Common dolphin, Pacific white sided dolphin, and Dall's porpoise. Eelgrass (Zostera marina), a flowering, marine vascular plant, is considered a sensitive marine resource due ' to its nursery function for invertebrates and fishes, and because it is considered critical foraging habitat for the federal- and state -listed California least tern. Eelgrass is protected by the Southern California Eelgrass Mitigation Policy, which requires impacts to this species be avoided, minimized or compensated. ' City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 4.3-9 Chapter 4 Environmental Analysis Other sensitive marine resources (shown in Figure 4.3-1) include eelgrass restoration areas, Giant kelp, California Grunion, and California halibut. ® Environmental Study Areas Undeveloped areas supporting natural habitats that may be capable of supporting sensitive biological resources within the City are referred to as Environmental Study Areas (ESAs). An ESA may support species and habitats that are sensitive and tare within the region or may function as a migration corridor for wildlife. ESAs, or portions of them, within the Coastal Zone that are shown, after more detailed study, to contain sensitive or rare species are referred to as Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Areas (ESHAs), as defined by the California Coastal Act ESHAs are areas in which "plant or animal life or their habitats are either rare or are especially valuable because of their special nature or role in an ecosystem that could easily be disturbed or degraded by human activities and developments." The Coastal Act requires that ESHAs be protected against any significant disruption of habitat values. Only uses dependent on those resources are allowed within ESHAs and adjacent development must be sited and designed to prevent impacts that would significantly degrade the ESHA and must be compatible with the continuance of the ESHA. There are 28 identified ESAs within the City of Newport Beach, as shown in Figure 4.3-2: (1) Semeniuk Slough, (2) North Star Beach, (3) West Bay, (4) Upper Newport Bay State Marine Park (formerly Ecological Reserve), (5) De .Anna Bayside Marsh Peninsula, (6) San Diego Creek (7) East Bluff Remnant, (8) Mouth of Big Canyon, (9) Newporter North, (10) Buck Gully, (11) Morning Canyon, (12) Newport Beach Marine Life Refuge, (13) Castaways, (14) Banning Ranch, (15) Newport Coast Open Space, (16) Los Trancos, Pelican Hill, (17) Ridge Park, (18) Irvine Coast Marine Life Refuge, (19) Newport Harbor Entrance Channel, (20) Bonita Canyon Creek Watershed, (21) San Joaquin Reservoir, (22) Arroyo Park, (23) Coyote Canyon, (24) MacArthur and Bison, (25) MacArthur and San Miguel, (26) MacArthur and San Joaquin Hills, (27) Spyglass Hill, and (28) and Non -Coastal Buck, Gully. Many of these sites contain one or more sensitive plant communities, and many species of wildlife. Some of the ESAs also contain endangered species of plants and animals. Most of these ESAs are protected as parks, conservation areas, nature preserves, and other open space areas. However, each of these ESAs are subjected to various threats from the surrounding urban environment that include polluted water quality, traffic, noise, public access, development encroachment, erosion and sedimentation, dredging or filling, stormwater runoff, invasive species, and feral animals. ■ Wildlife Movement Terms such as habitat corridors, linkages, crossings, and travel routes are used to describe physical connections that allow wildlife to move between patches of suitable habitat in undisturbed landscapes as well as environments fragmented by urban development. To clarify the meaning of these terms and facilitate the discussion of wildlife movement in this analysis, these terms are further defined below. 4.3.10 City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR CITY of NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL PLAN UPDATE EIR Figure 4.3-1 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Legend - Eelgrass Bed - Giant Kelp Bed ®Historic Grunion Spawning Area -Upper Newport Bay Nature Preserve Upper Newport Beach State Marine Park City Boundary 0 County Boundary *4CHr New m Rath g 0 0.5 1 Mlles �� ar a naycr neoa�. un plea Nu lusn8s I I I 1 I I I I i I I I i i I I 1 CITY of NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL PLAN UPDATE EIR Figure 4.3-2 ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY AREAS Legend 0 Seminuk Slough O Northstor Bach _ West Bay O Uppper Newport Bay State l•Aorine Park & Uppor Nnwpon Bay Noti lip. Prnsarve 0 De Anza Bys,de Marsh Penfimulo 0 son Diego Creek 0 i. astbluff Remnant 0 Big Canyon 0 Newporter North 0 Ruck Gully 0 Morning Canyon 0 Nuwport Beach Marine Life re uge ® costaway5 ® Nanning Ronch 0 Newport Coast 0 Los ironcoi Pelican HUI 0 Rags Park = kvine Goad Marine Life Refuge 0 Giunt kelp Bud in Newport i loroor Entrance Channel 0 Bonito Canyon Creek h'ntershod 0 um Joaquin Reservoir ® Arroyo Pork ® Coyote Canyon ® MccArmur and Bison ® frlacArfhur/5onMiguel ® MaaAMur/SaNaaquln 0 Scyglass Hill 0 Non -Coastal Buck Gully g 0 0.5 1 mom suw clvdr4"omk IX05 ,eeBua Iws I EIP F_ —1 IWildlife corridors link areas of suitable habitat that are otherwise separated by areas of nonsuitable ' habitat such as rugged terrain, changes in vegetation, or human disturbance. Wildlife corridors are essential to the regional ecology of a species because they provide avenues of genetic exchange and allow animals to access alternative territories as dictated by fluctuating population densities. Fragmentation of ' open space areas by urbanization creates "islands" of wildlife habitat that are more or less isolated from each other. In the absence of habitat linkages that allow movement between habitat islands, studies have ' concluded that some wildlife species, especially the larger and more mobile mammals, would not persist over time because fragmentation limits infusion of new individuals and erodes genetic diversity. Corridors mitigate the effects of this fragmentation by (1) allowing animals to move between remaining ' habitats, thereby permitting depleted populations to be replenished and promoting genetic exchange; (2) providing escape routes from fire, predators, and human disturbances, thus reducing the risk of catastrophic events (such as fire or disease) that could lead to local extinction; and (3) serving as travel ' routes for individual animals as they move within their home ranges in search of food, water, mates, and shelter. Wildlife corridors are typically relatively small, linear habitats that connect two or more habitat patches that would otherwise be fragmented or isolated from one another. Wildlife corridors are usually bounded by urban land areas or other areas unsuitable for wildlife. The ' corridor generally contains suitable cover, food, and/or water to support species and facilitate movement while in the corridor. Larger, landscape -level corridors (often referred to as "habitat or landscape linkages") can provide both transitory and resident habitat for a variety of species. Although it is commonly used as a synonym for wildlife corridor, a habitat linkage refers to a more substantial, or wider, land connection between two habitat areas. Habitat linkages allow for the periodic exchange of animals between habitat areas, which is essential to maintain adequate gene pools. This linkage is most ' notable among populations of medium-sized and larger animals. A travel route is usually a landscape feature (such as a ridgeline, drainage, canyon, or riparian corridor) ' within a larger natural habitat area that is used frequently by animals to facilitate movement and provide access to necessary resources (e.g., water, food, cover, den sites). The travel route is generally preferred because it provides the least amount of topographic resistance in moving from one area to another. It ' provides adequate food, water, or cover for individuals moving between habitat areas and provides a relatively direct link between target habitat areas. Wildlife crossings are small, narrow areas that are relatively short in length. They allow wildlife to bypass an obstacle or barrier. Crossings typically are manmade and include culverts, underpasses, drainage pipes, bridges, and tunnels to provide access past roads, highways, pipelines, or other physical obstacles. Wildlife crossings often represent "choke points" along a movement corridor. I ICity of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 4.3-15 I 4.3.3 Regulatory Setting ■ Federal Regulations Federal Endangered Species Act As defined within the Federal Endangered Species Act (FESA) of 1973, an endangered species is any animal or plant listed by regulation as being in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its geographical range. A threatened species is any animal or plant that is likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its geographical range. Without a special permit, federal law prohibits the "take" of any individuals or habitat of federally listed species. Under Section 9 0£ the FESA, take is defined as "harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect or attempt to engage in any such conduct" The term "harm" has been clarified to include "any act which actually kills or injures fish or wildlife, and emphasizes that such acts may include significant habitat modification or degradation that significantly impairs essential behavioral patterns of fish or wildlife." Enforcement of FESA is administered by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Fisheries Service. Federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act Pursuant to the Afigatog Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) of 1918, as amended in 1972, federal law prohibits the taking of migratory birds or their nests or eggs (16 U.S.C. Section 703). The statute states: Unless and except as permitted by regulations made as hereinafter provided in this subcbapter, it shall be unlawful at any time, by any means or in any manner, to pursue, hunt, take, capture, kill, I ttempt to take, capture, or kill ... any migratory bird, any part, nest, or egg of any such bird... included in the terms of the [Migratory Bird] conventions... The Act covers the taking of any nests or eggs of migratory birds, except as allowed by permit pursuant to 50 CFR, Part 21. Disturbances causing nest abandonment and/or loss of reproductive effort (i.e., killing or abandonment of eggs or young) may also be considered a "take." This regulation seeks to protect migratory birds and active nests. In 1972, the MBTA was amended 'to include protection for migratory birds of prey (e.g., raptors). Six families of raptors occurring in North America were included in the amendment: ■ Accipitridae (kites, hawks, and eagles) ■ Cathartidae (New World vultures) ■ Falconidae (falcons and caracaras) ■ Pandionidae (ospreys) ■ Strigidae (typical owls) ■ Tytonidae (barn owls) The provisions of the 1972 amendment to the MBTA protects all species and subspecies of the families listed above. The ABTA protects over 800 species including geese, ducks, shorebirds, raptors, songbirds, 11 1 F 1 it i 1 1 1 1 FI i L 11 4.3.16 City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR III 4.3 Biological Resources and many relatively common species, including all species that were observed within the Planning Area (i.e., white -crowned sparrow, mourning dove, and red -wing blackbird). Section 404 of the Clean Water Act Section 404 of the Cleat Water Act (CWA) requires that a permit be obtained from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) prior to the discharge of dredged or fill materials into any "waters of the United States or wetlands." Waters of the United States are broadly defined in the USACE's regulations (33 CFR 328) to include navigable waterways, their tributaries, lakes, ponds, and wetlands. Wetlands are defined as: "Those areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or ground water at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that normally do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions. Wetlands generally include swamps, marshes, bogs, and similar areas" (Federal Register 1982). Wetlands that are not specifically exempt from Section 404 regulations (such as drainage channels excavated on dry land) are considered to be "jurisdictional wetlands." In a recent Supreme Court Case, the Court acted to limit the regulatory jurisdiction of the USACE under Section 404 of the CWA as it applies to adjacent waters (USSC 2001). Specifically, the Court ruled that waters that are nonnavigable, isolated, and intrastate are not subject to the USACE jurisdiction (Guzy and Anderson 2001). The USACE is required to consult with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Environmental Protection Agency, and State Regional Water Quality Control Board (among other agencies) in carrying out its discretionary authority under Section 404. The USACE grants two types of permits, individual and nationwide. Project -specific individual permits are required for certain activities that may have a potential for more than a minimal impact and necessitate a detailed application. The most common type of permit is a nationwide permit. Nationwide permits authorize activities on a nationwide basis unless specifically limited, and are designed to regulate with little delay or paperwork certain activities having minimal impacts. Nationwide permits typically take two to three months to obtain whereas individual ,permits can take a year or more. To qualify for a nationwide permit, strict conditions must be met. If conditions are met, permittees may proceed with certain activities without notifying the USACE. Some nationwide permits require a 30-day pre - construction notification period before activities can begin. Fill of certain isolated waters or wetlands that affect less than 0.5 acre of impact per project may be permitted with a pre -construction notification. ■ State Regulations California Endangered Species Act In addition to federal laws, the state of California has its own Endangered Species Act (CESA), enforced by the CDFG. The CESA program maintains a separate listing of species beyond the ESA, although the provisions of each act are similar. City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 4.3.17 California Fish and Game Code Unlawful Take or Destruction of Nests or Eggs Section 3503.5 of the Fish and Game Code of California specifically protects birds of prey. The Code states: It is unlawful to take, possess, or destroy any birds in the orders Falconiformes or Strigiformes (birds -of -prey) or to take, possess, or destroy the nest or eggs of any such bird except as otherwise provided by this code or any regulation adopted pursuant thereto. Section 3513 of the Fish and Game Code of California duplicates the federal protection of migratory birds. The Code states: It is unlawful to take or possess any migratory nongame bird as designated in the Migratory Bird Treaty Act or any part of such migratory nongame bird except as provided by rules and regulations adopted by the Secretary of the Interior under provisions of the Migratory Treaty Act. California Department of Fish and Game Lake or Streambed Alteration Program The CDFG, through provisions of the state of California Administrative Code, is empowered to issue agreements for any alteration of a river, stream, or lake where fish or wildlife resources may adversely be affected. Streams (and rivers) are defined by the presence of a channel bed and banks, and at least an intermittent flow of water. CDFG regulates wetland areas only to the extent that those wetlands are part of a river, stream, or lake as defined by CDFG. Typically, wetland delineations are not required to obtain CDFG Agreements. The reason for this is that CDFG generally includes any riparian habitat present within the jurisdictional limits of streams and lakes. Riparian habitat includes willows, mulefat, and other vegetation typically associated with the banks of a stream or lake shoreline. In most situations, wetlands associated with a stream or lake would fall within the limits of riparian habitat. Thus, defining the limits of CDFG jurisdiction based on riparian habitat will automatically include any wetland areas. California Environmental Quality Act —Treatment of Listed Plant and Animal Species The FESA and CESA protect only those species formally listed as threatened or endangered (or rate in the case of the state list). However, Section 15380 of the CEQA Guidelines independently defines "endangered" species of plants or animals as those whose survival and reproduction in the wild are in immediate jeopardy and "rare" species as those who are in such low numbers that they could become endangered if their environment worsens. 4.3.18 City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR ' 4.3 Biological Resources California Coastal Act §30000 et seq. Chapter 3 of the California Coastal Act contains policies to protect water quality and the biological productivity of coastal waters (30231); avoid and minimize dredging, diking, and filling sediments (30233); and mitigation of wetland impacts (30607.1). In addition, under the California Coastal Act "environmentally sensitive area means any area in which plant or animal life or their habitats are either rare or especially valuable because of their special nature or role in an ecosystem and which could be easily disturbed or degraded by human activities and developments" (PRC Section 30107.5). ' The California Coastal Act requires that jurisdictions protect Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Areas (ESHA). Specifically, PRC Section 30240 states that: ' a) Environmentally sensitive habitat areas shall be protected against any significant disruption of habitat values, and only uses dependent on such resources shall be allowed within such areas. b) Development in areas adjacent to environmentally sensitive habitat areas and parks and recreation areas shall be sited and designed to prevent impacts which would significantly degrade such areas, and shall be compatible with the continuance of such habitat areas The Coastal Act generally protects ESHAs where they exist; it also protects "against any significant disruption of habitat values". Section 30007.5 of the Coastal Act states that where there is a conflict between policies that it: ' ... be resolved in a manner, which on balance is the most protective of significant coastal resources. In this context, the Legislature declares that broader policies which, for example, serve ' to concentrate development in close proximity to urban and employment centers may be more protective, overall, than specific wildlife habitat and other similar resource policies. California Wetlands Conservation Policy (1993) California wetlands policy is more restrictive than federal wetlands policy. The goal of California Wetlands Conservation Policy (1993) is to ensure no net loss of wetlands within the state. This policy, incorporated in an executive order by then Governor Pete Wilson, also encourages a long-term net gain in the state's quantity, quality, and permanence of wetlands acreage and values. Interpretation of this ' order indicates that any developer wishing to fill in wetlands for construction of new development must perform mitigation in the form of constructed wetlands elsewhere at ratios ranging from 2:1 to 10:1. In addition to the USACE, state regulatory agencies claiming jurisdiction over wetlands include the CDFG ' and the State Water Resources Control Board. Porter -Cologne Water Quality Control Act ' The Porter -Cologne Water Qualio Control Act charges the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) and the nine Regional Water Quality Control Boards (RWQCB) statewide with protecting water quality ' throughout California. Typically, the SWRCB and RWQCB act in concert with the USACE under Section 401 of the CWA in relation to permitting fill of federally jurisdictional waters. As discussed ' above, the Supreme Court recently acted to limit the regulatory jurisdiction of the USACE under Section ' City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 4.3-19 Chapter 4 Environmental Analysts 11 404 of the CWA (USSC 2001). This action did not limit the state's regulatory jurisdiction over Waters of the state (Guzy and Anderson 2001). Waters of the state are defined in Section 13050(e) of the Porter - Cologne JPater (htality Control Act as "...any surface water or groundwater, including saline waters, within the boundaries of the state." Currently, an applicant would delineate the wetlands on their property utilizing methodology presented in the 1987 Cotps of Engineers lVletland Delineation Manual (Environmental Laboratory 1987) and the delineation would be verified by the USACE. In cases where an area meets the criteria to be considered a wetland, but the USACE does not have jurisdiction, the applicant is referred to the appropriate RWQCB. In these cases, the project must receive a permit for Waste Discharge Requirements or a Waiver of Waste Discharge Requirements from the RWQCB. Projects that affect Waters of State are required by the RWQCB to incorporate mitigation. Mitigation ratios are determined on a project specific basis during the permitting process and are based on the quality of the wetlands impacted by the project. ■ Regional Natural Community Conservation Plan and Habitat Conservation Plan, County of Orange, Central and Coastal Subregion The preparation of a comprehensive natural resources management conservation plan for Central and Coastal Orange County was completed in 1996. The Central and Coastal Orange County NCCP and Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) and the associated Implementation Agreement covers thirteen cities. In July of 1996, the City became a signatory agency in the NCCP/HCP. The purpose of the NCCP/HCP is to create a multi -species multi -habitat reserve system and implementation of a long-term management program that will protect primarily coastal sage scrub and the species that utilize this habitat. At the same time that it protects this habitat and species, the NCCP/HCP is also intended to allow for economical use of the lands that meet the people's needs. The NCCP/HCP is intended to focus on multiple species and habitats and address conservation of these species on a regional context. The three main target species are the coastal California gnatcatcher, cactus wren, and orange -throated whiptail. There are twenty-six other species that are also identified and afforded management protection under the NCCP/HCP. An additional ten species of plants and animals that are either federally listed or treated as if they were listed according to FESA Section 10(a) are addressed within the NCCP/HCP. Several areas within the Planning Area fall within the reserve system of the NCCP/HCP. For the areas outside the reserve system, development restrictions of the NCCP/HCP do not apply to the city owned land, nor that of the individual landowners. However, since the Planning Area lies within the area of the NCCP/HCP, non participating landowners are provided with different mitigation options than those provided for participating landowners. Nonparticipating landowners may satisfy the requirements of the FESA and CESA in relation to the species covered under the NCCP/HCP one of three Ways: ■ On -site avoidance of take ■ Satisfaction of the applicable FESA and CESA regulations through the regular permitting and consultation process (outside the NCCP/HCP) 11 I 11 I L 11 L 11 4.3.20 City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR , 4.3 Biological Resources ■ Payment of a mitigation fee to the nonprofit management organization established by the NCCP/HCP As a signatory agency, the City is responsible for enforcing mitigation measures and other policies identified in the NCCP/Habitat Conservation Plan Implementation Agreement for properties located within the City Limit that are part of the NCCP Subregional Plan. Local Regulations The City's existing Conservation of Natural Resources Element of the General Plan contains policies for Bay and Ocean Water Quality, Air Quality, Beach Erosion, Mineral Resources, Archaeological and Paleontological Resources, and Energy Conservation. There are currently no policies addressing habitat protection, protection of federally protected wetlands or waters of the United States, or prevent interference with the movement of native resident or migratory species. The City's certified Coastal Land Use Plan (CLUP) contains extensive policy language addressing biological, habitat and resource protection. CLUP policies are applicable only in the Coastal Zone, which covers only a portion of the Planning Area. The Newport Beach Municipal Code includes Chapter 7.26 to protect Newport Bay as a habitat for migratory and other waterfowl by prohibiting the incubation and feeding of waterfowl. 4.3.4 Thresholds of Significance The following thresholds of significance are based on Appendix G of the 2005 CEQA Guidelines. For purposes of this EIR, implementation of the proposed project may have a significant adverse impact on biological resources if it would result in any of the following: ■ Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or indirectly through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or the CDFG or USFWS ■ Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the CDFG or USFWS ■ Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means ■ Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites ■ Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance ■ Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 4.3-21 4.3.5 Project Impacts, Mitigation Measures, and Proposed Policies 1E1 Effects Not Found to Be Significant The IS/NOP prepared for the proposed project did not identify any effects not found to be significant associated with biological resources. Therefore, all thresholds are addressed in this section. ■ Project Impacts Threshold Would development allowed under the proposed General Plan Update have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or indirectly through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or the CDFG or USFWS. Impact 4.3-1 Development allowed under the proposed General Plan Update could result in potential adverse impacts either directly or indirectly through habitat modifications, to candidate, sensitive, or special status plant and wildlife species. The proposed General Plan Update would allow infill development throughout the Planning Area, following existing land use patterns. The Update would concentrate new development and redevelopment in several specified subareas: Newport Center/Fashion Island; Balboa Village, Balboa Peninsula, West Newport Mesa, West Newport Highway, Mariners' Mile, and the Airport Area. In addition, while the proposed General Plan Update prioritizes the retention of the Banning Ranch property as open space, the Plan also considers the possible development of a mixed- density residential village with a small component of resident- and visitor -serving commercial should the property not be acquired for open space. As indicated previously, a variety of plant and animal species are present within the Planning Area, especially within the ESAs. Some of the sensitive wildlife species that have been observed within the Panning Area include, but are not limited to, California least tern (Slenra autillanaa bron,m), yellow warbler (Dendroica peteebia brewsten), Belding's savannah sparrow (Passercidas sandrvichensis beldinga), golden eagle (Aquila cbgsaetos), light-footed clapper rail (Ra16u longitrostris levipes), and western snowy plover (Oki-adizns alexandrines nivosas). Development under the proposed General Plan Update could also result in the removal of mature trees that may serve as perching or nesting sites for migtatory birds and raptors in both developed and undeveloped areas. It is anticipated that any migratory birds or taptors using mature trees as perching or nesting sites could vacate the site upon the initiation of construction activities because the resulting increase in noise and activity levels could disturb nesting behaviors. As noted previously, several federal and state regulations, including the MBTA, FESA, and CESA, restrict activities that may result in the "take" (kill, harm, harass, etc.) of certain species, including active nests. During the project -level analysis of development proposed under the General Plan, project -specific mitigation, such as pre -construction surveys, may be necessary to ensure that development under the proposed General Plan Update does not result in the "take" of such species as a result of vegetation removal. The proposed General Plan 1 I I L I lJ 4.3.22 City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EiR 4,3 Biological Resources ' Update's Natural Resource Element, specifically Goal NR 10 and Policies NR 10.1 through NR 10.13, ' delineate the types and manner of mitigation measures that may be necessary during project -specific analysis and development. ' The proposed General Plan Update has identified goals that would, aid in (1) the protection of sensitive and rare terrestrial and marine resources from urban development; (2) the protection of eelgrass meadows for their ecological function as a nursery and foraging habitat within the Newport Bay ' ecosystem, balanced with maintenance of Newport Harbor as a recreational boating resource; (3) the protection of coastal dune habitats; (4) the proper disposal of dredge spoils to avoid disruption to natural habitats; (5) the protection, maintenance, and enhancement of Southern California Wetlands; (6) the ' protection and management of Upper Newport Bay commensurate with the standards applicable to our nation's most valuable natural resources; and (7) the protection of environmental resources in Newport Harbor while preserving and enhancing public recreational boating opportunities. Specifically, Policies ' NR 10.1 through NR 10.8 protect plant and wildlife species and habitat in the Planning Area by requiring: (1) cooperation with the state and federal resource protection agencies and private ' organizations to protect terrestrial and marine resources; (2) the compliance with the policies contained the e NCCP; (3) the protection, and prohibition of development in, nature preserves, conservation areas, and designated open space areas; (4) site -specific surveys and analysis prepared by a qualified biologist as a filing requirement for any development permit applications where development would occur within or contiguous to areas identified as an ESA; (5) that the siting and design of new development, including landscaping and public access, protect, sensitive or rare resources against any significant disruption of habitat values; (6) the limiting of uses within an area containing any significant or rare biological resources to only those uses that are dependent on such resources, except where ' application of such a limitation would result in a taking of private property; (7) maintenance of a buffer of sufficient size around significant or rare biological resources and the use of native vegetation within buffers and the prohibition of invasive plant species within buffer areas; and (8) the shielding and ' direction of exterior lighting away from significant or rare biological resources. These policies providing protection to habitats containing candidate, and special status plant and wildlife species are additions to the City's General Plan, in light of the fact that there are currently no such policies contained in the existing Conservation of Natural Resources Element. Therefore, the proposed General Plan Update would increase the level of protection of these plant and wildlife species within the ' City's regulatory framework. Compliance with FESA, CESA, and CEQA, as well as implementation of proposed General Plan Update goals and policies discussed above, would reduce potential impacts on sensitive plant and wildlife species within the Planning Area. Policies under the proposed General Plan Update that require measures such as site -specific biological studies and compliance with the NCCP/HCP would ensure that proper assessment of potential impacts to candidate, sensitive, and special status species be made on a project - by -project basis. With compliance with these policies, impacts would be less than significant and no ' additional mitigation is required. ' City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 4.3.23 Threshold Would development allowed under the proposed General Plan Update have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations, or by the CDFG or USFWS2 Impact 4.3-2 Development allowed under the proposed General Plan Update could result in adverse effects on riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, and regulations, or by the CDFG or USFWS. The proposed General Plan Update would allow infill development throughout the Planning Area, following existing land use patterns. The Update would concentrate new development and redevelopment in several specified subareas: Newport Center/Fashion Island, Balboa Village, Balboa Peninsula, West Newport Mesa, West Newport Highway, Mariners' Mile, and the Airport Area. In addition, while the proposed General Plan Update prioritizes the retention of the Banning Ranch property as open space, the Plan also considers the possible development of a mixed- density residential village with a small component of resident- and visitor -serving commercial should the property not be acquired for open space. This would preclude most sites containing riparian habitats from being developed under the proposed General Plan Update, Riparian habitats are known to exist throughout the Planning Area, especially in Banning Ranch. As discussed in Section 4.3.3 (Regulatory Setting), the CDFG, under Section 1600 of the Fish and Game Code of California, is empowered to regulate impacts to lakes, streams, and associated riparian (streamside or lakeside) vegetation through the issuance of a Lake or Streambed Alteration Agreement (SAA), The CDFG considers most drainages to be "streambeds" unless it can be demonstrated otherwise. A stream is defined as a body of water that flows at least periodically or intermittently through a bed or channel with banks and supports fish or other aquatic life. This includes watercourses having a surface or sub -surface flow that supports, or has supported, riparian vegetation. CDFG jurisdiction typically extends from the stream bed to the edge of the riparian canopy, and any modification to the stream or its banks that would impact it or riparian vegetation would require a SAA. As many riparian communities (e.g., southern riparian scrub, southern willow scrub, and southern cottonwood) are listed as "rare" by the CDFG and California Native Plant Society (CNPS), additional protection is extended to some riparian communities by the CDFG under Section 15380 of the CEQA Guidelines. These guidelines independently define "endangered" species of plants or animals as those whose survival and reproduction in the wild ate in immediate jeopardy and "rare" species as those who are in such low numbers that they could become endangered if their environment worsens. Therefore, a project normally will have a potentially significant effect on the environment if it will substantially affect a rare or endangered species of animal or plant or the habitat of the species. The significance of impacts to a species under CEQA must be based on analyzing actual rarity and threat of extinction despite legal status or lack thereof. While there are no federal regulations that specifically mandate the protection of riparian vegetation, federal regulations set forth in Section 404 of the CWA address areas that potentially contain riparian - type vegetation, such as wetlands. However, the jurisdiction of Section 404 is generally less than that of the Section 1600 SAA, covering only riparian vegetation that is within the active channel itself. 4.3.24 City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR '-1 4.3 Biological Resources In addition to the applicable state and federal regulations, the proposed General Plan Update has identified as goals: (1) the protection of sensitive and rare terrestrial and marine resources from urban development, and; (2) the protection, maintenance, and enhancement of Southern California Wetlands. Implementation of proposed General Plan Update Policies NR 10.1 through NR 10.7 would reduce or avoid impacts to riparian areas by ensuring cooperation with resource protection agencies, organizations, and conservation plans, and limiting or placing constraints on future development within identified ESAs or areas containing significant or rare biological resources. In addition, Policies NR 10.9 and NR 10.10 would specifically protect the existing or potential riparian habitats, and encourage restoration of the ESAs located within the Planning Area. Policies NR 13.1 and NR 13.2 would serve to protect wetlands and their riparian habitat, and require a survey and analysis of future development within a delineated wetland area under the proposedGeneral Plan Update. These policies providing protection to habitats containing candidate, and special status plant and wildlife species are additions to the City's General Plan, in light of the fact that there are currently no such policies contained in the existing Conservation of Natural Resources Element. Therefore, the proposed General Plan Update would increase the level of protection of these plant and wildlife species within the City's regulatory framework. An indirect impact to riparian habitat could result from the future development of existing vacant lands, including potential development in the Banning Ranch subarea. The placement of development next to riparian habitats would disturb wildlife that rely on these areas for shelter and food and could also result in the degradation of these areas through the introduction of feral animals and. contaminants that are typical of urban uses. Because federal regulations do not specifically address protection of riparian vegetation under the Section 404 pernutting process, and the fact that the CDFG Section 1600 SAA is a negotiated agreement, some unmitigated loss of riparian resources may occur. Therefore these regulations would not serve to fully protect and manage riparian habitat under future development However, the aforementioned proposed General Plan Update policies would serve to regulate indirect impacts future development could have on riparian habitats. Therefore, the impacts associated with riparian habitats within the Planning Area would be less than significant. Threshold Would development allowed under the proposed General Plan Update have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means. Development allowed under the proposed General Plan Update would not result in a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands and/or waters of the United States through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means. Section 404 of the Clean Water Act requires that a permit be obtained from the Corps prior to the discharge of dredged or fill materials into any "waters of the United States." Waters of the United States, as defined by regulation and refined by case law, include (1) the territorial seas; (2) coastal and inland waters, lakes, rivers, and streams that are navigable waters of the United States, including their adjacent City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 4.3-25 wetlands; (3) tributaries to navigable waters of the United States, including adjacent wetlands; (4) interstate waters and their tributaries, including adjacent wetlands; and (5) all other waters of the United States not identified above, such as some isolated wetlands and lakes, intermittent and ephemeral streams, and other waters that are not a part of a tributary system to interstate waters or navigable waters of the United States, the degradation or destruction of which could affect interstate commerce. In addition to any potential wetlands, the limits of Corps jurisdiction extends to the ordinary high water marls (OHWA4) of streams and lakes, which is defined at 33 CFR 328,3(e) as: ... that line on the shore established by the fluctuation of water and indicated by physical characteristics such as a clear, natural line impressed on the bank, shelving, changes in the character of the soil, destruction of terrestrial vegetation, the presence of litter and debris, or other appropriate means that consider the characteristics of the surrounding,areas. Wetlands are defined as "[t]hose areas that are inundated or saturated by surface water or groundwater at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that normally do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions. Wetlands generally include swamps, marshes, bogs, and similar areas." Section 404 Permits often require mitigation to offset losses of these habitat types. Wetlands that are not specifically exempt from Section 404 regulations (such as drainage channels excavated on dry land) are considered to be jurisdictional wetlands. The Corps is required to consult with the USFWS, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), State Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), and the CDFG in carrying out its discretionary authority under Section 404. Stream channels that do not meet the federal definition of a wetand may still be regulated by the Corps as `other waters of the United States" if they meet the definition provided above. In addition, they are generally regulated within California by Section 1600of tlfe California Fish and Game Code. As stated previously, the areas within the Planning Area containing wetland habitat include Upper Newport Bay, the developed channels, beaches, and hardscape of Lower Newport Bay (Newport Harbor), and the intertidal and subtidal landforms (sandy beaches, rocky intertidal, sandy subtidal, and subtidal reefs) along the coast of Newport Beach between the Santa Ana River and the boundary between the City and unincorporated Orange County. Additionally, Banning Ranch contains relatively high -quality wildlife habitat due to its size, habitat diversity, and continuity with the adjacent Semeniuk Slough and federally -restored wetlands. Generally, development under the proposed General Plan Update would be confined to previously developed areas and would not be located within the vicinity of wetland areas. However, should certain development proposed under the General Plan be located within or adjacent to such wetland areas, state and federal laws and regulations would be implemented to protect resources from development through the Corps Section 404 permitting process, which is a discretionary rather than negotiated process, and the California Wetlands Conservation Policy (CWCP 1993). The CWCP is intended to ensure that no net loss of wetlands would occur within the state. This is an analogous policy to a federal Executive Order that also mandates no net loss of wetlands. With respect to the state's policy, it also encourages a long- term net gain in the quantity, quality, and permanence of wetlands acreage and values. Interpretation of this order indicates that any developer wishing to fill in wetlands for construction of new development must provide mitigation of in -hind habitat at ratios ranging from 2:1 to 10:1. 4.3.26 City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 4.3 Biological Resources 1 In addition to the state and federal regulation, proposed General Plan Update Policies NR 13.1 and NR 13.2 would protect, maintain, and enhance the City's wetlands. Policies NR 14.1 through NR 14.4 would maintain and enhance deep water channels and ensure they remain navigable by boats through the management of dredging and maintaining the capacity of wetlands and estuaries. Policies NR 15.1 through NR 15.3 would ensure the proper disposal of dredge spoils to avoid disruption to natural habitats through monitoring and management of sediment. As such, implementation of the above policies, which are not in the City's existing Conservation of Natural Resources Element, and strict adherence to the identified state and federal laws and regulations and the "no net wetland loss" policy currently in place, would ensure that implementation of the proposed General Plan Update would have no impact on jurisdictional waters and wetlands within the Planning Area. Threshold Would development allowed under the proposed General Plan Update interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites. Impact 4.3-3 Development under the proposed General Plan Update could interfere with the movement of native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or corridors. The proposed General Plan Update would allow infill development throughout the Planning Area, following existing land use patterns. The Update would concentrate new development and redevelopment in several specified subareas: Newport Center/Fashion Island, Balboa Village, Balboa Peninsula, West Newport Mesa, West Newport highway, Mariners' Mile, and the Airport Area. In addition, while the proposed General Plan Update prioritizes the retention of the Banning Ranch property as open space, the Plan also considers the possible development of a mixed- density residential village with a small component of resident- and visitor -serving commercial should the property not be acquired for open space. Although the Banning Ranch site contains an assemblage of diverse habitats that have been historically disturbed, when this area is considered with the contiguous Semeniuk Slough and restored wetlands, it provides wildlife with a significantly large, diverse area for foraging, shelter, and movement. Development of the Banning Ranch subarea could lead to habitat fragmentation, which occurs when new development divides undisturbed habitat. The resulting fragmentation is particularly harmful to species that rely on large territories to draw food and cover. Without adequate continuous habitat, native species would be adversely affected by development occurring under the proposed General Plan Update. New urban use of previously undeveloped areas requires new roads or widening of existing roads, which block migration routes, separate wildlife from food sources, and otherwise fragment habitat. Nonetheless, implementation of applicable General Plan policies would ensure that substantial impacts to native, resident, or migratory wildlife species or corridors would not occur in areas of infill and redevelopment. Implementation of Policies NR 10.1 and NR 10.2 would ensure that all future development cooperates with federal, state, and private resource protection agencies/organizations, and complies with policies contained in the NCCP. Policies NR 10.3 and NR 10.4 would protect and prohibit development in nature preserves, conservation areas, and designated open space areas, and would require ' City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 4.3.27 a site -specific study be prepared where development would occur within or contiguous to such areas. Policies NR 10.5, NR 10.7, and NR 10.8 would prevent disruption, and ensure protection of sensitive habitat though siting and design requirements, along with sufficient buffer sizes and shielding from direct exterior lighting. Policies NR 12.1 through NR 12.3 would serve to protect coastal dune habitats, which serve as movement corridor for coastal wildlife species. Policies NR 13.1 and NR 13.2 would protect, maintain, and enhance the Planning Area's wetlands, another movement corridor for a variety of aquatic, terrestrial, and avian species. With implementation of the proposed policies, wiilch are not in the existing Conservation of Natural Resources Element, new urban uses within the developed areas of the City would not have a substantial effect on the movement of native resident of migratory wildlife species or corridors. Impacts on these areas would be less than significant. Although implementation of the proposed General Plan Update policies previously described would reduce impacts, there could still be impacts to the movement of native resident or migratory wildlife species if habitat fragmentation from development of vacant areas and reuse occurs. As mentioned, the main area of concern is the Banning Ranch, which includes important habitat types and numerous special -status species and is largely underdeveloped. If this areas is not retained as open space, it could be developed as a mixed- density residential village with a small component of resident- and visitor -serving commercial. The magnitude of this development could adversely affect the existing wildlife habitats and interfere with its movement corridors. Many proposed General Plan Update policies would ensure that impacts on the movement of native resident of migratory wildlife species or corridors in Banning Ranch remain less than significant. These policies, as discussed above, include proposed General Plan Update Policy NR 10.10, which protects sensitive and rare species located on Banning Ranch; Policy NR 10.7, which would maintain buffers around significant or rare species; and Policy NR 10.8, which would shield and direct exteriot lighting away from significant or rare species. The existing Conservation of Natural Resources Element does not contain similar policies. As a result, this impact would be less than significant. Threshold Would development allowed under the proposed General Plan Update conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance$ Implementation of the proposed General Plan Update would not conflict with anylocal policies or ordinances protecting biological resources. Implementation of the proposed General Plan Update would be subject to all applicable federal, state, and local policies and regulations related to the protection of biological resources. Some of the local policies that future development under the proposed General Plan would be required to adhere to include Council Policy G-1 (Retention or Removal of City Trees) and Chapter 7.26 of the City's Municipal Code (Protection of Natural Habitat for Migratory and Other Waterfowl) Council Policy G-1 was created to establish and maintain appropriate diversity in tree species and age classes to provide a stable and sustainable urban forest with an inventory that the City can reasonably maintain in a healthy and non-bazardous condition. Chapter 7.26 of the City's Municipal Code recognizes and strives to maintain the value of natural habitat for migratory waterfowl and other birds such as ducks, gulls, terns, and pelicans. In addition, Policy NR 10.1 states that future development shall cooperate with state and 4.3.28 City of Newport. Beach General Plan Update EIR '4.3 Biological Resources ' federal agencies, and private organizations in the protection of the Planning Area's biological resources, and Policy NR 10.3 would protect, and prohibit development in, nature preserves, conservation areas, ' and designated open space areas in order to minimize urban impacts upon resources in identified ESAs. As the proposed General Plan Update includes policies to ensure that future development within the Planning Area would not conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, there would be no impact. Threshold Would development allowed under the proposed General Plan Update conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? Implementation of the proposed General Plan Update would not conflict with the provisions an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan. The Orange County Central and Coastal NCCP is the applicable habitat conservation plan for the Planning Area, of which the City is a signatory agency. The proposed General Plan Update is consistent with the NCCP, because the NCCP is included as a part of the proposed General Plan Update policies. Policy NR 10.2 explicitly states that future development must comply with the policies contained within the Orange County Natural Communities Conservation Plan. In addition, Policy NR 10.1 states that future development shall cooperate with state and federal agencies, and private organizations, in the protection of the Planning Area's biological resources. This includes local, regional, or state habitat conservation plans. The existing Conservation of Natural Resources Element does not contain similar policies. Because the proposed General Plan Update has included policies to ensure compliance of future development within the Planning Area with the provisions of the NCCP, and approved local, regional, and state habitat conservation plans, there would be no impact. Cumulative Impacts The geographical context for the analysis of cumulative biological impacts includes the Orange County Central and Coastal NCCP area. This analysis accounts for all anticipated cumulative growth within this geographic area, as represented by full implementation of the proposed General Plan Update as well as the cumulative development anticipated in the Orange County General Plan. Because rare natural communities do not need to be formally listed as threatened or endangered under any state or federal reguladons'to be considered "sensitive", the proposed General Plan Update and future projects within the County would not prohibit development within areas that contain sensitive natural communities. However, the policies and goals outlined under the proposed General Plan Update, specifically those identified in Impact 4.3-3, recognize the importance and value of these areas and are aimed at protecting these resources. Because of this, the project's contribution to the cumulatively adverse effect on these communities would not be considerable. Therefore, because the proposed General Plan Update does not contribute considerably to the decline of sensitive natural communities, the proposed General Plan Update's contribution to this impact would not be cumulatively considerable, and would result in a less-than-significantimpact. City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 4.3-29 Chapter 4 Environmental Analysis Cumulative development within Orange County could affect riparian habitats. Because there are no current regulations prohibiting development in riparian habitats, or requiring specific mitigation measures that would ensure no net loss on riparian vegetation, the loss of these areas could occur as a result of the proposed project. However, the proposed General Plan Update policies identified in Impact 4.3-3 would reduce the projeces contribution to a level that is not considerable, Therefore, because the proposed General Plan Update does not contribute considerably to the decline of riparian habitats, the cumulative impact to these areas from the project is considered less than significant. Future development within the County could affect federally protected wetlands. However, there are state and federal regulations that prohibit the net loss of wetlands. Potential impacts to wetlands within the Planning Area would also be subject to proposed General Plan Update policies NR 13.1 and NR 132.2, which would protect, maintain, and enhance the City's wetlands. In addition, Policies NR 14.1 through NR 14.4 would maintain and enhance deep water channels and ensure they remain navigable by boats through the management of dredging and maintaining the capacity of wetlands and estuaries. Further, Policies NR 15.1 through NR 15.3 would ensure the proper disposal of dredge spoils to avoid disruption to natural habitats through monitoring and management of sediment. Implementation of these policies would minimize effects. As such, the projeces contribution to the cumulative loss of wetlands is not considerable. Therefore, because the proposed General Plan Update does not contribute considerably to wetland loss, there would be no cumulative impact. New development in large, underdeveloped areas has the potential to interfere with the movement of native resident or migratory wildlife species. However, most development that would occur under the proposed General Plan Update would generally lead to the intensification of existing uses on sites throughout the Planning Area. The NCCP guides development in preventing adverse effect on the movement of, native resident or migratory wildlife species, or corridors within the County. In addition, the proposed General Plan Update policies identified in Impact 4.3-3 would ensure that the proposed General Plan Update's contribution to the cumulative impact to movement of native resident or migratory wildlife species, or corridors would not be significant. Therefore, because the proposed General Plan Update does not contribute a considerable amount to the interruption of migration and movement of wildlife, the cumulative impact to these resources from the project is considered be less than significant. El Proposed General Plan Update Policies The Natural Resources Element of the proposed General Plan Update includes policies that would address issues related to biological resources within the City of Newport Beach. The policies that are applicable to the project are included below.. The policies that are applicable to the project are included below. Policies identified below that ate also contained in the Harbor and Bay Element are denoted with an "HB". 4.3-30 City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR ' Natural Resources Element ' Goal NR 10 Protection of sensitive and rare terrestrial and marine resources from urban development. ' Policy NR 10.1 Terrestrial and Marine Resource Protection Cooperate with the state and federal resource protection agencies and private organizations to protect terrestrial and marine resources ' Policy NR 10.2 Orange County Natural Communities Conservation Plan Comply with the policies contained within the Orange County Natural Communities Conservation Plan. ' Policy NR 10.3 Development in Environmental Study Areas ' Protect, and prohibit development in nature preserves, conservation areas, and designated open space areas in order to minimize urban impacts upon resources in identified Environmental Study Areas (ESAs). ' Policy NR 10.4 Development Permit Applications Require a site -specific survey and analysis prepared by a qualified biologist as a ' filing requirement for any development permit applications where development would occur within or contiguous to areas identified as an ESA. Policy NR 10.5 New Development Siting and Design Require that the siting and design of new development, including landscaping and public access, protect sensitive or rare resources against any significant disruption of habitat values. ' Policy NR 10.6 Development in Areas Containing Significant or Rare Biological Resources Limit uses within an area containing any significant or rare biological resources ' to only those uses that are dependent on such resources, except where application of such a limitation would result in a taking of private property. If application of this policy would likely constitute a taking of private property, ' then a non -resource -dependent use shall be allowed on the property, provided development is limited to the minimum amount necessary to avoid a taking and the development is consistent with all other applicable resource protection policies. Public access improvements and educational, interpretative and research facilities are considered resource dependent uses. ' Policy NR 10.7 Use of Buffers Maintain a buffer of sufficient size around significant or rare biological ' resources, if present, to ensure the protection of these resources. Require the ' City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 4.3.31 use of native vegetation and prohibit invasive plant species within these buffer areas. Policy NR 10.8 Exterior Lighting Shield and direct exterior lighting away from significant or rare biological resources to minimize impacts to wildlife. Policy NR 10.9 Standards for Buck Gully and Morning Canyon Prepare natural habitat protection regulations for Buck Gully and Morning Canyon for the purpose of providing standards to ensure both the protection of the natural habitats in these areas and of private property rights. Include standards for the placement of structures, native vegetation/fuel modification buffers, and erosion and sedimentation control structures. Policy NR 10.10 Development on Banning Ranch Protect the sensitive and rare resources that occur on Banning Ranch. If future development is permitted, concentrate development to protect biological resources and coastal bluffs, and design structures to not be intrusive on the surrounding landscape. Require the restoration of any important habitat areas that are affected by future development. PoHcy NR 10.11 Interagency Coordination to Monitor Ecological Conditions Coordinate with County and state resource agencies to monitor ecological conditions within the Newport Beach Marine Conservation Areas and Irvine Coast Marine Life Refuge and to implement management programs to protect these areas. Maintain public use of the refuges to the extent it is consistent with the preservation of intertidal and subtidal resources. Policy NR 10.12 Giant Kelp Reforestation Support reforestation programs for giant kelp. Policy NR 10.13 Tide Pool Exhibits Support the construction of tide pool exhibits away from ocean beaches to provide an educational alternative to the tide pools at Corona del Mar State Beach and Crystal Cove State Park. Goal NR 11 Protection of eelgrass meadows for their ecological function as a nursery and foraging habitat within the Newport Bay ecosystem, balanced with maintenance of Newport Harbor as a recreational boating resource. Policy NR 11.1 Eelgrass Protection Avoid impacts to eelgrass (Zosteta marina) to the extent feasible. Mitigate losses of eelgrass in accordance with the Southern California Eelgrass 4.3.32 City of Newport Beach General PlanUpdateEIR 1 4.3 Biological Resources Mitigation Policy. Encourage the restoration of eelgrass in Newport Harbor at appropriate sites, where feasible. ' Policy NR 11.2 Interagency Coordination on Establishing Eelgrass Restoration Sites Cooperate with the County of Orange, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and resource agencies to establish eelgrass restoration sites. Policy NR 11.3 Eelgrass Mitigation Allow successful eelgrass restoration sites to serve as mitigation sites for City ' projects and as a mitigation bank from which eelgrass mitigation credits will be issued to private property owners for eelgrass removal resulting from dock and channel dredging projects. ' Goal NR 12 Protection of coastal dune habitats. ' Policy NR 12.1 Exotic Vegetation Removal and Native Vegetation Restoration Require the removal of exotic vegetation and the restoration of native vegetation in dune habitat. Policy NR 12.2 Dune Habitat Protection Design and site recreation areas to avoid impacts to dune habitat areas, and direct public access away from these resources through methods such as well- defined footpaths, boardwalks, protective fencing, and signage. ' Policy NR 12.3 Beach Sand Removal Limit earthmoving of beach sand in dune habitat areas to projects necessary ' for the protection of coastal resources and existing development. Goal NR 13 Protection, maintenance, and enhancement of Southern California wetlands. ' Policy NR 13.1 Wetland Protection ' Recognize and protect wetlands for their commercial, recreational, water quality, and habitat value. t Policy NR 13.2 Wetland Delineation Require a survey and analysis with the delineation of all wetland areas when ' the initial site survey indicates the presence or potential for wetland species or indicators. Wetland delineations will be conducted in accordance with the definitions of wetland boundaries established by California Department of Fish and Game, and/or'United States Fish and Wildlife Service. ' City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 4.3.33 Chapter 4 Environmental Analysis 1 Goal NR 14 Maintain and enhance deep water channels and ensure they remain navigable by boats. (Goal H1113) Policy NR 14.1 Newport Bay Dredging Support and assist in the management of dredging within Newport Bay. (Policy HB13.1) Policy NR 14.2 Interagency Coordination for Federal Navigational Channels Cooperate with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in their maintenance and delineation of federal navigational channels at Newport Harbor in the interest in providing navigation and safety. (Policy HB13.2) Policy NR 14.3 Permit Processing Secure blanket permits or agreements through the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the California Coastal Commission to expedite permit processing for residential and commercial dock owners in the Bay. (Policy HB13.3) Policy NR 14.4 Wetland or Estuary Capacity Require that any project that includes diking, filling or dredging of an estuary must maintain the capacity of the wetland or estuary as required by state and federal law. Policy NR 14.5 New Structure Design Require that all structures permitted to encroach into open coastal waters, wetlands, and estuaries be sited and designed to be consistent with the natural appearance of the surrounding area. Goal NR 15 Proper disposal of dredge spoils to avoid disruption to natural habitats. Policy NR 15.1 Monitor dredging projects within the region to identify opportunities to reduce disposal costs and utilize dredge spoils for beach nourishment. Policy NR 15.2 Regional Sediment Management Participate in regional sediment management by maintaining records of the number of channelized streams, miles of channelization in streams, volumes of sediment extracted from stream channels and debris basins, and the grain size distribution of the extracted sediments. Policy NR 15.3 Interagency Coordination for Future Dredging Projects Work with appropriate agencies to secure sediment disposal site(s) for future dredging projects. 4.3-34 City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR ' 4.3 Biological Resources ' Goal NR 16 Protection and management of Upper Newport Bay commensurate with the ' standards applicable to our nation's most valuable natural resources. (Goal HB7) Policy NR 16.1 Funding Support for Upper Newport Bay Ecosystem Restoration ' Project Support and secure federal funding for Upper Newport Bay ecosystem restoration to restore the Upper Newport Bay to its optimal ecosystem. (Policy ' HB7.1) Policy NR 16.2 Management of Upper Newport Bay State Marine Park ' Support and implement unified management of the Upper Newport Bay State Marine Park (formerly Ecological Reserve) by collaborating with Orange County, the California Department of Fish and Game, non-profit corporations with resource management expertise and volunteer organizations to improve resource management, implement resource enhancement projects and expand ' opportunities for public access, recreation, and education. (Policy HB7.2) Policy NR 16.3 Management of Upper Newport Bay Nature Preserve ' Assume responsibility from the County to manage, operate and maintain the Upper Newport Bay Nature Preserve, including the Peter and Mary Muth Center, such that natural resources and public education programs are ' enhanced, using a combination of public agency and private sector personnel as well as volunteers. (Policy HB7.3) ' Policy NR 16.4 Public Uses within Upper Newport Bay State Marine Park Maintain public use of the Upper Newport Bay State Marine Park (formerly ' Ecological Reserve) to the extent such use is consistent with the preservation of sensitive resources. (Policy HB7.4) ' Policy NR 16.5 Water -Related Education and Research within Upper Newport Bay Promote facilities in and around Upper Newport Bay to adequately serve as water quality and estuarine education and research programs. (Policy HB 7.5, HB8.22) ' Land Use Element Policies Pertaining to Both Land Use Options (Goals 6.3 and 6.4) ' Policy LU 6.5.4 Relationship of Development to Environmental Resources Development should be located and designed to preserve and/or mitigate for ' the loss of wetlands and drainage course habitat. It shall be located to be contiguous and compatible with existing and planned development along its eastern property line, preserving the connectivity of wildlife corridors, and set ' City of Newport Beach General'Plan Update EIR 4.3-35 back from the bluff faces, along which shall be located a linear park to provide public views of the ocean, wetlands, and surrounding open spaces. M Impacts and Mitigation Measures No mitigation measures are necessary, as the proposed General Plan Update policies fully mitigate the impacts. Level of Significance After Policies/Mitigation Measures Compliance with existing federal, state, and local regulations, implementation of the identified proposed General Plan Update policies would limit impacts associated with biological resources within the Planning Area to a less-than-sigtifrcantlevel. Cumulative impacts would also be less than significant. 4.3.6 References Atwood, J.L., and D.E. Minsky.1983. Least Tern Foraging Ecology atTlj&eMajor Calfooda Breeding Colonies. Western Birds 14:57-71. Bluepianet Biomes, 2005. California Chaparral Climate - Mediterranean Climate (Cs). http://,,v-%v%v.blueplanetbiomes.org/cali(_chap__chmate.httn. Accessed January 17, 2006. California Department of Fish and Game. 2003. Califonnia Natural Diversity Database. California Native Plant Society. 2003. Slectrouiclnventory of Rare and Endangered Vascular Plants of California. Chambers Group and Coastal Resources Management. 2002. City of NewportBeacb, Calefonda, Local Master Plan — Biological Appendix. 2003. City ofNatport Beach, Californnia, General Plan — Newport Beach Biological Resources. EIP Associates. 2003. Biological ResornrcesAddeudranr— Local Coastal Plan and General Plan, Newport Beach, California. Gallagher, S.R.1997. Atlas of $reeding Birds Orange Comnty, California. Hickman, J.C., Ed. 1993. The Jepson Manual— Higher Plants of California. Holland, R.F.1986. Preliminary Descriptions of the Terrestrial Natural Cosnnmnnities of California. NEC Analytical Systems, Inc. 1991. Ecological Descriptions and Evaluations of Proposed Enhancement/ Restoration for Eight Sonthernr California Wetlands Prepared in Response to California Coastal Commission for Sotnthernr Colifonda Edison Conoauy. PCR. 2000. Draft Pmgraul Environmental Impact Report Newport Banning Raneb Local Coastal Program. Ritter, Michael. 2006. The Plysical Envimnment•An Introduction to Plysical Geography. http://www.uwsp.edu/ geo/faculty/ritter/geog101/textbook/tide_page.html Accessed January 17, 2006. Sawyer, John and Todd Keeler -Wolf, 1995. AMamnal of California Vegetation. Tibor, D.P., Ed. 2001. California Native Plant Society's Inventory of Ram and Endangered Plants of California. 4.3 36 City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR ' 4.4 Cultural Resources 4.4 CULTURAL RESOURCES 4.4.1 Introduction This section describes existing cultural resources at the project area and describes whether the proposed General Plan Update would cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of the following resources: historic, archeological, and paleontological resources. Existing data sources used to prepare this section were taken from EIP Associates 2004 Technical Backgroand Report, City of Newport Beach 2005 Local Coastal Program —Coastal Land Use Plan. Adopted 13 December, and EIP Associates 2005 Historical Resources General Plan Element. Full bibliographic entries for all reference materials are provided in Section 4.4.6 (References) of this section. The Initial Study prepared for the proposed General Plan Update identified potential impacts related to a substantial adverse change related to the significance of a historical or an archaeological resource, paleontological resources, and the disturbance of any human remains. No comment letters were received in response to the IS/NOP circulated for the proposed General Plan Update. 4.4.2 Existing Conditions Historical Overview The community of Newport Beach has a rich and diverse history, and its dose proximity to the water played a large role in the development of the City. The first stirring activity in the community later known as Newport Beach began in 1870, when a small stern wheeler from San Diego named "The Vaquero' made its first trip to a marshy lagoon. James McFadden and other ranch owners in the Lower Bay decided from then on that the area should be called "Newport" In 1888 James McFadden changed the isolated settlement by building a wharf that extended from the shallow bay to deeper water where large steamers could dock. Shipping activity increased dramatically, and in two years, Newport Beach was known as a vibrant Southern California shipping town. 9 Soon after, the Pacific Electric Railroad established itself in Newport Beach in 1905, connecting the City of Los Angeles by rail. Public transit brought new visitors to the waterfront, and small hotels and beach cottages were developed that catered to the tourist industry. West Newport, East Newport, Bay Island, Balboa, Corona del Mar, Balboa Island, and Port Orange (at old Newport Landing) were soon subdivided, and in August 1906, residents in the booming bay town voted to incorporate. Between 1934 and 1936, the Federal government and the county dredged the Lower Bay, extended jetties, and created 9 Newport Beach 751906-1981: A Diamond Jubilee History. Edited by James P. Felton.1981 ' City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 4.4.1 I the present day contour of Newport Beach. In 1936, community members dedicated the City's main harbor, named Newport Harbor." During World War II, the harbor became a vital hub as naval ships were built and repaired in its coastal waters. At the end of the war, a housing construction boom began as seasonal rentals became year-round housing, and the City's identity as a summer resort location began to change. The Santa Ana freeway, built in the 1950s, triggered further growth. During this time, housing development began to spread northward from the waterfront to the hills and mesa areas. The community's economic industry changed, as the fishing industry, once the backbone of Newport Beach's economy, gradually declined to be replaced with new businesses and commercial centers. Beginning in the 1970s, the building of shopping centers such as Fashion Island, hotels, restaurants, offices, and many new homes led to the creation of many active employment, retail, and residential areas that characterize much of Newport Beach today." For many years, Newport Beach's scenic location, attractive neighborhoods and active commercial areas have continued to place many of the City's original buildings, paleontological resources, and historical sites under extreme development pressures. Many of the community's early structures and archaeological sites have been demolished or altered. However, some historical sites and buildings have been preserved that are representative of the community and the region. Several of these historical resources have been recognized as being of statewide or national importance. This section discusses the existing cultural resources that help define the City's heritage. ■ Archaeology The first generally accepted period of human occupation of Southern California began at about the end of the Pleistocene Epoch, about 10,000 to 12,000 years ago. Archaeological sites around Upper Newport Bay have yielded some of the evidence for the earliest human occupation of Orange County and date to about 9,500 years before present (BP). Over 50 sites have been documented in the Planning Area, including the recently annexed Newport Coast areal2,13.14 and in the Newport Banning Ranch portion of the SOL". Many of these sites have yielded —or have been determined to have the potential to yield — substantial information regarding the prehistory of the City and County, and have included human burials. At least two and possibly three distinct cultural groups inhabited the area, and later period sites indicate that the area including the Planning Area was heavily populated at the time of European contact. Ethnographically, the Planning Area falls within a region in which tribal boundaries are unclear: both the Gabrielino and the Luiseiio/Juanefio lay ancestral territorial claims. According to David Belardes of the 10 Orange, County of. 2003, Brief History of Orange County. XVebpage: http://w\vw.oc.ca.gov/history/ oc_history.asp 11 History of Newport Beach. Newport Beach Real Estate. Webpage: http://Nvwkv.realestatcne\vportbeach.com/relocation/history.php 12 NewportBeach, City of. 2005, Loral Coa talPrograw CoatlalLaad UrePlai, 20 January, 4-83. 13 Newport Beach, City of. 2005. Loral Coarlal Program Coailal Laud Use Mai), 20 January, 4-83. 14 Newport Beach, City of.1974. Nenpod Beare Geneml Plan Consemadon ofNalural RerwireerEleamfl,14 January, 34-35. Is Keeton Kreitzer Consulting. 2000. ScmeneberkPrograaEnviromaenlal broad Repodr Nanpod Banning &ndr Loral Coatlal Program, 28 April. Prepared for the County of orange Planning and Development Services Department. I 11 III r I F r I 4.4.2 City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 11 4.4 Cultural Resources 11 11 II 11 1 Juaneno Band of Mission Indians, the territory of the Juaneno extended north to the Santa Ana River drainage; however, Gabrielino territory is thought by some to extend south of the Santa Ana River Drainage to Aliso Creek, and possibly even further south.' The Luiseno/Juaneno were hunter/gatherers, organized into sedentary and semi -sedentary, autonomous villages. A large village was typically 30 square miles, and contained several hunting, fishing, and collecting areas in different ecological zones. Seasonal moves to exploit resources outside a village's territory occurred during several weeks of the year. The coastal Luiseno/Juaneno bands exploited a variety of plant food resources. Seeds and acorns accounted for up to 75 percent of the typical diet. Many fruits, berries, bulbs, and roots were used as medicines, beverage bases, and manufacturing materials as well as food. Terrestrial game accounted for an estimated five to ten percent of the coastal Luiseno/Juaneno diet; fish and marine mammals represented an additional 20 to 35 percent. Luiseno/Juaneno material culture associated with food procurement includes tools such as manos and metates, as well as mortars and pestles for processing acorns and seeds, and pulverizing pulpy materials and small game. They probably hunted first with spears, and then later with bows and arrows. The projectiles themselves would have had fire -hardened wood or chipped stone tips. Near -shore fishing and marine mammal hunting were accomplished with light balsa or dugout canoes. ® Paleontology Fossils in the central Santa Ana Mountains represent the oldest formations in the County at 145 to 175 million years old and contain aquatic fossil types, such as radiolarians (single -celled plankton), ammonites (extinct members of the class including nautili, squid, and octopi), and bivalves (such as oysters and clams). The predominance of these fossil types indicates that Orange County, for much of its geological history, was underwater." During the Miocene Epoch (26 million years ago [mya] to 7 mya), tectonic forces produced uplifts that resulted in the formation of mountains and initiated movement on the nascent San Andreas Fault system, forming numerous coastal marine basins, including the Los Angeles Basin, of which Orange County is a part. As the sea retreated, the County became a shallow bay surrounded by jungle and savannah areas, as indicated by the mix of aquatic and terrestrial fossils found in rocks of Miocene age. Miocene -age rock units that underlie the Planning Area, particularly in the Newport Coast area, 'are considered to be of high -order paleontological significance (6 to 9 on a scale of 1 to 10). ""' Further tectonic activity began to uplift the land during the Pliocene Epoch (7 mya to 2.5 mya), and the sea slowly receded from the coast, resulting in the formation of a succession of shoreline deposits that 16 EIP Associates. 1998. Daua PointHeadlauds Draft Eaviromueatallunpact Report, 4.12-5. 17 Newport Beach, City of. 2005. Local Coastal Program Coastal Land Use Plan, 20 January, 4-83. 18 Newport Beach, City of. 2005. Laeal CoastalPrograu CoastalLaad Use Plant, 20 January, 4-83. 19 Newport Beach, City of. 1996. Nenvporl Coast LCP Seco ndAmeudmeut, 3 December, 7. City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 4.4-3 Chapter 4 Environmental Analysis formed a marine terrace. Sandstone deposited in the Newport Beach area during the Pliocene Epoch contains a variety of marine mammals, sea birds, and mollusks. During the Pleistocene Epoch (2.5mya to 15,000 years ago), the seas continued to retreat as tectonic uplift continued. Although the Pleistocene Epoch is known as the "Ice Age," glacial ice never reached southern California, and paleontological evidence indicates that a heavily vegetated, marshy area extended inland beyond the shoreline. However, a variety of vertebrate animals typically associated with the Ice Age inhabited the area: local paleontological sites, particularly near the Castaways, have yielded fossils of Ice Age horses, elephants, bison, antelopes, and dire wolves. Also, a number of localities in the portions of the Vaqueros formation that underlie the Newport Coast area have yielded a variety of invertebrate and vertebrate fossils, and are considered to be of high -order paleontological significance (9 on a scale of 1 to 10). Other geological formations that underlie the Planning Area have also yielded significant fossils in the Planning Area, particularly in the Newport Banning Ranch portion of the SOT, as well as in other areas of the County. These include the Topanga and Monterey Formations. Known paleontological deposits at Fossil Canyon, in the North Bluffs area of the Planning Area, is considered a unique paleontological locality, and known vertebrate deposits within the Planning Area are considered to be among the most important in the State,2`,` The Newport Banning Ranch portion of the SOI is particularly rich, and contains at least 14 documented sites of high significance.22 ■ Historical Resources Reflective of Newport Beach's unique history, several properties in the City exhibit significant heritage distinction. The following information provides an overview of tine various distinctions of historical resources before identifying the existing historical resources located within the City. Definitions of Historical Resources Federal The National Historic Preservation Act established the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) to recognize resources associated with the country's history and heritage. Structures and features must usually be at least 50 years old to be considered for listing on the NRHP, barring exceptional circumstances. Criteria for listing on the NRHP, which are set forth in Title 26, Part 63 of the Code of Federal Regulations (36 CFR Part 63), are significance in American history, architecture, archaeology, engineering, and culture as present in districts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects that possess integrity of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association, and that are (A) associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history-, (B) associated with the lives of persons significant in our past; (C) embody the distinctive characteristics 20 LSA Associates. 1998, Endrunwental bipart Report, Phate IV-2 oflhe Neiuport Coast Planned Conumaih% Neupon' Coast Planning Arens 3A-2, 3B, 14, MCDP Sixth Avendinent and Coastal Development Penait. EIR No. 568,10 February, 4.10-3. 21 Newport Beach, City of 1974. Nempont Beach General Plan Cowenuton of Nahnral ResourrnrElement, 14 January, 34-35. 22 Keeton Kreiumr Coasuldng. 2000. Surencheck Program Ewironmentallnrpart.Report: Newport Banning Ranch I xcal Coastal Program, 28 April, 4.4-2 and 4.4-3. 4.4.4 City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR I 4.4 Cultural Resources 1 1 of a type, period, or method of construction; represent the work of a master; possess high artistic values, represent a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction; or (D) have yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history. Criterion D is usually reserved for archaeological and paleontological resources. 1 State t_J i 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 i fi i F The California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR) was created to identify resources deemed worthy of preservation on a state level and was modeled closely after the NRHP. The criteria are nearly identical to those of the NRHP but focus upon resources of statewide, rather than national, significance. The CRHR automatically includes resources listed on the NRHP. Local Properties that are not listed on the NRHP or CRHR may also be considered historical for the purposes of CEQA. The City of Newport Beach has established the Newport Beach Register of Historical Property ("City Register") to recognize structures or properties of local historical or architectural significance. Additionally, in 1991, City Council established an Ad Hoc Historic Preservation Advisory Committee (AHHPAC) to investigate the historic resources of the community and make recommendations regarding preservation. The AHHPAC completed its assignment on May 12, 1992, and reported its findings, which included a Historic Resource Inventory, to City Council June 8, 1992. The inventory categorized the properties surveyed in five hierarchical "classes" of significance:23,24 ■ Class 1—Major Historic Landmark ■ Class 2—Historic Landmark ■ Class 3—Local Historic Site ■ Class 4—Structure of Historic Interest ■ Class 5—Point of Historic Interest Under this scheme, Classes 1 to 3 would be eligible to use the State Historic Building Code; Class 4 and 5 properties would be listed for recognition purposes only. The Committee recommended that City Council act to include the inventory in the City Register. However, the entire AHHPAC Historic Resources Inventory was never officially adopted by the City and only some properties listed within were added to the City Register.' For those properties that originated in the AHHPAC Historic Resources Inventory and are now listed in the City Register, the City Council Policies detailed below govern the listing process for these resources. Historical Resources in the Planning Area Eleven properties in the City have been listed or designated eligible for fisting on the NRHP or CRHR, or otherwise listed as historic or potentially historic in the California Historic Resources Information 23 Ad Hoc Historic Preservation Advisory Committee (AHHPAC). 1992. Hrstode Resource Iunenley. 24 Ad Hoc Historic Preservation Advisory Committee (AHHPAC). 1992. Report to City Council, May. 25 Ad Hoc Historic Preservation Advisory Committee (AHHPAC). 1992. Report to City Council, May. City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 4.4.5 Chapter 4 Environmental Analysis System (CHRIS) maintained by the Office of Historic Preservation. These properties are shown on Figure 4.4-1. NRHP Four properties within the City have been listed on the NRHP:" ■ Balhoa Inn Built in 1929, the Balboa Inn is representative of Spanish Colonial Revival architecture and beachfront tourist development. ■ Balboa Pavilion —Constructed in 1905, the Balboa Pavilion has been the site of numerous social and cultural activities over the turn of the century. It is one the State's last surviving examples of great waterfront recreational pavilions. ■ Crystal Cove Historic District —The Crystal Cove Historic District is a 12.3-acre coastal portion of the 2,791-acre Crystal Cove State Park. The Federally listed Historic District is an enclave of 46 vintage rustic coastal cottages originally built in the 1920's and 1930's that are nestled around the mouth of Los Trancos Creek. It is one of the last remaining examples of early 20th century Southern California coastal development. ■ Lovell Beach House —Built in 1926, the Lovell Beach House was designed by Rudolf Schindler and is considered the first pure International Style house built in America. State -Recognized Resources Also, four sites within the City have been listed as California Historical Landmarks:27 ■ Old Larding (No. 198)—Established by Captain Dunnells in the 1870s, it was the site of the first shipping business in Newport Bay. ■ Site First Hater-to-IP/ater Flight (No. 775)—Commemorates the May 10, 1912, flight of pioneer pilot Glenn L. Martin who flew from the waters of the Pacific Ocean at Balboa to Catalina Island on a primitive hydroplane the first water -to -water flight. Today a plaque at the foot of the Balboa Pier honors the memory of Glenn Martin. ■ McFadden il/harf (No. 794)—The site of the otiginal wharf built in 1888 by the McFadden brothers. ■ Balboa Pavilion (No. 759)--described above. Four additional properties are also listed in the CHRIS database: $ ■ B.IC Store Building —one of the oldest commercial structures in Newport Beach. ■ Balboa Island Firehouse No. 4--early police and fire station for the Balboa Peninsula (now demolished) ■ Bank ofBalhoa/Bask ofAwerica—Bank of Balboa, Bank of America, provided services from 1928- 1984 (now demolished) ■ Our Lay ofAllount Camiel Chrrreh 26 Newport Beach, City of. 2003. Draft Loral Coastal Program Coastal Land Use Play 20 January, 4-58. 27 Newport Beach, City of. 2003. Draft Loral Coastal Program Coastal Land Use Plaa, 20 January, 458, 28 California. Office of Historic Preservation, 2003, California Historic Resources Information System records check, December. 4.4.6 City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR I B I II I I ..x r I _ r } _s tr f - -t s _ _ s'• y.- '.'a• urea "� �1 R..N �i ' ".v t� _ s i` i - .:'�•. r • L.-. Xii ✓ i ' •.r? J rv': '.err •'4. ,e1 �Ir x r � i` r 2. ;:x A '�. — t ':h'� {v: A ' A BRNN NG { - .: r•C �'. • •1y -4. \ 'C. . 1' s i •, ' 1 1, CH }. li h J •R :h JF, S � E -.i J ti i~ _ - l _ I yam .O. �R ')jf1 '' e .11 \ 1 t Pa .�.'. �i `: '• Y': i L ,f h A: ' n>, 4NEW ORT= 1 �r <:��~ ..�.':,:�.} b!, i.. _ i / •t 7 \a�'r, .. ` - q` �:v: '•?.. SHORES+ i 1:a:-it:;\. '•�- 7 em ! J .�i "'R• ,Y -- •S(' tr .:l i---'�•,-i n .1 !. .:f} ;:t,yB 1)i.i ~i' v � r'• _ ,QApl `(]'' - �.,F S'``-••' >f.: ,i. - rr, } -•;.4 .'�`'tyi}' ..y.�_.: �__ It _ i'�..-'i 1''i _�1-.�L�'1 'fRAT4`AW.` yy — 'v\', t % %?- ��Ati•'Y F„ _ 1 - Sl _ , O V.%"'— - } _ ::�.•`� alvsa i �> a,.; _\�' ` 3!/,; '.<'%O.\ ir'• '«:,-ei \ v i7 �� :� �b\� _ _ �F`_ ^.�.,� ♦ y`;i±•: .: ;;;._ ,.°. .Z'2 '''<" ,l "'-}- 2,' 't'.>..• /rs' ,� �l` , . , i ' NORTx _ /- f t �' }mil" __ lr^' ' : "i `\" g':. •••i.. '\'•�';`'` _ �., • l,�%"'- .r'/•rni \' r-'•: )=_.: r.to i rf..:'f _ ;r'-'_' _ (`.�i, >:,,,y. _ ;/} - � U 4�,., �r ,_t 7`t .' - - •t ram •\\,, .,,_'-a f,(r,� .-�; .,' (y%j-_ _ '� \ 'c Sv i/...J, -'\.:, oaNss !' - � i R>ti` if �•, 1 1>a°C''+V _. � Ism- issE• 1 �,,' `•cc'ssr Ciooh. `^ t ��L-•=mac '��_ 1 1 -- {`, F._ -^_ - `��=ti'��i`. xRvaos, •' -_ _'i. "^:.Y} .V" _Oc �'^! '.. � '\`. I _ :. .1? izEANc .i `,�._ L--. `, ti .�a ',N I :\,> f 'f _-L• ^,��� �� c(1r'INE NEwrok, - �* "f uLANe` - rl " .}` \rj '•i}'r; - '�i l�' } _ .% 1 -J r R2l `-�1-` ({' aaf ��', G• \ ,i..ti Y ! _, Jul'!, ._.,1.=-HfECS "!I •_� .�.'J. "/,• r^i �.-'�4J1 _-%'_=.i3-:'�Ji .. ', i'1,71'•l;'il'I�xll":, i-.�\ r tfy .�lrJtF it I 8AL80A ISLAND zALROAs 1y�j .. ,- ': r �, ,\ -. ,'i-i r�•l_�_ `�% '� \ 'r- AC/,t'C TN"e i1G `1i f` F' ll Q C ,4N LICox* CM EO+ Sq." 1 ' r' �� •• ; 1 .fir, � ,I t 1f1 i ,�,_. S� f ! a r ' STATE !•ARR CITY of NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL PLAN UPDATE EIR Figure 4.4-1 HISTORIC RESOURCES Legend Sites on National Register of Historic Places ® Bolboa'Inn Balboa Pav,Ton G Crystal CoveNlstoric'District a Lovell Bead, -House Coltfornia Historical Landmarks cF_a_ dden-_Whart" y �_ Old Landing ,� V Site of Nst Water -to -Water Flight Other Historic Sites crPotentialty Historic Sites In the CHRIS Database ± Balboa,lsiand Fire House #4 (dem'olishebi) Bank ofBaiboa/Bank-ofAmeilca_ :U (demolished) B K Stone'Bullding p� "Our Ladyivlounf.Carmel I Nda:G6lbfa Na)atllon-CA SMaflala, lale6. N4093, Eeef I VCI,wof Nmporz Bea6 g r9uE>s Sou�ar:OryIXNaWMEaO:h GalatlPlvT3N20I13,GMBa Rltf'2W3(;lD,, CanNes. R,C/1001, Cmc Erx�R; OCIaEu9f101, IbCmfw Euew, oNtt ClryBnaWab, 2000; ESPo. AUjorRmb, Feduay2002aq lip Alas, G4 flogmt NOEertlbel R003. fi ed No 10579413 EIP I C 4.4 Cultural Resources I I 1J I `J II Locally Recognized Resources The City has listed seven properties in the City Register, as shown in Figure 4.4-1, in recognition of their local historical or architectural significance, as described above. In addition to the Balboa Pavilion and the Balboa Inn, which are also listed in the NRHP and CRHR, the City Register includes the following: ■ Rendezvous Ballroom Site —A popular Balboa dance hall that featured numerous famous Big Bands of the 1930s and 1940s. It was destroyed by fire in 1966. ■ Wilma's Patio (formerly Pepper's Restaurant) —Located on Balboa Island, the exposed structural components of Pepper's Restaurant are timbers used in the original Balboa Island Bridge and McFadden Wharf. ■ Balboa Theater —Built in 1928, the Balboa Theater is a former vaudeville theater that at one time housed an infamous speakeasy during the prohibition period. Currently, the theater is planned for renovation. ■ Balboa Saloon The 1924 building is representative of the nautical history and Main Street commercial masonry style of Newport Beach. ■ Dory Fishing Fleet —The Dory Fishing Fleet is located adjacent to Newport Pier. The fleet and open-air fish market have operated at this location since the founding of the fleet in 1891 by Portuguese fishermen. The last remaining fleet of its type, it is a historical landmark designated by the Newport Beach Historical Society. It is a City Council Policy that an area immediately west of the Newport Pier be reserved for the Newport Dory Fishing Fleet. In addition to the formally recognized resources described above, the Historic Resource Inventory compiled by the AHHPAC includes 61 properties in five designated levels of significance, as described above. The full inventory was never officially adopted by the City, but it still serves as a useful guide to potentially historic properties that may have historic or cultural significance to the City. 4.4.3 Regulatory Framework The treatment of cultural resources is governed by Federal, State, and local laws and guidelines. There are specific criteria for determining whether prehistoric and historic sites or objects are significant and/or protected by law. Federal and State significance criteria generally focus on the resource's integrity and uniqueness, its relationship to similar resources, and its potential to contribute important information to scholarly research. Some resources that do not meet Federal significance criteria may be considered significant by State criteria. The laws and regulation seek to mitigate impacts on significant prehistoric or historic resources. The Federal, State, and local laws and guidelines for protecting historic resources are summarized below. ■ Federal Regulations The National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 The National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 established the NRHP as the official Federal list of cultural resources that have been nominated by State Offices for their historical significance at the local, State, or national level. Properties listed in the NRHP, or "determined eligible" for listing, must meet City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 4.4.9 Chapter 4 Environmental Analysis certain criteria for historical significance and possess integrity of form, location, and setting. Significance is determined by four aspects of American history or preltistory recognized by the NRHP Criteria, which are listed above under "Definitions of Historical Resources." Eligible properties must meet at least one of the criteria and exhibit integrity, measured by the degree to which the resource retains its historical properties and conveys its historical character, the degree to which the original fabric has been retained, and the reversibility of changes to the property. ■ State Regulations The California Register of Historic Resources (Public Resources Code Section 5020 et seq.) State law also protects cultural resources by requiring evaluations of the significance of prehistoric and historic resources in CEQA documents..A cultural resource is an important historical resource if it meets any of the criteria found in Section 15064.5(a) of the CEQA Guidelines. These criteria are nearly identical to those for the NRHP, which are listed on page 4.4-2 of this document under "Definitions of Historical Resources." The State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) maintains the CRHR. Properties listed, or formally designated eligible for listing, on the NRHP are nominated to the CRHR and then selected to be listed on, the CRHR, as are State Landmarks and Points of Interest. California Health and Safety Code (Sections 7050.5, 7051, and 7054) These sections collectively address the illegality of interference with human burial remains (except as allowed under applicable sections of the Public Resources Code), as well as the disposition of Native American burials in archaeological sites and protects such remains from disturbance, vandalism, or inadvertent destruction; establishes procedures to be implemented if Native American skeletal remains are discovered during construction of a project, treatment of the remains prior to, during and after evaluation, and rebuttal procedures. Public Resources Code §5097.98 This bill addresses the disposition of Native American burials in archaeological sites and protects such remains from disturbance, vandalism, or inadvertent destruction; establishes .procedures to be implemented if Native American skeletal remains are discovered during construction of a project; and establishes the Native American Heritage Commission to resolve disputes regarding the disposition of such remains. It has been incorporated into Section 15064.5(e) of the State CEQA Guidelines. 4.4-10 City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR I 4.4 Cultural Resources l u 1 J E If I ® Local Regulations Newport Beach City Council Policy Manual The Newport Beach City County Policy Manual identifies policies applicable to cultural resources. These policies are discussed below. Places of Historical and Architectural Significance (K-2) This regulation establishes City Council authority to designate any building, object, structure, monuments, or collection having importance to the history or architecture of the City of Newport Beach and provides procedure for listing. Accordingly, the City Clerk is required to maintain the City of Newport Beach Register of Historical Property. The City Council may at any time repeal, revise, or modify any such designation upon reconsideration of the historical or architectural importance if the structure. Paleontological Guidelines (K-4) Under this guideline, the City is required to prepare and maintain sources of information regarding paleontological sites and the names and addresses of responsible organizations and qualified individuals who can analyze, classify, record, and preserve paleontological findings. If determined necessary by the Planning Director, it is the responsibility of a developer to examine the proposed site in order to determine the existence and extent of paleontological resources. Qualified observers are to prepare and submit a written report describing the findings and making recommendations for further action. Based on the report and recommendations, the City is required to assure that the findings or sites are recorded, preserved, and protected. Archaeological Guidelines (K-5) The policies set forth within this guideline are used to guide the development or redevelopment of land within the City. The City is required to, through its planning policies and permit conditions, ensure the preservation of significant archaeological resources and require that the impact caused by any development be mitigated in accordance with CEQA. The City is to prepare and maintain sources of information regarding archaeological sites and the names and addresses of responsible organizations and qualified individuals who can analyze, classify, record, and preserve archaeological findings. If determined necessary by the Planning Director, it is the responsibility of the developer to examine the site to determine the existence and extent of archaeological resources. Qualified observers are to prepare ' and submit a written report describing the findings and making recommendations for further action, which may include monitoring. Based on the report and recommendations, the City is required to assure that the findings or sites are recorded, preserved, and protected.' I■ ss Newport Beach, City of. City Council Policy Manual. Webpage bttP://VrV%v.citY.neNVPort- beach.ca.us/CouncUpoRdes/toc.htm ' City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 4.4-11 Chapter 4 Environmental Analysis Local Coastal Program —Coastal Land Use Plan The Coastal Land Use Plan sets forth goals, objectives, and policies that govern the use of land and water in the coastal zone within the City of Newport Beach and its sphere of influence, with the exception of Newport Coast and Banning Ranch. Thus, development in the City's Coastal Zone would be subject to these policies. Policy 4.5.1-1 Require new development to protect and preserve paleontological and archaeological resources from destruction, and avoid and' minimize impacts to such resources. If avoidance of the resource is not feasible, require an in situ or site -capping preservation plan or a recovery plan for mitigating the effect of the development. Policy 4.5.1-2 Require a qualified paleontologist/archeologist to monitor all grading and/or excavation where there is a potential to affect cultural or paleontological resources. If grading operations or excavations uncover paleontological/ archaeological resources, require the paleontologist/ archeologist monitor to suspend all development activity to avoid destruction of resources until a determination can be made as to the significance of the paleontological/ archaeological resources. If resources are determined to be significant, require submittal of a mitigation plan. Mitigation measures considered may range from in -situ preservation to recovery and/or relocation. Mitigation plans shall include a good faith effort to avoid impacts to cultural resources through methods such as, but not limited to, project redesign, in situ preservation/capping, and placing cultural resource areas in open space. Policy 4.5.1-3 Notify cultural organizations, including Native American organizations, of proposed developments that have the potential to adversely impact cultural resources. Allow qualified representatives of such groups to monitor grading and/or excavation of development sites. Policy 4.5.14 Where in situ preservation and avoidance are not feasible, require new development to donate scientifically valuable paleontological or archaeological materials to a responsible public or private institution with a suitable repository, located within Orange County, whenever possible. Policy 4.5.1-5 Where there is a potential -to affect cultural or paleontological resources, require the submittal of an archeological/cultural resources monitoring plan that identifies monitoring methods and describes the procedures for selecting archaeological and Native American monitors and procedures that will be followed if additional or unexpected archeological/cultural resources are encountered during development of the site. Procedures may include, but are not limited to, provisions for cessation of all grading and construction activities in the area of the discovery that has any potential to uncover or otherwise disturb cultural deposits in the area of the discovery and all construction that may foreclose mitigation options to allow for significance testing, additional investigation, and mitigation. Policy 4.5.1-6 Continue to protect Upper Newport Bay cliff faces to serve as a reference section for micropaleontological studies. 4.4-12 City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR ' I Policy 4.5.2-1 Continue to maintain the Newport Beach Register of Historical Property for buildings, objects, structures, and monuments having importance to the history or architecture ' of Newport Beach. Policy 4.5.2-2 Allow the application of the State Historical Building Code to buildings or structures ' listed in the NeuportBeacb Register of Historical Property. Policy 4.5.2-3 Provide incentives, such a granting reductions or waivers of applications fees, permit ' fees, and/or and liens placed by the City to properties listed in the Newport Beach Register of Historical property in exchange for preservation elements. Policy 4.5.2-4 Continue to allow the Dory Fishing Fleet to be launched and stored and to sell fish on the public beach adjacent to Newport Pier within reasonable limits to protect the historical character of the fleet, the coastal access and resources, and the safety of beach users in the vicinity. 4.4.4 Thresholds of Significance The following thresholds of significance are based on Appendix G of the 2005 CEQA Guidelines. For purposes of this EIR, implementation of the proposed General Plan Update may have a significant ' adverse impact on cultural resources if it would result in any of the following: ■ Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in Section 15064.5 mi Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to Section 15064.5 ■ Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature ' ■ Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries 4.4.5 Project Impacts, Mitigation Measures, and Proposed Policies 'E Effects Not Found to Be Significant ' The IS/NOP prepared for the proposed project did not identify any effects not found to be significant associated with Cultural Resources. Therefore, all thresholds are addressed in this section. II II II II City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 4.4.13 ■ Project Impacts Threshold Would the proposed project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource? Impact 4.4-1 Development under the proposed General Plan Update would result in the demolition of historic structures. As described previously, the City of Newport Beach has a variety of historic resources, including Federal, State, and local resources. Eleven properties in the City have been listed or designated eligible for listing on the NRHP or CRHR, or otherwise listed as historic or potentially historic in the CHRIS maintained by the Office of Historic Preservation. In addition, the City Register also formally recognizes five structures or properties of local historical or architectural significance, most of which are not listed in the NRHP and CRHR. These structures meet the definition of historical resources under Section 15064.5(a) of the CEQA Guidelines. Section 15064.5(b) states that a project with an effect that may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource is a project that may have a significant effect on the environment. In addition to the formally recognized resources described above, the City's Historic Resource Inventory includes 61 properties, which while not officially adopted, serves as a useful guide to potentially historic properties that may have historic or cultural significance to the City. Redevelopment to enable a different or more intensive use of a site could result in the demolition of historic or potentially historic structures. Additionally, infrastructure or other public works improvements could result in damage to or demolition of other historic features. As detailed in the Regulatory Framework Section above (Section 4.4.3), there are a number of Federal, State, and' local policies, regulations, and institutions in place to protect historical resources in the City. For example, the Newport Beach City Council Policy Manual encourages the preservation of the City's cultural and historic heritage through establishing City Council authority over designating resources as having importance to the history or architecture of the City. In addition, Policies HR 1.1 through HR 1.5 in the proposed General Plan Update are in place to protect historically significant landmarks, sites, and structures through requiring that the Historical Resources Inventory be maintained and updated, encouraging the preservation and adaptive reuse of historic structures, promoting the placement of historical landmarks throughout the City, encouraging adaptive reuse, and mandating the incorporation of historical elements in new redevelopment projects in the City. Specifically, Policy HR 1.2 focuses on preserving structures listed in the National Register of Historic Places, the List of California Historic Landmarks, and the Newport Beach Register of Historic Property through offering incentives such as grading reductions or waivers of various fees, including application and permit fees. In addition to encouraging the placement of historical landmarks, photographs, markers, and plaques at areas of historical interest or value, Policy HR 1.3 would create a Landmark Plan to recognize and designate culturally important heritage sites that are eligible for the placement of historical landmarks or plaques and would also identify funding opportunities to support the program. Policy HR 1.4 encourages alternatives to demolition of historical sites through providing incentives including fee waivers and free technical advice for adaptive reuse, such as architecturally compatible rehabilitation of 4.4-14 City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 4.4 Cultural Resources historic structures. In the case that preservation or adaptive reuse is not possible, Policy HR 1.5 requires that a proposed project incorporates a physical link to the past within the site or structural design, be it incorporation of historical photographs or artifacts, or preservation of existing elements of the site, such as existing pathways or viewing vantage points. A comparison of Figure 3-3 (Chapter 3, Project Description) and Figure 4.4-1, most of the subareas within the Planning Area where changes could occur as a result of the proposed General Plan Update, do not have historic resources, including the Airport Area, Newport Center, West Newport Mesa and Mariners' Mile. Balboa Peninsula is an exception, and policies associated with Goal 6.8 of the proposed General Plan Update are in place to preserve the historic character of Balboa Peninsula's districts by offering incentives for the preservation of historic buildings and requiring that new development be compatible with the scale, mass, and materials of existing structures, while allowing opportunities for architectural diversity. With the policy framework discussed above combined with the lack of historic resources in the subareas where most development would occur, the probability of demolition of historic structures would be minimized. However, the policies afford only limited protection to historic structures and would not ultimately prevent the demolition of a historic structure. Additionally, some structures that are not currently considered for historical value (as they must generally be at least 50 years or older) could become worthy of consideration during the planning period of the proposed General Plan Update. Because the demolition of a historic structure constitutes a physical effect on the environment and the proposed General Plan Update does not propose policies that would effectively prevent the demolition of historic structures, this impact is considered significant. Implementation of proposed General Plan Update Policy HR 1.6 would reduce this impact by requiring the developers of a property containing a historic resource retain a qualified consultant to record the structure in accordance the U.S. Secretary of Interior guidelines, and HR 1.7 would require the developer of a project that would demolish a historic structure to offer the structure for relocation, which could result in the preservation of the structure. However, these mitigation measures would not reduce this impact to a less -than -significant level. Threshold Would the proposed project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to Section 15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines? Impact 4.4-2 Ground -disturbing activities associated with development under the proposed General Plan Update could result in damage to or destruction of archaeological and/or Native American cultural resources. The City of Newport Beach and its SOI have a long cultural history and is known to have been home to Native American groups prior to settlement by Euro-Americans. Archaeological materials associated with occupation of the Planning Area are known to exist and have the potential to provide important scientific information regarding history and prehistory. Ground -disturbing activities, particularly in areas that have not previously been developed with urban uses have the potential to damage or destroy historic or prehistoric archaeological resources that may be present on or below the ground surface. Such resources are generally considered to be historical resources, as defined in Section 15064.5(a)(3)(D) (" Nas yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in history or prehistory"). In addition to the status of archaeological resources as historical resources, a resource may also be a "unique City of Newport Spach General Plan Update EIR 4.4-15 archaeological resource," as defined in Section 21083.2(g)(1)—(3) of CEQA. Further, archaeological resources are often of cultural or religious importance to Native American groups, particularly if the resource includes human and/or animal burials. Consequently, damage to or destruction of these resources could occur as a result of development under the proposed General Plan Update. The Banning Ranch site is currently developed with oil production uses and associated structures, including large storage tanks and may have a greater potential to contain undisturbed archaeological sites or sites of cultural significance. Vacant parcels located within the City could also contain these cultural resources. However, policies within Goal HR 2 and NR 18 of the proposed General Plan Update would protect these resources. For example, Policy HR 2.1 and Policy NR 18.1 require that any new development protect and preserve archaeological resources from destruction, and that potential impacts to such resources be avoided and minimized through planning policies and permit conditions. Other policies under Goal HR 2 and Goal NR 18 ensure that information resources are maintained regarding these resources; grading and excavation activities where there is a potential to affect cultural or archaeological resources be monitored by a qualified archaeologist; cultural organizations, including Native American organizations, are notified of all developments that have the potential to adversely impact these resources; and that any new development donates scientifically valuable archaeological resources to a responsible public or private institution. The Newport Beach City Council has also established "Archaeological Guidelines (K-5)" to ensure the preservation of significant archeological resources and require that the impact caused by any development be mitigated with CEQA. The Historical Resources Element of the proposed General Plan Update also contains policies that ensure the protection of archaeological resources. For example, policy HR 2.1 would require .new development to protect and preserve paleontological andarchaeological resources from destruction, and avoid and minimize impacts to such resources in accordance with the requirements of CEQA. Through planning policies and permit conditions, this policy would ensure the preservation of significant archeological and paleontological resources and require that the impact caused by any development be mitigated in accordance with CEQA. Policy HR 2.2 would ensure that sources of information regarding paleontological and archeological sites and the names and addresses of responsible organizations and qualified individuals, who can analyze, classify, record, and preserve paleontological or archeological findings would continue to be maintained. A qualified paleontologist/archeologist would be required to monitor all grading and/or excavation where there is a potential to affect cultural, archeological or paleontological resources. If these resources are found, the applicant shall implement the recommendations of the paleontologist/archeologist, subject to the approval of the City Planning Department. Consequently, implementation of the proposed General PlanUpdate ,policies would ensure that impacts to archaeological and Native American cultural resources would be less than significant, by requiring the scientific recovery and evaluation of any archaeological resources that could be encountered during construction of future development. This would ensure that important scientific information that could be provided by these resources regarding history or prehistory would not be lost. 4.4-16 City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR I 4.4 Cultural Resources Threshold Would the proposed project directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? Impact 4.4-3 Ground -disturbing activities associated with development under the proposed General Plan Update could result in damage to or destruction of unique paleontological resources within rock units or geologic features. As described previously, paleontological resources may be present in fossil -bearing soils and rock formations below the ground surface. A number of localities in the City have a variety of known significant paleontological resources, including portions of the Vaqueros formation that underlie the Newport Coast, the Newport Banning Ranch portion of the SOI, the Topanga and Monterey Formations, and Fossil Canyon in the North Bluffs area of the Planning Area. Ground -disturbing activities in these fossil -bearing soils and rock formations have the potential to damage or destroy paleontological resources that may be present below the ground surface. Therefore, any activities resulting from implementation of the proposed General Plan Update, including construction -related and earth -disturbing actions, could damage or destroy fossils in these rock units. As with archaeological resources, paleontological resources are generally considered to be historical resources, as defined in Section 15064.5(a)(3)(D) ("[h]as yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in history or prehistory"). Consequently, damage or destruction to these resources could cause a significant impact. Policies within Goal HR 2 and NR 18 of the proposed General Plan Update are in place to protect paleontological resources. For example, Policy HR 2.1 and Policy NR 18.1 require any new development to protect and preserve archaeological resources from destruction, and that potential impacts to such resources be avoided and minimized through planning policies and permit conditions. These steps are in place to ensure that paleontological resources are preserved, and that any impact caused by development be mitigated in accordance with CEQA. As detailed in Impact 4.1-3, other policies under Goal HR 2 and Goal NR 18 ensure that information resources are maintained regarding these resources; grading and excavation activities where there is a potential to affect cultural or archaeological resources be monitored by a qualified archaeologist; cultural organizations, including Native American organizations, are notified of all developments that have the potential to adversely impact these resources; and that any new development donates scientifically valuable archaeological resources to a responsible public or private institution. The Newport Beach City Council has also established "Paleontological Guidelines (I<-4)" requiring that the City prepare and maintain sources of information regarding paleontological sites. Compliance with policies within Goal NR 18 and the policies under Goal HR 2 would reduce this impact to a less -than -significant level by ensuring paleontological resources would be subject to scientific recovery and evaluation, which would ensure that important scientific information that could be provided by these resources regarding prehistory is not lost. City of Newport Degch General Plan Update EIR 4.4-17 Chapter 4 Environmental Analysis Threshold Would the proposed project disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? Impact 4.4-4 Gtound-disturbing activities associated with development under the proposed General Plan Update could result in damage to or destruction of human burial grounds. Archaeological materials, including human burials, have been found in the City. Human burials outside of formal cemeteries often occur in prehistoric archeological contexts. Particularly in the areas of the City that are still mostly underdeveloped for urban uses, such as the Banning Ranch area, the potential still exists for these resources to be present. It is the City's intent to preserve Banning Ranch, which has not been subject to substantial development and therefore has a higher potential to yield intact sites. However if open space preservation is not feasible in Banning Ranch, the area will be developed for residential and commercial uses. Excavation during construction activities in the City would have the potential to disturb these resources, including Native American burials. Human burials, in addition to being potential archaeological resources, have specific provisions for treatment in Section 5097 of the California Public Resources Code. Disturbing human remains would destroy the resources and could potentially violate the health code. The California Health and Safety Code (Sections 7050.5, 7051, and 7054) described in section 4.4.3, "Regulatory Framework" of this section, also has specific provisions for the protection of human burial remains. Existing xegulations address the illegality of interfering with human burial remains, and protects them from disturbance, vandalism, or destruction, and established procedures to be implemented if Native American skeletal remains are discovered. Public Resources Code §5097.98 also addresses the disposition of Native American burials, protects such remains, and established the Native American Heritage Commission to .resolve any related disputes. Additionally, policies within Goal HR2 and Goal NR17 of the proposed General Plan Update are in place to protect archaeological resources, including human remains. Policies HR 2.1 and Policy NR 18.1 would require that any new development under the proposed General Plan Update protect and preserve archaeological resources from destruction, and that potential impacts to such resources be avoided and minimized through planning policies and permit conditions. Other policies under Goal HR2 and Goal NR 18 ensure that information resources are maintained regarding these resources, that all grading and excavation activities where there is a potential to affect cultural or archaeological resources be monitored by a qualified archaeologist; that cultural organizations, including Native American organizations, are notified of all developments that have the potential to adversely impact these resources; and that any new development donates scientifically valuable archaeological resources to a responsible public or private institution. Consequently, compliance with existing Federal, State, and local policies would ensure that the impact of the proposed General Plan Update on human burial grounds would be reduced to a less-than- signi&cantlevel by ensuring appropriate examination, treatment, and protection of human remains, as required bylaw. 4.4.18 City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 4.4 Cultural Resources ® Cumulative Impacts The geographic context for the analysis of cumulative cultural resources impacts is Orange County, which includes all cumulative growth within the County. This cumulative impact analysis considers implementation of the proposed General Plan Update, in conjunction with other development in the vicinity of the City of Newport Beach, as represented by full implementation of the proposed General Plan Update. Historical Resources Potential future development in the City of Newport Beach and the SOI could include the demolition or destruction of historic resources. Though historic resources may be listed in the NRHP or CRHR, or otherwise listed as historic or potentially historic in the CHRIS maintained by the Office of Historic Preservation, the listing itself often grants little or no inherent protection. Development in the City of Newport Beach would be subject to the requirements of CEQA. However, even with these requirements, full mitigation of impacts to every historical resource in the City could be considered infeasible and the impact overridden to allow for future project approval. It is therefore possible that cumulative development in the vicinity of the City of Newport Beach could result in the adverse demolition or destruction of historic buildings, which could contribute to the erosion of the historic and architectural fabric of the City. The cumulative impact of development under the proposed General Plan Update would, therefore, be considered signi&cant and unavoidable. Archaeological and Paleontological Resources Potential future development in the City of Newport Beach and the SOI could include excavation and grading that could potentially impact the archaeological and paleontological resources and human remains. The cumulative effect of this future development is the continued loss of these resources. The potential loss of paleontological and archaeological resources with this future development would contribute to the degradation of the historic fabric of the City of Newport Beach. However, policies under the proposed General Plan Update and assigned mitigation measures would be implemented as appropriate to reduce the effect of this development by ensuring the evaluation and — where appropriate — scientific recovery and study of any resources encountered. CEQA requirements for the protection of archaeological and paleontological resources and human remains are applicable to development in the City of Newport Beach. If subsurface cultural resources are protected as they are discovered — as is required by law — impacts to these resources would be less than significant. As indicated above, given the mitigation measures that would be imposed and enforced throughout construction, the contribution of potential impacts from the proposed General Plan Update to the cumulative destruction of subsurface cultural resources throughout Newport Beach would not be cumulatively considerable, and would, therefore, be less than signi.6cant. City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 4.4.19 Chapter 4 Environmental Analysis ■ Proposed General Plan Update Policies The Historical Resources and Natural Resources Elements of the proposed General Plan Update include policies that would address issues related to historical resources within the City of Newport Beach. The policies that are applicable to the project are included below. Goal HR 1 Recognize and protect historically significant landmarks, sites, and structures. Policy HR 1.1 Historical Resources Inventory Maintain and periodically update the Newport Beach Register of Historical Property for buildings, objects, structures, and monuments having importance to the history or architecture of Newport Beach and require photo documentation of inventoried historic structures prior to demolition. Policy HR 1.2 Preservation or Re -Use of Historical Structures Encourage the preservation of structures listed on the National Register of Historic Places and/or the list of California Historical Landmarks, and/or the Newport Beach Register of Historical Property,. Provide incentives, such as grading reductions or waivers of application fees, permit fees, and/or any liens Placed by the City to properties listed in the National or State Register or the Newport Beach Register of Historical Property in exchange for preservation easements. Policy HR 1.3 Historical Landmarks Encourage the placement of historical landmarks, photographs, markers, or plaques at areas of historical interest or value. Create a Landmark Plan that will recognize and designate culturally important heritage sites that are eligible for the placement of historical landmarks or plaques. The Plan will also identify funding opportunities to support the program such as development fees, corporate or civic sponsorships, donations, or utilizing General Funds. Policy HR 1.4 Adaptive Re -use Encourage alternatives to demolition of historical sites or structures by promoting architecturally compatible rehabilitation or adaptive re -use. Provide incentives such as permit and application fee waivers, flexible building requirements and free technical advice by petson(s) qualified in historical preservation. Policy HR 1.5 Historical Elements within New Projects Require that proposed development that is located on a historical site or structure incorporate a physical link to the past within the site or structural design, if preservation or adaptive reuse is not a feasible option. For example, incorporate historical photographs or artifacts within the proposed project or preserve the location and structures of existing pathways, gathering places, 4.4-20 City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR I 4.4 Cultural Resources seating areas, rail lines, roadways, or viewing vantage points within the proposed site design. Policy HR 1.6 Documentation Require that, prior to the issuance of a demolition or grading permit, developers of a property that contains an historic structure as defined by CEQA retain a qualified consultant to record the structure in accordance with U.S. Secretary of Interior guidelines (which includes drawings, photographs, and written data) and submit this information to the Newport Beach Historical Society, Orange County Public Library, and City Planning Department. Policy HR 1.7 Offer for Relocation of Historic Structure Require that, prior to the demolition of a historic structure, developers offer the structure for relocation by interested parties. Goal HR 2 Identification and protection of important archeological and paleontological resources within the City. Policy HR 2.1 New Development Activities Require new development to protect and preserve paleontological and archaeological resources from destruction, and avoid and minimize mitigate impacts to such resources in accordance with the requirements of CEQA. Through planning policies and permit conditions, ensure the preservation of significant archeological and paleontological resources and require that the impact caused by any development be mitigated in accordance with CEQA. Policy HR 2.2 Grading and Excavation Activities Maintain sources of information regarding paleontological and archeological sites and the names and addresses of responsible organizations and qualified individuals, who can analyze, classify, record, and preserve paleontological or archeological findings. Require a qualified paleontologist/archeologist to monitor all grading and/or excavation where there is a potential to affect cultural, archeological or paleontological resources. If these resources are found, the applicant shall implement the recommendations of the paleontologist/archeologist, subject to the approval of the City Planning Department. Policy HR 2.3 Cultural Organizations Notify cultural organizations, including Native American organizations, of proposed developments that have the potential to adversely impact cultural resources. Allow representatives of such groups to monitor grading and/or excavation of development sites. i' City of Newport Beach General -Plan Update EIR 4.4-21 Chapter 4 Environmental Analysis LJI Policy HR 2.4 Paleontological or Archaeological Materials Require new development to donate scientifically valuable paleontological or archaeological materials to a responsible public or private, institution with a suitable repository, located within Newport Beach, or Orange County, whenever possible. Goal LU 6.8 A series of commercial, visitor -serving, marine related, civic, and' residential neighborhoods that are vibrant shtoughout the year, differentiated by their historic and functional characteristics, and architectural style, yet integrated by streetscape amenities. Policy LU 6.8.6 Historic Character Preserve the historic character of Balboa Peninsula's districts by offering incentives for the preservation of historic buildings and requiring new development to be compatible with the scale, mass, and materials of existing structures, while A itig opportunities for atclvtectural diversity. Goal NR 18 Protection and preservation of important paleontological and archaeological resources. Policy NR 18.1 New Development Require new development to protect and preserve paleontological and archaeological resources from destruction, and avoid and minimize impacts to such resources in accordance with the requirements of CEQA. Through planning policies and permit conditions, ensure the preservation of significant archeological and paleontological resources and require that the impact caused by any development be mitigated in accordance with CEQA. Policy NR 18.2 Maintenance of Database Information Prepare and maintain sources of information regarding paleontological or archaeological sites and the names and addresses of responsible organizations and qualified individuals who can analyze, classify, record, and preserve paleontological and archaeological findings. [Council Policy Manual] Policy NR 18.3 Potential for New Development to Impact Resources Notify cultural organizations, including Native American organizations, of proposed developments that have the potential to adversely impact cultural resources. Allow qualified representatives of such groups to monitor grading and/or excavation of development sites. Policy Nit 18.4 Donation of Materials Require new development, where in situ preservation and avoidance are not feasible, to donate scientifically valuable paleontological or archaeological I u LJ u 4.4.22 City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR , 4.4 Cultural Resources materials to a responsible public or private institution with a suitable repository, located within Newport Beach or Orange County, whenever possible. ■ Impacts and Mitigation Measures No feasible mitigation measures beyond what the proposed General Plan Update policies require are available as the desired result (no demolition of historic resources) cannot be ensured and even if the structure were moved, the integrity of setting and location of the structure would still be lost, because the structure would be removed from its original site. Level of Significance After Policies/Mitigation Measures Development under the proposed General Plan Update could include the modification, demolition or destruction of historical resources. As no additional feasible mitigation measures are available to ensure the complete protection of historical resources from future development, the impact would be significant and unavoidable. However, all other project impacts associated with historic, archeological, paleontological resources, and human remains would be less than significant under the proposed Newport Beach General Plan Update. Policies in the General Plan would protect and preserve important paleontological and archaeological resources by requiring that new development under the proposed General Plan Update protects and preserves these resources from destruction. Through protections such as planning policies, permit conditions, maintenance of information resources, and the inclusion of cultural organizations in any development projects that have the potential to adversely impact these resources, the overall impacts to historic, archeological, and paleontological resources, and human remains would be less than significant. 4.4.6 References Ad Hoc Historic Preservation Advisory Committee (AHHPAC). 1992. Historic Resource Inventory 1992. Report to City Council, May California. Office of Historic Preservation. 2003. Califonda Historic Resources Information System records check, December EIP Associates. 1998. Dana Point Headlands Draft Environmentallmpact Report, 4.12-5 2004. Technical Background Report 2005. Historical Resources General Plan Element History of Newport Beach. Newport Beach Real Estate. Webpage: http://www.realestatenewportbeach.com/relocation/history.php Keeton Kreitzer Consulting. 2000. Screencheck Progvanr Environmentallnrpact Report.• Newport Banning Ranch Local Coastal Program, 28 April. Prepared for the County of Orange Planning and Development Services Department. City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 4.4-23 Chapter 4 Environmental Analysis . 2000. Screeucl)eck Progra»i Eauimniueutal lupact Report: Neu port Bauntng Rancb Loral Coastal Program, 28 April, 4.4-2 and 4.4-3 LSA Associates. 199 8. Ennlronmentallnpdct Report, Phase IV-2 of the Newport Coast Planned Commmit3; Newport Coast Planning Areas 3A-2, 3B, 14, lVECDP SixthAmendineat and Coastal DeoelopuJeat Permit. EIR No. 568,10 February, 4.10-3 Newport Beach, City of.1974. Newport Beach General Plan Cousemadon of Nattiral Resonrces Eleufeut,14 January, 34-35. 1974. Newport Beach General Plan Corrseraadoa of Nattnal Resotnres Element, 14 January, 34-35 .1981. Newport Beach 75 1906-1981: A Diamond Jubilee Histog. Edited by James P. Felton. 1996. Newport Coast LCP SecondAmendment, 3 December, 7 2003. Draft Local Coastal Program Coastal Land Use Plan, 20 January, 4-58 2005. Local Coastal Program —Coastal Land Use Plan, 20 January, 4-83. 2005. Local Coastal ProgranrCoastal Land Use Plan. Adopted 13 December. 2006. City Council Policy Manual. Webpage http://wtvtv.city.nexvport- beach.ca.us/Councilpolicies/toc.htm Orange, County of 2003. Brief History of Orange County. Webpage: http://Nvmmv.oc.ca.gov/history/ oc_history.asp 4.4-24 City of Newport Beach General Plan Update Elk ' 4.5 Geology, Soils, and Mineral Resources 4.5 GEOLOGY, SOILS, AND MINERAL RESOURCES 4.5.1 Introduction This section of the EIR analyzes the potential physical environmental effects related to seismic hazards, underlying soil characteristics, slope stability, erosion, and existing mineral resources in the Planning ' Area, within the City of Newport Beach from implementation of the General Plan Update. Data used to prepare this section was taken from the Hazards Assessment Study prepared for the Technical ' Background Report, the California Geological Survey (CGS) (formerly known as the Division of Mines and Geology), and previous environmental documentation prepared for the Planning Area. ' The Initial Study prepared for the proposed project identified the potential for the project area to expose people or structures to risks from seismic effects (such as fault rupture, groundshaking, liquefaction, and landslides), soil erosion and loss of topsoil, geologically unstable soils, and geologically expansive soils. The City of Newport Beach is almost entirely built out with established utility services and new development would not require the use of septic tanks. Therefore, issues related to the use of alternative waste disposal systems are not included in the detailed analysis presented in this EIR. Full bibliographic ' entries for all reference materials are provided in Section 4.5.10 (References) of this section. The Initial Study also identified the potential for impacts related to loss of a availability of a known ' mineral resource that would be of value to the region and residents, or loss of availability of a locally - important mineral resource recovery site. ' One comment letter associated with geology, soils, and mineral resources was received in response to the IS/NOP circulated for the General Plan Update. The Department of Conservation (DOC)—Division of Oil, Gas, and Geothermal Resources requested that the DEIR include an analysis of potential impacts of building over, or in the proximity to, the plugged and abandoned wells located within the administrative boundaries of the West Newport and Newport oil fields. Section 4.5.5 (Project Impacts, Mitigation ' Measures, and Proposed Policies) provides such an analysis. The DOC also requests that these wells be plotted on future project maps. I_J u 4.5.2 Geology and Soils ■ Existing Conditions Physiographic Setting The Planning Area is located in an area of widely diverse terrain at the southern margin of the Los Angeles Basin. The Planning Area's landscape can best be described by geographic area, each reflective of its distinct topographic features. The central and northwestern portions of the Planning Area are situated on a broad mesa that extends southeastward to join the San Joaquin Hills. Commonly known as Newport Mesa, this upland has been deeply dissected by stream erosion, resulting in moderate to steep II City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 4.5.1 bluffs along the Upper Newport Bay estuary, one of the most biologically diverse natural features in Orange County. The nearly flat-topped mesa rises from about 50 to 75 feet above mean sea level at the northern end of the estuary in the Santa Ana Heights area, to about 100 feet above sea level in the Newport Heights, Westcliff, and Eastbluff areas. Along the southwestern margin of the Planning Area, sediments flowing from the two major drainage courses that transect the mesa have formed the beaches, sandbars, and mudflats of Newport Bay and West Newport. These 'lowland areas were significantly modified during the last century in order to deepen channels for navigation and form habitable islands. Balboa Peninsula, a barrier beach that protects the bay, was once the site of extensive low sand dunes. In the southern part of the Planning Area, the San Joaquin Hills rise abruptly from the sea, separated from the present shoreline by a relatively flat, narrow shelf. Originally formed by wave abrasion, this platform (also called a terrace) is now elevated well above the water and is bounded by steep bluffs along the shoreline. The coastal platform occupied by Corona Del Mar ranges from about 95 to 100 feet above sea level, and the San Joaquin Hills, site of the Newport Coast development area, rise to an elevation of 1,164 feet at Signal Peak. The two major drainages that have contributed greatly to the development of the City's landforms are the Santa Ana River and San Diego Creek. North of the Planning Area, numerous streams draining the foothills, including Peters Canyon Wash, Rattlesnake Wash, Hicks Canyon, Agua Chinon, and Serrano Creek, merged with San Diego Creek and collectively cut a wide channel through the mesa, later filling it with sediment (Upper Newport Bay and the harbor area). The collected drainages are now contained in the man-made San Diego Creek Channel, and directed into Upper Newport Bay.near the intersection of Jamboree Road and University Drive, The Bay also receives water from the Santa Ana Delhi Channel near Irvine Avenue and Mesa Drive. Regional and Local Faults The faulting and seismicity of Southern California is dominated by the San Andreas Fault System. The zone separates two of the major tectonic plates that comprise the earth's crust. The Pacific Plate lies west of the fault zone. This plate is moving in a northwesterly direction relative to the North American Plate, which lies east of the fault zone. The relative movement between the two plates is the driving force of fault ruptures in western California. The San Andreas Fault System generally trends northwest -southeast; however, north of the Transverse Ranges Provinces the fault trends more in an east/west direction, causing a north/south compression between the two plates. North/south compression in Southern California has been estimated from five to twenty millimeters per year? This compression has produced rapid uplift of many of the mountain ranges in Southern California and is responsible for most of the seismic activity in the region. There are numerous faults in Southern California that are categorized by the CGS as active, potentially active, and inactive. A fault is classified as active by the State if it has moved during the Holocene epoch (during the last 11,000 years) or is included in an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone (as established by "Southern California Earthquake Data Center (SCEDC), ApboGetiralFanllluAex. 2005. www.dta.scec.org, Accessed October 2005. 4.5.2 City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 4.5 Geology, Soils, and Mineral Resources the CGS). A fault is classified as potentially active if it has experienced movement during the Quaternary period (the last 1.6 million years). Faults that have not moved in the last 1.6 million years generally are considered inactive. Surface displacement can be recognized by the existence of cliffs in alluvium, terraces, offset stream courses, fault troughs and saddles, the alignment of depressions, sag ponds, and the existence of steep mountain fronts. The City of Newport Beach is located in the northern part of the Peninsular Ranges Province, an area that is exposed to risk from multiple earthquake fault zones. The highest risks originate from the Newport -Inglewood fault zone, the Whittier fault zone, the San Joaquin Hills fault zone, and the Elysian Park fault zone, each with the potential to cause moderate to large earthquakes that would cause ground shaking in Newport Beach and nearby communities. Figure 4.5-1 illustrates the regional faults in the vicinity of the Planning Area. N Historic Seismicity Generally defined, an earthquake is an abrupt release of accumulated energy in the form of seismic waves created when movement occurs along a fault plane. The specific faulting characteristics of the Los Angeles Basin are governed by regional north/south compression, a product of the continued motion between the Pacific and North American Plates.3' More than half the energy produced by this motion is stored by the San Andreas Fault, the main boundary between the Pacific and North American Plates. The remaining energy is distributed through movement on two principal fault systems: the northwest/southeast—trending faults subparallel to the San Andreas system and the east/west—trending faults of the Transverse Ranges. The severity of an earthquake generally is expressed in two ways —magnitude and intensity. The energy released, measured on the Moment Magnitude (M�v) scale, represents the "size" of an earthquake. The Richter Magnitude (M) scale has been replaced in most modern building codes by the M,r, scale because the M,,, scale provides more useful information to design engineers. The intensity of an earthquake is measured by the Modified Mercalli Intensity (MNII) scale, which emphasizes the current seismic environment at a particular site and measures ground shaking severity according to damage done to structures, changes in the earth surface, and personal accounts. Table 4.5-1 (Modified Mercalli Intensity Scale) identifies the level of intensity according to the MMI scale and describes that intensity with respect to how it would be received or sensed by its receptors. The terms Maximum Credible Earthquake (MCE) and Maximum Probable Earthquake (MPE) have been used for many years to describe the largest earthquake that would be likely to occur along a particular fault and within a given timeframe, respectively. Recent revisions incorporated by California into the California Building Code (CBC), based on recommendations identified by the Seismology Committee of the Structural Engineers Association of California, have eliminated the use of these terms. The 2001 CBC revisions require that the Mix, of the "characteristic earthquake" be used in geotechnical I■ 31 Yexkes, R.F. 1985. Geologic and Seismologic Setting, in, Evalna6ng EartGgnake HaZardr is tGe LotAngeJes Region---Ae EarJh- ' Sdence Per pee iee. United States Geological Survey Professional Paper 1360. ' City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 4.5-3 r CITY of NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL PLAN UPDATE EIR Figure 4.5-1 REGIONAL FAULTS �`. f+ ;•.• Legend NewhaMc ftft, �•♦ ♦�♦ ......... City Bounday •.AqO •! ••AY rf+ SO ERNANOO .9C•. .•ip� . WoodWml Hills Burgs �r..►� ORFNLTZONS FA .!a r+ fPU�ia. `. '•♦ HOP r ••. oA^s�r"�,.r��p♦ O�a�lQar10 ar..a►�V �Mtr r+r '• ��,,fit pFJ'-a�� �� �YeIA a1�LfAULT •l.a:a�♦ j) �N1LL .'' •.l. UFAULT f r BS ♦r ., a� tlL}I ♦r1 MO r r�P�r '` . ..B....p.O an `:ONoa • s,SRNSA+Yii rSaw, �araa ♦ ♦ , •♦Moatm Bq`� ..�y Montebello Rw a !! '`♦• 'Picji `t OLynwood `1# •ice V; YrY Redondo OCMPion -�'W • r . •��/ryp V♦ s'�V .:��� CmonO•!Lp f•�+' !'.' •.'6�iDOF.R'' ' COoraa ! ' •� !+O•P!'IY �9 O' West inter 'GAT ;. O a p� ' �"�fg•V •�y6` t!� eMtl[��•O Seal garb p—# .lb Gala"' C y O Mission Y.elo g 11 0 5 to ae am Point �. Wes Sarce EPAtWdale[90a6 I Pi*dw 10579A1 _+ EIP 4.5 Geology, Soils, and Mineral Resources ModifiedMercall Intensity Table Modified Mercalli Intensity Scale Description I Detected by only sensitive instruments 11 Felt by a few people at rest III Felt noticeably indoors, but not always recognized as a quake; vibration like a passing truck IV Felt indoors by many and outdoors by few V Felt by most people. Some breakage of windows, dishes, and plaster VI Felt by all; falling plaster and chimneys; damage small VII Damage to buildings varies; depends on quality of construction Vill Walls, monuments, chimneys fall; panel walls thrown out of frames IX Buildings shift off foundations; foundations crack; ground cracks; underground pipes break X Most masonry and frame structures destroyed; ground cracks; landslides A Ground fissures; pipes break; landslides; rails bent; new structures remain standing XII Damage total; waves seen on ground surface; objects thrown into the air SOURCE: Nuclear Reactors and Earthquakes, Atomic Energy Commission, TID7024 calculations for design purposes. The new criterion for describing the energy release (i.e., the "size" of an earthquake along a particular fault segment) was determined by the Seismology Committee to represent a more reliable descriptor of future fault activity than the MCE or the MPE. Although the M,, value may differ slightly from the MCE or MPE values reported in some of the older documents cited in this EIR, this current method for describing future fault activity does not alter the assumptions or conclusions of this EIR. The maximum historic site acceleration in the project region was estimated to be 0.4 J2 in 1933, caused by an earthquake of 6.3K, on the Newport -Inglewood Fault. Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone mapping has been completed for the City of Newport Beach by the State Geologist concluding that the highest risk originates from the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone for the Newport -Inglewood fault which terminates about two miles northwest of the City limits 33 Seismic Hazards The geologic diversity of Newport Beach is strongly related to tectonic movement along the San Andreas Fault and its broad zone of subsidiary faults. This, along with sea'level fluctuations related to changes in climate, has resulted in a landscape that is also diverse in geologic hazards. Geologic hazards are generally defined as surficial earth processes that have the potential to cause loss or harm to the community or the 32 Ground Acceleration: The speed at which soil or rock materials are displaced by seismic waves. It is measured as a percentage of "g,"the acceleration of gravity (0.5g = 50 percent of 32 feet per second squared, expressed as a vertical or horizontal force). Peak ground acceleration is the maximum acceleration expected from the characteristic earthquake predicted to affect a given area. R ea le acceleration refers to the acceleration resulting from multiple seismic shocks. Sustained acceleration refers to the acceleration produced by continuous seismic shaking from a single, long -duration event 33 Seismic Hazards, Hazards Assessment Study, Earth Consultants International, 2003, page 2-12. ' City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 4.5.5 environment. Earthquake -triggered geologic effects also include surface fault rupture, landslides, liquefaction, subsidence, and seiches. Earthquakes can also lead to urban fires, dam failures, and toxic chemical releases, all man -related hazards. Figure 4.5-2 shows areas within Newport Beach that are subject to liquefaction and landslides. Ground Shaking Seismic shaking is the geological hazard that has the greatest potential to severely impact the Planning Area, given that the City is located on and near several significant faults that have the potential to cause moderate to large earthquakes. Some of the faults caused moderate sized earthquakes in the last century. Given the length of the faults, they are thought capable of generating even larger earthquakes in the future that would cause strong ground shaking in Newport Beach and nearby areas. Numerous other active faults, both onshore and offshore, have the potential to generate earthquakes that would cause strong ground shaking in Newport Beach. A number of historic earthquakes have caused strong ground shaking in Newport Beach. The 1933 Long Beach earthquake caused significant damage in the City. The Newport Beach area has a ten percent chance of experiencing ground acceleration greater than 43 to 52 percent the force of gravity in 50 years. These probabilistic ground motion values for the City of Newport Beach are in the high to very high range for southern California and are the result of the City's proximity to major fault systems with high earthquake recurrence rates. These levels of shaking can be expected to cause damage particularly to older and poorly constructed buildings.34 Liquefaction and slope failure are destructive secondary effects -of strong seismic shaking. Liquefaction Strong ground shaking can result in liquefaction. Liquefaction, a geologic process that causes ground failure, typically occurs in loose, saturated sediments primarily of sandy composition. Areas of Newport susceptible to liquefaction and related ground failure (i.e. seismically induced settlement) include areas along the coastline that includes Balboa Peninsula, in and around the Newport Bay and Upper Newport Bay, in the lower reaches of major streams in Newport Beach, and in the floodplain of the Santa Ana River. It is likely that residential or commercial development will never occur in many of the other liqueflable areas, such as Upper Newport Bay, the Newport Coast beaches, and the bottoms of stream channels. However, other structures (such as bridges, roadways, major utility lines, and park improvements) that occupy these areas are vulnerable.to damage from liquefaction if not designed in accordance with current regulations and codes. a♦ Seismic Hazards, Hazards AssessmentStudy, Earth Consultants International, 2003, page 2-23. 4.5.6 City otNewport Beach General Plan Update EIR ' CITY of NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL PLAN UPDATE EIR Figure 4.5-2 SEISMIC HAZARDS Legend 'M. Areas with liquefaction potential Areas with landslide potential Oq of Newport Bah g 0 0.5 1 -- MNes swca. off a �.npceeaai, aq eu+bar. Mw dos: wrou. owoe- aom: seat r+msx cam raW via zma. Apo w. imam k EIP 4.5 Geology, Soils, and Mineral Resources Slope Failures Strong ground motions can also worsen existing unstable slope conditions, particularly if coupled with saturated ground conditions. Seismically induced landslides can overrun structures, people or property, sever utility lines, and block roads, thereby hindering rescue operations after an earthquake. Much of the area in eastern Newport Beach has been identified as vulnerable to seismically induced slope failure. Approximately 90 percent of the land from Los Trancos Canyon to the Crystal Cove State Park boundary is mapped as susceptible to landsliding by the California Geologic Survey. Additionally, the sedimentary bedrock that crops out in the San Joaquin Hills is locally highly weathered. In steep areas, strong ground shaking can cause slides or rockfalls of this material. Rupture along the Newport - Inglewood Fault Zone and other faults in Southern California could reactivate existing landslides and cause new slope failures throughout the San Joaquin Hills. Slope failures can also be expected to occur along stream banks and coastal bluffs, such as Big Canyon, around San Joaquin Reservoir, Newport and Upper Newport Bays, and Corona del Mar. Seismically Induced Settlement Settlement occurs in areas that are prone to different rates of surface settling and densification (differential compaction), and are underlain by sediments that differ laterally in composition or degree of existing compaction. Differential settlement can damage structures, pipelines, and other subsurface entities. Strong ground shaking can cause soil settlement by vibrating sediment particles into more tightly compacted configurations, thereby reducing pore space. Unconsolidated, loosely packed alluvial deposits and sand are especially susceptible to this phenomenon. Poorly -compacted artificial fills also may experience seismically induced settlement. Those portions of the Newport Beach area that may be susceptible to seismically induced settlement are those underlain by late Quaternary unconsolidated sediments. These areas are geographically similar to the liquefaction -susceptible areas shown on Figure 4.5-2. ■ Soil and Groundwater Conditions The Planning Area is underlain by Holocene -age alluvial sediments present in active and recently active stream channels throughout the area, in addition to beach, marshland, and intertidal deposits of Newport Harbor and Upper Newport Bay. Newport Mesa is underlain by primarily shallow marine sediments ranging in age from early to late Pleistocene. Shallow ground water levels (less than 50 feet from the ground surface) are known to occur along the coast, around Newport Bay, and along the major drainages in the Newport Beach area. Shallow ground water perched on bedrock may also be seasonally present in the canyons draining the San Joaquin Hills. Soil Erosion Soil erosion is the process by which soil particles are removed from a land surface by wind, water, or gravity. Topsoil is the uppermost layer of soil, usually the top six to eight inches. Topsoil has the highest ICity of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 4.5-9 Chapter 4 Environmental Analysis ' concentration of organic ,matter and microorganisms, and is where most biological soil activity occurs. Plants generally concentrate their roots in, and obtain most of their nutrients from, this layer. Topsoil erosion is of concern when the topsoil layer is blown or washed away, which makes plant life or , agricultural production impossible. Most natural erosion occurs at slow rates; however, the rate of erosion increases when land is cleared or altered and left in a disturbed condition. In Newport Beach, erosion is a significant concern, especially along the shoreline (beach sediments and coastal bluffs are , susceptible to erosion by wave action), including bluffs along the Upper Newport Bay, and slopes and canyons within the San Joaquin Hills. ' Compressible Soils Compressible soils underlie a significant part of the City, typically in the lowland areas and in canyon bottoms. These are generally young sediments of low densitywith variable amounts of organic materials. Under the added weight of fill embankments or buildings, these sediments will settle, causing distress to ' improvements. Low -density soils, if sandy in composition and saturated with water, will also be susceptible of the effects of liquefaction during a moderate to strong earthquake. Expansive Solis Some of the geologic units in the Newport Beach area, including both surficial soils and bedrock, have ' fine-grained components that are moderate to highly expansive. These materials may be present at the surface or exposed by grading activities. Man-made fills can also be expansive, depending on the soils used to construct them. ' Subsidence ' Land subsidence is the condition where the elevation of a land surface decreases due to the withdrawal of fluid. The location of major oil drilling areas and state -designated oil fields are areas with subsidence ' potential in the City of Newport Beach. However, according to the City's General Plan, the site is not within an area that has been impacted by long-term subsidence due to local oil extraction. , 4.5.3 Regulatory Framework ' r Federal Uniform Building Code The Uniform Building Code (UBC) is published by the International Conference of Building Officials. It forms the basis of about half the State building codes in the United States, including California's, and has been adopted by the State legislature together with Additions, Amendments, and Repeals to address the specific building conditions and structural requirements in California. ' 4.5-10 City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR , 4.5 Geology, Soils, and Mineral Resources 'I ■ State California Building Code California Code of Regulations (CCR), Title 24, Part 2, the California Building Code (CBC), provides minimum standards for building design in the State, consistent with or more stringent than UBC requirements. Local codes are permitted to be more restrictive than Title 24, but are required to be no less restrictive. Chapter 16 of the CBC deals with General Design Requirements, including (but not limited to) regulations governing seismically resistant construction (Chapter 16, Division IV) and construction to protect people and property from hazards associated with excavation cave-ins and falling debris or construction materials. Chapters 18 and A33 deal with site demolition, excavations, foundations, retaining walls, and grading, including (but not limited to) requirements for seismically resistant design, foundation investigations, stable cut and fill slopes, and drainage and erosion control. Construction activities are subject to occupational safety standards for excavation, shoring, and trenching as specified in Cal -OSHA regulations (CCR, Title 8). Seismic Hazards Mapping Act The CGS provides guidance with regard to seismic hazards. Under CGS Seismic Ha-Zards Mapping Act, seismic hazard zones are identified and mapped to assist local governments in land use planning. The intent of this Act is to protect the public from the effects of strong ground shaking, liquefaction, landslides, ground failure, or other hazards caused by earthquakes. In addition, CGS Special Publication 117, Guidelines for Evaluating and Mitigating Seismic Hazards in California, provides guidance for the evaluation and mitigation of earthquake -related hazards for projects within designated zones of required investigations. National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) NPDES Phase 1 Permit (General Construction Activity Stormwater Permit) A Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) prepared in compliance with an National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Phase I Permit describes the project area, erosion and sediment controls, runoff water quality monitoring, means of waste disposal, implementation of approved local Plans, control of post -construction sediment and erosion control measures and maintenance responsibilities, and non-stormwater management controls. Dischargers are also required to inspect construction sites before and after storms to identify stormwater discharge from construction activity, and to identify and implement controls where necessary. Additionally, Newport Beach operates a municipal separate storm sewer system (MS4) permit under the NPDES. MS4 permits require an aggressive water quality ordinance, specific municipal practices, and the use of best management practices (BMPs) in many development -related activities to further reduce the amount of contaminants in urban runoff. MS4 permits also require local agencies to cooperatively develop a public education campaign to inform people about what they can do to protect water quality. City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 4.5-11 Chapter 4 Environmental Analysts 4.5.4 Thresholds of Significance Implementation of the proposed General Plan Update would result in a significant impact if the project would: ■ Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: > Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault > Strong seismic ground shaking > Seismic -related ground failure, including liquefaction > Landslides ■ Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil ■ Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project; and potentially result in on- or off -site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse ■ Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18 1 B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property ■ Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water 4.5.5 Project Impacts, Mitigation Measures, and Proposed Policies ■ Effects Not Found to Be Significant Threshold Would the project have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? The Initial Study determined that the City of Newport Beachisalmost entirely built out with established utility services and new development would not require the use of septic tanks. For this reason, no further analysis of this impact is included in this EIR. 4.5.12 City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR , 4.5 Geology, Soils, and Mineral Resources ■ Project Impacts Threshold Would the project expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Implementation of the General Plan Update would not expose people or structures to adverse effects involving rupture of a fault located in an Alquist-Priolo Fault Zone. As previously discussed, the City of Newport Beach is located in the northern part of the Peninsular Ranges Province, an area that is exposed to risk from multiple earthquake fault zones. The highest risks originate from the Newport -Inglewood fault zone, the Whittier fault zone, the San Joaquin Hills fault zone, and the Elysian Park fault zone, each with the potential to cause moderate to large earthquakes that would cause ground shaking in Newport Beach and nearby communities. However, none of these faults has been zoned under the guidelines of the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act. Consequently, there are no Alquist-Priolo zones in the Planning Area and no impact would result. Impacts related to strong seismic ground shaking are further discussed under Impact 4.5-1. Threshold Would the project expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving strong seismic ground shaking? Impact 4.5-1 Implementation of the General Plan Update could expose people or structures to adverse effects involving strong seismic ground shaking. The proposed General Plan Update would allow infill development throughout the Planning Area, consistent with existing land use patterns, intensities, and building types. The Update would concentrate new development and redevelopment in several specified subareas: Newport Center/Fashion Island, Balboa Village, Balboa Peninsula, West Newport Mesa, West Newport Highway, Mariners' Mile, and the Airport Area. In addition, while the General Plan Update prioritizes the retention of the Banning Ranch property as open space, the Plan also considers the possible development of a mixed density residential village with a small component of resident- and visitor -serving commercial should the property not be acquired for open space. The General Plan Update would conserve much of the City's existing pattern of uses. As mentioned above, the fault zones located within the Planning Area each have the potential to cause moderate to large earthquakes that would cause ground shaking in the areas specified above. Policies contained in the General Plan Update would ensure that adverse effects caused by seismic and geologic hazards such as strong seismic ground shaking are minimized. For example, Policy S 4.1 requires regular update to building and fire codes to provide for seismic safety and design; Policy S 4.2 encourages the seismic retrofitting and strengthening of essential facilities such as hospitals and schools to minimize damage; and Policies S 4.4 and S 4.5 ensure that new development is not located in areas that would be affected by seismic hazards. Additionally, new development would be required to comply with the City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 4.5-13 Chapter 4 Environmental Analysis building design standards of the CBC Chapter 33 for the construction of new buildings and/or structures, specific engineering design and construction treasures would be implemented to anticipate and avoid the potentialfor adverse impacts, Compliance with applicable regulations and the policies contained in the General Plan Update would ensure that impacts related to strong seismic ground shaking remain at a less-than-signi5cantleveh No mitigation is required. Threshold Would the project expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: —Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction, or —Landslides? Impact 4.5-2 Implementation of the General Plan Update could expose people or structures to adverse effects involving seismic -related ground failure or landslides. Strong ground shaking can result in liquefaction. Areas of Newport susceptible to liquefaction and related ground failure (i.e., seismically induced settlement) include areas along the coastline that includes Balboa Peninsula, in and around the Newport Bay and Upper Newport Bay, in the lower reaches of major streams in Newport Beach, and in the floodplain of the Santa Ana River. Additionally, sediments lining streams flowing southwest off Pelican Hill may be susceptible to liquefaction and landslide. As mentioned earlier, residential or commercial developments are likely not to occur in many of the other liquefiable areas, such as Upper Newport Bay, the Newport Coast beaches. However, other structures (such as bridges, roadways, major utility lines, and park improvements) that occupy these areas are vulnerable to damage from liquefaction. A considerable part of the City's mapped liquefiable areas (West Newport, Balboa Peninsula, the harbor islands and vicinity) are already built upon, mostly with residential and commercial development, A portion of the City's active oil field is also built on liquefiable soils. It is likely that a nearby moderate to strong earthquake will cause extensive damage to buildings and infrastructure in these areas.'5 Those portions of the Newport Beach area that may be susceptible to seismically induced settlement ate the alluvial surfaces and larger drainages that are underlain by late Quaternary alluvial sediments (similar to the liquefaction -susceptible areas). Sites in the San Joaquin Hills along the margins of the larger drainage channels and west of the Santa Ana River outlet may be particularly vulnerable. However, liquefaction potential does not necessarily limit development potential, as site -specific geotechnical studies would be required to determine the soil properties and specific potential for liquefaction in a specific area ,prior to development. In addition, as previously mentioned, strong ground motions can also worsen existing unstable slope conditions, particularly if coupled with saturated ground conditions. Seismically -induced landslides can overrun structures, people or property, sever utility lines, and block roads, thereby hindering rescue operations after an earthquake. Slope stability depends on many factors and their interrelationships. Rock 4.5-14 City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR Geology,4.5 ' type and pore water pressure are arguably the most important factors, as well as slope steepness due to ' natural or human -made undercutting. Where slopes have failed before, they may fail again. Many of the areas in central and eastern Newport Beach have been identified as vulnerable to seismically ' induced slope failure, due to steep terrain. Approximately 90 percent of the land from Los Trancos Canyon to Crystal Cove State Park boundary is mapped as susceptible to landsliding by the CGS. Additionally, the sedimentary bedrock that crops out in the San Joaquin Hills is locally highly weathered. ' Slope failures can also be expected to occur along stream banks and coastal bluffs, such as Big Canyon, around San Joaquin Reservoir, Newport and Upper Newport Bays, and Corona del Mar. ' Compliance with the standards set forth in the current CBC would also require an assessment of hazards related to landslides and liquefaction and the incorporation of design measures into structures to mitigate this hazard if development were considered feasible. The City has included policies in its Safety Element ' to achieve the goal of minimizing the risk of injury, loss of life, and property damage caused by earthquake hazards or geologic disturbances. Specifically, Policies S 4.1 through S 4.6 include requiring new development to be in compliance with the most recent seismic and other geologic hazard safety ' standards, and the protection of community health and safety through the implementation of effective, state of the art standards for seismic design of structures in the City. Additionally, if any development on steep terrain were to occur upon implementation of the General Plan Update, site -specific slope stability design would be required to ensure adherence to the standards contained in Appendix Chapter A33, Excavation and Grading, of the City Building Code, as well as by California Division of Occupational ' Safety and Health (DOSH, CAL/OSHA) requirements for shoring and stabilization. With compliance of applicable regulations as well as policies identified in the General Plan Update, impacts would be less than significant and no mitigation is required. Threshold Would the project result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? tImpact 4.5-3 Implementation of the proposed General Plan Update could result in substantial soil erosion and the loss of topsoil. ' Topsoil is the uppermost layer of soil, usually the top six to eight inches. It has the highest concentration of organic matter and microorganisms, and is where most biological soil activity occurs. Plants generally ' concentrate their roots in, and obtain most of their nutrients from, this layer. Topsoil erosion is of concern when the topsoil layer is blown or washed away, which makes plant life or agricultural production impossible. Much of the City is built out and topsoil erosion is, thus, not an issue as there is no existing and exposed topsoil or any agricultural or biological production that would be affected. Underdeveloped areas such as Banning Ranch could be affected by loss of topsoil if the area is developed. Soil erosion is a significant concern in Newport Beach, especially along the shoreline, where beach sediments and coastal bluffs are highly susceptible to erosion by wave action. Other parts of the City, ' including bluffs along Upper Newport Bay, canyon walls along tributary streams leading to the Bay, and ' 35 Seismic Hazards, Hazards Assessment Study, Earth Consultants International, 2003, page 2-36 ' City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 4.5.15 slopes (both natural and man-made) within the San Joaquin Hills are also susceptible to the impacts from precipitation, stream erosion, and man's activities. All demolition and construction activities within the City would be required to comply with CBC Chapter 70 standards, which would ensure implementation of appropriate measures during grading activities to reduce soil erosion. In addition, all new developments would also be subject to regional and local regulations pertaining to construction activities. Specifically, development that is greater than five acres would be required to•comply with the provisions of the General Construction Activity Stormwater Permit adopted by the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), which Would require the employment of Best Management Practices (BMPs) to limit the extent of eroded materials from a construction site. All development that is between one and five acres would be required to comply with the provisions of the NPDES Phase II regulations concerning the discharge of eroded materials and pollutants from construction sites. Compliance with policies contained in the General Plan Update would further ensure that new development would not result in substantial soil erosion or loss of topsoil. Specifically, Policies NR 3.11, NR 3.12, and NR 3.13 would require compliance with applicable local, State, or Pederal laws. This would ensure maximum practicable protection available for soils excavated during the construction and building associated with infrastructure. Compliance with the CDC and the NPDES permits would minimize effects from erosion and ensure consistency with the RWQCB Water Quality Control Plan. In view of these policies, implementation of the General Plan Update would have a less-than-signiitcant impact associated with soil erosion or topsoil. No mitigation is required. Threshold Would the project be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off -site landscape, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse? Impact 4.5-4 Implementation of the proposed General Plan Update could subject people and structures to hazards associated with lateral spreading, subsidence, collapse, differential settlement, or heaving. Impacts related to landslides and liquefaction are addressed in Impact 4.5-2. This analysis addresses impacts related to unstable soils, or compressible and expansive soils, as a result of collapse, subsidence, differential settlement, lateral spreading, or heaving. As discussed above in Section 4.5.1 (Existing Conditions), compressible soils underlie a significant part of the City. Under the added weight of fill embankments or buildings, these sediments will settle, causing distress to improvements. Low -density soils, if sandy in composition and saturated with water, will also be susceptible to the effects of liquefaction during a moderate to strong earthquake. Also, some of the geologic units in the Newport Beach area, including both surficial soils and bedrock, have fine-grained components that are moderate to highly expansive. These materials may be present at the surface or exposed by grading activities. Man- made fills can also be expansive, depending on the soils used to construct them. Using unsuitable materials for fill and/or foundation support would have the potential to create future heaving, subsidence, spreading, or collapse problems leading to building settlement and/or utility line and pavement disruption. 4.5-16 City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 4.5 Geology, Soils, and Mineral Resources 11 An acceptable degree of soil stability can be achievedfor expansive or compressible material by the Building Code required incorporation of soil treatment programs (replacement, grouting, compaction, drainage control, etc.) in the excavation and construction plans to address site -specific soil conditions. A site -specific evaluation of soil conditions is required by the City Building Code and must contain recommendations for ground preparation and earthwork specific to the site, that become an integral part of the construction design. As part of the construction permitting process, the City requires completed reports of soil conditions at specific construction sites to identify potentially unsuitable soil conditions including liquefaction, subsidence, and collapse. The evaluations must be conducted by registered soil professionals, and measures to eliminate inappropriate soil conditions must be applied. The design of foundation support must conform to the analysis and implementation criteria described in CBC Chapter 15. Adherence to the City's codes and policies contained in the General Plan Update would ensure the maximum practicable protection available for users of buildings and infrastructure and associated trenches, slopes, and foundations. Compliance with Policies S 4.4 and S 4.6 would ensure that development is not located on unstable soils or geologic units. In view of these requirements, the proposed project would have a less -than -sigh cant impact associated with the exposure of people or structures to hazards associated with unstable geologic units or soils. No mitigation is required. Threshold Would the project be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-A of the California Building Code (2001), creating substantial risks to life or property? Impact 4.5-5 Implementation of the proposed General Plan Update could result in the construction of facilities on expansive soils, creating substantial risk to people and structures. As discussed above in Section 4.5.1 (Existing Conditions), fine-grained soils, such as silts and clays, may contain variable amounts of expansive clay minerals. Most of the Newport Mesa and Corona Del Mar areas are underlain by marine terrace deposits and young alluvial fan sediments that are composed primarily of granular soils (silty sand, sand, and gravel). Such units are typically in the low to moderately low range for expansion potential. However, thick soil profiles developed on the older marine deposits exposed west of Newport Bay are typically clay -rich and will probably fall in the moderately expansive range. Areas underlain by beach and dune sands have very little expansion potential. Development under the General Plan Update would be required to comply with applicable provisions of the CBC with regard to soil hazard -related design. Even the slight potential for the existence of expansive soils within the project area raises the possibility that foundation stability for dwellings, roads, and utilities could be compromised. The City's Building Code requires a site -specific foundation investigation and report for each construction site that identifies potentially unsuitable soil conditions and contains appropriate recommendations for foundation type and design criteria that conform to the analysis and implementation criteria described in the City's Building Code, Chapters 16, 18, and A33. This regulatory framework exists to address weak soils issues, including expansion. Additionally, policies contained in the General Plan Update would further reduce impacts related to expansive soils. City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 4.5-17 Specifically, Policies S 4.4 and S 4.6 would require that development not be located on unstable soils of geologic units. This impact is considered less than significant and no mitigation is required. ■ Cumulative Impacts The geographic context for the analysis of impacts resulting from geologic hazards generally is site - specific, rather than cumulative in nature, because each project area has unique geologic considerations that would be subject to uniform site development and construction standards. As such, the potential for cumulative impacts to occur is limited. Impacts associated with potential geologic hazards related to soil or other conditions occur at individual building sites. These effects are site -specific, and impacts would not be compounded by additional development. Development that would occur under the General Plan Update would be sited and designed in accordance with appropriate geotechnical and seismic guidelines and recommendations consistent with the CBC. Adherence by future projects developed pursuant to the General Plan to all .relevant plans, codes, and regulations with respect to project design and construction would provide adequate levels of safety, which would ensure that the proposed project would not result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to cumulative impacts regarding geologic hazards, and the cumulative impact of the project would, therefore, be less than significant. ■ Proposed General Plan Update Policies The Safety and Natural Resources Elements of the proposed General Plan Update include policies that would address issues related to geology and soils. The policies that are applicable to the project are included below. Policies identified below also contained in the Harbor and Bay Element are denoted with a "HB". Safety Element Goal S 4 Adverse effects caused by seismic and geologic hazards are minimized by reducing the known level of risk to loss of life, personal injury, public and private property damage, economic and social dislocation; and disruption of essential services. Policy S 4.1 Updating of Building and Fire Codes Continue to regularly update building and fire codes to provide for seismic safety design. Policy S 4.2 Retrofitting of Essential Facilities Support and encourage the seismic retrofitting and strengthening of essential facilities such as hospitals and schools to minimize damage in the event of seismic or geologic hazards. 4.5.18 City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 4.5 Geology, Soils, and Mineral Resources Policy S 4.3 Unreinforced Masonry Buildings Continue to require the retrofitting of unreinforced masonry buildings during remodels to minimize damage in the event of seismic or geologic hazards. (Imp 36.1) Policy S 4.4 New Essential Facility Siting Regulate the location of new essential facilities within areas that would directly be affected by seismic or geologic hazards, in accordance with State law. Policy S 4.5 New Essential Facility Siting Regulate the location of new sensitive facilities such as schools, hospitals, and facilities for the elderly population, within 500 feet to active and potentially active faults, in accordance with state law. Policy S 4.6 Maintenance of Existing Essential Facilities Ensure that existing essential facilities that have been built in or on seismic and geological hazards are upgraded and maintained in order to prevent and reduce loss. Natural Resources Element Water Quality Goa1NR3 Enhancement and protection of water quality of all natural water bodies, including coastal waters, creeks, bays, harbors, and wetlands. (Goal HB8) Policy NR 3.1 Information and Education on Water Quality Issues Support the development of a model (physical and/or mathematical) of the Bay and coastline that provides information regarding the nature and extent of the water quality problem and enables prediction of the effects of changes on the entire system. (Policy HB8.1) Policy NR 3.2 Chemical Use Impacts Support regulations limiting or banning the use insecticides, fertilizers, and other chemicals which are shown to be detrimental to water quality. (Policy HB8.2) Policy NR 3.3 Water Pollution Prevention Promote pollution prevention and elimination methods that minimize the introduction of pollutants into natural water bodies. (Policy HB8.3) I' City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 4.5.19 Policy NR 3.4 Ground Water Contamination Suspend activities and implement appropriate health and safety procedures in the event that previously unknown groundwater contamination is encountered during construction. Where site contamination is identified, implement an appropriate remediation strategy that is approved by the City and the state agency with appropriate jurisdiction. (Policy HB8.4) Policy NR 3.5 Storm Sewer System Permit Require all development to comply with the regulations under the City's municipal separate storm sewer system permit under the National Pollutant .Discharge Elimination System. (Policy HB8.5) Policy NR 3.6 Natural Water Bodies Requite that development not result in the degradation of natural water bodies. (Policy HB8.6) Policy NR 3.7 Watershed Runoff Quality Control Support and participate in watershed -based runoff reduction, water quality control, and other planning efforts with the California Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), the County of Orange, and upstream cities. (Policy HB8.7) Policy NR 3.8 Newport Beach Water Quality Ordinance Update and enforce the Newport Beach Water Quality Ordinance. (Policy HB8.8) PolicyNR3.9 Permit Review Process Develop and maintain a water quality checklist to be used in the permit review process to assess potential water quality impacts. (Policy HB8.9) Policy NR 3.10 Water Quality Management Plan Require new development applications to include a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) to minimize runoff from rainfall events during construction and post -construction. (Policy HB8.10) Policy NR 3.11 Best Management Practices Implement and improve upon Best Management Practices (BMPs) for residences, businesses, development projects, and City operations. (Policy HB8.11) Policy NR 3.12 Site Design and Source Control Include site design and source control BMPs in all developments. When the combination of site design and source control BMPs are not sufficient to 4.5.20 City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR protect water quality as required by the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES), structural treatment BMPs will be implemented ' along with site design and source control measures. (Policy HB8.12) Policy NR 3.13 Reduction of Infiltration ' Include equivalent BMPs that do not require infiltration, where infiltration of runoff would exacerbate geologic hazards. [LCP] (Policy HB8.13) ' Policy NR 3.14 Natural Wetlands Promote the use of natural wetlands to improve water quality. (Policy HB8.14) ' Policy NR 3.15 Runoff Reduction on Private Property ' Retain runoff on private property to prevent the transport of pollutants into recreational waters, to the maximum extent practicable. (Policy HB8.15) ' Policy NR 3.16 Street Drainage Systems Require all street drainage systems and other physical improvements created by ' the City, or developers of new subdivisions, to be designed, constructed, and maintained to minimize adverse impacts on water quality. Investigate the possibility of treating or diverting street drainage to minimize impacts to water ' bodies. (Policy HB8.16) Policy NR 3.17 Siting of New Development ' Require that development be located on the most suitable portion of the site and designed to ensure the protection and preservation of natural and sensitive site resources that provide important water quality benefits. (Policy HB8.17) Policy NR 3.18 Parking Lots and Rights -of -Way ' Require that parking lots, and public and private rights -of -way be maintained and cleaned frequently to remove debris and contaminated residue. (Policy HB8.18) ' Policy NR 3.19 Water Quality Education Effectively communicate water quality education to residents and businesses, ' including the development of a water quality testing lab and educational exhibits at various educational facilities. (Policy H158.19) II II Policy NR 3.20 Natural Drainage Systems Require incorporation of natural drainage systems and stormwater detention facilities into new developments, where appropriate and feasible, to retain stormwater in order to increase groundwater recharge. (Policy HB8.20) ' City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 4.5-21 Chapter 4 Environmental Analysis Policy NR 3.21 Impervious Surfaces ' Require new development and public improvements to minimize the creation ' of and increases in impervious surfaces, especially directly connected impervious areas, to the maximum extent practicable. Require redevelopment to increase area of pervious surfaces, where feasible. (Policy HB8.21) , Goal NR 4 Maintenance of water quality standards through compliance with the total maximum daily loads (TMDLs) standards. ' Policy NR 4.1 Total Maximum Daily Loads Develop and implement the T VII)Ls established by the RWQCB, Santa Ana Region and guided by the Newport Bay Watershed Executive Committee (WEC). Policy NR 4.2 Funding for Restoration and Dredging Projects Secure funding for the Upper Newport Bay Ecosystem Restoration Project and long-term funding for successor dredging projects for Upper and Lower Newport Bay. Policy NR 4.3 Restore Natural Hydrologic Conditions Preserve, or where feasible, restore natural hydrologic conditions such that downstream erosion, natural sedimentation rates, surface flow, and groundwater recharge function near natural equilibrium states. Policy NR 4.4 Erosion Minimization Require grading/erosion control plans with structural BMPs that prevent or minimize erosion during and after construction for development on steep slopes, graded, or disturbed areas. Goal NR 5 Sanitary Sewer Outflows —Minimal adverse effects to water quality from sanitary sewer outflows. Policy NR 5.1 City Sewer Management and Master Plans Implement the Sewer System Management Plan and the Sewer Master Plan. Policy NR 5.2 Waste Discharge Permits Require waste discharge permits for all food preparation facilities that produce grease. Policy NR 5.3 Sewer Pump Stations Renovate all older sewer pump stations and install new plumbing according to most recent standards. 4.5-22 City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 4.5 Geology, Soils, and Mineral Resources Policy NR 5.4 Waste Discharge Permits Comply with the RWQC13's Waste Discharge Requirements (WDRs) associated with the operation and maintenance of the City's sewage collection system. ■ Mitigation Measures With implementation of the proposed General Plan Update policies listed above, no mitigation measures would be required. Level of Significance After Policies/Mitigation Measures Impacts associated with geologic and seismic hazards within the City would be less than significant. 4.5.6 Mineral Resources ■ Existing Conditions Oil and gas seeps are common occurrences in many parts of California, including in and around the Planning Area. Historically, drilling for oil in this part of Orange County began as early as 1904, and subsequently, oil production became the primary mineral extraction activity in and around the City. Oil and Gas Production According to the California Department of Oil, Gas, and Geothermal Resources, two separate production and reserve areas exist within the Planning Area: the Newport oil field and the West Newport oil field. The Newport Oil Field is located in the western portion of the Planning Area and is estimated to have oil reserves of approximately 35 million barrels (Mbbl) and produces approximately 55 billion cubic feet of gas. Located in the western tip of the Planning Area, the West Newport oil field produces approximately 20.5 billion cubic feet of gas with a daily production per oil well of approximately 5 bbl. Estimated oil reserves within this field are approximately 728 Mbbl. Figure 4.5-3 illustrates the location of active, abandoned, and shut-in oil wells in the Planning Area. As shown, the concentration of active wells lies within the West Newport and Newport production areas. Approximately three active gas wells (out of 68 total oil and gas wells) are located in the Newport production area, while there are approximately 65 active oil and four active injection wells (out of 862 total wells) located in the West Newport production area. Of those 65 wells in the West Newport area, approximately 16 are directionally drilled from onshore ,to off -shore, and an additional 29 wells are currently not used for production but have not been abandoned (classified as "shut-irO. Thus, as of 2002, there were approximately 68 wells (plus four injection wells) producing oil and natural gas within the City, which includes wells from both the Newport and the West Newport oil fields. Fifteen (not counting one injection well) of the 68 producing wells are operated by the City; 48 are operated by West Newport Oil City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 4.5.23 Chapter 4 Environmental Analysis Company, three by Hoag Memorial Hospital, and two by South Coast Oil6 Thirty-three abandoned oil wells are located in numerous sites throughout the City, concentrated along the northwest boundary. However, there are no other known active oil or gas wells located in any other areas outside of the identified oil fields. Newport Oil Field The Newport Oil Field is located in the western portion of Newport Beach. The field was divided. into two areas known as the Cagney and Beach areas. The discovery well in this field was drilled in 1922 by Gilbert H. Beesemyer in the Beach Area. The well was completed at a depth of 1,750 feet, and peak production from this well was 28,946 barrels (bbl) of oil in 1925. The first well in the Cagney Area was developed by the California Exploration Co. in June 1947. This well, drilled to a total depth of 1,906 feet, had a peak production of 4,270 bbl in 1948. The deepest well in this area was developed by Jergins Oil Co. to a depth of 3,878 feet. According to the California Division of Oil and Gas (1997), the Beach Area of this field has been abandoned. As of December 2001, there were still three gas producing wells in the Cagney area, and this field was estimated to have oil reserves of 35 million bbl (Division of Oil, Gas and Geothermal Resources, 2001 Annual Report). In the most recent map of the Division of Oil, Gas and Geothermal Resources (2003) only two active wells are shown in this field. West Newport Oil Field The West Newport Oil Field, located to the west of the older Newport Field, was discovered in April 1943, when the discovery well `Banning" 1 was completed by D.W. Elliott to a depth of 2,404 feet. Initial production of this well was 40 bbl a -day. Another well was drilled about 1,000 feet to the northeast in November 1943. This well, "Banning" 2, was completed at a depth of 2,497 feet, and produced 12 bbl of oil a day. No new wells were drilled after that until 1945. Since then, hundreds of wells have been drilled in the area, the deepest completed at a depth of 7,889 feet. At the end of 2001, there were 66 producing wells in this field, including several offshore, and 30 shut-in wells (idle but not abandoned). At least one new well was being drilled in this field in 2002. Fifteen of the producing wells are owned by the City of Newport Beach. In 2001, the 66 wells produced 131,831 bbl of oil and condensate; and the field was estimated to have 847 millions bbl of oil in reserves. In 2002, the West Newport oil field produced approximately 20.5 billion cubic feet of gas with a daily production per oil well of approximately 5 bbl. Estimated reserves within this field are approximately 728 million bbl. Surface Mining Resources Mining activities within the State are regulated by the Surface Mining and Reclamation Act, which is discussed further below in Section 4.5.3 (Regulatory Framework). This Act provides for the reclamation of mined lands and directs the State Geologist to classify (identify and map) the non -fuel mineral resources of the State to show where economically significant mineral deposits occur and where they are likely to occur based upon the best available scientific data. Based on guidelines adopted by the CGS, areas known as Mineral Resource Zones (NM) are classified according to the presence or absence of 36 Dave Sanchez, California Division of Oil, Gas, and Geothermal Resources, December 11, 2003, 4.5-24 City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR ' COSTA MESA 11 I ! 1 8L z• •:'` �•� '�• % • • • M sr 'NOA SLF LIDO RLE a-- [M,No• 'MOLT N ..l .LAND UPPER NEw'POR! SAY • • "DRD ROAD 'ROB,. L!M •O �AOl1 XDVNLi• • 041. -O BALDOA tSLANO RAL.O. Ru. 4 j S ', • ly -ILL • • • .wom co�OXA CALXOIIIL <A�SLAL 10V1 11-1 'AR' ROAD AR L••ORR IRVINE I� oL� a i •v "• i i V .1 CITY of NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL PLAN UPDATE EIR Figure 4.5-3 OIL PRODUCTION AREAS Legend - - City Boundary Oil Infrastructure Newport Oil Field 0 West Newport Oil Field • Oil Well Hydrography Tidelands and Submerged Lands Waterway Roads State and Federal Highway Streets .: GOOOIO PpRtb-. V 0 0.5 1 -- MIE15 n,� aNa N>w+mm�. salon nm..w mw. av ewmv. Lip aw, mrm.. L.w zora: Lan ca.Evsl. a xaa:w zw Ls <;s�s EImOL plw OM EDRaw a EID: F]t. Mqa aOas. Pem/ry ][KY3: FPMR[U]ol GB ncartm. (%tPn'Ca. Ab9. EIP LJ 4.5 Geology, Soils, and Mineral Resources u D I significant deposits, as defined below. These classifications indicate the potential for a specific area to contain significant mineral resources: ■ MRZ-1—Areas where available geologic information indicates there is little or no likelihood for presence of significant mineral resources ■ MRZ-2—Areas underlain by mineral deposits where geologic data indicate that significant measured or indicated resources are present or where adequate information indicates that significant mineral deposits are present or where it is judged that a high likelihood for their presence exists ■ MRZ-3 Areas containing known mineral occurrences of undetermined mineral resource significance ■ MRZ-4--Areas of no known mineral occurrences where geologic information does not rule out the presence or absence of significant mineral resources According to the CGS, the Planning Area does not have any land classified as MRZ-2; rather, it is classified by mineral resource zones N=-1 and N=-3 as shown in Figure 4.5-4. Generally, areas along the coast within the Planning Area are located in N=-1 areas, indicating that little or no likelihood for the presence of significant mineral resources exist. The remaining portion of the Planning Area is in MRZ-3 where areas that contain mineral resources are of undetermined significance. Other than oil and gas resources, there is no active mining within the Planning Area. 4.5.7 Regulatory Framework ■ State Regulations Surface Mining and Reclamation Act (SMARA) of 1975 As previously discussed, mining activities are regulated by SMARA. The purpose of this act is to create and maintain an effective and comprehensive surface mining and reclamation policy with regulation of surface mining operations so as to assure that (1) adverse environmental effects are prevented or minimized and that mined lands are reclaimed to a usable condition which is readily adaptable for alternative land uses; (2) the production and conservation of minerals are encouraged, while giving consideration to values relating to recreation, wildlife, range and forage, and aesthetic enjoyment; and (3) hazards to the public health and safety are eliminated. These goals are achieved through land use planning by allowing a jurisdiction to balance the economic benefits of resource reclamation with the need to provide other land uses. Local Regulations Charter of the City of Newport Beach Section 1401, Oil Well Drilling, prohibits the drilling of, production, or refining of oil, gas, or other hydrocarbon substances within the City boundaries, as defined by the effective date of this Charter section. Areas annexed to the City after the effective date of this Charter section, if such activities were being conducted in such areas at the date of annexation, can continue to occur. City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 4.5-27 City of Newport Beach Municipal Code Chapter 20.81, OR Wells, of the City of Newport Beach Municipal Code contains ordinances that address oil wells and related issues within the City. Specifically, this chapter regulates the restricted and designated drilling areas throughout the City, states the required approval process necessary for permitted area alteration, contains fire prevention regulations, prohibits the creation of nuisance associated with drilling activities, and requires appropriate watchmen to be in charge of oil fields. 4.5.8 Thresholds of Significance The following thresholds of significance are based on Appendix G of the 2005 CEQA Guidelines. For purposes of this EIR, implementation of the proposed General Plan Update may result in a significant impact if the project would do either of the following: ■ Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the State ■ Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan 4.5.9 Project Impacts, Mitigation Measures, and Proposed Policies ® Effects Not Found to Be Significant The IS/NOP prepared for the proposed project did not identify any effects not found to be significant associated with Mineral Resources. Therefore, all thresholds are addressed in this section. ■ Project Impacts Threshold Would the proposed project result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the State? Implementation of the proposed General Plan Update Update would not xesult in the loss of the availability of known mineral resources that would be of value to the region and the residents. of the State. Based on guidelines adopted by the CGS, areas known as MRZs are classified according to the presence or absence of significant deposits, as defined below. The City is required to respond to mineral resource recovery areas that have been designated by the State as AM-2 (significant existing or likely mineral deposits). These classifications indicate the potential for a specific area to contain significant mineral resources. As previously mentioned, according to the CGS, the Planning Area does not have any land classified as MRZ-2; rather, it is classified by mineral resource zones NM-1 and MRZ-3. 4.5-28 City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR ,� �^ t • 3. �.....;',3 {'9 i .•4.§ p, µr.+ -" ^a t-r, f<-�+ 'i- , + '-1'. r_ 1 ,�'. t'� ,� f 1 i { t .� • - * • _ —:• - • t a:..,� y' �� ' + • .._ + '._ {�' -� •"? �i', —T - L«.," } >' S } ' _ ,r a-, _ - tf7.r• / - ���(y{..�µ4.{� .sue, - y rt. . }' L•'i `t' e t¢ - •c :0z�-t� "<9t �� �.`�I.{T��('' r• _ ,may ...� •l,.!• -!s;r� r. _ ,i+ " 1 ar' f :5 � �-1�'.i i s...; _eJ�- �__ ...':4 -f s.> ^ d:'=" v.t,r i`,••r �.'- .+,: t'�.• '�, �._! r _ _ t - i,___'_'__ a.-. ! -.�.` 1 a I s.4m _ z �a Y:.t'•'; ' - iS: t i .'�- "it r' �� �} t� , _ _ _ _-f';-.i'-1.. ';°f __ _ 1 r �J'_ . J✓` -'"- -•,� *�-' :Y'•i''_•J - =t y';''_» �, __, __ - _ ` +- � t ''i't; .- �•-' � � r ? - � r'A'•'`M.¢gj' t � ,y l - - _l,t ,`"4-�',ti`."� y'` . '}r 1 gg VY44 F �# i"', �. I .":i ' �r �T w.- 1 ♦ A - rt� '�+�/4 t -"�_ - �' `S •+b��� f _-r-�.i .�. ` � �'t` ' •If ''�., `,•'` �� '�'`�I �{`r '�+•;•�-r_�s",: r. .i ,+ { t :�'-a..i'- `" + l.:� Y: '• S ...",, .j •4:�- �� -44•};! (( `L' '; 's.i%it.Lj� .�.:.__^ti{.' ".:e•`,., i;'�-`.`'.t.�a''a�'':€a, j ._� �,: .' ', - • -1_ a _-''._c:�-_ � �..5 • i ,•ysP t 1.:ti__.: ��-" _i f :` ��il •�y� - .1- ---�" -' -_ •. -_ ,. , - - 1 '�tt1 t _ t h4n '_i 't1I -.}:$Il rl t. 'i { �.♦ y" i' IV -l: ,i,. ' t.J . • Y •` ��� ' :� ai . (a I,.d"t..^.^ It�_.t.-I_ � tl• -, tY - .�. -__ _i . �t� ♦ � N !4 r' t'i,4�t, ', w - �11C"-"'t• ' - �a� ��4di t�i'ti `,_ '.iwy"'ate �y.` 1.F-}�.Yl�:__.f !__b'':.' s� .'' y (� s .��•J xl _- _ �. �''�`-' - - :?rr+y,� .t..i: ,;•tP„.r 1�'� 1. i, •t- l.i t•'�d .x,,. '-'' '` t�t a' .i- � - . i r t, tyt `w. i�l•its ,j�(j�i'�,�_+. 'y-.`. j__3 g't •S °'~•'`.f > '�t'i { Z �" M / 1 { �.t i8"i Y,iFtt, fifs mwr t O< x11.:t y -. _ r•, '.. } is �. -1 - _ .5'. • r'J _ 1r -• ,, i �jl ,�`�i ._'j�`�''�'-f �• � r5 f t F�:P _ .�'. � � - - - - /•:� `t Ir t�t : is •F`I.iFn,R'i?J �`' j•. 'l l "`f. 7;i ^�� '^ ar'.,.')~ ';i . i S .,+ - { - _ i j' ' }`t - ii _' tYw+_, } •<'M1.' I^.S- -�°` :• ._+ewe" +' 'v J'ri'•. ;.t.. t.j:tr;� ''t 1 �,.. ' T <'3 �`y ,4e !j i�( X_ i..+l.ai f's ��+5. 'tt_: i �,, ti'''�=«•-.-_ - - "_ xr �• ,4 � ._'"� �'' .. `` ,a,;r :"� - `-h :r Y-_ I MR�1. i o: , * «ti.,y1(• t`y'-� - j -'Y - 3�[>.YL"t' 'a 1 - - r CbiJ)(S lv.tf '�.. ...,limit,..;+ =. _ � '•AJ„: •uJ,fA i( ,r a 71 t mRz_1 t 1 RZ C , ,t i CITY of NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL PLAN UPDATE EIR Figure 4.5-4 MINERAL RESOURCE ZONES Legend mm � i CfyBoundary(approArnate) Mineral Resource2ones MRZ 1 Deposits No Signiticant Mineral posit MRZ-2 Afea'wiih'Significant MIneralDeposits EEMRZ-3 Arm Containing Mineral Deposits df Undetermined Significance MR74 Areas with Inadequate Information ary of 14 w,c [ each Notto Scare \ - �; _ j ;auee aeP��lotCrnremtin P�tbita Mnesorc/GoobB/. OMG ''/�`\ i{rv/rfit)2 avet.riane�wvars. rvaa. ` Po]act No 10.519Ai EIP- II 4.5 Geology, Soils, and Mineral Resources II II II II II II Most of the active oil wells are currently located in the West Newport and Newport production areas. Generally, these areas overlap with the Banning Ranch subarea, with a smaller portion of the Newport Oil Field within the Balboa Peninsula subarea. As previously discussed, in 2002, there were a total of approximately 68 wells producing oil and natural gas within the City, including within these two production areas. However, there are no other known active oil or gas wells located in any other areas outside of the identified oil fields. Development under the proposed General Plan Update, particularly if the Banning Ranch subarea is not retained as open space, could affect the availability of oil and gas produced in these areas. Policy NR 19.4 in the General Plan Update encourages consolidation of existing oil and gas activities. Implementation of this policy would help ensure that access to these resources would not be altered, which could potentially alter the projected aggregate production or consumption for the area. Policies contained in the Land Use Element consolidation and/or relocation for the oil and gas operations on Banning Ranch where, as previously discussed, a significant portion of the Planning Area's production areas are currently located. Policy 6.5.1 specifies that oil operations on Banning Ranch should be relocated or clustered. With regard to the two land use options for Banning Ranch, the Policies 3.4 and 6.4.11 ensure that under either option, loss of availability would not be altered by encouraging consolidation of oil operations. Finally, Policy 6.5.1, which applies to both Land Use Options for Banning Ranch, encourages that this subarea's oil operations are relocated and clustered. With respect to future oil and gas production, the General Plan Update does not require existing to operations to cease production but does contain policies (NR19.1 through 19.4) that prohibit additional, future oil extraction within the City and oppose new offshore oil and gas drilling activities. As a result, implementation of the proposed General Plan Update would not result in the loss of the availability of known mineral resources that would be of value to the region and the residents of the State. No impactwould occur. Threshold Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan. Implementation of the proposed General Plan Update would not result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan. The discussion in the previous threshold of the lack of impacts to known mineral resources that would be of value to the region and the residents of the State applies equally to locally important mineral resource recovery sites. Consequently, implementation of the General Plan Update would not substantially alter the projected production or consumption of the City, County, or State and no impact would occur. ■ Cumulative Impacts The geographic context for cumulative mineral resources impacts that would occur under the proposed General Plan Update is the Orange County, which includes all cumulative growth within the County. This cumulative impact analysis considered implementation of the proposed General Plan Update, in City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 4.5.31 conjunction with other development in the City of the City of Newport Beach, as represented by bull implementation of the General Plan Update. Development under the General Plan Update, in combination with all other development in the area, could the availability of a known mineral resource. However, since proposed General Plan Update policies do not prohibit existing oil and gas production and, in fact, encourages that existing operations be clustered and/or relocated so as to not alter production, contributions to adverse impacts to mineral resources as a result of the General Plan Update would not be cumulatively considerable. Therefore, in this regard, the General Plan Update's impact would be less than significant. ■ Proposed General Plan Update Policies The Land Use and Natural Resources elements of the ,proposed Newport Beach General Plan Update would directly or indirectly minimize impacts related to mineral resources. The policies that are applicable to the project are included below. Policies identified below that are also contained in the Harbor and Bay Element are denoted with an "FIB". Natural Resources Element Goal NR 19 Minimized impacts from oil and gas drilling activities Policy NR 19.1 New and Existing Extraction Activities Prohibit additional oil, gas and other hydrocarbon extraction activities within the City limits but allow that existing wells be used, if needed, for water injection systems that increase oil extraction, and consolidated when necessary. Policy NR 19.2 New Offshore Drilling Activities Oppose new offshore oil, gas and other hydrocarbon.drilling activities. Policy NR 19.3 New On -Shore Drilling Activities Prohibit on -shore support facilities for off -shore oil, gas and other hydrocarbon drilling. Policy NR 19.4 Consolidation of Existing Uses Encourage consolidation of existing oil, gas and other hydrocarbon activities. 4.5.32 City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR , Land Use Element Goal LU 2 A living, active, and diverse environment that complements all lifestyles and enhances neighborhoods, without compromising the valued resources that make Newport Beach unique. It contains a diversity of uses that support the needs of residents, sustain and enhance the economy, provide job opportunities, serve visitors that enjoy the City's diverse recreational amenities, and protect its important environmental setting, resources, and quality of life. Policy LU 2.7 Oil and Gas Facilities Prohibit the construction of new onshore oil processing, refining or transportation facilities, including facilities designed to transport oil from offshore tracts, with the exceptions of slant drilling from onshore oil fields or for the consolidation and more efficient production of wells should Banning Ranch be annexed to the City. Goal LU 3 A development pattern that retains and complements the City's residential neighborhoods, commercial and industrial districts, open spaces, and natural environment. Policy LU 3.4 Banning Ranch Prioritize the retention of Banning Ranch as an open space amenity for the City and region, consolidating oil operations, enhancing wetland and other habitats, and providing parkland amenities to serve nearby neighborhoods. If the property cannot be acquired in a timely manner, allow for the development of a compact residential village that preserves the majority of the site as open space and restores critical habitat in accordance with Policies 6.3.1 through 6.5.5. Goal LU 6.4 If acquisition for open space is not successful, a high -quality residential community with supporting uses that provides revenue to restore and protect wetlands and important habitats. Policy LU 6.4.11 Comprehensive Site Planning and Design Require the preparation of a master development or specific plan for any development on the Banning Ranch specifying lands to be developed, preserved, and restored, land uses to be permitted, parcelization, roadway and infrastructure improvements, streetscape improvements, development regulations, architectural design and landscape guidelines, processes for oil operations consolidation, habitat preservation and restoration plan, sustainability practices plan, financial implementation, and other appropriate elements. City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 4.5.33 Chapter 4 Environmental Analysis Policies Pertaining to Both Land Use Options (Goals 6.3 and 6.4) Policy LU 6.5.1 Oil Operations Relocate and cluster oil operations. ® Impacts and Mitigation Measures No mitigation measures are necessary, as the proposed General Plan Update policies fully mitigate the impacts. Level of Significance After Policies/Mitigation Measures No impacts are associated with mineral resources with implementation of the proposed General Plan Update. 4.5.10 References Earth Consultants International, Hazards Assessment Study, Technical Background Deport, 2003. California Division of Oil, Gas, and Geothermal Resources, 2002 Annual Report —Production and Deserves City of Newport Beach Municipal Code, http://ordlink.com/codes/newportb/DATA/ TITLEl5/Chapter_15_04 BUIMING_CODE_/15_04_010_Adopdon—of the_Cali.html Dave Sanchez, California Division of Oil, Gas, and GeothermalResources, December 11, 2003. 4.5-34 City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR ' 4.6 Hazards and Hazardous Materials 4.6 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS 4.6.1 Introduction This section evaluates the potential impacts of the proposed General Plan Update on human health and the environment due to exposure to hazardous materials or conditions within the City of Newport Beach. The information presented in this section is summarized from the Hazards Assessment Study prepared for the City in 2003 by Earth Consultants International as well as the proposed General Plan Update Safety Element. In addition, information was also obtained from the City's Emergency Management Plan. A hazardous material is defined as any material that, due to its quantity, concentration, physical or chemical characteristics, poses a significant present or potential hazard to human health and safety or to the environment if released. Hazardous materials include, but are not limited to, hazardous substances, hazardous wastes, and any material that a business or local implementing agency has a reasonable basis for believing would be injurious to the health and safety of persons, or harmful to the environment if released. During the Initial Study process, it was determined that the proposed project would have potential impacts for seven of the eight hazards and hazardous materials that CEQA Guidelines include as criteria for determining significance. It was determined that no safety hazard associated private airstrips would occur upon implementation of the proposed General Plan Update because there are no existing private airstrips within the City. Therefore, this impact is not further analyzed in the EIR. Full bibliographic entries for all reference materials are provided in Section 4.6.6 (References) of this section. Four comment letters associated with hazards and hazardous materials were received in response to the IS/NOP circulated for the proposed General Plan Update. The Environmental Quality Affairs Citizens Advisory Committee for the City of Newport Beach requested that the DEIR address potential impacts caused by the siting of school facilities or residential developments on hazardous materials sites, as well as the possible mitigation of these impacts. The Department of Toxic Substances Control requested that the DEIR identify and determine methods for adhering to all applicable Federal and State regulations governing hazards and hazardous materials. The John Wayne Airport QWA) requests that the DEIR identify measures intended to minimize the safety impacts from aircraft operations on existing and proposed residences. The Airport Land Use Commission also requests that the DEIR address height restrictions for buildings located in the vicinity of the JWA imposed by the Federal Aviation Administration, and suggests that the density and intensity limitations be consistent with those provided by the Airport Environs Land Use Plan Height Restriction Zone Map for JWA. Section 4.6.5 (Project Impacts, Mitigation Measures, and Proposed Policies) provides such an analysis. Potential impacts related to toxic air contaminants and water quality are discussed in Section 4.2 (Air Quality) and Section 4.7 (Hydrology and Water Quality). City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 4.6.1 4.6.2 Existing Conditions ■ Definitions The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) defines a hazardous waste as a substance that 1) may cause or significantly contribute to an increase in mortality or an increase in serious, irreversible, or incapacitating reversible illness; and 2) that poses a substantial present or potential future hazard to human health or the environment when it is improperly treated, stored, transported, disposed of or otherwise managed. Hazardous waste is also defined as ignitable, corrosive, explosive, or reactive (Federal Code of Regulations—FCR-Tide 40: Protection of the Environment, Part 261). A material may also be classified as a hazardous material if it contains defined amounts of toxic chemicals. The EPA has developed a list of specific hazardous wastes that are in the forms of solids, semi -solids, liquids, and gases. Producers of such wastes include private businesses, and Federal, State, and local government agencies. The EPA regulates the production and distribution of commercial and industrial chemicals to protect human health and the environment. The EPA also prepares and distributes information to further the public's knowledge about these chemicals and their effects, and provides guidance to manufacturers in pollution prevention measures, such as more efficient manufacturing processes and recycling used materials. The State of California defines hazardous materials as substances that are toxic, ignitable or flammable, reactive, and/or corrosive. The State also defines an extremely hazardous material as a substance that shows high acute or chronic toxicity, is carcinogenic (causes cancer), has bioaccumulative properties (accumulates in the body's tissues), is persistent in the environment, or is water reactive (California Code of Regulations, Title 22; California Health and Safety Code, Division 20, Chapter 6.5). ■ Hazardous Materials Use Hazardous materials in the City are routinely used, stored, and transported in commercial/tetail businesses as well as in educational facilities, hospitals, and households. Hazardous materials users and waste generators in the City include businesses, public and private institutions, and households. Federal, State, and local agency databases maintain comprehensive information on the locations of facilities using large quantities of hazardous materials, as well as facilities generating hazardous waste. Some of these facilities use certain classes of hazardous materials that require accidental release scenario modeling and risk management plans to protect surrounding land uses. ® Transportation of Hazardous Materials Newport Beach is closely bordered by the San Diego Freeway (1-405) to the north, the San Joaquin C73) Toll Road to the east, and Pacific Coast Highway (PCH) to the south. Newport Boulevard is a 64ane primary arterial highway, which extends from the terminus of the Costa Mesa Freeway (SR 55), near the west side of the City. Many other four- and six4ane streets provide easy access to the north, northeast, and eastern.pottions of the City. Due to the volume of traffic and the nature of the materials transported 4.6.2 City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 4.6 Hazards and Hazardous Materl-�— ' on these roadways, there is a heightened risk of a hazardous material leak or spill in the Newport Beach area. The transport of hazardous materials through the City of Newport Beach is regulated by the ' California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) and California Highway Patrol (CHP). ' The EPA lists the following four transporters of hazardous waste in the City: ■ Innovative Waste Control, Inc.-1300 Bristol Street N., Suite 100 ■ R.E. Mockett-1601 Antigua ' ■ Roadway Construction Company Inc.-4101 Westerly Place, Suite 101 ■ WBR Transportation, LLC-2240 Newport Boulevard ' Because Newport Beach has limited industrial land uses, most transportation of hazardous materials on the portions of the freeways and major roads that extend through the City is most likely conducted by companies that axe not based out of Newport Beach. 'M Existing Hazardous Materials Sites ' Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Information System (CERCLIS) L 1 rJ 1 The Comrpreberrsive Eavirannental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA) was developed to protect the water, air, and land resources from the risks created by past chemical disposal practices. This act is also referred to as the Superfund Act, and the sites listed under it are referred to as Superfund sites. Under CERCLA, the EPA maintains a list, known as CERCLIS, of all contaminated sites in the nation that have in the past or are currently undergoing clean-up activities. CERCLIS contains information on current hazardous waste sites, potential hazardous waste sites, and remedial activities. This includes sites that are on the National Priorities List (NPL) or being considered for the NPL. According to the EPA, there are two CERCLIS sites in the City of Newport Beach (See Table 4.6-1), but neither of them is listed in the National Priority List (NPL). Furthermore, one of the sites is considered by the EPA as a "No Further Remedial Action Planned (NFRAP) site, while the other site has reportedly been cleaned up, although the EPA data is not yet reflecting this information. Given that both sites appear to no longer pose an environmental hazard to the area, they have not been included in the list of most significant hazardous sites in the City of Newport Beach. Cagney Trust I SW Corner of 32nd St. and Newport Blvd CA0000187997 Not on NPL—NFRAP Ford Aerospace Facility 13501 Jamboree Blvd. #500 CAD983623257 Not on NPL—PA Ongoing SOURCES: www.epa.gov/superfund/sites/oresites/index/htm, http://ww.epa.gov/superfund/sites/cursites/index.htm, http://oaspub.epa.gov/enviro/multisys_web.report ' City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 4.6-3 Chapter 4 Environmental Analysts Toxic Release Inventory The Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) is an EPA database that contains information on toxic chemical releases and other waste management activities reported annually by certain industry groups as well as Federal facilities. TRI sites are known to release toxic chemicals into the air. The EPA closely monitors the emissions from these facilities to ensure that their annual limits are not exceeded. TRI reports provide accurate information about potentially hazardous chemicals and their uses to the public in an attempt to give communities more power to hold companies accountable for their actions and to make informed decisions abouthow such chemicals should be managed. According to the EPA records, there are two facilities in the Newport Beach area that are listed for year 2004 TRI (the most recently available data), as shown below in Table 4.6-2. Ammonia, hydrogen fluoride, nitric acid. 4321 Jamboreee Road Newport Fab (DBA Jazz Semiconductor) CAR000113233 A formal enforcement action was filed by the EPA for this R site on 1129/2003. Himon Metal Finishing 829 Production Place CA0008357295 Lead, nitric acid. SOURCES: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2004, TRI On -site and Off -site Reported Releases in Orange County, California; Ust of EPA -regulated Facilities in Envirofacts (http://oaspub.gov/enviro/). Accessed on 12/12/05. Hazardous Waste Generators Many types of businesses can be producers of hazardous waste. Small businesses such as dry cleaners, auto repair shops, medical facilities or hospitals, photo processing centers, and metal -plating shops are usually generators of small quantities of hazardous waste. Generally, small -quantity generators are facilities that produce between 100 and 1,000 kilograms (Kg) of hazardous waste per month (approximately equivalent to between 220 and 2,200 pounds, or between 27 and 275 gallons). Larger businesses such as chemical manufacturers, large electroplating facilities, and petroleum refineries, can generate large quantities of hazardous waste. The EPA defines a large -quantity generator as a facility that produces over 1,000 Kg (2,200 pounds or about 275 gallons) of hazardous waste per month. As discussed later in the Regulatory r7tamework, large quantity generators are fully regulated under the Resources Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). According to the most recent EPA and City data available (2003), and as shown in Table 4.6-3, there were eight large quantity generators in the Newport Beach area. In addition, as of December 2005, there were approximately 87 small quantity generators in the City.37 31 EPA Envirofacts RCRAInfo website, accessed January 9, 2006, 4.6.4 City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR , 4.6 Hazards and Hazardous Materials r L 1 1 F U Facility Name, Address EPA ID Hixson Metal Finishing CAD008357295 829 Production Place Hoag Memorial Hospital CAD981388408 301 Newport Boulevard Newport Fab LLC CAR000113233 4311 Jamboree Road, Bldg. 503 Shell Service Station CAD983663865 1600 Jamboree Road Conexant Systems Incorporated CAD008371437 4311 Jamboree Road Ford Motor Company (now closed) CAD041330077 1000 Ford Road Jetronic Industries, Inc. — Transchem Division CAD044338945 3767 Birch Street The Koll Company KCN 4 CAR000015842 4910 Birch Street SOURCES: List of Large Quantity Generators in the United States: The National Biennial RCRA Hazardous Waste Report (Based on 2003 Data); List of EPA -Regulated Facilities in Envirofacts (http.,//www.epa.gov/envfro/); Accessed 1/10/06. _ In addition to the facilities listed in Table 4.6-3, Table 4.6-4 shows the businesses and facilities in Newport Beach that were reported as large quantity generators in years prior to 2003. However, some of these businesses, such as Loral Aeronutronics and Raytheon Systems Company, have ceased their operations in the City. 4.6-4 Prior Large -Quantity Generator (LQG) FacilitiesTable - .. FacIVY Name Address YearRepodedosLQG Loral Aeronuhonic 1996 1000 Ford Road Buildings 1, 2, 9, & 11 Newport Enterprises DBA Land Rover 1996 1540 Jamboree Road Raytheon Systems Company 1999 500 Superior Avenue Sterling Motors Ltd., DBA Sterling BMW 1996 3000 West Coast Hwy. SOURCES: Earth Consultants International, 2003. Hazards Assessment Study, City of Newport Beach, page 6-17 ' City of Newport Beach General'Plan Update EIR 4.6.5 Leaking Underground Storage Tanks Leaking underground storage tanks (LUSTS) are one of the greatest environmental concerns of the past several decades. According to data from the State Water Resources Control Board, 80 underground storage tank leaks have been reported in the Newport Beach area. Of these, 64 sites have been either cleaned up or deemed to be of no environmental consequence, leaving 16 cases that are still open and in various stages of the remediadon process. These 16 sites are shown below in Table 4.6-5. None of the leaks that have been reported in the City have impacted a- drinking source of ground water, However, several of the cases in Table 4.6-5 may be further along in the assessment and remediation process than the list indicates, and some of the cases may already be closed. The Orange County Environmental Health Department provides oversight and conducts inspections of all underground tank removals and installation of new tanks. Table 4.6-5 Site Name LUSTS Reported in Address the Newport Beach Area Case No. Status, Contaminant Re Date Newport Beach Golf Course 3100 Irvine 083000295T 5R, G 5/20/1998 Newport Auto Center 445Coast nla 8," 12122/2004 Chevron #20-1093 1240 Bison 083003036T 7, G 512812004 Shell Oil (Former) 990 Coast 083002129T 8, G 612912003 Shell Oil 1000 Irvine 08300035BT 5R, G 8/2511999 Ford Aerospace Corporation 3000 Ford Road 083001066T 5C, D 11/211988 Permalite Plastics Corporation 1537 Monrovia Avenue 083003609T 1, MEK 10/811999 Chevron #20.2016 2121 Bristol 083003460T 5R, .' 7/23/2004 Beacon Bay Carwash 4200 Birch 083001459T 7, G 3/2511997 Unocal #5310 3001 Newport 083000431T 7, G 8/19/1993 Shell Oil 1600 Jamboree n/a 50, G 12/22/2003 Hughes Aircraft Co -Solid Prod. 500 Superior Ave. 083000821T 5C, S 411/2005 Conexant Systems, Inc. (Fortner Rockwell Intl Seel -Conduct Div.) 4311 Jamboree Road 083001040T 5R, A 311/2001 Newport Auto Center 445 Coast 083001744T 5R, G 4116/2002 Four Seasons Hotel 690 Newport Center 083003073T 5R, D 2/26/2003 Newport Beach Police Department 1 870 Santa Barbara I 083002849T 3B, G Unknown SOURCE: Case Report For Santa Ana RWQCB (Region 8),10/31/2005, https://geofrockerswrcb.ca.gov/caserepods/results Abbreviations Used for Contaminant: G = Gasoline, UG= Unleaded Gasoline; D = Diesel, MO = Motor Oil; WO = Waste Oil; MEK= Methyl ethyl ketone; S=Solvent; A=Acetone. Abbreviations Used for Status: 0=No action taken; 1 = Leak being confirmed; 3A =Preliminary site assessment workplan submitted; 3B = Preliminary site assessment underway; 5C = Pollution characterization underway: SR - Remedialion plan submitted; 7-- Remedial action underway; 8 = Post -remedial monitoring; 9 = Case closed / Remedialion completed. contaminants not available Household Hazardous Waste The EPA defines household hazardous waste as `leftover products such as paints, cleaners, oils, batteries, and pesticides that contain potentially hazardous ingredients that could be corrosive, toxic, ignitable, or reactive." According to the EPA, Americans generate approximately 1.6 million tons of 4.6-6 City of Newport Beach Generati'lan Update EIR '4.6 Hazards and Hazardous ' household hazardous waste per year, while the average home can accumulate as much as 100 pounds of household hazardous waste in the basement and garage or in storage closets. Methods of improper ' disposal of household hazardous wastes commonly include pouring them down the drain, on the ground, into storm sewers, or in some cases putting them out with the trash. Though the dangers of such ' disposal methods might not be immediately obvious, improper disposal of these wastes can pollute the environment and pose a threat to human health. The County of Orange operates four household hazardous waste collection centers in accordance with the California Integrated Solid Waste Management Act of 1989 (AB 939). These centers are located in the cities of Anaheim, Huntington Beach, Irvine, and San Juan Capistrano. The two locations closest to ' the City are the Huntington Beach center at 17121 Nichols Street and the Irvine location at 6411 Oak Canyon. ' Methane Gas Methane gas occurs in the shallow subsurface of some areas of the City. Methane is a naturally occurring ' gas that typically forms as a by-product of bacterial digestion of organic matter, and therefore occurs ubiquitously, although generally at very low concentrations in the air. Methane is colorless and odorless and, under normal conditions, does not pose a health hazard, as it is not poisonous. However, at high concentrations, methane is flammable and can cause asphyxiation due to oxygen displacement at very high levels. Methane is not toxic below levels that would lead to asphyxiation. However, the fact that it is colorless and odorless makes it especially hazardous, as it cannot be readily detected without special sensors. ' Generally, methane forms in areas such as swamps, landfills, or areas associated with petroleum deposits. Methane tends to migrate upwards and, under certain conditions, the gas can become trapped under an impermeable layer. As the gas accumulates under the impermeable layer, it can build up to high ' concentrations and pressures, which can lead to adverse physical effects. 'However, high concentrations of methane can be managed and mitigated effectively with the proper investigation and analysis so that ' development is protected from adverse impacts of methane. Five methane gas mitigation districts have been identified in the City. Natural seepages of gas occur in ' the western and southwestern portions of the City. Special development regulations (City Code Chapter 15.55), intended to prevent gases from accumulating, apply to projects located in methane overlay districts. The Hazards Assessment Study prepared for the City also identifies the potential for methane gas seepage to be associated with the West Newport oil field even though it is not located within or next to a methane gas mitigation district. In addition, the City also associates methane gas seepage with an old abandoned landfill near the City's northwestern corner. Oil Fields ' Petroleum contains several components ' that are considered hazardous, such as benzene, a known carcinogen. Oil field activities often include the use of hazardous materials like fuels and solvents. In the past, day-to-day practices in oil fields were not environmentally sensitive. As a result, oil -stained soils and ' City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 4.6-7 Chapter 4 Environmental Analysts other contaminants can often be found in and around oil fields. Remediation of these areas is generally required when the oil field is not longer economically productive. Comprehensive site investigations are required to accurately identify and characterize any soil and groundwater contamination. ■ Fire Hazards Wild►and Fires The City of Newport Beach defines a wildland fire hazard area as any geographic area that contains the type and condition of vegetation, topography, weather, and structure density that potentially increases the possibility of wildland fires. The eastern portion of the City and surrounding areas to the north, east, and southeast include grass- and brush -covered hillsides with significant topographic relief that facilitate the rapid spread of fire, especially if fanned by coastal breezes or Santa Ana winds. Urban Fires Many factors contribute to an area being at risk of structural fire in terms of local fire departments' capabilities to control them, including the construction size and type, built-in protection, density of construction, street widths, and occupancy size. The City's daytime population levels may also add to the congestion and difficulty of ingress and egress of emergency response vehicles. Many of the structures in the older portions of the City, some dating back to the 1930s, are susceptible to urban fires. These areas were built according to older building standards and fire codes, with no internal sprinklers and other fire safety systems in place, and made from non -fire -resistive construction materials. These areas include Balboa Peninsula, Balboa Island, and Corona del Mar. Newport Beach has over 30 high-rise buildings that were constructed since die 1960s. Four of these buildings do not have sprinklers in place: 3121 West Coast Highway; 601 Lido Park Drive; 400 Newport Center Drive; and 611 Lido Park Drive. Geography is also a factor for fire safety issues in the City. Upper and Lower Newport Bay essentially divide the City into two regions, with approximately one-third of the Newport Beach Fire Department (NBFD) assets located west of the bay, and the remaining assets east of the bay. Connection between these two sides is provided by only a limited number of roadways (Coast Highway in the south, Bristol Street and the 73 Freeway on the north), making it difficult for fire stations on both sides of the bay to support each other during multiple alarm emergencies. Failure of the bridge connectors on any of these roadways as a result of an earthquake, for example, would hinder emergency response from fire stations in east Newport Beach and Newport Coast into the densely populated areas of the City west and south of the bay. Eatthquake-induced fires have the potential to be the worst -case fire -suppression scenarios for a community because an earthquake can cause multiple ignitions distributed over a broad geographic area. There are some older sections in Newport Beach where, due to ground failure, breaks in the gas mains and the water distribution system could lead to a significant fire -after -earthquake situation. 4.6•8 City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 4.6 Hazards and Hazardous Materials ® Aviation Hazards John Wayne Airport QWA) generates nearly all aviation traffic above the City of Newport Beach. On an average business day, approximately 150 commercial and 20 regional flights arrive at and depart from JWA. Newport Beach borders the southeastern portion of JWA. More than 95 percent of all airplanes take off and ascend over the City. Accidents resulting in one or more fatalities involving commercial aircraft are rare events. However, in the event of an aviation hazard, pilots are instructed to follow Newport Bay away from residential or developed areas. Potential impacts will be significantly reduced by coordinated response operations of all available emergency services. The airport is protected by an on - site airport fire service as required by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) regulations. This service is provided by Orange County Fire Station No. 33. In addition, the Orange County Fire Services Area Plan Annex contains a Marine (Air/Sea) Disaster Response Plan that establishes protocols for marine disasters in the harbor or ocean from either aircraft or boating accidents. This plan includes a county -wide mutual aid response to a disaster. Three areas of increased vulnerability to aviation hazards in the City are Balboa Peninsula, Balboa Island, and Upper Newport Bay. As previously discussed under Urban Fires, Balboa Island and Balboa Peninsula is susceptible to fire hazards due to the fact that structures were built prior to implementation of stringent fire codes. In the event of a fire caused by an aviation accident, it could spread quickly. Additionally, ingress and egress is limited. An aviation accident in Upper Newport Bay could create a significant ecological and economic hazard to the environment. The recreational value of the Newport Harbor with its more than 9,000 registered boats could be dramatically affected, and an aviation accident could significantly pollute the waterways. Emergency Response Any potential hazard in the City resulting from a manmade or natural disaster may result in the need for evacuation of few or thousands of citizens of Newport Beach. Homeland Security has brought disaster awareness to the forefront of the minds of the community, safety officials, and City staff The City of Newport Beach is currently using the Standardized Emergency Management System (SEMS) for emergency response in the City, where depending on the type of incident, several different agencies and disciplines may be called upon to assist with emergency response. Agencies and disciplines that can be expected to be part of an emergency response team include medical, health, fire and rescue, police, public works, and coroner. Additionally, policies and plans from the Orange County Operational Area Mutual Aid Plan, the State's Mutual Aid Plan, and the State's Fire and Rescue Mutual Aid System would be implemented. The City is now also training its personnel in the National Incident Management System (NIMS), the Federal equivalent of SEMS. Within the NBFD, the Disaster Preparedness Coordinator has updated the City's Emergency Management Plan, including the development and implementation of disaster training for employees. The Emergency Management Plan describes the different levels of emergencies, the local emergency management organization, and the specific responsibilities of each participating agency, government City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 4.6-9 Chapter 4 Environmental Analysis office, and City staff. A City-wide exercise, which involves implementation of the Plan, is conducted annually. Currently, NBFD provides basic life support (BLS), advanced life support (ALS) and emergency transportation utilizing the fire engines and ladder trucks housed in the Department's eight fire stations, and utilizing the paramedics housed in three of those stations. While the NBFD has the immediate capability of providing ALS service at three simultaneous incidents, there is an occasional need for additional ALS units. Additional ALS service is provided' by nearby and adjoining public agencies by means of cooperative automatic aid agreements. Emergency transportation beyond the capability of the department is provided by private ambulance companies. Mass casualty incidents, which usually involve three or more critical patients, require the implementation of the Orange County Fire Services Operational Plan Annex "Multi -Casualty Incident Response Plan." This Plan is an organizational plan that aids in assigning treatment teams and quickly moving patients off -scene to appropriate receiving centers in an expeditious and organized manner. The multi -casualty plan is intended to be implemented during any multi -casualty incident, such as multiple vehicle accidents, aviation accidents, hazardous materials incidents, high-rise fires, and so forth. Although the system has been designed to be used with as few as three patients, it can be expanded as it becomes necessary. Lastly, in the event of a disaster, the City's Emergency Operations Center can be opened. The center has undergone a series of upgrades and improvements. Training for residents and employees within the City continues through the Community Emergency Response Team (CERT) program. 4.6.3 Regulatory Framework A number of Federal, State, and local laws have been enacted to regulate the management of hazardous materials. Implementation of these laws and the management of hazardous materials are regulated independently of the CEQA process through programs administered by various agencies at the Federal, State, and local levels. An overview of the key hazardous materials laws and regulations that apply to the proposed General Plan Update is provided below. ■ Federal Several Federal agencies regulate hazardous materials. These include the EPA, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), and the DOT. Applicable Federal regulations are contained primarily in Titles 10, 29, 40, and 49 of the Code of Federal' Regulations (CFR). In particular, Title 49 of the CFR governs the manufacture of packaging and transport containers, packing and repacking, labeling, and the marking of hazardous material transport. Some of the major Federal laws and issue areas include the following statutes (and regulations promulgated thereunder): ■ Resources Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)—hazardous waste management ■ Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments Act (HSWA)—hazardous waste management ■ Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA)—cleanup of contamination ■ Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA)—cleanup of contamination 4.6-10 City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR ' 4.6 Hazards and Hazardous Materials ■ Emergency Planning and Community Right -to -Know (SARA Title III) —business inventories and emergency response planning The EPA is the primary Federal agency responsible for the implementation and enforcement of hazardous materials regulations. In most cases, enforcement of environmental laws and regulations established at the Federal level is delegated to State and local environmental regulatory agencies. In addition, with respect to emergency planning, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) is responsible for ensuring the establishment and development of policies and programs for emergency management at the Federal, State, and local levels. This includes the development of a national capability to mitigate against, prepare for, respond to and recover from a full range of emergencies. ■ State Primary state agencies with jurisdiction over hazardous chemical materials management are the Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) and the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). Other State agencies involved in hazardous materials management are the Department of Industrial Relations (State OSHA implementation), Office of Emergency Services (OES—California Accidental Release Prevention implementation), Department of Fish and Game (DFG), Air Resources Board (ARB), Caltrans, State Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA— Proposition 65 implementation) and California Integrated Waste Management Board (CIWMB). The enforcement agencies for hazardous materials transportation regulations are the CHP and Caltrans. Hazardous materials and waste transporters are responsible for complying with all applicable packaging, labeling, and shipping regulations. Hazardous chemical and biohazardous materials management laws in California include the following statutes (and regulations promulgated thereunder): ■ HaZardonsMaterialsManagementAct—business plan reporting ■ Hazardous Waste ControlAct—hazardous waste management ■ Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986 (Proposition 65)—releases of and exposure to carcinogenic chemicals ■ Ha.Zardous SubstancesAct—cleanup of contamination ■ Hazardous Waste Management Planning and Facility Siting (TannerAct ■ Hazardous Materials Storage and Emergency Response ■ Califonda Medical II%aste ManagementAct—medical and biohazardous wastes State regulations and agencies pertaining to hazardous materials management and worker safety which are applicable to the City and proposed General Plan Update are described below. California Environmental Protection Agency The California EPA (Cal/EPA) has broad jurisdiction over hazardous materials management in the state. Within Cal/EPA, the DTSC has primary regulatory responsibility for hazardous waste management and cleanup. Enforcement of regulations has been delegated to local jurisdictions that enter into agreements City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 4.6-11 Chapter 4 Environmental Analysis with DISC for the generation, transport, and disposal of hazardous materials under the authority of the Hazardous Waste Control Law. Along with the DTSC, the RWQCB is responsible for implementing regulations pertaining to management of soil and groundwater investigation and cleanup. RWQCB regulations are contained in Title 27 of the California Code of Regulations (CCR). Additional state regulations applicable to hazardous materials are contained in Tide 22 of the CCR. Title 26 of the CCR is a compilation of those sections or titles of the CCR that are applicable to hazardous materials. Department of Toxic Substances Control RCRA of 1976 is the principal Federal law that regulates the generation, management, and transportation of hazardous materials and other wastes. The DTSC regulates hazardous waste in California primarily under the authority of the Federal RCRA, and the California Health and Safety Code. Other laws that affect hazardous waste are specific to handling, storage, transportation, disposal, treatment, reduction, cleanup, and emergency planning. In addition, DTSC reviews and monitors legislation to ensure that the position reflects the DTSC's goals. From these laws, DTSC's major program areas develop regulations and consistent program policies and procedures. The regulations spell out what those who handle hazardous waste must do to comply with the laws. Under RCRA, DTSC has the authority to implement permitting, inspection, compliance, and corrective action programs to ensure that people who manage hazardous waste follow State and Federal requirements. As such, the management of hazardous waste in the planning Area would be under regulation by the DTSC to ensure compliance with State and Federal requirements pertaining to hazardous waste. California law provides the general framework for regulation of hazardous wastes by the Hazardous Waste Control Law (HWCL) passed in 1972. DTSC is the State's lead agency in implementing the HWCL. The HWCL provides for State regulation of existing hazardous waste facilities, which include "any structure, other appurtenances, and improvements on the land, used for treatment, transfer, storage, resource recovery, disposal, or recycling of hazardous wastes," and requires permits for, and inspections of, facilities involved in generation and/or treatment, storage and disposal of hazardous wastes. Tanner Act Although there are numerous State policies dealing with hazardous waste materials, the most comprehensive is the Tauter Act (AB 2948) that was adopted in 1986. The Tanner Act governs the preparation of hazardous waste management plans and the siting of hazardous waste facilities in the State of California. The act also mandates that each county adopt a Hazardous Waste Management plan. To be in compliance with the TaaaerAct, local or regional hazardous waste management plans need to include provisions that define (1) the planning process for waste management, (2) the permit process for new and expanded facilities, and (3) the appeal process to the State available for certain local decision. 4.6-12 City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 4.6 Hazards and Hazardous Materials Hazardous Materials Management Plans In January 1996, Cal LPA adopted regulations implementing a "Unified Hazardous Waste and Hazardous Materials Management Regulatory Program" (Unified Program). The six program elements of the Unified Program are hazardous waste generators and hazardous waste on -site treatment, underground storage tanks, above -ground storage tanks, hazardous material release response plans and inventories, risk management and prevention program, and Uniform Fire Code hazardous materials management plans and inventories. The program is implemented at the local level by a local agency —the Certified Unified Program Agency (CUPA). The CUPA is responsible for consolidating the administration of the six program elements within its jurisdiction. The CUPA that has jurisdiction in the City of Newport Beach is the Orange County CUPA. State and Federal laws require detailed planning to ensure that hazardous materials are properly handled, used, stored, and disposed of, and, in the event that such materials are accidentally released, to prevent or to mitigate injury to health or the environment. California's Hazardous Materials Release Response Plans and Inventory Law, sometimes called the `Business Plan Act," aims to minimize the potential for accidents involving hazardous materials and to facilitate an appropriate response to possible hazardous materials emergencies. The law requires businesses that use hazardous materials to provide inventories of those materials to designated emergency response agencies, to illustrate on a diagram where the materials are stored on site, to prepare an emergency response plan, and to train employees to use the materials safely. California Accidental Release Prevention Program (CaIARP) The CaIARP program (CCR Title 19, Division 2, Chapter 4.5) covers certain businesses that store or handle more than a certain volume of specific regulated substances at their facilities. The CaIARP program regulations became effective on January 1, 1997, and include the provisions of the Federal Accidental Release Prevention program ('title 40, CFR Part 68) with certain additions specific to the State pursuant to Article 2, Chapter 6.95, of the Health and Safety Code. The list of regulated substances is found in Article 8, Section 2770.5 of the CaIARP program regulations. The businesses that use a regulated substance above the noted threshold quantity must implement an accidental release prevention program, and some may be required to complete a Risk Management Plan (RMP). An RMP is a detailed engineering analysis of the potential accident factors present at a business and the mitigation measures that can be implemented to reduce this accident potential. The purpose of a RMP is to decrease the risk of an off -site release of a regulated substance that might harm the surrounding environment and community. An RMP includes the following components: safety information, hazard review, operating procedures, training, maintenance, compliance audits, and incident investigation. The RMP must consider the proximity to sensitive populations located in schools, residential areas, general acute care hospitals, long-term health care facilities, and child day -cafe facilities, and must also consider external events such as seismic activity. City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 4.6.13 Worker and Workplace Hazardous Materials Safety Occupational safety standards exist in Federal and State laws to minimize worker safety risks from both physical and chemical hazards in the workplace. The California Division of Occupational Safety and Health (Cal/OSHA) is responsible for developing and enforcing workplace safety standards and assuring worker safety in the handling and use of hazardous materials. Among other requirements, Cal/OSHA obligates many businesses to prepare Injury and Illness Prevention Plans and Chemical Hygiene Plans. The Hazard Communication Standard requires that workers be informed of the hazards associated with the materials they handle, For example, manufacturers are to appropriately label containers, Material Safety Data Sheets are to be available in the workplace, and employers are to properly train workers. Hazardous Materials Transportation The California Highway Patrol (CHP) and California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) are the enforcement agencies for hazardous materials transportation regulations. Transporters of hazardous materials and waste are responsible for complying with all applicable packaging, labeling, and shipping regulations. The Office of Emergency Services (OES) also provides emergency response services involving hazardous materials incidents. Investigation and Cleanup of Contaminated Sites The oversight of hazardous materials release sites often involves several different agencies that may have overlapping authority and jurisdiction. The DISC and RWQCB are the two primary State agencies responsible for issues pertaining to hazardous materials release sites. Air quality issues related to remediation and construction at contaminated sites are also subject to Federal and State laws and regulations that are administered at the local level, Investigation and remediation activities that would involve potential disturbance or release of hazardous materials must comply with applicable federal, state, and local hazardous materials laws and regulations. DTSC has developed standards for the investigation of sites where hazardous materials contamination has been identified or could exist based on current or past uses. The standards identify approaches to determine if a release of hazardous wastes/substances exists at a site and delineates the general extent of contamination; estimates the potential threat to public health and/or the environment from the release and provides an indicator of relative risk; determines if an expedited response action is require to reduce an existing or potential threat; and completes preliminary project scoping activities to determine data gaps and identifies possible remedial action strategies to form the basis for development of a site strategy. Siting of Schools The California Education Code (Section 17210 et seq.) outlines the requirements of siting school facilities near or on known or suspected hazardous materials sites, or near facilities that emit hazardous air emissions, handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste. The code requires that, prior to commencing the acquisition of property for a new school site, an environmental site investigation be completed to determine the health and safety risks (f any) associated with a site. Recent 4.6-14 City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 4.6 Hazards and Hazardous Materials legislation and changes to the Education Code identify DTSC's role in the assessment, investigation, and cleanup of proposed school sites. All proposed school sites that will receive state funding for acquisition and/or construction must go through a comprehensive investigation and cleanup process under DTSC oversight. DTSC is required to be involved in the environmental review process to ensure that selected properties are free of contamination, or if the property is contaminated, that it is cleaned up to a level that is protective of students and faculty who will occupy the new school. All proposed school sites must be suitable for residential land use, which is DTSC's most protective standard for children. ■i Local Airport Environs Land Use Plan for John Wayne Airport Land use within the planning area boundaries of the AELUP must conform to noise, safety, and height restriction standards. The General Policy identified below outlines the land use standards for the planning areas. General Policy The General Land Use policy of the Airport Land Use Commission for Orange County shall be: Within the boundaries of the AELUP, any land use may be found to be inconsistent with the AELUP which: ■ Places people so that they are affected adversely by aircraft noise; ■ Concentrates people in areas susceptible to aircraft accidents; ■ Permits structures of excessive height in areas which would affect adversely the continued operation of the airport; or ■ Permits activities or facilities that would affect adversely aeronautical operations. In addition, although not listed here, the AELUP also contains Specific Policies, which further clarify the General Policy. Newport Beach Municipal Code Chapter 2.20 (Emergency Services) This chapter provides for the preparation and implementation of plans to provide services within the City in the event of an emergency, to empower certain City officials to promulgate orders and regulations necessary to provide for the protection of life and property or to preserve public order and safety, and to provide for the coordination of the emergency service functions of the City with all other public agencies and affected private persons, corporations, and organizations. Chapter 9.04 (Fire Code) The City of Newport Beach has adopted the 2001 California Fire Code with City amendments and some exceptions. Chapter 9.04 of the City's Municipal Code, also known as the Fire Code, establishes a variety City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 4.6-75 Chapter 4 Environmental Analysis 11 of regulations related to hazards such as: recommendations for development on land containing or emitting toxic substances, hazardous materials documentation procedures, hazardous materials management plan, storage tank regulations, etc. In addition; the NBFD enforces locally developed regulations which reduce the amount and continuity of fuel (vegetation) available, firewood storage, debris clearing, proximity of vegetation to structures and other measures aimed at "Hazard Reduction." Additional .provisions include construction standards for new structures and remodels, road widths and configurations designed to accommodate the passage of fire trucks and engines, and requirements for minimum fire flow rates for water mains. Chapter 15.55 (Methane Overlay Zone) This chapter establishes a methane gas mitigation district that requires property owners to test for and mitigate the presence of methane gas prior to significant new construction. The methane gas mitigation district may be applied to those areas of the City where studies have shown there is a distinct possibility of high concentrations of methane gas in soil close to ground surface. 4.6.4 Thresholds of Significance The following thresholds of significance are based on Appendix G of the 2005 CEQA Guidelines. For purposes of this EIR, implementation of the proposed project may have a significant adverse impact 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 ■ 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 wildiands 11 C! P F n 4.6-16 City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR ' J 4.6 Hazards and Hazardous Materials I II J I J I I II J 4.6.5 Project Impacts, Mitigation Measures, and Proposed Policies Effects Found Not to Be Significant Threshold For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? As discussed in the Initial Study, there are no existing private airstrips within the City. As a result, no safety hazard associated with location near a private airstrip would occur for the proposed General Plan Update. Consequently, implementation of the proposed project would have no impact, and no further analysis of this issue is required in this EIR. ■ Project Impacts Threshold Would the project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, storage, or disposal of hazardous materials? Impact 4.6-1 Implementation of the proposed General Plan Update could result in an increase in commercial development that could increase the overall routine transport, use, storage, and disposal of hazardous materials within the City. Given the mixed -use character of Newport Beach, residential and commercial uses reside relatively close to one another or often co -exist. Implementation of the proposed General Plan Update could result in an overall increase (approximately 1.8 million sf) in citywide commercial uses. Other increases that could occur under the proposed General Plan Update include increases for office, single- and multiple -family residential, visitor -serving, and institutional uses. However, in contrast, the proposed General Plan Update also calls for a reduction in City-wide industrial uses over the next 20 years. Specifically, existing industrial uses are anticipated to decrease from existing uses of approximately 1,569,229 sf to approximately 1,163,460 sf at build -out (a reduction of approximately 405,769 so. Although the overall industrial uses would decrease within the City, at least one subarea (West Newport Mesa Area) may actually observe an increase of these uses, as the proposed General Plan Update would allow an increase of industrial use square footage in this area over what currently exists. Similarly, commercial uses could decrease within West Newport Mesa (a small area with small parcels), and Balboa Village, but could increase within the remaining subareas and in other commercial areas throughout the Planning Area. The introduction of new city-wide commercial and industrial uses may result in the use of hazardous materials and/or the generation of hazardous materials. While there is a possibility that the new commercial and industrial uses that are proposed within the above -mentioned areas could transport, use, store, or dispose of hazardous materials, specific development projects are not associated with the proposed General Plan Update, and it is impossible to quantify the potential future amount of hazardous materials. However, with additional development, an City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 4.6-17 Chapter Environmental Analysis increase in the potential for hazards associated with hazardous materials and waste would likely occur in throughout the City. The following analysis provides generalized information on the potential for hazards through the routine transport, use, storage, or disposal of hazardous materials associated with the future commercial and' industrial uses in these subareas. Exposure of persons to hazardous materials could occur in the following manners: improper handling or use of hazardous materials or hazardous wastes during construction or operation of future developments, particularly by untrained personnel; transportation accident; environmentally unsound disposal methods; or fire, explosion or other emergencies. The types and amounts of hazardous materials would vary according to the nature of the activity. In some cases, it is the type of hazardous material that is potentially hazardous; in others, it is the amount of hazardous material that could present a hazard. Whether a person exposed to a hazardous substance would suffer adverse health effects depends upon a complex interaction of factors that determine the effects of exposure to hazardous materials: the exposure pathway (the route by which a hazardous material enters the body); the amount of material to which the person is exposed; the physical form (e.g., liquid, vapor) and characteristics (e.g., toxicity) of the material; the frequency and duration of exposure; and the individuars unique biological characteristics such as age, gender, weight, and general health. Adverse health effects from exposure to hazardous materials may be short-term (acute) or long-term (chronic). Acute effects can include damage to organs or systems in the body and possibly death. Chronic effects, which may result from long-term exposure to a hazardous material, can also include organ or systemic damage, but chronic effects of particular concern include birth defects, genetic damage, and cancer. Implementation of existing hazardous materials regulations were established at the State level to ensure compliance with Federal regulations to reduce the risk to human health and the environment from the routine use of hazardous substances. Although the overall quantity of hazardous materials and waste generated in the City could increase as a result of implementation of the proposed General Plan Update, all new developments that handle or use hazardous materials would be required to comply with the regulations, standards, and guidelines established by the EPA, State, Orange County, and City of Newport Beach related to storage, use, and disposal of hazardous materials. Both the Federal and State governments require all businesses that handle more than a specified amount of hazardous materials to submit a business plan to a regulating agency. Specifically, any new business that meets the specified criteria must submit a full hazardous materials disclosure report that includes an inventory of the hazardous materials generated, used, stored, handled, or emitted, and emergency response plans and procedures to be used in the event of a significant or threatened significant release of a hazardous material. The plan needs to identify the procedures to follow for immediate notification to all appropriate agencies and personnel in the event of a release, identification of local emergency medical assistance appropriate for potential accident scenarios, contact information for all company emergency coordinators of the business, a listing and location of emergency equipment at the business, an evacuation plan, and a training program for business personnel. The NBFD conducts yearly inspections of all these businesses to confirm that their business plan is in order and up to date. 4.6.18 City of Newport Beach GenerctPlan Update EIR I 4.6 Hazards and Hazardous Materials 1 1 1 1 I I I 1 I 1 In addition, the Safety Element of the proposed General Plan Update has identified a variety of policies to reduce the potential exposure of people and the environment to hazardous materials. For example, Policy S 7.3 would educate residents and businesses about how to reduce or eliminate their use of hazardous materials, including using safer non -toxic equivalents. Policy S 7.6 requires that all users, producers, and transporters of hazardous materials and wastes clearly identify the materials that they store, use, or transport, and to notify the appropriate City, County, State and Federal agencies in the event of a violation. Oversight by the appropriate Federal, State, and local agencies and compliance by new development with applicable regulations related to the handling and storage of hazardous materials would minimize the risk of the public's potential exposure to these substances. Therefore, this impact would be less than signifcant. Threshold Would the project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? Impact 4.6-2 Construction activities associated with implementation of the proposed General Plan Update could result in the release of hazardous materials to the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions. As implementation of the proposed General Plan Update would primarily result in urban infill and redevelopment along with the intensification of development within the City, existing structures may need to be demolished prior to the construction of new buildings. Demolition of existing structures in the City could result in exposure of construction personnel and the public to hazardous substances such as asbestos or lead -based paints. In addition, the disturbance of soils and the demolition of existing structures could result in the exposure of construction workers or employees to health or safety risks if contaminated structures and/or soils are encountered during construction or maintenance activities. Exposure to contaminated structures or soil could occur from any of the following. ■ Possible asbestos -containing materials and lead -based paints associated with the existing on -site structures, pipes, and/or debris ■ Unknown contaminants that have not previously been identified Exposure to hazardous materials during construction activities could occur through any of the following: ■ Direct dermal contact with hazardous materials ■ Incidental ingestion of hazardous materials (usually due to improper hygiene, when workers fail to wash their hands before eating, drinking, or smoking) ■ Inhalation of airborne dust released from dried hazardous materials While specific development projects are not associated with approval of the proposed General Plan Update, it is assumed that older buildings could be demolished as uses are redeveloped according to the land use plan. With that activity, construction workers and nearby residents and/or workers could potentially be exposed to airborne lead -based paint dust, asbestos fibers, and/or other contaminants. In addition, there is the possibility that future development may also uncover previously undiscovered soil contamination as well as result in the release of potential contaminants that may be present in building materials (e.g., mold, lead, etc.). This could result in a significant impact. However, compliance with 1 City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 4.6-19 Chapter 4 Environmental Analysis existing regulations and proposed General Plan Update policies would reduce impacts to less than sig iEcanG Lead and Asbestos Federal and State regulations govern the renovation and demolition of structures where materials containing lead and asbestos are present. These requirements include: SCAQMD Rules and Regulations pertaining to asbestos abatement (including Rule 1403), Construction Safety Orders 1529 (pertaining to asbestos) and 1532.1 (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 (HUD). Asbestos and lead abatement must be performed and monitored by contractors with appropriate certifications from the State Department of Health Services. In addition, Cal/OSHA has regulations concerning the use of hazardous materials, including requirements for safety training, availability of safety equipment, hazardous materials exposure warnings, and emergency action and fire prevention plan preparation. Cal/OSHA enforces the hazard communication program regulations, which include provisions for identifying and labeling hazardous materials, describing the hazards of chemicals, and documenting employee -training programs. All demolition that could result in the release of lead and/or asbestos must be conducted according to Cal/OSHA standards. Adherence to existing regulations, which require appropriate testing and abatement actions for hazardous materials, would ensure that impacts are less than significant. Soil and Groundwater Contamination Unknown Contaminated Sites Aside from the potential release of hazardous materials from demolition of existing structures within the City, grading and excavation of sites for future development in the City resulting from implementation of the proposed General Plan Update may also expose construction workers and the public to potentially unknown hazardous substances present in the soil or groundwater. If any unidentified sources of contamination are encountered during grading or excavation, the removal activities required could pose health and safety risks such as the exposure of workers, materials handling personnel, and the public to hazardous materials or vapors. Such contamination could cause various short-term or long-term adverse health effects in persons exposed to the hazardous substances. In addition, exposure to contaminants could occur if the contaminants migrated from the contaminated zone to surrounding areas either before or after the surrounding areas were developed, or if contaminated zones were disturbed by future development at the contaminated location. If exposed to hazardous substances, this would result in a significant hazard to the public. In order to address the potential for encountering unidentified contamination within the City, Policy S 7.4 of the proposed General Plan Update Safety Element would minimize the potential risk of contamination to surface water and groundwater resources by implementing remediation efforts to any resources adversely impacted by urban activities. As such, the potential impacts associated with unknown contamination would be reduced to a less-than-signMcantl evel. 4.6-20 City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 4.6 Hazards and Hazardous Materials Existing Contaminated Sites Another potential hazard to construction workers and the public could involve construction activities on existing land uses that may potentially be contaminated. Existing sites that may potentially contain hazardous land uses in the City include oil fields, landfills, and large and small -quantity generators of hazardous waste. As discussed previously, there are also two identified sites within the City that are listed in the CERCLIS database. There are eight large -quantity and approximately 87 small -quantity generators of hazardous materials in the City. There are two active sites that are known to release toxic chemicals into the air — the EPA monitors these facilities closely to reduce the potential of future emissions at concentrations above the acceptable limits. The two other significant hazardous materials sites are located at or near the City's boundaries. Existing hazardous sites associated with oil and gas districts within the City are discussed below in Impact 4.6-4. These sites represent potential health hazards, and have experienced contamination from the release of hazardous substances into the soil. However, any new development occurring on these documented hazardous materials sites would have to be preceded by remediation and cleanup under the supervision of the State Department of Toxic Substance Control (DTSC) before construction activities could begin. Additionally, it is also possible that old underground storage tanks (USTs) that were in use prior to permitting and record keeping requirements may be present in the City. If an unidentified UST were uncovered or disturbed during construction activities, it would be closed in place or removed. Removal activities could pose both health and safety risks, such as the exposure of workers, tank handling personnel, and the public to tank contents or vapors. Potential risks, if any, posed by USTs would be minimized by managing the tank according to existing Orange County standards as enforced and monitored by the Department of Environmental Health. The extent to which groundwater may be affected, if at all, depends on the type of contaminant, the amount released, and depth to groundwater at the time of the release. If groundwater contamination is identified, remediation activities would be required by the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board (SARWQCB) prior to the commencement of any new construction activities. Policy S 7.1 in the Safety Element of the proposed General Plan Update would require proponents of projects in known areas of contamination from oil operations or other uses to perform comprehensive soil and groundwater contamination assessments in accordance with American Society for Testing and Materials standards, and if contamination exceeds regulatory action levels, require the proponent to undertake remediation procedures prior to grading and development under the supervision of the County Environmental Health Division, County Department of Toxic Substances Control, or Regional Water Quality Control Board (depending upon the nature of any identified contamination). Therefore, with implementation of existing State and local regulations as well as General Plan Policy S 7.1, impacts associated with known contamination at sites within the City would be Jess than signifcant. Summary Compliance with existing regulations and proposed General Plan Update policies would ensure that construction workers and the general public would not be exposed to any unusual or excessive -risks related to hazardous materials during construction activities. As such, impacts associated with the City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 4.6-21 exposure of construction workers and the public to hazardous materials during construction activities would be less than significant. Threshold Would the project 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 envtronment2 Impact 4.6-3 Operation of future land uses that could be developed under the proposed project could create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment. The precise potential future increase in the amount of hazardous materials transported within the Newport Beach area as a result of implementation of the proposed General Plan Update cannot be predicted because specific development projects axe not specified in the General Plan Update. The following discussion focuses on the potential nature and magnitude of risks associated with the accidental release of hazardous materials often used during operations of typical retail -commercial development projects. Off -Site Transportation of Hazardous Materials The United States Department of Transportation (USDOT) Office of Hazardous Materials Safety prescribes strict regulations for the safe transportation of hazardous materials, as described in Title 49 of the Code of Federal Reguladons, and implemented by Title 13 of the CCR. The transportation of hazardous materials can result in accidental spills, leaks, toxic releases, fire, or explosion. It is possible that licensed vendors could bring some hazardous materials to and from new retail -commercial sites in the Newport Beach area as a result of the projects constructed pursuant to the proposed General Plan Update. However, appropriate documentation for all hazardous waste that is transported in connection with specific project -site activities would be provided as required for compliance with existing hazardous materials regulations codified in Tides 8, 22, and 26 of the California Code of Regulations, and their enabling legislation set forth in Chapter 6.95 of the Ca%fonda Health and Safety Code. In addition, specific project -site developers shall comply with all applicable Federal, State, and local laws and regulations pertaining to the transport, use, disposal, handling, and storage of hazardous waste, including but not limited to, Tide 49 of the Code ofFedowl Regulations. Compliance with all applicable Federal and State laws related to the transportation of hazardous materials, would reduce the likelihood and severity of accidents during transit, thereby ensuring that a less-than-sign0cantimpact would occur. No mitigation is required. Hazardous Materials Storage Hazardous materials are required to be stored in designated areas designed to prevent accidental release to the environment. Calififonda Bailding Code (CBC) requirements prescribe safe accommodations for materials that present a moderate explosion hazard, high fire or physical hazard, or health hazards. 4.6.22 City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 4.6 Hazards and Hazardous Materials PI 1 u Compliance with all applicable Federal and State laws related to the storage of hazardous materials would be implemented to maximize containment (through safe handling and storage practices described above) and to provide for prompt and effective clean-up if an accidental release occurs, thereby ensuring that a less-than-signiiicantimpact would occur. No mitigation is required. Hazardous Materials Use Hazardous materials use would present a slightly greater risk of accident than hazardous materials storage. However, for those employees who would work with hazardous materials, the amount of hazardous materials that are handled at any one time are generally relatively small, reducing the potential consequences of an accident during handling. Further, specific project -site activities would be required to comply with Federal and State laws to eliminate or reduce the consequence of hazardous materials accidents. For example, employees who would work around hazardous materials would be required to wear appropriate protective equipment, and safety equipment is routinely available in all areas where hazardous materials are used. The Orange County Fire Authority Hazardous Materials Section personnel responds to hazardous materials incidents. Major hazardous materials accidents associated with retail -commercial uses are extremely infrequent, and additional emergency response capabilities are not anticipated to be necessary to respond to the potential incremental increase in the number of incidents that could result from implementation of the proposed project. Further, adherence to applicable regulations as discussed above would be required to reduce any potential consequences of a hazardous materials operational accident. Thus, impacts related to the use of hazardous materials would be less than significant. Summary Compliance with Titles 8, 22, 26, and 49 of the California Code of Regulations, and their enabling legislation set forth in Chapter 6.95 of the Califonda Health and Safety Code, would ensure that this impact is less than significant by requiring compliance with applicable laws and regulations that would reduce the risk of hazardous materials use, transportation, and handling through the implementation of established safety practices, procedures, and reporting requirements. No mitigation is required. Threshold Would the project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? Impact 4.6-4 Implementation of the proposed General Plan Update could result in a safety hazard as a result of existing oil wells or methane gas areas within the City. Oil and gas seeps are common occurrences in many parts of California. Presently, there are two oil fields located in the Planning Area: Newport Oil Field, located in the western portion of the Planning Area, and West Newport Oil Field, located to the west of Newport Oil Field in the City's SOI. The City also recognizes five identified methane gas mitigation districts where gas can be encountered at the surface, or in the shallow subsurface. Man-made structures, such as pavement or building foundations can prevent City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 4.6.23 Chapter 4 Environmental Analysts gas from venting to the atmosphere. Methane can accumulate in the upper reaches of poorly ventilated building components, such as basements, crawl -spaces, and attics, sometimes with catastrophic results. Given the potential for combustible gases to accumulate in or under buildings or structures in these areas, the City of Newport Beach has established guidelines to reduce the hazard posed by these gases. The objective of these guidelines is to prevent gases from accumulating to potentially hazardous concentrations. Although the West Newport Oil Field is notlocated within or next to a methane gas mitigation district, if and when this field is developed for residential uses or other purposes, methane gas associated with the oil wells and any oil -stained soils may be encountered. The Orange County Fire Authority (OCFA) has guidelines regarding mitigation of gas leakage from abandoned wells, and mitigation procedures for buildings located near abandoned wells. The California Division of Oil, Gas and Geothermal Resources (DOGGR), as well as the OCFA, does not approve of placing buildings directly on top of an abandoned well. All methane reports, work plans, mitigation plans, and monitoring plans are subject to the review and approval of the City of Newport Beach. An independent third party review could be required at the discretion of the City. Policy S 7.2 of the proposed General Plan Update also would ensure that any development within identified methane gas districts be designed for consistency with the requirements of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. Under the proposed General Plan Update, future growth and development could occur in the City's methane gas districts. Thus, the potential for possible leakage to occur in the existing active oil wells exists, in which case soils adjacent to these oil wells could become contaminated. However, soil contamination resulting from existing active oil wells could also spread from the contaminated zone to surrounding areas either before or after the surrounding areas are developed. As such, workers may be exposed to contaminated soil during construction operations for new development. Additionally, there is the potential for existing active oil wells to experience blowouts, where an uncontrolled discharge of gas, liquid, solids, or a mixture thereof occurs from a well into the atmosphere. Although the potential exists for new development within the City to be subject to health and/or safety hazards associated with existing oil wells and methane gas, any future development associated in the identified areas of the City would be subject to the provisions of Chapter 9.04.170 of the City's Fire Code, which regulates the development on or near land containing or emitting toxic, combustible or flammable liquids, gases, or vapors. In addition, Policy S 7.2 of the proposed General Plan Update would ensure that any development within identified methane gas districts be designed consistent with the Newport Beach Municipal Code. Therefore, adherence to Policy S 7.2 of the proposed General Plan Update and provisions of the City's Municipal Code would ensure that potential health and/or safety hazards associated with oil wells and methane gas in the City would be minimized. Thus, this impact would be less than signif cant. 4.6-24 City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR I 4.6 Hazards and Hazardous Materials Threshold Would the project emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one -quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? Impact 4.6-5 Implementation of the proposed General Plan Update could emit hazardous emissions or handle acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one -quarter mile of an existing or proposed school. Under the proposed General Plan Update, the increase of residential and mixed -use land uses, as well as the potential increase in commercial uses, could increase the quantity of sensitive receptors (including schools) in areas adjacent to industrial and commercial land uses, thereby potentially increasing the risk of exposure to hazardous materials, waste, or emissions. Consequently, hazardous materials sites may located within 1/4-mile from school sites. However, overall city-wide industrial land uses would decrease in the City. Since the proposed General Plan Update does not include any specific development projects, the quantity of hazardous materials used by the existing and proposed commercial and industrial developments within the City is currently unknown. Accidental release or combustion of hazardous materials at new commercial and/or industrial developments in the City could endanger residents or students in the surrounding community. As discussed in the TBR prepared for the General Plan Update, the City of Newport Beach has approximately nineteen schools. Two schools are located within approximately one mile of an existing hazardous materials site in the northwest portion of the City. One existing TRI site (Hixson Metal Finishing) is of greatest concern, since emissions into the air have the potential to impact a large geographical area. If any of the chemicals used at this facility is toxic when released into the atmosphere, evacuation of the surrounding area may be required. The TRI for the Hixson Metal Finishing facility reports the use of tetrachloroethylene (PERC). This is a manufactured chemical that is widely used in the dry-cleaning industry, for metal degreasing, and in the manufacturing of other chemicals and consumer products. In a poorly ventilated area, release of this chemical onto the air can pose a health hazard, but when released into a ventilated area, such as the surrounding neighborhood, the chemical is broken down by sunlight, or brought back to the soil and water by rain, greatly reducing its health hazard. A greater concern was posed by the chlorine gas used at Big Canyon Reservoir, especially given that there are three schools located very close to the reservoir. However, the potential impact to the surrounding community was greatly reduced in 2004 when the reservoir was covered, and liquid chlorine, instead of chlorine gas, is now used as the water disinfectant. Liquid chlorine is also used at San Joaquin Reservoir, utilized by the Irvine Ranch Water District as a reclaimed water storage facility. There are two schools located near this facility. Although hazardous materials and waste generated from future development may pose a health risk to nearby schools, all businesses that handle or have on -site transportation of hazardous materials would be required to comply with the provisions of the City's Fire Code and any additional elements as required in the California Health and Safety Code Article 1 Chapter 6.95 for Business Emergency Plan. As described in Impact 4.6-1 above, both the Federal and State governments require all businesses that handle more I City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 4.6-25 Chapter 4 Environmental Analysis than a specified amount of hazardous materials to submit a business plan to a regulating agency. The City's Safety Element of the proposed General Plan Update includes Policy S 7.5, which requires that strict land use controls, performance standards, and structure design standards, including development setbacks from sensitive uses such as schools, hospitals, day care facilities, elder care facilities, residential uses, and other sensitive uses, be developed and implemented for uses which generate or use hazardous materials. As such, compliance with the provisions of the City's Fire Code and implementation of Policy S 7.5 in the Safety Element of the proposed General Plan Update would minimize the risks associated with the exposure of sensitive receptors to hazardous materials, This impact would be less than significant. Threshold Would the project be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? Impact 4.6-6 The proposed General Plan Update includes sites which are included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and as a result, could create a significant hazard to the public or the environment. As discussed under Existing Conditions and Impact 4.6-2 above, the City contains sites that have been identified as being contaminated from the release of hazardous substances in the soil, including oil fields, landfills, sites containing leaking underground storage tanks, and large and small quantity generators of hazardous waste. Implementation of the proposed General Plan Update could lead to development of these sites that could create a significant hazard to the public or environment. However, as further discussed under Impact 4.6.2, development of these sites would be required to undergo remediation and cleanup under DISC and the SARWQCB before construction activities can begin, If contamination at any specific project are were to exceed regulatory action levels, the proponent would be required to undertake remediation procedures prior to grading and development under the supervision of the County Environmental Health Division, County Department of Toxic Substances Control, or Regional Water Quality Control Board (depending upon the nature of any identified contamination). Furthermore, implementation of proposed Policy S 7.1, which requires proponents of projects in known areas of contamination from oil operations or other uses to perform comprehensive soil and groundwater contamination assessments in accordanc6 with American Society for Testing and Materials standards, would reduce potential impacts to a less-than-signiiicantlevel. 4.6-26 City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR I 4.6 Hazards and Hazardous Materials I I LEI t t �J I I 11 Threshold For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? Impact 4.6-7 Implementation of the proposed General Plan Update could result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the Planning Area as a result of the proximity of a public airport. Newport Beach borders the southeastern portion of John Wayne Airport GWA). In addition, the City lies beneath the arrival traffic pattern of Long Beach Airport. Between the two airports, JWA generates nearly all aviation traffic directly above the City of Newport Beach because the descent pattern for Long Beach air traffic generally takes place over the ocean rather than over the City. According to the City's Emergency Management Plan, the highest probability of an air crash incident would occur between two light aircraft or helicopters in a mid -air crash. The probability of this type of an air crash is higher along the coast because of training flights, sight seeing, and banner towing taking place over the beach area. Such an incident would result in moderate ground damage. A worst case scenario would be a mid -air collision, at night, between two commercial airliners over a densely populated area of the City. Although accidents with one or more fatalities involving commercial aircraft are rare events, the potential growth and development that could occur through implementation of the proposed General Plan Update could place people at risk for an aviation hazard. Three areas found to be of increased vulnerability to aviation hazards in the City are Balboa Peninsula, Balboa Island, and Upper Newport Bay. Balboa Island's access and egress is limited to a small bridge. Many of the two-story buildings, including shops, small restaurants, and residences, are wood -frame structures, and very close to one another. In the event of a fire caused by an aviation accident, it could spread quickly. The only fire station located on Balboa Island, No. 4, might either be impacted by the incident or suffer a response time hampered by traffic congestion, residents evacuating the area, debris, and narrow streets. With implementation of the proposed General Plan Update, increased growth in the City may further impact the ability of fire facilities to maintain response times in the event of an aviation disaster. The same problem of limited access may hinder reinforcements by other fire and rescue services. An aviation accident in Upper Newport Bay could create a significant ecological and economic hazard to the environment. The City of Newport Beach contains more than 9,000 registered boats which could be dramatically affected by an aviation accident on the Bay, considerably impacting the recreational value of the City. An aviation accident could also significantly pollute the waterways, which would indirectly impact the health and safety of people in the City. In the event of an aviation hazard, pilots are instructed to follow Newport Bay away from residential or developed area. Any potential impact will be significantly reduced by fast, coordinated, and skilled response operations of all available emergency services. In the event of an aviation hazard, Mutual Aid would most likely be required for law enforcement, coroner, fire suppression, and medical operations. In addition, JWA is protected by an on -site airport fire service as required by the Federal Aviation City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 4.6-27 Chapter 4 Environmental Analysis Administration (FAA) regulations. This service is provided by Orange County Fire Station No. 33, which is staffed 24 hours a day, seven days a week, with a minimum of seven firefighters at any given time. Implementation of the proposed General Plan Update would result in maintenance and limited expansion of the currently developed mix of uses within the Airport Area, in the vicinity of JWA, including office, airport -supporting retail and industrial, hotel, and public uses (as defined by the existing General Plan). Additionally, implementation of the proposed General Plan Update provides the opportunity for the development of new residential neighborhoods. The operation of JWA could represent a potential hazard to future employees and residents within tlils area. However, all land uses surrounding JWA would be required to comply and be compatible with the land use standards established in the City's Municipal Code and the Airport Land Use Commission's (ALUC) JWA "Airport Environs Land Use Plan" (AELUP). According to the City's Municipal Code (Tide 20, Section 20.44.025), projects widen the project area pertinent to the AELUP shall be referred to ALUC until such time as the City becomes a "Conforming Local Agency" as defined by ALUC. The northern inland portions of the City extending south just past Fashion Island, are included within the AELUP's height restriction zone for JWA. The City's Emergency Management Plan also establishes safety procedures with respect to aviation hazards to promote the safety of persons on the ground while reducing the risks of serious harm to aircraft crews and passengers that may need to make emergency landings in the immediate airport vicinity. The AELUP vicinity height guidelines would protect public safety, health, and welfare by ensuring that aircraft could fly safely in the airspace around the airport. In addition to existing regulations, the proposed General Plan 'Update identifies a goal to protect residents, property, and the environment from aviation -related hazards, and lists policies S 8.1 though S 8.4 to ensure preparation and minimize risk in the case of an aviation accident. For example, Policies S 8.1 and S 8.2 would require aircraft rescue firefighting training programs as well as awareness training for emergency personnel on a regular basis. Policy S 8.3 would implement policies outlined in the Orange County Fire Services Operational Area Mutual Aid Plan and the California Fire Service and Rescue Emergency Mutual Aid Plan. In addition, the California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook would also be utilized in the preparation of environmental documents for all new development projects located within the AELUP boundaries. The Handbook establishes statewide requirements for the conduct of airport land use compatibility planning, and provides compatibility planning guidance to ALUCs, their staffs and consultants, the counties and cities having jurisdiction over airport area land uses, and airport proprietors. LU Policy 6.15.24 requires that all development be constructed within the height limits and residential be located outside of areas exposed to the 65 dBA CNEL noise contour specified by the AELUP, unless the City Council makes appropriate findings for an override in accordance with applicable law. As such, the possibility exists for residential development to occur within the 65 dBA CNEL noise contour. Thus, if residential development is constructed within the 65 dBA CNEL noise contour, the potential increase for safety hazards associated with the airport would be significant. 4.6.28 City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 4.6 Hazards and Hazardous Materials However, where new development occurs outside of the 65 dBA CNEL noise contour, compliance with existing regulations, the proposed General Plan Update policies, and utilization of the California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook for new development within JWA land use boundaries would minimize impacts associated with operation of the JWA on surrounding land uses. Impacts on new uses outside of the 65 dBA CNEL noise contour would, therefore, be less than sigmacant. Threshold Would the project impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? Impact 4.6-8 Implementation of the proposed General Plan Update could result in interference with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. With additional growth in the City's population that could result from implementation of the proposed General Plan Update, traffic conditions could become more congested. In the event of an accident or natural disaster, the increase in traffic in the City may impede the rate of evacuation for the residents. Concurrently, the response times for emergency medical or containment services could also be adversely affected by the increased traffic conditions in the City. The NBFD Emergency Services Office published the City of Newport Beach Emergency Management Plan in 2004. The Emergency Management Plan provides guidance for the City of Newport Beach's response to extraordinary emergency situations associated with natural disasters, technological incidents, and nuclear defense operations in both war and peacetime. The plan concentrates on management concepts and response procedures relative to large-scale disasters. Such disasters pose major threats to life, the environment and property, and can impact the well being of a large number of people. The Basic Plan is updated every three years. In addition, the Newport Beach City Manager, with assistance from the NBFD, is responsible for ensuring necessary changes and revisions to this plan are prepared, coordinated, published, and distributed. In addition, the proposed General Plan Update Safety Element also contains Policies S 9.1, S 9.2, and S 9.3 to ensure that the City's Emergency Management Plan is regularly updated, provides for efficient and orderly citywide evacuation, and also ensures that emergency services personnel are familiar with the relevant response plans applicable to the City. Further, Policy S 9.5 of the Safety Plan calls for the distribution of information about emergency planning to community groups, schools, religious institutions, business associations, and residents. Implementation of these policies would reduce impacts associated with emergency response and evacuation in the City to a less-than-signiffcantlevel. City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 4.6-29 Chapter 4 Environmental Analysis Threshold Would the project 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? Impact 4.6-9 Implementation of the proposed General Plan Update could result in development in urbanized areas adjacent to or intermixed with wildlands. Implementation of the General Plan could lead to an increase in residential or commercial development in areas that are susceptible to wildland fires. In those susceptible areas, particularly in the eastern portions of the City, as well as surrounding areas to the north, east, and southeast, land development is governed by special State and local codes, and property owners are required to follow maintenance guidelines aimed at reducing the amount and continuity of the fuel (vegetation) available. The City also maintains hazard reduction standards which regulate landscaping, firewood storage, debris clearing from rooftops, and other fire hazard reduction techniques. In addition, Policies S 6.1 through S 6.9 of the City's proposed Safety Element of the General Plan Update are directly related to reducing the threat of fire hazards within the City. For example, Policy S 6.2 would implement hazard reduction, fuel modification, and other methods to reduce wildfire hazards, while Policy S 6.4 entails the use of fire -resistive, native plant species in fuel modification zones abutting sensitive habitats. Policy S 6.8 would continue to regularly update building and fire codes to provide for fire safety and design, and Policy S 6.9 encourages owners of non-sprinklered properties, especially high - and mid -rise structures, to retrofit their buildings and include internal fire sprinklers. With the implementation of the existing hazard reduction standards as well as the fire hazard policies of the Safety Element, this impact would be less than significant, ■ Cumulative Impacts Impacts associated with hazardous materials are often site -specific and localized. However, for purposes of this cumulative analysis, the geographic context for cumulative hazards impacts would be the Planning Area (encompassing the City and SOI). Since the proposed General Plan Update takes into account all projected future growth and development within the Planning Area, the impacts that are discussed in this section pertaining to hazardous materials also analyze all cumulative impacts within the Planning Area. As such, compliance with all applicable Federal, State, and local regulations related to hazardous materials on a project -by -project basis would ensure that the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials would not result in adverse impacts. All demolition activities in the Planning Area that would involve asbestos or lead based paint would also occur in compliance with SCAQMM Rule 1403 and OSHA Construction Safety Orders, which would ensure that hazardous materials impacts would be less than significant. Additionally, site - specific investigations would be conducted at sites where contaminated soils or groundwater could occur to minimize the exposure of workers and the public to hazardous substances. With adherence to applicable Federal, State, and 'local regulations governing hazardous materials and compliance with the proposed General Plan Update policies indicated below, the potential risks associated with hazardous 0 I I 1 I 4.6-30 City of Newport Beach,General Plan Update EIR 4.6 Hazards and HazardousMaterials II II wastes in the Planning Area would be less than signifcant. As such, cumulative impacts would be less than significant. ® Proposed General Plan Update Policies Airport Compatibility ' Goal LU 6.15 A mixed -use community that provides jobs, residential, and supporting services in close proximity, with pedestrian -oriented amenities that facilitates walking and enhance livability. ' LU 6.15.24 Airport Compatibility ' Require that all development be constructed within the height limits and residential be located outside of areas exposed to the 65 dBA CNEL noise contour specified by the Airport Environs Land Use Plan (AELUP), unless the ' City Council makes appropriate findings for an override in accordance with applicable law. ' Safety Element The Safety Element of the proposed General Plan Update includes policies that would address issues ' related to Hazards and Hazardous Materials. The policies that are applicable to the project are included below. ' Fire Hazards Goal S 6 Protection of human life and property from the risks of wildfires and urban fires. tPolicy S 6.1 Review Adequacy of Infrastructure II 1 II II II Review the adequacy of the water storage capacity and distribution network, in the event of a natural disaster, on a regular basis. Policy S 6.2 Development in Interface Areas Apply hazard reduction, fuel modification, and other methods to reduce wildfire hazards to existing and new development in urban wildland interface areas. Policy S 6.3 New Development Design Site and design new development to avoid the need to extend fuel modification zones into sensitive habitats. ' City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 4.6.31 Chapter 4 Environmental Analysts Policy S 6.4 Use of City -Approved Plant List Use fire -resistive, native plant species from the City -approved plant list in fuel modification zones abutting sensitive habitats. Policy S 6.5 Invasive Ornamental Plant Species Prohibit invasive ornamental plant species in fuel modification zones abutting sensitive habitats. Policy S 6.6 Database Maintenance of Interface Areas Continue to maintain a database of parcels in urban wildland interface areas. Policy S 6.7 Properties within Interface Ateas Continue regular inspections of parcels in the urban wildland interface areas and direct property owners to bring their property into compliance with fire inspection standards. Policy S 6.8 Update Building and Fire Codes Continue to regularly update building and fire codes to provide for fire safety design. Policy S 6.9 Retrofitting of Nonsprinldered Buildings Encourage owners of nonsprinldered properties, especially high- and mid -rise structures, to retrofit their buildings and include internal fire sprinklers. Hazardous' Materials Goal S 7 Exposure of people and the environment to hazardous materials associated with methane gas extraction, oil operations, leaking underground storage tanks, and hazardous waste generators is minimized. Policy S 7.1 Known Areas of Contamination Require proponents of projects in known areas of contamination from oil operations or other uses to perform comprehensive soil and groundwater contamination assessments in accordance with American Society for Testing and Materials standards, and if contamination exceeds regulatory action levels, require the proponent to undertake remediation procedures prior to grading and development under the supervision of the County Environmental Health Division, County Department of Toxic Substances Control, or Regional Water Quality Control Board (depending upon the nature of any identified contamination). 4.6.32 City of Newport Beach General Pion Update EIR 4.6 Hazards and Hazardous Materials I II Policy S 7.2 Development Design within Methane Gas Districts Ensure that any development within identified methane gas districts be designed consistent with the requirements of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. ' Policy S 7.3 Education Educate residents and businesses about how to reduce or eliminate the use of ' hazardous materials, including using safer non -toxic equivalents. Policy S 7.4 Implementation of Remediation Efforts Minimize the potential risk of contamination to surface water and groundwater resources and implement remediation efforts to any resources adversely ' impacted by urban activities. Policy S 7.5 Siting of Sensitive Uses ' Develop and implement strict land use controls, performance standards, and structure design standards including development setbacks from sensitive uses ' such as schools, hospitals, day care facilities, elder care facilities, residential uses, and other sensitive uses that generate or use hazardous materials. ' Policy S 7.6 Regulation of Companies Involved with Hazardous Materials Require all users, producers, and transporters of hazardous materials and wastes to clearly identify the materials that they store, use, or transport, and to ' notify the appropriate City, County, State and Federal agencies in the event of a violation. ' Aviation Hazards Goal S 8 Residents, property, and the environment are protected from aviation -related ' hazards. ' Policy S 8.1 Firefighter Training Program Provide a formalized Aircraft Rescue Fire Fighting training program (including airport and aircraft familiarization, fuel fire extinguishment, hazards associated ' with airplanes and aircraft cargo, safety procedure, aviation communications, evacuation, and rescue operations) for all firefighters and Chief Fire Officers in Newport Beach. ' Policy S 8.2 Emergency Personnel Awareness Training Provide Aircraft Rescue Fire Fighting awareness training for all Newport ' Beach emergency personnel on a regular basis. II ' City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 4.6.33 Policy S 8.3 Policy S 8.4 Disaster Planning Implementation of Interagency Policies Implement policies outlined in the Orange County Fire Services Operational Area Mutual Aid Plan, and the California Fire Service and Rescue Emergency Mutual Aid Plan. Mutual Aid Agreements Develop clear mutual aid agreements and Memoranda of Understanding with the airport fire service, county emergency and law enforcement agencies, United States Coast Guard, private ferry providers, and other potential resources. Goal S 9 Effective emergency response to natural or human -induced disasters that minimizes the loss of life and damage to property, while also reducing disruptions in the delivery of vital public and private services during and following a disaster. Policy S 9.1 Review and Update Emergency Plans Review and update, as necessary, the City's Emergency Management Plan on an annual basis. Policy S 9.2 Emergency Management System Training Conduct annual training sessions using adopted emergency management systems. Coordinate with other urban area jurisdictions to execute a variety of exercises to test operational and emergency plans. Policy S 9.3 Participation in Mutual Aid Systems Maintain participation in local, regional, state and national mutual aid systems to ensure appropriate resources are available for response and recovery during and following a disaster. Policy S 9.4 Familiarity with National and State Response Plans Ensure that all Newport Beach personnel are familiar with the National Incident Management System, the National Response Plan, the State of California Master Mutual Aid Agreement, the Orange County Operational Area Mutual Aid Plan, and any other relevant response plans consistent with their position in the City's Emergency Management Plan. Policy S 9.5 Emergency and Disaster Education Programs Sponsor and support education programs pertaining to emergency/disaster preparedness and response protocols and procedures. Distribute information about emergency preparedness to community groups, schools, religious institutions, transient occupancy establishments, and business associations. 4,6-34 City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 4.6 Hazards and Hazardous Materials ' Policy S 9.6 Hazard Mitigation Plan Develop and maintain a hazard mitigation plan that advocates the use of programs and projects that, when implemented, will reduce the impacts on the community from a natural or human -induced disaster. ' Policy S 9.7 Existing Development within 100-year Flood Zones Implement flood warning systems and evacuation plans for areas that are ' already developed within 100-year flood zones. Policy S 9.8 Emergency Use of Coastal Facilities Establish procedures and public/private cooperation and communication for the emergency use of coastal facilities and equipment in advance of flood, ' storm, pollution, dredging, vessel sinking, and other events, supplementing other safety and rescue bases and equipment. ' ■ Impacts and Mitigation Measures No mitigation measures are necessary, as the proposed General Plan Update policies fully mitigate the ' impacts. However, if residential development occurs within the 65 dBA CNEL noise contour in the Airport Area, no mitigation measures would be feasible to reduce impacts. ' Level of Significance After Policies/Mitigation Measures ' The majority of impacts associated with hazards and hazardous materials within the Planning Area would be less than signXicant upon implementation of the identified proposed General Plan Update policies. However, if residential development occurs within the 65 dBA CNEL noise contour in the Airport Area, ' this would present a significant and unavoidable impact. ' 4.6.6 References Earth Consultants International. 2003. HmvrdsAssessmentStudy, City ofNervportBeach, Califonria. ' EIP Associates. 2004. General Plan Update Technical Background Report. Newport Beach, City of. 2004. Emergency Management Plan, 2004. http://Nvww.city.newport- ' beach.ca.us/EmergManagementPlan/BasicPlanl.pdf ' City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 4.6.35 4.7 Hydrology and Water Quality 1 4.7 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY 4.7.1 Introduction This section evaluates the impacts of the proposed General Plan Update associated with hydrology and water quality within the City of Newport Beach. Existing data sources used to prepare this section were taken from California Department of Water Resources (DWR), California's Groundwater —Bulletin 118, 2004, City of Corona, Technical Background Report 2003, Irvine Ranch Water District (IRWD), Annual Water Quality Report, 2005, City of Newport Beach, Draft Local Coastal Program, Coastal Land Use Plan 2005, City of Newport Beach, Draft Local Coastal Program, Hazards Assessment Study, July 2003, City of Newport Beach, Draft Local Coastal Program, Storm Drain Master Plan, July 2000, City of Newport Beach, Draft Local Coastal Program, Tednical Background Report, June 2004, Orange County Health Care Agency Environmental Health (HCA), 2002 Annual Ocean and Bay Water Quality Report, June 2003, Orange County Water District (OCWD), Groundwater Replenishment System: http://www.gwrsystem.com. Accessed February 28, 2006, OCWD, Groundwater Management Plan. March, 2004, Orange County Watershed & Coastal Resources Division (OCWCRD), Newport Bay Watershed, http://www.ocwatersheds.com/watersheds/newportbay_intro.asp, accessed December 16, 2005, Orange County Watershed & Coastal Resources Division (OCWCRD), Newport Coast Watershed, http://ww-,v.ocwatersheds.com/watersheds/newportcoast.asp, accessed December 16, 2005, Orange County Watershed & Coastal Resources Division (OCWCRD), Regional Board Boundaries, http://www.ocwatersheds.com/watersheds/intro_yegionaLjurisdictions.asp, accessed December 22, 2005, Orange County Watershed & Coastal Resources Division (OCWCRD), San Diego Creek Watershed, http://www.ocwatersheds.com/watersheds/sandiegocreek.asp, accessed December 16, 2005, Orange County Watershed & Coastal. Resources Division (OCWCRD), Talbert Watershed, http://wunv.ocwatersheds.com/watersheds/talbert.asp, accessed December 16, 2005, and Fong Tse, City of Newport Beach Public Works Department, Personal. communication, January 14, 2005. During the Initial Study process, it was determined that the proposed project could have potentially significant impacts related to nine of the ten CEQA criteria for determining significance. It was also determined during the Initial Study process that impacts related to violation of water quality standards or ' waste discharge requirements would be less than significant. However, all CEQA criteria were analyzed in this Draft EIR. Full bibliographic entries for all reference materials are provided in Section 4.7.6 (References) of this section. ' One comment letter associated with hydrology and water quality was received in response to the IS/NOP circulated for the General Plan Update. The Environmental Quality Affairs Citizens Advisory ' Committee for the City of Newport Beach requested that the DEIR include an analysis of all potential impacts on water quality within the Planning Area. Section 4.7.5 (Project Impacts, Mitigation Measures, and Proposed Policies) provides such an analysis. '' I1 ' City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 4.7-1 4.7.2 Existing Conditions ■ Watersheds The Planning Area is located within the boundaries of four watersheds, each of which contain an interconnected system of surface water resources that feed into the underlying groundwater or drain into the ocean. The main tributaries and groundwater resources located within the Planning Area are discussed in detail below. The watersheds within the Planning Area are the Newport Bay, Newport Coast, Talbert, and San Diego Creek Watersheds. Both the Newport Bay and Newport Coast Watersheds cover most of the Planning Area, with the remaining smaller portions covered by the Talbert and San Diego Creek Watersheds. The watersheds are further described below: ■ The Newport Bay Watershed covers 13.2 square miles along the coast of central Orange County. This watershed encompasses most of the western portion of the Planning Area in addition to the eastern portion of Costa Mesa. The East Costa Mesa, Santa Isabel, and other smaller channels of this watershed drain into Newport Bay. ■ The Newport Coast Watershed covers 11.2 square miles, chiefly the Newport Coast area in the City north of Laguna Beach. Buck Gully, Los Trancos, and Muddy Creek, which are the main tributaries of this watershed, drain the SanJoaquin Hills. ■ The Talbert Watershed, which encompasses a small northwestern portion of the Planning Area in the vicinity of the Banning Ranch area, covers 21.4 square miles straddling the mouth of the Santa Ana River, and has two main tributaries that drain into it.4p On the western side, the Talbert and Huntington Beach Channels drain through the Talbert Marsh before emptying into the Pacific Ocean. On the eastern side, the Greenville -Banning Channel empties into the Santa Ana River., The Santa Ana River currently outlets into the Pacific Ocean neat West Newport. ■ The San Diego Creek Watershed, which encompasses the northern portion of the Planning Area, covers 112.2 square miles in central Orange County, with its main tributary, San Diego Creek, draining into Upper Newport Bay." Smaller tributaries of this watershed include Serrano Creek, Borrego Canyon Wash, Agua Chinon Wash, Bee Canyon Wash, Peters Canyon Wash, Sand Canyon Wash, Bonita Canyon Creek, and the Santa Ana Delhi Channel. Climate in the Planning Area is Mediterranean, characterized by warm summers, cool winters, and markedly seasonal rainfall. Nearly all rain falls from late autumn to early spring; virtually no precipitation falls during the summer. The average annual rainfall in Newport Beach is approximately 12 inches. 33 Orange County Watershed & Coastal Resources Division (OCWCRD), 2005 NewportBay Watershed, http://wwtv.oavatersheds.com/watersheds/ne\vportb,tyintro.asp, accessedDecember 16. 31 Orange County Watershed & Coastal Resources Division (OC\nCRD). 2005 Newport Coast Watershed, http://www.omvatcrsheds.com/watersheds/ne\vportcoist.asp, acccsscd December 16. 40 Orange County Watershed & Coastal Resources Division (OC\VCRD). 2005 Talbert Watershed, http://www.oc\vatersheds.com/watersheds/talbcrt.nsp, accessed December 16. 41 Orange County Watershed & Coastal Resources Division (OC\VCRD). 2005 San Diego Creek Watershed, http://NvwNv.ocwatersheds.com/watersheds/sandiegocreek.isp, accessed December 16. 4.7-2 City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR ' 4.7 Hydrology and Water Qualify ' Potential evapotranspiration in the region exceeds precipitation on an annual basis, and, under natural ' conditions, the lower reaches of rivers that drain the watersheds are dry during the summer. Surface Wafer Resources ' The Planning Area can be divided into three geographic areas: (1) a low elevation area comprised of Banning Ranch, West Newport, Balboa Peninsula, and Newport Bay, (2) elevated marine terrace areas ' that include Newport Heights and Westcliff, and (3) high relief terrain of the San Joaquin Hills in the southeastern portion of the City. The low elevation and terrace areas are generally drained by urbanized and relatively low relief streams that empty into Newport Bay, and the rugged natural streams with ' steeper gradients drain the Newport Ridge and Newport Coast areas. The City of Newport Beach has over 30 miles of bay and ocean waterfront. Over 63 percent of the City ' is in the coastal zone. As shown in Figure 4.7-1, surface water resources such as freshwater wetlands, estuaries, tideland and submerged lands, reservoirs, and waterways are located -%vithin the Planning Area. Upper Newport Bay extends south of the Corona del Mar Freeway (SR 73) to the Pacific Ocean, virtually ' dividing the City into east and west sides. This bay area makes up many of the tidelands and submerged lands in the City, and connects with the estuary waters south of it, including Newport Dunes, Lido Channel, and Newport Channel. An additional estuary is also located in the northern portion of the Planning Area, east of Upper Newport Bay and south of SR 73. Small amounts of freshwater wetlands are scattered throughout the central portion of the City east of Upper Newport Bay and North Star ' Beach. The Planning Area contains two above -ground reservoirs: Big Canyon and San Joaquin Reservoirs, ' which are generally located in the eastern portion of the City, as shown in Figure 4.7-1. Big Canyon Reservoir is located within a quarter mile north of San Joaquin Hills Road and San Joaquin Reservoir is located approximately 0.75 miles northeast of Big Canyon Reservoir. The main tributaries within the Planning Area are the Santa Ana River, San Diego Creek, and Big Canyon Wash, as shown in Figure 4.7-1 and described below. ' Santa Ana River Flowing over 100 miles from the San Bernardino Mountains to the Pacific Ocean, the Santa Ana River ' traverses portions of San Bernardino, Riverside, and Orange Counties. The River drains an area of over 2,700 square miles before flowing into the Pacific Ocean between Newport and Huntington Beaches (Corona 2003). The Santa Ana River transports more than 125 million gallons per day of reclaimed water from Riverside and San Bernardino Counties for recharge into the Orange County Groundwater Basin. This satisfies approximately 40 percent of the County's water demand.' The Santa Ana River is the "receiving waters" of the urban, industrial, and agricultural runoff from the inland cities that it traverses such as Santa Ana and Costa Mesa. Receiving water is defined as a river, ' 42 Orange County Watershed & Coastal Resources Division (OCWCRD). Regional Board Boundaries, http://wNvw.ocwatersbeds.com/watersheds/intro_xegional_ jurisdictions.asp, accessed December 22. City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 4.7-3 Chapter 4 Environmental Analysts lake, ocean, stream, or other body of water into which wastewater or treated effluent is discharged. The River also provides water for recreation and for aquatic and wildlife habitat in the inland cities. Three components make up the flow of the water in the Santa Ana River, and the ratio of these components varies throughout the year.43 The first component is "storm flows," directly resulting from rainfall, usually between the months of December and April. The rainfall and surface water runoff from the storms is captured and percolated into the groundwater basins. The "baseflow" makes up the second component of water supply, a large portion of which comes from the discharges of treated wastewater into the river, in addition to rising groundwater in the basin. This baseflow includes the nonpoint source discharges, as well as the uncontrolled and unregulated agricultural and urban runoff. The third component of the water supply is imported water, which is characterized by the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board (SARWQCB) as "nontributary flow." San Diego Creek San Diego Creek is the main tributary to Newport Bay, has a drainage area of 118 miles, and drains all or portions of the cities of Irvine, Laguna Woods, Lake Forest, portions of Newport Beach, Orange, and Tustin.' Its headwaters Be about a mile east of the I-5 and I-405 Freeway intersection, at an elevation of about 500 feet. The creek flows westerly from its headwaters and empties into Newport Bay in the vicinity of Jamboree Road, one mile west of the University of California at Irvine campus. Flooding on this creek has historically caused significant damage. Portions of San Diego Creek were channelized in 1968 for flood protection purposes. However, channelization of the creek also resulted in increased sediment flow into Upper Newport Bay, requiring extensive dredging projects to restore the ecosystem. Big Canyon Wash Big Canyon Wash drains from the Big Canyon Reservoir area in a northwesterly direction towards Upper Newport Bay. A wash is a dry riverbed, area, or channel that only contains water during the rainy season. These riverbeds are completely dry throughout most of the year. Washes are formed when flooding occurs on a desert plain. The ground does not easily absorb water, generating a large amount of runoff that collects in the wash area. While providing rich habitat for a variety of wildlife species, rainstorms in remote locations can result in flash flooding of local washes. Groundwater Resources The Coastal Plain of the Orange County Groundwater Basin (Basin) underlies the northwestern portion of the Planning Area and provides groundwater for much of central and north Orange County, including the Newport Beach Planning Area.'' The boundaries of the Basin within the City of Newport Beach are shown in Figure 4.7-1. The Basin underlies a coastal alluvial plain in the northwestern portion of Orange County, and is bounded by consolidated rocks exposed on the north in the Puente and Chino Hills. On 43 Corona, City of. 2003. Technical Background Report. 44 Newport Beach, City of. 2003. Hazards Assessment Study, July. 43 California Department of Water Resources (DWR). 2004. California's Groundwater — Bulletin 118. 4.7.4 City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR , 1 1 1 i 1 CITY of NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL PLAN UPDATE EIR Figure 4.7-1 WATER RESOURCES Legend . - City Boundary Water Resources Coastal Plain of Orange County Groundwater Basin _ Freshwater Wetlands Estuary Tidelands and Submerged Lands Waterway Roads State and Federal Highway Streets VCkyexpart arch V 0 0.5 1 4� Mies Swco. cm a Nanv� ma».6eraoi em. Ja/ 1oW. (:w�eet wwvl zml. OY 9aevoN No/ zoos: carob Depvbesea vMalMpeca. <Nurww:a eom.v., � is Fin a�n vnare s..te. rbrc>•a +wnr��m nmmnr. i vev; us o�.• n.�. ana car ew�.roier, voo¢ ESNI wt�NF 1Feb.. zOOT mtlCIY�rJVIa. Gl4 Rbgvn Oci.2 zlg9. >icyat N.1R51911i ( E[P 4.7 Hydrology and Water Quality II ■ I f`1 the east are the Santa Ana Mountains, and on the south are the San Joaquin Hills. The Basin is bounded by the Pacific Ocean on the southwest and by a low topographic divide approximated by the Orange County -Los Angeles County line on the northwest. In addition, the Basin underlies the lower Santa Ana River watershed. Shallow ground water levels (less than 50 feet from the ground surface) are known to occur along the coast, around Newport Bay, and along the major drainages in the Newport Beach area. Shallow ground water perched on bedrock may also be present seasonally in the canyons draining the San Joaquin Hills. Seasonal fluctuations in groundwater levels, and the introduction of residential irrigation requires that site -specific investigations be completed to support these generalizations in areas mapped as potentially susceptible to liquefaction. Sediments containing easily recoverable fresh water extend to about 2,000 feet in depth. Although water - bearing aquifers exist below that level, water quality and pumping lift currently make these materials economically unviable to pump. Upper, middle, and lower aquifer systems are recognized in the Basin. Well yields range from 500 to 4,500 gallons per minute (gpm), but are generally 2,000 to 3,000 gpm. The total capacity of the Basin is approximately 38,000,000 acre-feet (AF). Recharge to the Basin is derived from percolation of Santa Ana River flow, infiltration of precipitation, and injection into wells. The Santa Ana River flow contains natural flow, reclaimed water, and imported water that is spread in the Basin forebay, which is the upper region of the Basin. Infiltration primarily occurs in this area; the City of Newport Beach is in the pressure area of the Basin, which is an area that is not used for recharge.46 There are no designated recharge areas in the City. Historical groundwater flow was generally toward the ocean in the southwest, but modern pumping has caused water levels to drop below sea level inland of the Newport -Inglewood fault zone. This trough -shaped depression encourages sea water to migrate inland, contaminating the groundwater supply. Strategic lines of wells in the Alamitos and Talbert Gaps, which are located in Fountain Valley, inject imported and reclaimed water to create a mound of water to protect the Basin from seawater intrusion. As such, the injection of water in the Alamitos and Talbert Gaps prevent saltwater intrusion into the upper region of the aquifer, where most of the pumping occurs.." The Groundwater Replenishment System (GRS), a joint venture by OCWD and the Orange County Sanitation District (OCSD), will help reduce Orange County and Newport Beach's reliance on imported surface water by taking treated wastewater and returning it into the Basin via injection or passive settling. Sewer water will be purified using a state-of-the-art, three -step process—microfiltration, reverse osmosis, and ultraviolet light with hydrogen peroxide disinfection. Roughly half of the water from the GWR System will be injected into Orange County's seawater barrier. The remaining water will be piped to recharge lakes in Anaheim, where the water will take the natural path of rainwater as it filters through clay, sand and rock to the deep aquifers of the groundwater basin. The GWR System purified water will exceed all State and Federal drinking water standards and have water quality similar to, or better than, 44 OC\YID. 2004. Groundwater Management Plan. March. "OOCWD. 2004. Groundwater Management Plan. March. I� City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 4.7-7 Chapter 4 Environmental Analysis J bottled water. The GRS will be online by 2007, and will produce approximately 70,000 acre feet of water per year.48 ■ Water Quality Surface Wafer Quality Newport Bay is designated as "water quality -limited" for four impairments under the Federal Clean Water Aces Section 303(d) List, meaning that it is "not reasonably expected to attain or maintain water quality standards" due to these impairments without additional regulation.g9 Under Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act, states, territories, and authorized tribes are requited to develop lists of impaired waters. The law requires that these jurisdictions establish priority rankings for waters on the lists and develop Total Maximum Daily Loads (I`MDLs) for these waters. Generally, a TMDL specifies the maximum amount of a pollutant that a water body can receive and still meet water quality standards, and requires a jurisdiction to allocate pollutant loadings among point and nonpoint pollutant sources to achieve that amount. Point sources are defined as discrete conveyances such as pipes or direct discharges from businesses or public agencies. Nonpoint pollution refers to the introduction of bacteria, sediment, oil and grease, heavy metals, pesticides, fertilizers, and other chemicals into rivers, bays, and oceans from less defined sources including roadways, parking lots, yards, and farms. 50 For these water quality -limited bodies, the Santa Ana Region Water Quality Control Board (SARWQCB) and the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) have developed TMDLs for the following substances in Newport Beach: sediment, nutrients, fecal coliform, and toxic pollutants (Newport Beach 2005). Descriptions of the TMDLs for each of these substances are provided below: ■ Seditwent. Adopted on October 9, 1998, the Sediment TMDL requires local ,partners (stakeholders in the watershed) to survey Newport Bay regularly and to reduce annual sediment delivered into the Bay from 250,000 cubic yards to 125,000 cubic yards (a 50 percent reduction) by 2008. ■ Natrients. Approved by US EPA on April 16, 1999, the Nutrient TMDL limits nitrogen and phosphorus inputs to Newport Bay. The Nutrient TMDL attempts to reduce the annual loading of nitrogen by 50 percent, from 1,400 pounds per day to approximately 850 to 802 pounds per day at San Diego Creek, by 2012. Phosphorus loading must fall from 86,912 pounds per year in 2002 to 62,080 pounds by 2007. ■ Fetal Colrform. Approved in December 1999, the Fecal Coliform TMDL attempts to reduce the amount of fecal coliform inputs to Newport Bay enough to make the Bay meet water contact recreation standards (swimming, wading, surfing) by 2014 and shellfish harvesting standards (where waters support shellfish acceptable for human consumption) by 2019. ■ Toxic Pollutants. Adopted by US EPA on June 14, 2002, the Toxic Pollutants TMDL addresses Newport Bay inputs like heavy metals (chromium, copper, lead, cadmium, zinc) and priority I I I I I I 1 1 48 Orange County Water District (OC%VD). 2006. Groundwater Replenishment System: http://Nvw\vgwrsystem.com. ' Accessed February 28. 41 Newport Beach, City of 2005. Draft Local Coastal Program, Coastal Land Use Plan, su Newport Beach, City of. 2003. Hazards Assessment Study, July. ' 4.7-8 City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR ' 4.7 Hydrology and Water Quality II II organics such as endosulfan, DDT, Chlordane, PCBs, Toxaphene, diazinon, and chlorpyriphos. It may lead to the reduction or elimination of pesticide use by residents, businesses, and municipal services in the Newport Bay watershed. This TMDL also addresses existing toxic deposits in sediments in the Rhine Channel and other areas in the Lower Bay. The City of Newport Beach, SARWQCB, Department of Fish and Game, County of Orange, and other cities in the Newport Bay watershed have established the Newport Bay Watershed Executive Committee, which is advised by the Watershed Management Committee (WMC) to implement the TMDLsi1 The WMC typically meets quarterly to discuss compliance with the TMDLs established by the SARWQCB. Generally, all the TMDLs established by the SARWQCB require that watershed -based solutions be developed by the watershed stakeholders, followed by joint funding for the implementation of these projects throughout the watershed. Additionally, a municipal separate storm sewer system (MS4) permit is provided to the City by the SARWQCB under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) to regulate the amount of storm water contaminants that are delivered into the City's waterways.'' MS4 permits require an aggressive water quality ordinance, specific municipal practices to maintain city facilities like the MS4, and the use of best management practices (BMPs) in many residential, commercial, and development - related activities to further reduce the amount of contaminants in urban runoff. MS4 permits also require local agencies to cooperatively develop a public education campaign to inform people about what they can do to protect water quality. Water Quality Monitoring As part of the Orange County Health Care Agency (HCA), Environmental Health's Ocean Water Protection Program is responsible for protecting the public from exposure to ocean and bay water that may be contaminated with sewage or urban runoff and may cause illness due to elevated bacteria levels along the County's coastline, as well as the harbor and bay shoreline. Over the past 40 years, the Health Care Agency and local sanitation agencies (OCSD and South Orange County Wastewater Authority) have been testing the coastal waters in Orange County for bacteria that indicate the possible presence of disease -causing organisms. The sanitation agencies and HCA program staff participate in the weekly collection of water samples at approximately 150 ocean, bay, and drainage locations throughout coastal Orange County, including the City of Newport Beach.53 When a release of sewage is reported to the Ocean Water Protection Program staff, the ocean or bay water areas that may be affected by the sewage discharge are immediately closed to ocean water -contact sports. Other events such as rainstorms can also increase contaminant levels that exceed State standards. During and after a significant rainstorm event, storm drains, creeks, and rivers carry floodwaters and urban runoff (which may include fertilizers, road oils, litter, and large amounts of bacteria from a variety of sources such as animal waste and decomposing vegetation) to the ocean. The level of contamination 51 Newport Beach, City of. 2005. Draft Local Coastal Program, Coastal Land Use Plan. 522 Newport Beach, City of. 2005. Draft Local Coastal Program, Coastal Land Use Plan. 53 Orange County Health Care Agency Environmental Health (HCA). 2003.2002 Annual Ocean and Bay Water Quality Report, June. City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 4.7.9 of bacteria can rise significantly in ocean and bay waters close to discharging storm drains and outlets of creeks, rivers, and streams during and after rainstorms. The elevated bacterial levels in die coastal ocean waters may continue for a period of at least three days depending on the intensity of the rain and the volume of runoffs" Bacteriological water samples are collected each week at approximately two locations in Semeniuk Slough, and at 31 locations in Newport Bay. The total number of postings, total number of days posted, and total number of Beach We Days posted due to violations of AB 411 standards for the years 2000 through 2004 at Semeniuk Slough and Newport Bay are shown below in Table 4.7-1. The term Beach Mile Days (BMD) is used to present the measurement of the number of days and the area of ocean or bay waters that are closed due to a sewage spill or posted for a violation of the AB 411 standards. BMDs are calculated by multiplying the number of days of a closure or posting by the number of miles of beach closed or posted. Newport Slough 2000 N/A NIA N/A 2001 9 381 5.1 2002 13 339 3.9 2003 14 308 3.5 2004 4 98 1.1 Newport Bay 2000 75 1483 64.0 2001 94 1663 67.7 2002 61 1514 58,4 2003 74 1409 57.6 2004 39 1366 54.4 SOURCE; Orange County Health Care Agency Environmental Health, 2004 Annual Ocean and Bay Water Quality Report, March,2005, pages 29-30. Groundwater Quality Groundwater within the Orange County Basin is primarily calcium and sodium bicarbonate in character. Impairments to the Basin include sea water intrusion near the coast and colored water from natural organic materials in the lower aquifer system. As discussed above, the Newport -Inglewood fault zone is a trough -shaped depression that encourages sea water to migrate inland, contaminating the groundwater supply. The injection of water in the Alamitos and Talbert Gaps prevent saltwater intrusion into the s" Oange County Health Care Agency Environtnental Health (HCA). 2003. 2002 Annual Ocean and Bay Water Quality Report, June. 4.7.10 City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR ' 4.7 Hydrology and Water Quality upper region of the aquifer, where most of the pumping occurs. In addition, the Basin is characterized with increasing salinity, high nitrates, and MTBE.55 The most typical source of groundwater contamination in the Basin is the erosion of natural deposits, which could deliver chemicals such as arsenic, barium, fluoride, nickel, and selenium along with radiologicals such as radium and uranium into the groundwater. Additionally, the use of fertilizers in the County also contributes nitrate into the groundwater. Upon sampling of IRWD's Basin wells in 2003 and 2004, none of the regulated chemicals found in the groundwater violated their respective "Maximum Contaminant Levels" (MCLs) as set by the California EPA 56 The Basin receives treated reclaimed water from the OCSD. As part of the GRS, the reclaimed water goes through reverse osmosis and enters or will enter the Basin in one of two ways: (1) direct injection into the seawater intrusion barrier by Water Factory #21; and (2) passive settling into settling ponds at the base of the Santa Ana River near Anaheim and Anaheim Hills. The Basin's use of reclaimed water to recharge the Basin can and has caused limited contamination of the Basin by at least two "chemicals of concern" for which "action levels" (ALs) have been set by the California Health Services Department's Division of Drinking Water and Environmental Management. ALs are different from MCLs in that ALs simply require public agencies to notify appropriate agencies that an AL has been reached; water providers are not required to remove water from service that has attained an AL. The chemicals found in the Basin include N-nitrosodimethylamine (NDMA) and 1,4-dioxane. In recent years, OCWD has detected both 1,4-dioxane and NDMA at levels at or near ALs at Newport Beach's four well sites, which are located in Fountain Valley. OCWD continues to monitor these and other chemicals of concern on an ongoing basis. According to the US EPA, no facilities in the Newport Beach area have US EPA permits to discharge to local water sources. Drinking Water Qualify The drinking water supply for the City is a blend of mostly groundwater from the Basin and also surface water imported by MWD. For further description of drinking water quality, post -filtration and post- treatment, refer to Section 4.14 (Utilities and Service Systems). Storm Drain Infrastructure Generally, the City provides storm drain service to the entire Planning Area. Currently, Banning Ranch contains no development, but the City intends to serve this area when the need for storm drain service arises. The Orange County Resources and Development Management Department (RDMD) maintains ss California Department of Water Resources (DWR). 2004. California's Groundwater —Bulletin 118. 56 Irvine Ranch Water District (IRWD). 2005. Annual Water Quality Report. City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 4.7-11 Chapter 4 Environmental Analysis the regional drainage facilities in the Planning Area, including the Santa Ana River, and San Diego Creek and is described further in Flood Hazards, below. The existing storm drain system owned and operated by the City consists of pipelines, catch basins, manholes, tide valves, open channels and retention basins located throughout the system. Pipelines range from three to 120 inches in diameter, and are constructed of materials such as reinforced concrete, corrugated metal, plastic, ductile iron, steel, clay, and asbestos cement. Location of the existing storm drain infrastructure is shown in Figure 4.7-2. Some segments of the system are over 50 years old, while other segments have been recently constructed 57 The City's storm drain system is characterized by two distinctly different geographical areas. The upland areas, generally inland of Coast Highway, have drainage characteristics similar to other coastal plain communities in Orange County. The low-lying areas, below Coast Highway, such as the Balboa Peninsula, Newport Island, and Balboa Island, are very flat and are affected by ocean tides sa A system of bayfront bulkheads and tide valves (gates) on storm drain outlets to Newport Bay are in place to protect these low lying areas from flooding due to high tides. The City has installed 6- to 36-inch-diameter tide valves on 89 storm drain outlets to Newport Bay to prevent seawater from backing through the storm drain pipes during high tide events. Of the 85 dde valves, six are operated by an electric motor that open and close the valves while the remaining valves are manually operated. The valves must be closed when the tide elevation reaches street elevations at each installation. When the tidal elevation drops below street elevation, the gates are reopened. When rain occurs simultaneously Nvith a high tide, stormwater cannot be released until the tide has dropped sufficiently to open the tide gates. As a result, urban runoff is in effect dammed by these tide valves and, the low-lying streets in the City can become inundated. In order to minimize this problem, portable pumps axe used to discharge urban runoff collected at street ends into the ocean. Overall, urban street flooding is rarely considered a problem in the City of Newport Beach.s' The City's storm drain system also includes retarding basins. These include the Koll Center retarding basin, located north of SR-73, the Farallon/El Pasco retarding basin, located between Avocado Street and MacArthur Boulevard, near Fashion Island, and the Harbor View retarding basin, located between Corona del Mar and San Joaquin Hills Road. The purpose of these retarding basins is to reduce the flow rate within the respective downstream storm drain systems so that older, possibly undersized, downstream facilities will be able to carry the discharge from new development areas upstream' Existing Deficiencies and Proposed Upgrades Inspections of the City's drainage system and, in particular, problem areas where street flooding occurred during the 1997/98 El Nino winter storm season, have been conducted, as outlined in the City's Storm Drain Master Plan (SDMP). It is important to note that the SDMP does not evaluate the existing storm 57 Newport Beach, City of. 2000. Storm Drain Master Plan, July. sa Newport Beach, City of 2000. Storm Drain Master Plan, July. 57 Newport Beach, City of. 2003. Hazards Assessment Study, July. w Newport Beach, City of 2000. Storm Drain Master Plan, July. I 11 4.7-12 City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR ' COSTA MESA E BANNING A4� ''i` � r I MNCN • T V ' nc i r ... ti... . F" .� NF WYOIIT=— SNO.FF y f' EFACN /i�� ^ter N1M1011r� �/ �^•[ OVNEt� � IFIF 1 Hry uoo T HAuo. 'Ir ISLE / , 9AN0 }.•• COLANqLINf NEwra.r . r nY ... I. �, .Ar AALAOA ISLAND mwA Fll1 !NF w.00E f ASH.ON ISLAND D '� \ �WAWC��L r / uc co.ow 11M. C... GNEO ~ SHORES ROAD r IRVINE Tf cD NEWIORT �* RIDGE OO* tI i a� IS / NEwfORT / COAST NF�OFi c..STAI c.11 .1. rAI A / onul cov! SiAi! r1111t CITY of NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL PLAN UPDATE EIR Figure 4.7-2 STORM DRAINAGE INFRASTRUCTURE Legend City Boundary Newport Beach Storm Drain Introstlucture Orange County Storm Drain Infrastructure Hydrography Tidelands and Submerged Lands Waterway Roads State and Federal Highway Streets Na bbN*LIEm-US.La Pva.l 6. IWDEL3, 4. Oy of N.wpert BSA g 0 0.5 1 Mies — saFce� ar ar.aw„ eeDeL 9� amr Ira AN am3. CM aurvtry. Rai anm: aFl. RIDr �. cvlr'..I..ar �: la ca.a Bwml. or,n ON 9u4M EI00: ER. AIgO qOW. honor SD02 m0 EP A� G6 PrtyviL lbarMg r<. Sml Rgeci No. iwS EIP 4.7 Hydrology and Water Quality I drain system in recently annexed areas such as Newport Coast, Newport Ridge, Bay Knolls, and Santa Ana Heights. The SDMP also conducted hydrologic and hydraulic analyses of the entire City to determine the necessary structural upgrades for the City's storm drain system. Upgrades were deemed necessary by the plan where a storm drain that collected runoff at on -grade catch basins overflowed during a 10-year storm event, while upgrades were necessary where storm drain pipes that carried runoff collected at a sump overflowed during a 25-year storm event. In addition, existing streets that could not ' contain the peak runoff during a 100-year storm event within their street right-of-way were also designated for structural upgrades by the SDMP. Most of the proposed upgrades recommended in the SDMP are the result of increased imperviousness in drainage areas due to development since the design ' of the original system and the more conservative design criteria contained in the current Orange County Hydrology Manual. ' Three types of upgrades are proposed for the City's storm drain system: Priority A, operational upgrades; Priority B, material upgrades; and Priority C, Hydraulic Upgrades. Operational upgrades include projects that are assumed to be of the highest priority due to occasional flooding. Material upgrades consist of upgrades to the drainage systems with known physical constraints and identified drainage system deterioration. Lastly, the hydraulic upgrades include upgrades for drainage systems with calculated ' capacity that does not meet current Orange County Hydrology Manual criteria for design level storm events. The total estimated cost of the recommended improvements is approximately $18.5 million. ' Additionally, according to the SDMP, approximately 35,000 linear feet of the storm drain system and the street capacity at 13 scattered locations within the City's service area required upgrades to their drainage and flow capabilities. In addition, approximately 24,000 feet of the storm drain system required ' upgrading due to their existing pipe size (less than 18 inches in diameter), pipe material (steel or corrugated metal pipe), and structures. Citywide inlet and structural improvements, located in the City's low-lying areas, are required. With respect to the Newport Coast and Newport Ridge areas that were annexed in 2002, any development that occurred or began prior to this time was the responsibility of the County of Orange. ' Thus, those developments meet County regulations for adequate storm drain infrastructure, although any future improvements would be the responsibility of the City. In addition, any new development that ' occurred within these areas after annexation, are subject to City requirements. These new developments are planned communities where infrastructure was designed to adequately serve these uses, and thus, do not have any existing deficiencies at this time (Tse 2004). As such, there are no proposed upgrades to the ' existing infrastructure in the Newport Coast and Newport Ridge areas. ■ Flood Hazards ' Flood Zones ' Flooding can be a destructive natural hazard, and is a recurring event. Storm -induced flood hazards in Newport Beach can be classified into two general categories: flash flooding from small, natural channels; ' and more moderate and sustained flooding from the Santa Ana River and San Diego Creek. City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 4.7.15 The 100- and 500-year flood zones have been identified by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), and include the low-lying areas in West Newport at the base of the bluffs, the coastal areas which surround Newport Bay, and all low-lying areas adjacent to Upper Newport Bay. 100- and 500-year flooding is also anticipated to occur along the lower reaches of Coyote Canyon, in the lower reaches of San Diego Creek and the Santa Ana Dellv Channel, and in a portion of Buck Gully. Most flooding along these second- and third -order streams is not expected to impact significant development. However, flooding in the coastal areas of the City will impact residential and commercial zones' along West Newport, the Balboa Peninsula and Balboa Island, and the seaward side of Pacific Coast Highway. Figure 4.7-3 shows the 100- and 500-yeat flood zones, Coastat'Flood Hazards Newport Beach is susceptible to low -probability but high-tisk events such as tsunamis, and more common, isolated hazards such as storm surges. Each of these has a potential to significantly impact Newport Beach residents and the built environment. Newport Beach is generally protected from most distantly generated tsunamis by the Channel Islands and Point Arguello, except for those generated in the Aleutian Islands, off the coast of Chile, and possibly off the coast of Central America. Nevertheless, since the early 1800s, more than thirty tsunamis have been recorded in Southern California, and at least six of these caused damage in the area, although not necessarily in Newport Beach. Tsunamis generated in the Alaskan region take approximately six hours to arrive in the Southern California area, while tsunamis generated off the Chilean coast take 12 to 15 ,hours. Given those timeframes, coastal communities in Southern California can receive adequate warning, allowing them to implement evacuation procedures. Alternatively, very little warning time, if any, can be expected from locally generated tsunamis. Locally generated tsunamis caused by offshore faulting or landsliding immediately offshore from Newport Beach are possible, and these tsunamis have the potential to be worst -case scenarios for the coastal communities in Orange County. Modeling off the Santa Barbara coast suggests that locally generated tsunamis can cause waves between 2 and 20 meters (6 to 60 feet) high, and that these could impact the coastline with almost no warning, within minutes of the causative earthquake or slump. Areas within Newport Beach that are most likely to be impacted by a tsunami include West Newport, Balboa Peninsula, Lido Isle, Balboa Island, and Upper Newport Bay. Rogue waves are very high waves that arise unexpectedly in the open ocean. These waves are difficult to plan for as they are unpredictable. Rogue waves have historically impacted the Orange County coast and have the potential to impact Newport Beach in the future. Unlike tsunamis, which can occur anytime, storm surges are associatedwith inclement weather. Given that during inclement weather, fewer people are expected to be at the beach, storm surges are more likely to impact residents than tourists, and the potential number of casualties can be expected to be significantly ,less than tsunamis. The most common problem associated with storm surges is flooding of low-lying areas, including structures, This is often compounded by intense rainfall and strong winds. If a storm surge occurs during high tide, the flooded area can be significant. Coastal flooding in Newport Beach occurred in the past when major storms, many of these El Nino Southern Oscillation events, impacted the area. Storm surging associated with a tropical storm has been reported only once in the V-16 City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR Si 4.7 Hydrology and Water Quality II I history of Newport Beach, in 1939. This suggests that the hazard of cyclone -induced storm surges has a low probability of occurrence. Nevertheless, this incident caused millions of dollars in damage to Newport Beach. Storm surge events would affect development along the ocean, and to a lesser extent, Newport Bay. Seismically Induced Inundation Seismically induced inundation, which refers to flooding that results when water retention structures fail due to an earthquake, can also occur in the City. Pardons of Newport Beach are threatened by flooding from Prado Dam, Santiago Creek Reservoir, Villa Park Reservoir, San Joaquin Reservoir, Big Canyon Reservoir, and Harbor View Reservoir. Seismically induced inundation can also occur if strong ground shaking causes structural damage to aboveground water tanks. Currently, there are no existing or planned above -ground water tanks in the City. Reservoirs, lakes, ponds, swimming pools, and other enclosed bodies of water are subject to potentially damaging oscillations (sloshing) called seiches. This hazard is dependent upon specific earthquake parameters (e.g., frequency of the seismic waves, distance and direction from the epicenter), as well as site -specific design of the enclosed bodies of water, and thus difficult to predict. Areas of the City that may be vulnerable to this hazard are primarily improvements located next to waterways, such as Newport Harbor, and the southern part of Upper Newport Bay. However, the probability that damaging seiches would develop in these bodies of water was considered low in the 1975 Newport Beach Safety Element. The Hazards Assessment Study within the 2004 Technical Background Report concludes that no new information has been found to indicate otherwise. Flood Control Various flood control measures have helped mitigate flood damage in the City. Administered by the Orange County Resources & Development Management Department, the Orange County Flood Control District (OCFCD) provides, operates, and maintains public facilities and regional resources for the residents of Orange County. OCFCD operates and maintains flood control channels, dams, retarding basins, pump stations, and other flood control infrastructure that the OCFCD designs and constructs. Specifically, within the Planning Area, OCFCD is responsible for maintaining the regional drainage facilities such as the Santa Ana River, San Diego Creek, and Buck Gully. These structures help regulate flow in the Santa Ana River, San Diego Creek, and smaller streams and hold back some of the flow during intense rainfall periods that could otherwise overwhelm the storm drain system in Newport Beach. In addition, as described above, the City's storm drain system includes mechanisms that minimize flood hazards resulting from high tide events. 1 City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 4.7-19 4.7.3 Regulatory Framework ■ Federal Regulations Clean Water Act of 1972 The State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) and its 'RWQCBs are responsible for enforcing water quality standards within the State. As mandated by Section 303(d) of the Federal Clean Water Act, the RWQCB maintains and updates a list of `impaired waterbodies" that do not meet State and Federal water quality standards. The State is then required to prioritize waters/watersheds for TMDL development. This information is compiled in a list and submitted to the US EPA for review and approval. This list is known as the Section 303(d) list of impaired waters. The SWRCB and RWQCBs have ongoing efforts to monitor and assess water quality, to prepare the Section 303(d) list, and to develop TMDLs. TMDLs developed for the City of Newport Beach are described above in Existing Conditions. Section 404 of the Federal Clean Water Act authorizes the US Army Corps of Engineers to issue permits for the discharge of dredged or fill material into waters of the United States, including wetlands. This section of the Clean Water Act has been interpreted to give the US Army Corps of Engineers jurisdiction over permitting wetlands fill. National Flood Insurance Act Congress acted to reduce the costs of disaster relief by passing the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968 and the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973. The intent of these acts was to reduce the need for large, publicly funded flood control structures and disaster relief efforts by restricting development in floodplains. FEMA administers the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) to provide subsidized flood insurance to communities that comply with FEMA regulations limiting development in a floodplain. FEMA issues Federal Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs), which delineate flood hazard zones in the community, of communities participating in the NFIR Since the City of Newport Beach is a participating member of the NFIP, flood insurance is available to any property owner in the City. ■ State Regulations California Coastal Act (1976) The California Coastal Act established a permanent Coastal Commission whose mandate is to protect and enhance the resources of the coastal zone mapped by the State Legislature. The goals of the Coastal Act are as follows: ■ Protect, maintain and, wbere feasible, enhance and restore the overall quality of the coastal zone environment and its natural and artificial resources. 4.7.20 City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR , '4.7 HydrologyQuality ' ■ Assure orderly, balanced utilization and conservation of coastal zone resources taking into account the social and economic needs of the people of the State. ' ■ Maximize public access to and along the coast and maximize public recreational opportunities in the coastal zone consistent with sound resources conservation principles and constitutionally protected rights of private property owners. ■ Assure priority for coastal -dependent and coastal -related development over other development on the coast. ■ Encourage State and local initiatives and cooperation in preparing procedures to implement coordinated planning and development for mutually beneficial uses, including educational uses, in the coastal zone. ' Implementation of Coastal Act policies designed to achieve the above goals is accomplished primarily through the preparation of a Local Coastal Program (LCP), reviewed and approved by the Coastal Commission. An LCP typically consists of a land use plan and an implementation plan. The land use plan indicates the kinds, location, and intensity of land uses, the applicable resource protection and development policies, and, where necessary, a listing of implementing actions. The implementation plan consists of the zoning ordinances, zoning district maps, and other legal instruments necessary to implement the land use plan. Any amendments to the certified LCP will require review and approval by the Coastal Commission prior to becoming effective. The Coastal Land Use Plan (CLUP) prepared as part of the City's LCP is described further in Local Regulations, below. California Wetlands Conservation Policy (1993) ' The goal of the California Wetlands Conservation Policy is to ensure no net loss of wetlands within the State. This policy also encourages a long-term net gain in the State's quantity, quality, and permanence of wetlands acreage and values. Interpretation of this order indicates that any developer wishing to fill in ' wetlands for construction of new development must perform mitigation in the form of constructed wetlands elsewhere at ratios ranging from 2:1 to 10:1. In addition to the US Army Corps of Engineers, ' State regulatory agencies claiming jurisdiction over wetlands include the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) and the SWRCB. California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) Lake or Streambed Alteration Program CDFG, through provisions of the State of California Administrative Code, is empowered to issue agreements for any alteration of a river, stream, or lake where fish or wildlife resources may adversely be affected. Streams and rivers are defined by the presence of a channel bed and banks, and at least an intermittent flow of water. CDFG regulates wetland areas only to the extent that those wetlands are part of a river, stream, or lake as defined by CDFG. ' Typically, wetland delineations are not performed to obtain CDFG Agreements. The reason for this is that CDFG generally includes any riparian habitat present within the jurisdictional limits of streams and ' lakes. Riparian habitat includes willows, mulefat, and other vegetation typically associated with the banks City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 4•7-21 Chapter 4 Environmental Analysis of a stream or lake shoreline. In most situations, wetlands associated with a stream or lake would fall within the limits of riparian habitat. Thus, defining the limits of CDPG jurisdiction based on riparian habitat will automatically include any wetland areas SARWQCB National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permit Industrial facilities and construction sites are regulated by the State Water Resources Control Board (SNNRCB), through general stormwater permits. Cities and counties are regulated through permits issued by the Regional Water Quality Control Boards (RWQCBs). Since 1990, operators of large storm drain systems such as the City's have been required to do the following; ■ Develop a stormwater management program designed to prevent harmful pollutants from being dumped or washed by stormwater runoff, into the stormwater system, then discharged into local waterbodies ■ Obtain a NPDES permit The NPDES permit programs in California are administered by the SWRCB and by nine regional boards that issue NPDES permits and enforce regulations within their respective region. Newport Beach lies within the jurisdiction of the Santa Ana Region. This regional board issues permits to the Orange County Permittees, which includes the County of Orange, Orange County Flood Control District and incorporated cities of Orange County. Since the program's inception, the County of Orange has served as the principal permittee. The City of Newport Beach is listed as a co-permittee for the SARWQCB's NPDES permit and is bound to comply with all the aspects of the permit requirements. The NPDES permit program controls water pollution by regulating point and nonpoint sources that discharge pollutants into waters of the United States. The City holds a NPDES permit to operate its MS4s. Newport Beach's MS4 Permit (adopted January 2002) directs it to keep pollutants out of its MS4 to the maximum extent practicable and to ensure that dry -weather flows entering recreational waters from the MS4 do not cause or contribute to exceedances of water quality standards. The Permit requires the City to do the following. ■ Control contaminants into storm drain systems ■ Educate the public about stormwater impacts ■ Detect and eliminate illicit discharges ■ Control runoff from construction sites ■ Implement "best management practices" or `BMPs" and site -specific runoff controls and treatments for new development and redevelopment ■ Prevent pollution from municipal operations, including fixed facilities and field activities ■ Inspect industrial and commercial sites for compliance with NPDES regulations In addition to managing municipal stormwater discharges, the NPDES permit program requires permitting of construction -related stormwater discharges. Specifically, development that is greater than one acre in size is required to comply with the provisions of the General Construction Activity Stormwater Permit adopted by the SWRCB. Under this permit, applicants are required to prepare, retain, and implement at the construction site a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). In addition, the permit would require the employment of Best Management Practices (BMPs) to limit the extent of eroded materials from discharging into the City's drainage system and affecting water quality. BMps 4J•22 City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR ' 4.7 Hydrology would consist of any activity, prohibition, practice, procedure, program, or other measure designed to prevent or reduce the discharge of pollutants directly or indirectly into the City's drainage system. Under ' these regulations, implementation of programs and practices to control polluted stormwater runoff are required, including the inspection of construction sites and enforcement actions against violators. Furthermore, Provision C.3 of the General Construction Activity Stormwater Permit requires local municipalities to evaluate water quality effects and identify appropriate mitigation measures when they ' conduct environmental review of proposed projects. In order to implement Clean Water Act provisions governing discharges to municipal storm drains, Provision C.3 requires new and redevelopment projects that would modify hydrographs (i.e., create or replace impervious area) to treat and/or detain stormwater ' runoff before it is discharged to creeks or stormdrains. The primary goals of Provision C.3 are to protect water quality by minimizing sediment and other pollutants in site runoff, and to prevent downstream erosion by ensuring that post -project runoff and volume do not exceed pre -project runoff and volume. Santa Ana River Basin Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) II II 1 II The document for each region of the SWRCB's jurisdiction is the Water Quality Control Plan, commonly referred to as the Basin Plan. It is the foundation for the regulatory programs of each of the nine Regional Water Quality Control Boards (RWQCBs or Regional Boards). The Basin Plan documents the beneficial uses of the region's ground and surface waters, existing water quality conditions, problems, and goals, and actions by the regional board and others that are necessary to achieve and maintain water quality standards. Reclaimed Water Regulations Within the State of California, reclaimed water is regulated by the US EPA, SWRCB, RWQCBs, and the State Department of Health Services. The SWRCB has adopted Resolution No. 77-1, Policy with Respect to Water Reclamation in California. This policy states that the SWRCB and RWQCBs will encourage and consider or recommend for funding water reclamation projects that do not impair water rights or beneficial instream uses. The RWQCBs implement the SWRCB's Guidelines for Regulation of Water Reclamation and issue waste discharge permits that serve to regulate the quality of reclaimed water based on stringent water quality requirements. The State Department of Health Services develops policies protecting human health and comments and advises on RWQCB permits. Local Regulations Orange County Stormwater Program The City is a member of the Orange County Stormwater Program, which coordinates all cities and the county government in Orange County to regulate and control storm water and urban runoff into all Orange County waterways, and ultimately, into the Pacific Ocean. The Orange County Stormwater '' City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 4.7.23 Program administers the current NPDES MS4 Permit and the 2003 Drainage Area Management Plan (DAMP) for the County of Orange and the 34 incorporated cities within the region. As a result of the NPDES MS4 Permits for Orange County, adopted by the Santa Ana and San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Boards in early 2002, the cities and County (collectively called Pemilttees) subsequently prepared a Drainage Area Management Plan (DAMP). The DAMP was prepared to meet the requirements of the stormwater permit by describing the overallstorm water management strategies planned by the County to protect the beneficial uses of the receiving waters in the Santa Ana drainage area. Thus, developments within the City resulting from implementation of the proposed General Plan Update would also be subject to the provisions of the DAMP. Ocean Water Protection Program Orange County Health Care Agency's (HCA) Water Quality Section operates the Ocean Water Protection Program, which ensures that all public recreational waters meet applicable water quality standards for swimming and shellfish harvesting. It routinely: ■ Conducts microbial monitoring of ocean waters ■ Responds to sewage spills and other unauthorized discharges of waste ■ Closes ocean and bay waters after sewage spills ■ Directs the posting of warning signs when AB411 standards are exceeded ■ Responds to illness complaints ■ Issues health advisories ■ Runs the Ocean and Bay Water Closure and Posting Hotline for ocean and bay waters in Orange County Under the requirements stipulated by the California Health and Safety Code and Tide 17 of the California Code of Regulations, the results of water samples are reviewed every day for bacteria levels. Ocean and bay water closures, postings and health advisories are issued, when necessary. In 1999, bacteriological ocean water quality standards, which were that ate more protective of public health than previous standards, were added to the Health and Safety and Code and the Code of Regulations; these standards are informally called AB 411 standards. When a known release of sewage is reported to the Ocean Water Protection Program staff, the ocean or bay water areas that may be affected by the sewage discharge are immediately closed to ocean water - contact sports. The closed ocean or bay water area will be reopened or reduced in size when the contamination source has been eliminated and after two daily consecutive sampling results indicate the affected area meets the AB 411 Ocean Water -Contact Sports Standards.` The Ocean Water Protection Program staff review the results of bacteriological water analyses to determine compliance with establishedstandards. When a bacteriological water sample fails to meet any of the AB 411 Ocean Water -Contact Sports Standards the following occurs: 61 Orange County Health Care Agency Environmental Health (HCA). 2003. 2002 Annual Ocean and Bay Water Quality Report, June. 4.7.24 City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR , 4.7 Hydrology and Water Quality ' ■ Warning signs are posted at the affected ocean or bay areas indicating that the waters have exceeded health standards ' ■ All the information regarding the posted area is updated on the Ocean and Bay Water Closure and Posting Hotline and Web Page ■ Additional bacteriological water samples are collected at the posted areas and the results are ' evaluated daily to determine if the areas posted with warning signs should be increased, reduced, shifted, or removed Coastal Land Use Plan The CLUP of the City of Newport Beach LCP was prepared in accordance with the California Coastal ' Act of 1976, approved by the California Coastal Commission in October 2005, and adopted in December 2005. The CLUP sets forth goals, objectives, and policies that govern the use of land and ' water and the protection of Coastal resources in the coastal zone within the City of Newport Beach and its sphere of influence, with the exception of Newport Coast and Banning Ranch. The policies contained in the CLUP address public access, recreation, marine environment, land resources, and residential and commercial development. Metropolitan Water District Groundwater Recovery Program ' Metropolitan Water District (MWD) established the Groundwater Recovery Program, which provides financial assistance to member agencies to improve and enhance the quality of local ground waters that ' does not meet the regulatory standards of the US EPA and the State Department of Health Services. If available, this funding may be used to improve water quality within the Newport Beach area. ' City of Newport Beach Municipal Code ' Chapter 14.34 (Water Well Standards) The purpose of the City's Water Well Standards is to control the construction and reconstruction of ' water wells such that the City's groundwater quality will not be impaired. Chapter 14.34 also provides for the destruction of abandoned or nuisance wells so that they will not impair the quality of groundwater. Chapter 14.36 (Water Quality) Chapter 14.36 (Water Quality) of the Municipal Code requires the City to participate as a "Co-permittee" ' under the NPDES Permits in the development and adoption of an ordinance to accomplish the requirements of the Clean Water Act. The purpose of this chapter is for the City to participate in the improvement of water quality and comply with Federal requirements for the control of urban pollutants to stormwater runoff, which enters the network of storm drains throughout Orange County. Chapter 15.10 (Excavation and Grading Code) As required by the City's Municipal Code, grading activities shall obtain a grading permit from the City's Building Official. The Building Official also issues drainage permits as appropriate. Chapter 15.10 contains grading, fill, drainage, and erosion control standards that shall be applied to the corresponding ' City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 4.7.25 GI construction activity. The purpose of this chapter is to safeguard life, limb, property and the public welfare by regulating grading, drainage and hillside construction on private property and for similar improvement proposed by private interests on City right-of-way where regulations are not otherwise exercised. Chapter 15.50 (Flood Damage Prevention) The purpose of Chapter 15.50 (Flood Damage Prevention) of the Municipal Code is to promote the public health, safety, and general welfare, and to minimize public and' private losses due to flood conditions. To accomplish this purpose, this chapter includes methods and provisions to: ■ Restrict or prohibit uses which are dangerous to health, safety, and property due to water or erosion hazards, or which result in damaging increases in erosion or flood heights or velocities ■ Require that uses vulnerable to floods, including facilities which serve such uses, be protected against flood damage at the time of initial construction ■ Control the alteration of natural floodplain, stream channels, and natural protective barriers, which help accommodate or channel flood waters ■ Control filling, grading, dredging, and other development which may increase flood damage ■ Prevent or regulate the construction of flood barriers which will unnaturally divert flood waters or which may increase flood hazards in other areas. Chapter 19.24 (Subdivision Design) Chapter 19.24 (Subdivision Design) of the Municipal Code contains slope, grading, drainage, and flood protection provisions specific to the development of subdivisions. 4.7.4 Thresholds of Significance The following thresholds of significance are based on Appendix G of the 2005 CEQA Guidelines. For purposes of this EIR, implementation of the proposed project may have a significant adverse impact on hydrology and water quality, as well as the City's storm drain system, 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 localgroundwater 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 ■ Require or result in the construction and/or expansion of new storm drain infrastructure that would cause significant environmental effects 1I Li 11 I 4.7.26 City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR ' 4.7 Hydrology and Water Quality ■ 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 ■ Expose people or structures to significant risk or loss, injury or death involving inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow 4.7.5 Project Impacts, Mitigation Measures, and Proposed Policies ■ Effects Not Found to Be Significant The IS/NOP prepared for the proposed project did not identify any effects not found to be significant associated with Hydrology and Water Quality. Therefore, all thresholds are addressed in this section. ■ Project Impacts Threshold Would the proposed project violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? Impact 4.7-1 Development under the proposed General Plan Update could result in an increase in pollutants in stormwater and wastewater, although water quality standards and waste discharge requirements would not be violated. Construction Soil disturbance would temporarily occur due to construction of future developments under the proposed General Plan Update, due to earth -moving activities, such as excavation and trenching for foundations and utilities, soil compaction and moving, cut and fill activities, and grading. Disturbed soils are susceptible to high rates of erosion from wind and rain, resulting in sediment transport via stormwater runoff from the project area. Erosion and sedimentation affects water quality through interference with photosynthesis, oxygen exchange, and the respiration, growth, and reproduction of aquatic species. Runoff from construction sites would be typical of urban areas, and may include sediments and contaminants such as oils, fuels, paints, and solvents. Additionally, other pollutants, such as nutrients, trace metals, and hydrocarbons, can attach to sediment and be transported to downstream drainages and ultimately into collecting waterways, contributing to degradation of water quality. Construction materials and waste handling, and the use of construction equipment, could also result in stormwater contamination and impact water quality. Spills or leaks from heavy equipment and machinery can result in oil and grease contamination. The potential demolition of buildings to allow for redevelopment activities, and the removal of waste material during construction could also result in tracking of dust and debris and release of contaminants in existing structures. Staging areas or building City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 4.7-27 sites can also be the source of pollution due to the use of paints, solvents, cleaning agents, and metals during construction. Pesticide use (including herbicides, fungicides, and rodenticides) associated with site preparation is another potential source of stormwater contamination, Larger pollutants, such as trash, debris, and organic matter could also be associated with construction activities. Water quality degradation could result in health hazards and aquatic ecosystem damage associated with bacteria, viruses, and vectors. Sediments and contaminants may be transported throughout site runoff to downstream drainages and ultimately into the collecting waterways, and potentially into the Pacific Ocean, thereby affecting surface water and off -shore water quality. Construction activities could include road improvements and realignments, installation and realignment of utilities, demolition of existing structures for new development or replacement, new development, and the potential replacement of facilities. Areas that disturb one or more acres of land surface are subject to the Construction General Permit, 99-08-DWQ adopted by the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), Preparation of a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) is required for compliance with the NPDES General Construction Stormwater Activity Permit. Compliance with the permit would involve filing a Notice of Intent with the SWRCB and preparing and submitting a SWPPP prior to construction activities. The SWPPP must describe the site, the facility, erosion and sediment controls, runoff water quality monitoring, means of waste disposal, implementation of approved local plans, control of construction sediment and erosion control measures, maintenance responsibilities, and nonstormwater management controls. Inspection of construction sites before and after storms is required to identify stormwater discharge from the construction activity and to identify and implement controls where necessary. The Construction General Permit requirements would need to be satisfied prior to beginning construction on any project located on a site greater than one acre. Certain other projects require the preparation of a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP). Water quality degradation from construction would be specific to each site within the project area, and depend largely on the areas affected and the length of time soils are subject to erosion, and construction activities on -site. All development would be subject to regional and local regulations, including Chapter 14.36 of the Municipal Code. Under the provisions of this chapter, any discharge that would result in or contribute to degradation of water quality via stormwater runoff is prohibited. Contractors constructing new development or redevelopment projects are required comply with provisions set forth in the DAMP, including the implementation of appropriate BMPs identified in the DAMP, to control stormwater runoff so as to prevent any deterioration of water quality that would impair subsequent or competing beneficial uses of the water. Typical BMPs that could be incorporated into the SWPPP or a WQMP would include, but are not limited to, the following: ■ Diversion of off -site runoff away from the construction site ■ Vegetation of proposed landscaped/grassed Swale areas as soon as feasible following grading activities ■ Revegetation of exposed soil surfaces as soon as feasible following grading activities ■ Perimeter straw wattles to prevent off -site transport of sediment 4.7.28 City of NewportBeach General Plan Update EIR 4.7 Hydrology and Water Quality ■ Drop inlet protection (filters and sand bags or straw wattles), with sandbag check dams within paved roadways ■ Regular watering of exposed soils to control dust during construction ■ Specifications for construction waste handling and disposal ■ Contained equipment wash -out and vehicle maintenance areas ■ Erosion and sedimentation control measures maintained throughout the construction period ■ Stabilized construction entrances to avoid trucks from imprinting debris on City roadways ■ Training of subcontractors on general site housekeeping Furthermore, City officers are given the authority to inspect facilities and perform sampling in areas with evidence of storm water contamination, illicit discharges of non-stormwater to the storm drain system, or similar factors. City officers may also establish conditions and requirements related to the reduction or elimination of pollutants in stormwater runoff from a given site within the project area and require the contractor's compliance. Both the SWPPP and provisions for obtaining a grading permit require approval of an erosion control plan. The erosion control plan could include measures such as limitations on grading during the dry season and construction discharges, as well as requirements for soil stabilization and use of sediment traps. Unless waived by the City's Building Official, soil engineering and engineering geology reports would also be prepared and submitted for any grading permit application. The recommendations contained in the approved geotechnical reports, which may include measures associated with erosion control, would be incorporated into the grading plans and would become conditions of the grading permit. The proposed General Plan Update also includes policies designed to minimize stormwater and erosional impacts during construction. Policy NR 3.10 requires new development applications to include a WQMP to minimize runoff during construction. Policies NR 3.11, NR 3.12, and NR 4.4 require improvement and implementation of BMPs to prevent or minimize erosion during construction. Of particular concern is development adjacent to sensitive habitat areas. This includes Banning Ranch and the Caltrans Remnant property. Banning Ranch is located north and east of Semeniuk Slough, a recognized Environmentally Sensitive Area. Caltrans Remnant property, located between MacArthur Boulevard and SR 73, north of San Diego Creek, is adjacent to wetlands on the Circulation Improvement and Open Space Agreement (CIOSA) open space property southwest of the Jamboree and MacArthur intersection. Grading associated with construction adjacent to these areas has the potential, if not properly regulated, to temporarily increase erosion and subsequent deposition of soil particles into the sensitive habitat. Runoff produced during and after construction is subject to National Pollution Discharge Elimination System Regulations, as well as local water quality and runoff standards, including the DAMP. Projects disturbing greater than one acre would be required to prepare and implement a SWPPP, which would require BMPs, such as prevention of stormwater from flowing over unprotected slopes, sandbagging around appropriate borders of the project area, temporary catch basins, and hay bales to prevent additional runoff and/or sediment from washing into the adjacent wetland areas. Disturbed areas would also be stabilized as quickly as possible, using biotechnical techniques. In addition, California Stormwater BMPs for Construction Activity, as prepared by the California State Stormwater Quality Task Force, would also need to be incorporated into the construction plans. City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 4.7.29 Compliance with regulations discussed above would reduce the risk of water degradation within the City from soil erosion related and construction activities. Since violations of water quality standards would be minimized, impacts to water quality from construction activities within the Planning Area would be less than significant. Operation Operation of future developments to occur under the proposed General Plan Update would result in the addition of contaminants into both the stormwater runoff entering the City's drainage system and the wastewater stream entering the local wastewater collection and treatment systems. Future developments would increase the amount of impervious surfaces within the City, which could potentially increase stormwater runoff. In addition, the operation of new land uses could result in the release of contaminants that would further degrade the quality of the stormwater runoff and wastewater. The proposed General Plan Update would allow infill development throughout the Planning Area, consistent with existing land use patterns, intensities and building types. The Update also would concentrate new development and redevelopment in several specified subareas: Newport Center/Fashion Island, Balboa Village, Balboa Peninsula, West Newport Mesa, West Newport Highway, Mariners' Mile, and the Airport Area, areas that ate already largely developed. The potential for infill development to contribute to polluted runoff would be minimal. The primary area of vacant land in the planning area is Banning Ranch, where it is possible that new development would occur and would result in additional urban runoff. This area is adjacent to Semeniuk Slough, a recognized Environmentally Sensitive Area. The Caltrans Remnant property is also adjacent to potential wetlands, located on the CIOSA open space parcel. Runoff from urban development typically contains contaminants such as oil, ,grease, metals, and landscaping chemicals (pesticides, herbicides, fertilizers, etc). These contaminants could be transported by stormwater runoff into the City's drainage system and ultimately degrade surface water and groundwater quality. In addition to stormwater runoff, polluted wastewater would be discharged by development under the proposed General Platt Update. Although the proposed land use changes would eliminate much of the existing industrial uses and related industrial wastewater discharges throughout the Planning Area, the increase in residential land uses would result in increases in wastewater contaminated with household chemicals. Proposed development would include household wastewater that discharges to the local wastewater systems. Depending on the wastewater service provider (City, IRWD, or Costa Mesa Sanitary District), discharges originating from these facilities would be treated either at one of OCSD's two treatment plants and discharged to the Pacific Ocean or at the Michelson Water Reclamation Plan in Irvine and reclaimed for irrigation, industrial, and non -potable domestic uses. In addition, OCSD reclaims wastewater for landscape irrigation and injection into the groundwater seawater intrusion barrier. These wastewater treatment plants must discharge effluent at levels acceptable by State and Federal standards. Section 4.14 (Utilities and Service Systems) contains a more detailed description of the wastewater services provided to the Planning Area. Under the Basin Plan for the Santa Ana River Basin, which establishes water quality objectives and standards for both surface and groundwater of the region, water quality discharge requirements meeting 4.7-30 City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 4.7 Hydrology and Water Quality area -wide surface water use objectives are established as permit requirements by the SARWQCB during permitting for operations of proposed developments. Under the SARWQCB's NPDES permit system, all existing and future municipal and industrial discharges to surface waters within the City would be subject to regulations. NPDES permits are required for operators of MS4s, construction projects, and industrial facilities. These permits contain limits on the amount of pollutants that could be contained in each facility's discharge. Specifically, all development within the City would be subject to the provisions of the City's NPDES MS4 Permit and the Orange County DAMP. Developments within the City would also be subject to the provisions in Chapter 14.36 (Water Quality) of the City of Newport Beach Municipal Code. Under the provisions of this chapter, any discharge that would result in or contribute to degradation of water quality via stormwater runoff is prohibited. As is required for construction activities, operation of new development or redevelopment projects are required comply with provisions set forth in the DAMP, including the implementation of appropriate BMPs identified in the DAMP, to control stormwater runoff so as to prevent any deterioration of water quality that would impair subsequent or competing beneficial uses of the water. These structural BMPs would include a range of methods, including but not limited to hydrodynamic devices, swales/biofilters, basins, and various filters. Appropriate nonstructural BMPs listed in the DAMP that may be used on site to control typical runoff pollutants include tenant/homeowner education, activity restrictions, common area landscape management, BMP maintenance, common area litter and animal waste control, catch basin inspection, employee training, private street/lot sweeping, smart irrigation controllers to avoid over -watering, and use of native drought -tolerant landscaping. In addition, where concerns of runoff into adjacent sensitive areas adjacent to potential new development, such as Banning Ranch and Caltrans Remnant property, exist, operational discharges would be expected to be conveyed away from the sensitive habitat areas, consistent with Policy NR 3.6, which requires that development not result in the degradation of natural water bodies. The DAMP would also include requirements that would avoid degradation of the adjacent habitat. Furthermore, City officers are given the authority to inspect facilities and perform sampling in areas with evidence of storm water contamination, illicit discharges of non- stormwater to the storm drain system, or similar factors. In an effort to further ensure the protection of the City's water quality, the proposed General Plan Update has established three goals; the enhancement and protection of water quality of all natural water bodies, the maintenance of water quality standards through compliance with TMDL standards, and minimization of adverse effects to water quality from sanitary sewer outflows. Policies NR 3.1 through NR 5.4 would achieve these goals by limiting the use of landscape chemicals detrimental to water quality, requiting development to result in no degradation of natural water bodies, requiring new development applications to include a WQMP to minimize construction and post -construction runoff, implementing and improving BMPs, requiring all street drainage systems to be designed to minimize adverse impacts on water quality, requiring grading/erosion control plans with structural BMPs that prevent or minimize erosion, and renovating all older sewer pump station and installing new plumbing according to most recent standards. Implementation of Policy NR 3.21 contained in the proposed General Plan Update would minimize the creation of and increase in impervious surfaces, while increasing the area of pervious surfaces, where feasible. Policy NR 5.2 would regulate food preparation facilities that produce grease as waste dischargers, and they and would be required to obtain waste discharge permits. For a complete list City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 4.7.31 L of proposed General Plan Update Policies regarding water quality, see Proposed General Plan Update Policies below. Compliance with NPDES permits requirements, the Orange County DAMP, the Cites Municipal Code, and General Plan Policies would reduce the risk of water degradation within the City from the operation of new developments to the maximum extent practicable. Therefore, since violation of waste discharge requirements or water quality standards would be minimized, this impact would be less than significant. Threshold Would the proposed project 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? Impact 4.7-2 Development of the proposed General Plan Update could create additional impervious surfaces, which could interfere with groundwater recharge. Development could substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge. Construction Construction activities would primarily occur as part of infill/redevelopment, with the exception of the potential for development on Banning Ranch. The City is not located within an identified recharge area, as recharge primarily occurs in the upper portions of the Basin 42 Because the Planning Area is near the coast, the groundwater table underlying the Planning Area is shallow and can occur as little as 50 feet below ground surface. Pile driving, dewatering, and other construction activities that would encounter groundwater could potentially occur. While the insertion of support and foundation structures in the groundwater may reduce the storage capacity of groundwater, the displaced volume would not be substantial relative to the volume of the Basin. Likewise, while dewatering would remove groundwater, the volume of water removed would not likely be substantial relative to groundwater pumping for water supply. Also, water used during construction for cleaning, dust control; and other uses would be nominal. Thus, construction activities would not substantially deplete groundwater supplies nor interfere substantially with groundwater recharge. This impact is considered less than slgnLricant. Operation As discussed in Existing Conditions, above, the Orange County Groundwater Basin underlies the northwestern portion of the Planning Area, and •provides groundwater for much of central and north Orange County, including the Newport Beach Planning Area. The OCWD manages the Basin with a total capacity of approximately 38,000,000 AP'. Recharge to the Basin is derived from percolation of Santa Ana River flow, infiltration of precipitation, and injection into wells. New development occurring 62 OCWD. 2004. Groundwater Management Ain. March. L E I u n D 4.7.32 City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR ' 4.7'Hydrology and Water Quality I from implementation of the proposed General Plan Update would increase the demand for groundwater as supplied by the City, IRWD, and Mesa Consolidated Water District (Mesa). As analyzed in Section 4.14 (Utilities and Service Systems) under Impact 4.14.1-1, the City's Water Supply Plan, which accounts for demand resulting from implementation of the proposed General Plan Update, states that projected groundwater supplies will meet projected demand throughout the City The Natural Resources Element of the proposed General Plan Update identifies goals and related policies designed to minimize water consumption and expand the use of alternative water sources to provide adequate water supplies for present use and future growth. See Chapter 4.14 (Utilities and Service Systems), Section 4.14.1 (Water Supply) for the complete list of proposed water supply policies. Implementation of these policies would ensure water conservation and reduce potential impacts to groundwater supply. As such, increased demand for groundwater supply within the City under the proposed General Plan Update would not substantially deplete groundwater supplies. This impact is considered less than significant. Intensification of development and addition of impervious surfaces as a result of implementation of the proposed General Plan Update would not interfere with groundwater recharge. Recharge to the Basin is derived from (1) percolation of Santa Ana River flow, (2) injection into wells, (3) and infiltration of precipitation. Implementation of the proposed General Plan Update would not interfere substantially with percolation of Santa Ana River flow because the planning subareas targeted for development are not on and would not deplete the flow of the Santa Ana River. Also, because the Planning Area is at the outlet of the Santa Ana River, activities within the Planning Area do not greatly contribute to the river's flow. Injection wells in the County are operated and managed by OCWD. There are no injection wells located within the City. Thus, implementation of the proposed General Plan Update would not substantially interfere with injection into wells. The proposed General Plan Update could affect groundwater recharge by reducing the infiltration of precipitation by adding impervious surfaces. New development on vacant lands would reduce the amount of pervious surfaces within the Planning Area. However, the City is not identified as a key area of groundwater recharge. The proposed General Plan Update would allow infill development throughout the Planning Area, consistent with existing land use patterns, intensities and building types. The Update also would concentrate new development and redevelopment in several specified subareas: Newport Center/Fashion Island, Balboa Village, Balboa Peninsula, West Newport Mesa, West Newport Highway, Mariners' Mile, and the Airport Area. These areas are already developed with existing uses and, impervious surfaces. The primary area of vacant land in the planning area is Banning Ranch, where it is possible that new development would occur. Similar to the remainder of the City, this site is not a groundwater recharge area. Therefore, new development would not substantially affect groundwater recharge. Potential impacts to groundwater recharge would be less than significant Threshold Would the proposed project 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? Impact 4.7-3 Development under the proposed General Plan Update could alter the existing drainage pattern of the Planning Area and potentially result in erosion and siltation. City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 4.7-33 Chapter 4 Environmental Analysis Construction Construction activities under the proposed General Plan Update would involve stockpiling, grading, excavation, dredging, paving, and other earth -disturbing activities resulting in the alteration of existing drainage patterns. These types of activities would constitute a temporary alteration of drainage patterns. The proposed General Plan Update includes policies designed to minimize stormwater and erosional impacts during construction. Policy NR 3.10 requires new development applications to include a WQMP to minimize runoff during construction. Implementation of this policy would, in turn, minimize runoff - induced erosion. Policies NR 3.11, NR 3.12, and NR 4.4 require improvement and implementation of BMPs to prevent or minimize erosion during construction. Compliance with this Federal regulation would minimize the potential for construction activities to alter natural drainages via the deposition of sediments. In addition, as described in Impact 4.7-1, above, compliance with SWRCB's NPDES General Construction Activity Stormwater Permit, NPDES MS4 regulations, and the City's Municipal Code would reduce the risk of short-term erosion resulting from drainage alterations during construction to a less-than-signiifcaat impact. Operation Development under the proposed General Plan Update would result in alterations to drainage, such as changes in ground surface permeability via paving, changes in topography via grading and excavation. Impact 4.7-1 discusses applicable regulations that would limit pollutant discharges from proposed development under the GeneralPlan. NPDES permit requirements would be imposed on applicable projects to limit pollutant discharges. Further, all development within the City would be subject to the provisions of the City's NPDES MS4 Permit and the Orange County DAMP. DAMP provisions including the implementation of appropriate BMPs including a range of methods that could minimize off -site erosion, including but not limited to hydrodynamic devices, swales/biofilters, basins, and various filters. The proposed General Plan Update includes policies designed to minimize post -construction erosional impacts. These policies include NR 3.10, NR 3.11, NR 4.4, NR 3.20, S 5.3, NR 3.16, and NR 3.21. These policies requite preparation of a WQMP, implementation of BMPs, incorporation of stormwater detention facilities, design of drainage facilities to minimize adverse effects on water quality, and minimization of increases in impervious areas. Implementation of these policies would reduce the volume sediment -laden runoff discharging from sites within project area. Therefore, compliance with NPDES regulations, the City's Municipal Code, and CDFG regulations in addition to implementation of the proposed General Plan Update Policies identified in this impact analysis would reduce the risk of erosion resulting from drainage alterations during the operation of new developments to a less-than- signiEcantimpact. For a description of non -runoff -induced erosion hazards and impacts, see Section 4.5 (Geology and Soils). 4.7-34 City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 4.7 Hydrology and Water Quality -_I Threshold Would the proposed project 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? Threshold Would the proposed project 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? Impact 4.7-4 Development under the proposed General Plan Update could alter the existing drainage pattern of the Planning Area and potentially result in increased downstream flooding through the addition of impervious surfaces, exceeding the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems, or providing substantial additional sources of polluted runoff. Planning subareas where land use changes or new development or redevelopment could occur, and other areas of the City where infill development could occur, under the proposed General Plan Update would generally result in infill development or redevelopment, with the main exception of Banning Ranch. As such, most of the planning subareas would not result in new development that would substantially alter drainage patterns because these areas are already developed with existing uses and impervious surfaces. However, development of land that may currently be vacant and covered with permeable surfaces, such as bare soil or vegetation may occur. The -primary area that would experience increased runoff from implementation of the proposed General Plan Update would be in the Banning Ranch area, if it is developed. Increased impervious surfaces would increase stormwater runoff in the City. This increased runoff could exceed the capacity of existing and planned infrastructure and cause downstream flooding impacts. As described in Existing Conditions, the existing drainage system throughout the City is not adequate for existing needs. The City's SDMP, completed in 2000, evaluated the deficiencies in the City's existing storm drain system and proposed upgrades. Most of the proposed upgrades are the result of increased development in drainage areas due to development since the design of the original system. The SDMP primarily addressed drainage deficiencies existing in 2000 and did not include upgrades that would he necessary with implementation of the proposed General Plan Update. However, according to the SDMP upgrades were proposed in most of the subareas, including small upgrades in the Airport Area. Improvements to Banning Ranch were not included in the SDMP. The proposed General Plan Update policies identified in Impact 4.7-3, above, designed to minimize stormwater runoff would also apply to runoff -related flooding impacts. These policies include NR 3.10, NR 3.11, NR 4.4, NR 3.20, S 5.3, NR 3.16, and NR 3.21. These policies require preparation of a WQMP, implementation of BMPs, incorporation of stormwater detention facilities, design of drainage facilities to minimize adverse effects on water quality, minimize increases in impervious areas. As analyzed in Impact 4.7-3, implementation of these policies would also reduce the volume of runoff generated, and potential for flooding, throughout the Planning Area. City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 4.7.35 Chapter 4 Environmental Analysis Additional policies that, if implemented, would minimize flooding are contained in the Safety Element of the proposed General Plan Update. These include Policies S 2.6, S 5.1, and S 5.3 Policies would require storm drain maintenance; mitigation of flood hazards by including onsite drainage systems that ate connected to the City's storm drain system, grading of sites within the project area such that runoff does not impact adjacent properties, or elevating buildings above flood levels; and incorporation of stormwater detention basins. Compliance with the methods and provisions contained in Chapter 15.50 of the City's Municipal Code would also minimize flood hazards resulting from drainage alterations. Specifically, Section 15.50.160 requires that the flood carrying capacity within watercourses proposed for alteration or relocation is maintained. If development proposes changes to drainages, this would occur in compliance with CDFG Streambed Alteration regulations in order to maintain drainage patterns. Therefore, implementation of the proposed General Plan Update policies and compliance with NPDES regulations, the City's Municipal Code, and CDFG regulations would reduce the risk of flooding resulting from drainage alterations to a less-than-signi&cantimpact. Operation of the proposed General Plan Update would degrade runoff water quality by contributing chemicals associated with household, commercial, transportation, and landscape uses. However, activities during operation of the proposed developments would not provide additional sources of polluted runoff apart from those described in Impact 4.7-1, above. This impact would be less than significant. Threshold Would the proposed project require or result in the construction and/or expansion of new storm drain infrastructure that would cause significant environmental effects? Impact 4.7-5 Increases in stormwater runoff could require expansion of existing or construction of new storm drain facilities, the construction of which could result in significant environmental effects. As described in Existing Conditions, the capacity of the existing storm drain infrastructure throughout the Planning Area is not sufficient to handle existing stormwater flows. Implementation of the upgrades proposed in the City's SDMP would help alleviate existing deficiencies but would not provide adequate infrastructure to support development upon implementation of the proposed General Plan Update. While development in many urbanized portions of the Planning Area may not substantially exceed existing storm drain facilities, proposed development in currently vacant and underdeveloped areas, such as Banning Ranch, would necessitate of the construction of new or the expansion of existing storm drain infrastructure, Policies contained in the General Plan Update would ensure that new development can be adequately supported by utilities such as storm drainage infrastructure. In adhering to this policy, expansion of existing or construction of new facilities would take place prior to development. To further ensure new facilities are provided, the Public Infrastructure Plan in the proposed General Plan Update specifies that the City and County will review the Storm Drain Master Plan to assure that adequate facilities are provided to serve permitted land use development. As part of this process, the adequacy of facilities serving underdeveloped areas, such as Banning Ranch, will be evaluated to determine future needs. 4.7-36 City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 4.7 Hydrology and Water Quality Storm drain facility upgrades could result in short-term construction impacts due to earth trenching and other earth moving activities. These impacts would be similar to those described under Impact 4.7-1. However, the other construction impacts anticipated to result from implementation of the General Plan Update are comprehensively analyzed in Section 4.2 (Air Quality), Section 4.3 (Biological Resources), Section 4.9 (Noise), and Section 4.13 (Transportation/Traffic) of this EIR. It is not anticipated that this construction of necessary storm drainage upgrades in and of itself would result in impacts separate from the General Plan Update. Nonetheless, upgrades, expansion, and construction of necessary utilities to accommodate new development would be subject to project -specific environmental review. Impacts are, therefore, less than significant. Threshold Would the proposed project otherwise substantially degrade water quality? Impact 4.7-6 Development under the proposed General Plan Update could result in the degradation of groundwater quality. Construction The Planning Area is located along the coast and is underlain by a shallow groundwater table. In addition to potential degradation of surface water resources, as analyzed in Impacts 4.7-1 and 4.7-3, above, construction of development under the proposed General Plan Update could result in degradation of groundwater resources. Construction would involve earth -disturbing activities, such as .trenching for underground utilities and pile driving for foundations, which could encounter and contaminate groundwater resources. Compliance with Chapter 15.10 of the Municipal Code would ensure that these earth -disturbing activities would not result in adverse groundwater conditions. In addition, hazardous materials used during construction could contaminate surface water and percolate into the groundwater underlying the project area if the materials are not properly contained. Such risks of contamination would be minimized by implementation of Policy S7.4 of the proposed General Plan Update. This policy also requires remediation of surface water and groundwater impacted by construction activities. If previously unknown groundwater contamination is discovered during new construction activities, Policy NR 3.4 would require the remediation of the groundwater contamination. As discussed previously, impacts associated with the degradation of groundwater quality during construction activities would be less than significant. For a description of existing groundwater contamination in the City and an analysis of hazardous materials impacts to groundwater under the proposed General Plan Update, see Section 4.6 (Hazards and Hazardous Materials). Operation In coastal groundwater basins, such as the Orange County Groundwater Basin, groundwater quality can be degraded through the intrusion of seawater primarily by pumping for domestic and irrigation water supply. As groundwater is extracted, the ability is created for seawater to migrate into the area from which the groundwater was extracted. For this reason, the injection wells were established along the City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 4.7-37 Alamitos and Talbert gaps, which protect groundwater quality in the upper portions of the Basin, where the majority of the pumping occurs. Degradation of groundwater quality would reduce the groundwater basin yield, diminishing production from existing activities and limiting future groundwater development. As determined in Impact 4.14.1-1 in Section 4.14 (Utilities and Service Systems) of this EIR, development under the proposed General Plan Update would not be adequately served by the existing water supply, however, it is not anticipated that the construction of new wells would be necessary. Because operation of the proposed General Plan Update would not substantially increase groundwater pumping, the project would not adversely impact groundwater quality due to saltwater intrusion. Common sources of groundwater contamination are leaking underground storage tanks, septic systems, oil fields, landfills, and general industrial land uses. Implementation of the proposed General Plan Update would not construct oil fields or landfills and would eliminate 406,000 square feet of industrial land uses throughout the Planning Area. Under Section 19,28.070 of the City's Municipal Code, new subdivisions are prohibited from constructing septic tanks. All lots intended for building development are required to be connected to a public sewer system. Therefore, degradation of groundwater quality from these sources would not result from development under the proposed General Plan Update. For further analysis of hazardous material impacts to groundwater, see Section 4.6 (Hazards and Hazardous Materials). Implementation of the proposed General Plan Update policies would minimize any other potential sources of water quality degradation. Implementation of Policies NR 3.1 through NR 5A work towards enhancement and protection of water quality of all natural water bodies, the maintenance of water quality standards through compliance with TMDL standards, and minimization of adverse effects to water quality from sanitary sewer outflows. Implementation of Policies S 7.1, S 7.4, and S 7.6 of the Safety Element would acWeve the goal of minimizing exposure of people and the environment to hazardous materials, including the contamination of groundwater by hazardous materials. Thus, with implementation of the proposed General Plan Update policies and compliance with the Municipal Code, development under the proposed General Plan Update would not otherwise degrade water quality. Impacts would be less than slgni6cant. Threshold Would the proposed project 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? Impact 4.7-7 Development under the proposed General Plan Update could place housing within a 100-year flood zone. As shown in Figure 4.7-3, the 100-year flood zone is primarily contained in and along the edges of Newport Bay and along the coastline of the Planning Area. Specifically, several of the nine planning subareas targeted for residential development under the proposed General Plan Update lie within a 100- year flood zone. Parts of Mariners' Mile, the western portion of Banning Ranch, Balboa Village, Balboa Peninsula, Balboa Island, and West Newport Highway are susceptible to 100-year flood conditions. Development in Banning Ranch would occur on upland areas, outside of the 100-year flood zone. In other subareas within the 100-year flood zone, residential development already exists, and development 4.7-38 City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 4.7 Hydrology and Water Quality 'I I n under the proposed General Plan Update would increase the number of multi -family and single-family development units within the 100-year flood zone in these subareas. The Safety Element of the proposed General Plan Update has established a goal to protect human life and public and private property from the risks of flooding. The Safety Element includes flood policies that, if implemented, would achieve this goal. Under Policy S 5.1, all new development within 100-year flood zones would be required to mitigate flood hazards by including onsite drainage systems that are connected to the City's storm drain system, grading of sites within the project area such that runoff does not impact adjacent properties, or elevating buildings above flood levels. If building pads are elevated out of the floodplain, a Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) would be required from FEMA that certifies the land has been elevated out of the floodplain. Furthermore, Chapter 15.50 of the City's Municipal Code establishes methods and provisions that would minimize flood damage to residential development. In particular, Section 15.50.200 and 15.50.220 require the lowest floor of residential structures and structures within subdivisions to be elevated to or above the base flood level. Floodproofing measures included in the proposed General Plan Update and existing municipal code would be sufficient to protect new structures from damage in the event of a 100-year flood. Therefore, impacts of flood hazards to housing developed under the proposed General Plan Update would be less than significant. Threshold Would the proposed project place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flows? Impact 4.7-8 Development under the proposed General Plan Update could place structures within a 100-year flood zone, but not in a manner that would substantially impede or redirect flows. Development under the proposed General Plan Update would include structures that could potentially be placed in a 100-year flood zone. Specifically, several of the nine planning subareas targeted for development under the proposed General Plan Update lie within the 100-year flood zone. Parts of Mariners' Mile, the western portion of Banning Ranch, Balboa Village, Balboa Peninsula, Balboa Island, and West Newport Highway are susceptible to 100-year flood conditions. With the exception of Banning Ranch, structures in 100-year flood zones already exist in these subareas. Intensification of development could alter existing passages through which flood waters flow, particularly during a 100-year storm event where rainfall would exceed capacity of storm drain systems. ' Flood waters that exceed the capacities of existing and improved drainages would travel by overland flow on any available grounds surface, such as streets, lawns, and spaces between buildings. Intensification of development would increase the area of land covered by structures, leaving less available ground surface area over which flood flows could travel. Building density under the proposed General Plan Update is not anticipated to increase to such an extent that would substantially increase obstructions to flood flows, with the exception of potential development in Banning Ranch. Displacement of flows would also occur ICity of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 4.7.39 Chapter 4 Environmental Analysis where land is elevated out of the floodplain area, which would displace flood haters that would otherwise cover the project area, A water displacement analysis would be required to investigate the effect of new structural development or fill on flooding depth, pursuant to FEMA regulation 44 CFR 60.3 (c)(10). Preparation of water displacement analyses where appropriate and compliance with FEMA regulations would ensure that General Plan development would not substantially impede or redirect flows. Impacts would be less than significant. Threshold Would the proposed project 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? Impact4.7-9 Development under the proposed General Plan Update could expose people and structures to flood risks. As described in Existing Conditions, above, several dams are located within and in the vicinity of the City of Newport Beach. Portions of Newport Beach are downstream from Ptado Dam, Santiago Creek Reservoir, Villa Park Reservoir, San Joaquin Reservoir, Big Canyon Reservoir, and Harbor View Reservoir (Newport Beach 2004). Dam failure inundation zones in the Planning Area are similar to the 100-year flood zones, That is, areas that would be inundated in the event of dam failure are those that are near the Santa Ana River, San Diego Creek, and Newport Bay. In addition, the stretch of land between Big Canyon Reservoir and Newport Bay is within the Big Canyon Reservoir inundation area. Land within the Harbor View Reservoir inundation area includes several blocks of urban development adjacent to Newport Harbor. Of the nine planning subareas targeted for development under the proposed General Plan Update, portions of Banning Ranch and West Newport Highway he widvn a dam failure inundation zone. The proposed residential, visitor, and commercial uses identified for these subareas would be subject to dam failure inundation. Because the holding -capacity of dams is greater than that of other structures, failure of other flood control and water storage structures, such as levees and water tanks, would not result in inundation impacts greater than those resulting from dam failure. The probability of dam failure is low. Development under the proposed General Plan Update would not increase the risk of dam failure, although it would increase the number of persons and amount of development exposed to this hazard. Dam failure could also result due to a seismic event. Implementation of the flood protection policies contained in the proposed General Plan Update, and existing City Municipal Code, as described in Impact 4.7-8, would minimize the impact of flooding. These protective measures would also reduce impacts from flooding as a result of dam failure to the extent feasible. Thus, risks associated with flooding, including dam failure inundation, would be less than significant in the Planning Area. 4.7-40 City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 11 4.7 Hydrology and Water Quality 11 It II Threshold Would the proposed project expose people or structures to significant risk or loss, injury or death involving inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow� Impact 4.7-10 Development under the proposed General Plan Update could expose people and structures to flood risks. As described in Existing Conditions, above, potential risks from seiche and tsunami exist throughout the City. Seiches in large, enclosed bodies of water, such as the reservoirs in the City and, to an extent, Newport Harbor and Newport Bay, would inundate immediate areas surrounding the body of water. Of the nine planning subareas targeted for development under the proposed General Plan Update, Mariners' Mile, Balboa Peninsula, and Balboa Village would be at risk of inundation resulting from seiche in Newport Harbor. Coastal flood hazards, such as tsunamis and rogue waves, would inundate primarily the low-lying areas of the City's coastline, including, but not limited to, the West Newport Highway, Mariners' Mile, Balboa Peninsula, Balboa Island, and Balboa Village subareas. Potential risks from mudflow (i.e., mudslide, debris flow) are also prevalent, as steep slopes exist throughout the City. Prolonged rainfall during certain storm events would saturate and could eventually loosen soil, resulting in slope failure. Within the Planning Area, the San Joaquin Hills and areas downslope of the bluffs along Upper Newport Bay, Newport Harbor, the Pacific Ocean, and Newport Coast are the most susceptible to mudflow inundation. Development under the proposed General Plan Update would increase the exposure of people to the low -probability but high -risk events such as seiche, tsunami, and mudflows by increasing development in certain areas of the City, including Mariners' Mile and Banning Ranch. The Safety Element of the proposed General Plan Update has established a goal to minimize adverse effects of coastal hazards related to tsunamis and rogue waves. Implementation of Policies S 1.1 through S 1.5 would achieve this goal by identifying evacuation routes in areas susceptible to tsunami inundation, developing and implementing response plans for adoption by the City's emergency services, and maintaining beach width to provide protection against tsunami run-up, developing and implementing an educational program for people in susceptible areas, and supporting tsunami research. The Safety Element also includes a goal to minimize adverse effects of coastal hazards related to storm surges and Seiches. Implementation of Policies S2.1 through 52.7 would achieve this goal by preparing impact reports for shoreline and coastal bluff areas that will be made available to applicants for new development, developing and implementing shoreline management plans, using sand dunes as shoreline protective structures, maintaining storm drains in low-lying areas such that flood waters can be effectively conveyed away from structures, requiring residential structures to raise floor elevations, and enforcing policies that prohibit the construction of hard devices for protection of public property from storm surges. In addition, implementation of the flood protection policies contained in the Safety Element of the proposed General Plan Update, as described in Impact 4.7-8, would also help minimize the impact of flooding, including flooding as a result of seiche and tsunami inundation. Furthermore, all new development in the City occurring in areas that are subject to flood hazards would be required to comply with the flood damage prevention provisions of the City's Municipal Code. Thus, risks associated with inundation by seiche, tsunami, and mudflow are considered to be less than significant in the Planning Area. r City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 4.7.41 ■ Cumulative Impacts Water Quality The geographic context for the analysis of cumulative impacts associated with water quality is the area covered by the Newport Bay, Newport Coast, Talbert, and San Diego Creek Watersheds, which are described above in Existing Conditions. Buildout of the proposed General Plan Update, in combination with all other development that would occur within the watershed, would involve construction activities, new development from which runoff would discharge into waterways, increases in stormwater runoff from new imperious surfaces, and reduction in groundwater recharge areas. Construction of new development throughout the watersheds could result in the erosion of soil, thereby cumulatively degrading water qualitywithin the watershed. In addition, the increase in impermeable surfaces and more intensive land uses within the Santa Ana Watershed resulting from future development may also adversely affect water quality by increasing the amount of stormwater runoff and common urban contaminants entering the storm drain system. However, new development would be required to comply with existing regulations regarding construction practices that minimize risks of erosion and runoff. Among the various regulations are the applicable provisions of Orange County Ordinance 3988 (Stormwater Management and Urban Runoff —Orange County Flood Control District Regulations), Best Management Practices, compliance with appropriate grading pernuts, and NPDES permits. This would minimize degradation of water quality at individual project construction sites. As such, cumulative impacts would be less than signWeant. Compliance by the City and SOI with applicable SWRCB and RWQCB regulations and the City of Newport Beach Municipal Code, as discussed in Impact 4.7-1, would ensure that water quality is maintained to the maximum extent practicable for new development under the proposed General Plan Update. Thus, impacts associated with water quality from implementation of the proposed General Plan Update would be less than significant, and the proposed General Plan Update would not have a cumulatively considerable contribution to the cumulative effects related to water quality. Groundwater The geographic context for the analysis of cumulative impacts associated with groundwater is the area underlain by the Coastal Plain of Orange County Groundwater Basin, which is described in Existing Conditions. Continued development within the Basin could also interfere with groundwater recharge. New development occurring in vacant areas that currently serve as groundwater recharge areas would reduce recharge potential within the watershed. The potential impacts to groundwater recharge in the City and SOI, as analyzed in Impact 4.7-2, would be less than significant from implementation of the proposed General Plan Update. Although implementation of the proposed General Plan Update would not have a cumulatively considerable contribution to the adverse effects on groundwater recharge in the Basin, the overall growth and development that would take place throughout Basin would directly and/or indirectly result in the loss of groundwater recharge areas. This loss would be mitigated by OCWD via operation of the GRS. Implementation of the GRS would increase groundwater supplies by injecting reclaimed water into the Basin and protecting it against saltwater intrusion. Thus, impacts associated with groundwater from implementation of the proposed General Plan Update would be less 4.7-42 City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 4.7 Hydrology and Water Quality than significant, and the project would not have a cumulatively considerable contribution to the cumulative effects related to groundwater. Storm Drainage The existing storm drain system in the City is currently owned and operated by the City, while the Orange County RDMD is responsible for all regional drainage facilities within the County. Since some local storm drain facilities within the City ultimately flow into the County facilities, the geographic context for cumulative impacts is the Orange County. Buildout of the proposed General Plan Update, in combination with all other development that would occur within the County, would involve development that would increase stormwater runoff from new impervious surfaces. This increased development would require the construction of new, or expansion of existing, storm drain facilities; however, all new development would be required to comply with existing State and local regulations regarding construction and operation practices that minimize the amount of stormwater runoff that enters the storm drain system. In addition, the proposed General Plan Update policies require that adequate storm water conveyance and storage control facilities be maintained and/or constructed for all development. As such, the project's contribution to the cumulative effects related to storm drains as well as the overall cumulative impact within the County would be less than significant. Flood Hazards The geographic context for the analysis of cumulative impacts associated with flooding hazards is the area covered by the Newport Bay, Newport Coast, Talbert, and San Diego Creek Watersheds, which are described above in Existing Conditions. Cumulative growth and development throughout the watersheds could result in the introduction of new structures and impervious surfaces that would increase stormwater runoff, which could subsequently lead to increased flood hazards. However, it is anticipated that applicable State and local regulations would prevent the placement of housing and structures in 100- year flood hazard areas unless flood control improvements are made to reduce the risk from 100-year floods. Within Orange County, for instance, future development that could potentially affect floodwater conveyance, which in turn could adversely affect pubic health and general safety, would be subject to the requirements of the OCFCD, County General Plan policies related to flood hazards, and other cities' flood plain management ordinances. As such, this cumulative impact would be less than significant. The proposed projeces contribution to cumulative impacts associated with flood hazards in the Newport Bay, Newport Coast, Talbert, and San Diego Creek Watersheds would be less than significant. Cumulative development in the watershed would not expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving flooding or inundation. Although cumulative development could potentially result in increases in the number of people living in potential dam, levee, seiche, tsunami, and mudflow inundation areas, the occurrence of these events at a catastrophic level is considered remote. In addition, it is anticipated that applicable policies related to inundation hazards from the general plans of each jurisdiction encompassed by the watershed would ensure that development would be protected against potential structural failures and severe weather conditions. The Orange County General Plan, for instance, has a policy to identify areas subject to dam failure inundation. Implementation of this policy would ensure that applications for future development in Orange County would be aware of significant ' City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 4.7-43 I adverse impacts from dam failure. Thus, this cumulative impact would be less than significant. Therefore, the proposed General Plan Update's contribution to cumulative impacts associated with the potential failure of a dam would be less than significant. ■ Proposed General Plan Update Policies ' The Natural Resources and Safety Elements of the proposed General Plan Update include policies that would address issues related to hydrology and water quality. The policies that are applicable to the project are included below. Policies identified below that are also contained in the Harbor and Bay Element are denoted with an "HB". Natural Resources Element Water Quality I Goa1NR3 Enhancement and protection of water quality of all natural water bodies, including coastal waters, creeks, bays, harbors, and wetlands. (Goal HB8) Policy NR 3.1 Information and Education on Water Quality Issues Support the development of a model (physical and/or mathematical) of the Bay and coastline that provides information regarding the nature and extent of the water quality problem and enables prediction of the effects of changes on the entire system. (Policy HB8.1) Policy NR 3.2 Chemical Use Impacts Support regulations limiting or banning the use insecticides, fertilizers, and other chemicals which are shown to be detrimental to water quality. (Policy HB8.2) Policy NR 3.3 Water Pollution Prevention Promote pollution prevention and elimination methods that minimize the introduction of pollutants into natural water bodies. (Policy HB8.3) Policy NR 3.4 Ground Water Contamination Suspend activities and implement appropriate health and safety procedures in the event that previously unknown groundwater contamination is encountered during construction. Where site contamination is identified, implement an appropriate remediation strategy that is approved by the City and the state agency with appropriate jurisdiction. (Policy HB8.4) 4.7.44 City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 1 4.7 Hydrology and Water Quality Policy NR 3.5 Storm Sewer System Permit ' Require all development to comply with the regulations under the City's municipal separate storm sewer system permit under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System. (Policy HB8.5) Policy NR 3.6 Natural Water Bodies Require that development not result in the degradation of natural water bodies. (Policy HB8.6) 1 Policy NR 3.7 Watershed Runoff Quality Control Support and participate in watershed -based runoff reduction, water quality control, and other planning efforts with the California Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), the County of Orange, and upstream cities. (Policy HB8.7) Policy NR 3.8 Newport Beach Water Quality Ordinance Update and enforce the Newport Beach Water Quality Ordinance. (Policy HB8.8) Policy NR 3.9 Permit Review Process ' Develop and maintain a water quality checklist to be used in the permit review process to assess potential water quality impacts. (Policy HB8.9) ' Policy NR 3.10 Water Quality Management Plan Require new development applications to include a Water Quality ' Management Plan (WQMP) to minimize runoff from rainfall events during construction and post -construction. (Policy HB8.10) ' Policy NR 3.11 Best Management Practices Implement and improve upon Best Management Practices (BMPs) for residences, businesses, development projects, and City operations. (Policy HB8.11) Policy NR 3.12 Site Design and Source Control ' Include site design and source control BMPs in all developments. When the combination of site design and source control BMPs are not sufficient to protect water quality as required by the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES), structural treatment BMPs will be implemented along with site design and source control measures. (Policy 1-1158.12) Policy NR 3.13 Reduction of Infiltration Include equivalent BMPs that do not require infiltration, where infiltration of 1 runoff would exacerbate geologic hazards. (Policy HB8.13) ' City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 4.7-45 II Chapter 4 Environmental Analysis Policy NR 3.14 Natural Wetlands Promote the use of natural wetlands to improve water quality. (Policy HB8.14) Policy NR 3.15 Runoff Reduction on Private Property Retain runoff on private property to prevent the transport of pollutants into recreational waters, to the maximum extent practicable. (Policy HB8.15) Policy NR 3.16 Street Drainage Systems 1 Require all street drainage systems and other physical improvements created by the City, or developers of new subdivisions, to be designed, constructed, and ; maintained to minimize adverse impacts on water quality. Investigate the possibility of treating or diverting street drainage to minimize impacts to water bodies. (Policy H138.16) , Policy NR 3.17 Siting of New Development Require that development be located on the most suitable portion of the site and designed to ensure the protection and preservation of natural and sensitive site resources that provide important water quality benefits. (Policy H138.17) Policy NR 3.18 Parking Lots and Rights -of -Way Require that parking lots, and public and private rights -of -way be maintained and cleaned frequently to remove debris and contaminated residue. (Policy HB8.18) Policy NR 3.19 Water Quality Education Effectively communicate water quality education to residents and businesses, including the development of a water quality testing lab and educational exhibits at various educational facilities. (Policy HB8.19) Policy NR 3.20 Natural Drainage Systems Require incorporation of natural drainage systems and stormwater detention facilities into new developments, where appropriate and feasible, to retain stormwater in order to increase groundwater recharge. (Policy HB8.20) Policy NR 3.21 Impervious Surfaces Require new development and public improvements to minimize the creation of and increases in impervious surfaces, especially directly connected impervious areas, to the maximum extent practicable. Require redevelopment to increase area of pervious surfaces, where feasible. (Policy H138.21) 4.7.46 City of Newport'Beach General Plan Update EIR 4.7 Hydrology and Water Quality Goal NR 4 Maintenance of water quality standards through compliance with the total maximum daily loads (TMDLs) standards Policy NR 4.1 Total Maximum Daily Loads Develop and implement the TMDLs established by the RWQCB, Santa Ana Region and guided by the Newport Bay Watershed Executive Committee (WEC). Policy NR 4.2 Funding for Restoration and Dredging Projects Secure funding for the Upper Newport Bay Ecosystem Restoration Project and long-term funding for successor dredging projects for Upper and Lower Newport Bay. Policy NR 4.3 Restore Natural Hydrologic Conditions Preserve, or where feasible, restore natural hydrologic conditions such that downstream erosion, natural sedimentation rates, surface flow, and groundwater recharge function near natural equilibrium states. Goal NR 4 Maintenance of water quality standards through compliance with the total maximum daily loads (TMDLs) standards. Policy NR 4.4 Erosion Minimization Require grading/erosion control plans with structural BMPs that prevent or minimize erosion during and after construction for development on steep slopes, graded, or disturbed areas. Goal NR 5 Sanitary Sewer Outflows —Minimal adverse effects to water quality from sanitary sewer outflows Policy NR5.1 City Sewer Management and Master Plans Implement the Sewer System Management Plan and the Sewer Master Plan. Policy NR 5.2 Waste Discharge Permits Require waste discharge permits for all food preparation facilities that produce grease. Policy NR 5.3 Sewer Pump Stations Renovate all older sewer pump stations and install new plumbing according to most recent standards. City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 4.7.47 Chapter 4 Environmental Analysis Policy NR 5.4 Waste Discharge Permits Comply with the RWQCB's Waste Discharge Requirements (WDRs) associated with the operation and maintenance of the City's sewage collection system. Land Use Element Goal LU2 A living, active, and diverse environment that complements all lifestyles and enhances neighborhoods, without compromising the valued resources that make Newport Beach unique. It contains a diversity of uses that support the needs of residents, sustain and enhance the economy, provide job opportunities, serve visitors that enjoy the City's diverse recreational amenities, and protect its important environmental setting, resources, and quality of life. Policy LU 2.8 Adequate Infrastructure Accommodate the types, densities, and mix of land uses that can be adequately supported by transportation and utility infrastructure (water, sewer, storm drainage, energy, and so on) and public services (schools, parks, libraries, seniors, youth, police, fire, and so on). Goal LU 3 A development pattern that retains and complements the City's residential neighborhoods, commercial and industrial districts, open spaces, and natural environment. Policy LU 3.4 Banning Ranch Prioritize the retention of Banning Ranch as an open Space amenity for the City and region, consolidating oil operations, enhancing wetland and other habitats, and providing parkland amenities to serve nearby neighborhoods. If the property cannot be acquired in a timely manner, allow for the development of a compact residential village that preserves the majority of the site as open space and restores critical habitat in accordance with Policies 6.3.1 through 6.5.5. Goal LU 6.4 If acquisition for open space is not successful, a high -quality residential community with supporting uses that provides revenue to restore and protect wetlands and important habitats. Policy LU 6.4.10 Sustainable Development Practices Require that any development of Banning Ranch achieve high levels of environmental sustainability that reduce pollution and consumption of energy, Water, and natural resources to be accomplished through land use patterns and densities, site planning, building location and design, transportation and utility infrastructure design, and other techniques. Among the strategies that should be considered ate the concentration of development, reduction of vehicle 4.7-48 City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 4.7 Hydrology and Water Quality trips, use of alternative transportation modes, maximized walkability, use of recycled materials, capture and re -use of storm water on -site, water conserving fixtures and landscapes, architectural elements that reduce heat gain and loss, and preservation of wetlands and other habitats. Safety Element Coastal Hazards Minimization of Tsunamis and Rogue Wave Hazards Goal S1 Adverse effects of coastal hazards related to tsunamis and rogue waves to people and property are minimized. Policy S 1.1 Evacuation Routes Review local and distant tsunami inundation maps for Newport Beach and adjacent coastal communities as they are developed to identify susceptible areas and plan evacuation routes. Policy S 1.2 Evacuation Response Plans Participate in any regional effort to develop and implement workable response plans that the City's emergency services can adopt immediately for evacuation in the case of a tsunami warning. Policy S 1.3 Beach Replenishment Continue projects like the Surfside-Sunset/West Newport Beach Replenishment program to maintain beach width. Wide beaches provide critical protection against tsunami run-up for structures along the oceanfront. Policy S 1.4 Education Program Develop and implement a tsunami educational program for residents, visitors, and people who work in the susceptible areas. Policy S 1.5 Tsunami Research Support tsunami research in the Newport Beach offshore and Newport Bay areas. City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 4.7-49 Chapter 4 Environmental Analysis Minimization of Storm Surge and Seiche Hazards Goal S2 Adverse effects of coastal, hazards related to storm surges and seiches to people and property are minimized. Policy S 2.1 Wave Up -Rush and Impact Reports Prepare and periodically update (every 5 years) comprehensive wave up -rush and impact reports for shoreline and coastal bluff areas subject to wave action that will be made available to applicants for new development on a beach or coastal bluff property. Policy S 2.2 Shoreline Management Plans Develop and implement shoreline management plans for shoreline areas subject to wave hazards and erosion. Shoreline management plans should provide for the protection of private property, public improvements, coastal access, public opportunities for coastal recreation, and coastal resources. Policy S 2.3 Use of Temporary Shoreline Protection Continue to utilize temporary sand dunes in shoreline areas to protect buildings and infrastructure from wave up -rush, while minimizing significant impacts to coastal access and resources. Policy S 2.4 Use of Existing Shoreline Protection Encourage the use of existing sand dunes with native vegetation as a protective device in beach areas. Policy S 2.5 Shoreline Protection Alternatives Encourage the use of nonstructural methods, such as dune restoration and sand nourishment, as alternatives to shoreline protective structures. Policy S 2.6 Maintenance of Storm Drains Maintain and regularly clean out storm drains in low lying areas, as necessary, such that flood waters can be effectively conveyed away from structures. Policy S 2.7 Residential Design Require new or remodel of residential structures in areas susceptible to storm surge to raise floor elevations as required by building codes. 4.7.50 City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 4.7 Hydrology and Water Quality Minimization of Coastal Erosion Hazard Goal S3 Adverse effects of coastal erosion to people and property are minimized. Policy S 3.1 Coastal Hazard Studies Prepare and periodically update comprehensive studies of seasonal and long- term shoreline change, episodic and chronic bluff retreat, flooding, and local changes in sea levels, and other coastal hazard conditions. Policy S 3.2 Beach Width Monitoring Continue to monitor beach width and elevations and analyze monitoring data to establish approximate thresholds for when beach erosion or deflation will reach a point that it could expose the backshore development to flooding or damage from storm waves. (Policy HB 13.5) Policy S 3.3 Maintenance of Beach Width and Elevations Develop and implement a comprehensive beach replenishment program to assist in maintaining beach width and elevations. Analyze monitoring data to determine nourishment priorities, and try to use nourishment as shore protection, in lieu of more permanent hard shoreline armoring options. (Policy HB 13.4) Policy S 3.4 Minimization of Shoreline Process Effects Maintain existing groin fields and jetties and modify as necessary to eliminate or mitigate adverse effects on shoreline processes. Policy S 3.5 Protection of Coastal -Dependent Uses Permit revetments, breakwaters, groins, harbor channels, seawalls, cliff retaining walls and other structures altering natural shoreline processes or retaining walls when required to serve coastal -dependent uses or to protect existing structures or public beaches in danger from erosion and when designed to eliminate or mitigate adverse impacts on local shoreline sand supply. Policy S 3.6 Siting of Shoreline Protective Devices Design and site protective devices to minimize impacts to coastal resources, minimize alteration of natural shoreline processes, provide for coastal access, minimize visual impacts, and eliminate or mitigate adverse impacts on local shoreline sand supply. ' City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 4.7.51 Policy S3.7 Shoreline Protective Devices on Public Land Discourage shoreline protective devices on public land to protect private property/development. Site and design any such protective devices as fat landward as possible. Policy S 3.8 Shoreline Protective Device Use Limit the use of protective devices to the minimum required to protect existing development and prohibit their use to enlarge or expand areas for new development or for new development. "Existing development" for purposes of this policy shall consist only of a principle structure, e.g. residential dwelling, required garage, or second residential unit, and shall not include accessory or ancillary structures such as decks, patios, pools, tennis courts, cabanas, stairs, landscaping etc. Policy S 3.9 Shoreline Protection for New Development Require property owners to record a waiver of future shoreline protection for new development during the economic life of the structure (75 years) as a condition of approval of a coastal development permit for new development on a beach or shoreline that is subject to wave action, erosion, flooding, landslides, or other hazards associated with development on a beach or bluff. Shoreline protection may be permitted to protect existing structures that were legally constructed prior to the certification of the LCP, unless a waiver of future shoreline protection was required by a previous coastal development permit. Policy S 3.10 Bluff Stabilization Site and design new structures to avoid the need for shoreline and bluff protective devices during the economic life of the structure (75 years), unless an environmentally acceptable design to stabilize the bluff and prevent bluff retreat is devised. Policy S 3.11 New Development Impact on Coastal Erosion Require that applications for new development with the potential to be impacted or impact coastal erosion include slope stability analyses and erosion rate estimates provided by a licensed Certified Engineering Geologist or Geotechnical Engineer. Policy S 3.12 Minimization of Coastal Bluff Recession Require new development adjacent to the edge of coastal bluffs to incorporate drainage improvements, irrigation systems, and/or native or drought -tolerant vegetation into the design to minimize coastal bluff recession. 4.7-52 City of Newport Beach GeneraIRIon Update EIR 4.7 Hydrology and Water Quality Flood Hazards Protection from Flooding Risks Goal S 5 Protection of human life and public and private property from the risks of flooding Policy S 5.1 New Development Design within 100-year Floodplains Policy S 5.2 Policy S 5.3 Hazardous Materials Require that all new development within 100-year floodplains incorporate sufficient measures to mitigate flood hazards including the design of onsite drainage systems that are connected with the City's storm drainage system, gradation of the site such that runoff does not impact adjacent properties, and buildings are elevated. Facility Use or Storage of Hazardous Materials Standards Require that all new facilities storing, using, or otherwise involved with substantial quantities of onsite hazardous materials within flood zones comply with standards of elevation, anchoring, and flood proofing, and hazardous materials are stored in watertight containers. Minimization of Flood Hazard Risk Require stormwater detention basins, where appropriate, to reduce the potential risk of flood hazards. Minimization of Hazardous Materials Exposure Goal S 7 Exposure of people and the environment to hazardous materials associated with methane gas extraction, oil operations, leaking underground storage tanks, and hazardous waste generators is minimized. Policy S 7.1 Known Areas of Contamination Require proponents of projects in known areas of contamination from oil operations or other uses to perform comprehensive soil and groundwater contamination assessments in accordance with American Society for Testing and Materials standards, and if contamination exceeds regulatory action levels, require the proponent to undertake remediation procedures prior to grading and development under the supervision of the County Environmental Health Division, County Department of Toxic Substances Control, or Regional Water Quality Control Board (depending upon the nature of any identified contamination). City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 4.7-53 Chapter 4 Environmental Analysis 11 Policy S 7.2 Policy S 7.3 Policy S 7.4 Policy S 7.5 Policy S 7.6 Disaster Planning Development Design within Methane Gas Districts Ensure that any development within identified methane gas districts be designed consistent with the requirements of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. Education Educate residents and businesses about how to reduce or eliminate the use of hazardous materials, including using safer non -toxic equivalents. Implementation of Remediation Efforts Minimize the potential risk of contamination to surface water and groundwater resources and implement remediation efforts to any resources adversely impacted by urban activities. Siting of Sensitive Uses Develop and implement strict land use controls, performance standards, and structure design standards including development setbacks from sensitive uses such as schools, hospitals, day care facilities, elder care facilities, residential uses, and other sensitive uses that generate or use hazardous materials. Regulation of Companies Involved with Hazardous Materials Require all users, producers, and transporters of hazardous materials and wastes to clearly identify the materials that they store, use, or transport, and to notify the appropriate City, County, State and Federalagencies in the event of a violation. Adequate Disaster Planning Goal S 9 Effective emergency response to natural or human -induced disasters that minimizes the loss of life and damage to property, while also reducing disruptions in the delivery of vital public and private services during and following a disaster. Policy S 9.7 Existing Development within 100-year Flood Zones Implement flood warning systems and evacuation plans for areas that are already developed within 100-year flood zones. ® Impacts and Mitigation Measures No mitigation measures are necessary, as the proposed General Plan Update policies fully mitigate the impacts. 11 11 11 4.7.54 City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 1 i 4.7 Hydrology and Water Quality 1 j LJ 7 'J IF Level of Significance After Policies/Mitigation Measures Impacts associated with hydrology and water quality within the Planning Area would be less than signifcant upon implementation of the identified proposed General Plan Update policies. Cumulative impacts would also be less than significant. 4.7.6 References California Department of Water Resources (DWR). 2004. California's Groundwater —Bulletin 118. Corona, City of. 2003. Technical Background Report. Irvine Ranch Water District (IRWD). 2005. Annual Water Quality Report. Newport Beach, City of. 2005. Draft Local Coastal Program, Coastal Land Use Plan. 2003. Hazards Assessment Study, July. 2000. Storm Drain Master Plan, July. 2004. Technical Backgromtd Report, June. Orange County Health Care Agency Environmental Health (HCA). 2003.2002 Annual Ocean and Bay Water Quality Report, June. Orange County Water District (OCWD). 2006. Groundwater Replenishment System: http://www.gwrsystem.com. Accessed February 28. OCWD. 2004. Groundwater Management Plan. March. Orange County Watershed & Coastal Resources Division (OCWCRD). 2005 Newport Bay Watershed, http://www.ocwatersheds.com/watersheds/newportbayintro.asp, accessed December 16. 2005 Newport Coast Watershed, http://wNvw.ocwatersheds.com/watersheds/newportcoast.asp, accessed December 16. 2005 Regional Board Boundaries, http://www.ocwatersheds.com/watersheds/intro_regional jurisdicdons.asp, accessed December 22. 2005 San Diego Creek Watershed, http://www.ocwatersheds.com/watersheds/sandiegocreek.asp, accessed December 16. 2005 Talbert Watershed, http://www.ocwatersheds.com/watersheds/`talbert.asp, accessed December 16. Fong Tse, City of Newport Beach Public Works Department. 2005. Personal communication, January 14. City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 4.7-55 4.8 Land Use and Planning ) 4.8 LAND USE AND PLANNING 4.8.1 Introduction This section evaluates the impacts of the proposed General Plan Update associated with land use and planning within the City of Newport Beach. The Initial Study prepared for the proposed project identified the potential for impacts related to physically dividing an established community; conflicts with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project; and conflicts with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan. In addition, this EIR analyzes whether development of the land uses under the proposed General Plan Update would create incompatibilities with adjacent land uses. Full bibliographic entries for all reference materials are provided in Section 4.8.6 (References) of this section. Six comment letters associated with land use and planning were received in response to the IS/NOP circulated for the proposed General Plan Update. The Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) requested that the DEIR include a discussion of how the proposed project will or will not support applicable regional plans in which the City is included. The City of Costa Mesa requested that the DEIR include an analysis of impacts on adjacent municipalities resulting from land use changes in the Planning Area. The City of Irvine requested that the DEIR include information on the location of proposed land use intensity changes that increase development potential in the John Wayne Airport QWA) area, as well as citywide. Two residents of Newport Beach requested that the DEIR properly address all existing and proposed land uses under the General Plan Update. The Airport Land Use Commission for Orange County requests that the DEIR specifically address all potential impacts of development of new residential neighborhoods in the Airport Area as replacement of existing and allowed future uses. The JWA also requested that the DEIR address the impacts of any new residential development policies as they pertain to the Airport Area, and address the issues of an avigation easement, height limitations, signage, density and intensity limitations, and all corresponding proposed General Plan Update policies and mitigation measures for this area. The Environmental Quality Affairs Citizens Advisory Committee for the City of Newport Beach (EQAC) requests that the DEIR provide a discussion of the purpose for increasing development in select areas of the City. EQAC also requests that the DEIR identify the location and potential impacts of proposed visitor -serving land uses, and discuss the impacts of land use transitions under the proposed General Plan Update. EQAC calls for the DEIR to include an analysis of the proposed General Plan Update's compatibility with adjacent municipalities, and a discussion of the intention of the proposed General Plan Update to maintain the existing character of the Corona del Mar subarea. Section 4.8.5 (Project Impacts, Mitigation Measures, and Proposed Policies) provides such analyses. City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 4.8-1 Chapter 4 Environmental Analysis 4.8.2 Existing Conditions As discussed in Chapter 3 (Project Description), the City of Newport Beach is almost fully developed. The City of Newport Beach Planning Area contains approximately 26,676 acres or 41.7 square miles. These are net acres and do not include streets and roadways, which account for approximately 20 percent of the total gross land acreage. Approximately 42 percent (11,119 acres) of the Planning Area is water, which includes the Upper and Lower Newport Bay and its channels, and the Pacific Ocean. The following discussion pertains to the 13,062 acres of developed and undeveloped land in the Planning Area. The Planning Area is illustrated in Figure 3-2 and the subareas therein are illustrated in Figure 3-3 (Project Description). Existing land uses in the PianningArea have been classified into seven primary categories: ■ Residevdal--Residential uses include a mix of housing developed at varying densities and types. Residential uses in the Planning Area include single-family, multi -family, condominium, and mobile homes. ■ Commercial/Offer—This category includes commercial uses that offer goods for sale to the public (retail) and service and professional businesses housed in offices (accountants, architects, etc). Retail and commercial businesses include those that serve local needs, such as restaurants, neighborhood markets and dry cleaners, and those that serve community or regional needs, such as auto dealers and furniture stores. Visitor -serving retail uses such as regional shopping centers and hotels are also included in this category. ■ ludastrial--The industrial category includes a mix of manufacturing and light industrial uses, some of which are found in business, research, and development parks. Light industrial activities include -warehousing and some types of assembly work. This category also includes wholesaling and warehousing. ■ Govemmeutal, Educado»al, and IusdMdonal Facilities (GEIFJ—Government buildings, libraries, schools, churches, and other public institutions are found in this category. Uses in this category support civic, cultural, and educational needs of residents. ■ Open Space —This category encompasses public and private recreational spaces, local and regional parks, and beaches. Recreational areas, such as golf courses, also contribute to open space uses in the Planning Area. ■ Tlacairt—Vacant lands are undeveloped lands (as of June 2003) that are not preserved in perpetuity as open space or for other public purposes. ■ Val& The bay, harbor, channels and reservoirs are included in thus category. Existing land uses are listed below in Table 4.8-1. ■ Residential Neighborhoods Residential uses represent the largest percentage of total land area in Newport Beach. Within this category, single-family detached homes account for the greatest amount of residential land uses and ate distributed throughout the City. Much of the single-family attached housing in the City is located in Newport Crest, the Bluffs and Jasmine Creek. Generally, single-family homes, duplexes and some multi- family residential development is located in the southernmost portion of the City along the beaches and 4.8.2 City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR I 4.8 Land Use and Planning Table 4.8-1 Existing Land Use Land Use Acres PercentofC' 'sTotal Residential 5,436.0 41.6% Single -Family Detached 3,932.8 Single -Family Attached 625.3 Two -Family Residential 360.9 Multi -Family Residential 480.0 Mixed Residential 37.0 Commercial 1,154.6 8.8% Retail 382.0 Administrative, Professional, and Financial 473.0 Marine and Auto Related 73.7 Visitor -serving 225.9 Industrial 114.4 0.9% Industrial 68.9 Multi -Tenant Industrial 20.5 Industrial Business Park 25.0 Other 6,356.7 — Government, Educational, Institutional Facilities 446.6 3.4% Quasi -Public 53.5 0.4% Right of Way/Undesignated 4.8 <1% Recreation & Environmental Open Space 4,516.4 34.6% Vacant Land 1,260.2 9.6% Water 75.2 0.6% Total 13,061.7 100% SOURCE: EIP Associates GIs 2003 in Balboa Peninsula areas, and on Balboa Island. In addition, multi -family residential development is located in the northern portion of the City in Bonita Canyon Village and along San Joaquin Hills Road. The Lido Peninsula has single-family attached homes located next to recreational marine commercial. uses. In the northern pardon of the City, the area west of Bonita Canyon Village contains a mix of single-family detached and single-family attached uses. Manufactured and/or mobile homes are found along Coast Highway in West Newport, west of Newport Dunes, West Newport Mesa, and near the Newport Pier on the Balboa Peninsula. ■ Commercial Administrative, professional, and financial related uses are located throughout the City. A major regional retail center, Fashion Island Shopping Center, is located in the center of the City. Newport Center, one of the prime office and hotel areas in the City, surrounds Fashion Island. The other primary office and hotel uses are found within the vicinity of John Wayne Airport QWA). City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 4.8.3 Chapter 4 Environmental Analysis Retail and service commercial uses are found along major thoroughfares such as: Coast Highway on Mariners' Mile, Newport and Balboa Blvds. on the Balboa Peninsula, near the Airport along Bristol North, and along MacArthur Blvd. Neighborhood -serving centers containing uses such as grocery stores, dry cleaners, video stores and restaurants are located throughout the City. Pedestrian -oriented commercial districts include Corona del Mar and Cannery Village. Some commercial uses in the City attract visitors as well as residents. Visitor-setving uses include but are not limited to hotels, specialty stores, and arcades. Many visitor -serving uses are located in proximity to harbor and coastal areas in the City, such as those found in Central Balboa, Cannery Village, and Newport Coast. Marine recreation areas serving both residents and visitors are found near harbor and bay areas, such as Newport Dunes. ■ Industrial The majority of industrial uses in the City are located in the West Newport industrial area east of Banning Ranch, and adjacent to the Airport Area. Light manufacturing uses are located in the West Newport Industrial (Mesa) area. Research and development uses are clustered in the Airport Area and in a small area off of Jamboree Road. ■ Governmental, Educational, and Institutional Facilities Governmental, Educational, and Institutional uses include the City Hall, schools, libraries and religious uses, and hospitals. Quasi -Public Private recreational uses such as yacht clubs, lodges and marinas are located in various portions of the City. ■ Recreation and Environmental Open Space Recreational and environmental open space areas can be found along the City's periphery from the Santa Ana River Jetty at the far west, to the beaches along the Pacific Ocean, to the Newport Coast area. Open space rims Upper Newport Bay. Much of Newport Coast is open space interspersed with planned development areas. Parks of varying sizes are located throughout the City. These areas also include private recreational uses such as golf and tennis clubs. ■ Water Newport Beach is adjacent to the Pacific Ocean to the South and contains Newport Harbor and Upper Newport Bay. Two reservoirs (Big Canyon and San Joaquin) are located in the eastern portion of the City. The Santa Ana River Bes at the northwest boundary of the City. 4.8.4 City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 4.8 Land Use and Planning ■ Sphere of Influence The SOI surrounding the City is demarcated by the Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) and represents the "probable ultimate physical boundaries and service area" of the City. The LAFCO is a State -mandated agency formed to discourage urban sprawl and to encourage orderly and efficient provision of services, such as water, sewer, fire protection, etc. A major function of a sphere of influence is to facilitate coordination and sequencing of annexations to a city. In addition, a SOI helps guide the LAFCO consideration of specific annexation requests. The area known as Banning Ranch, located in the western portion of the Planning Area, is in the Newport Beach SOI. 4.8.3 Regulatory Framework Federal There are no Federal regulations related to land use that apply to the proposed project. ■ State Local Coastal Program The California Coastal Act (California State Public Resources Code, Division 20, Sections 30000 et seq.) directs each local government lying wholly or partly within the Coastal Zone, as defined by the Coastal Act, to prepare a Local Coastal Program for its portion of the Coastal Zone. More than 63% of the City is in the coastal zone. Local Coastal Programs are used to carry out the policies and requirements of the Coastal Act by local governments. Local Coastal Programs must be reviewed and certified by the California Coastal Commission before being implemented by a local government. The Local Coastal Program is divided into two components: (1) a coastal land use plan [CLUP] and (2) an implementation program. The CLUP provides a technical synopsis of the resources located within the Coastal Zone. The document discusses resources in the context of a coastal zone overview; subarea description and land use plan; shoreline and coastal resource access; public recreational and visitor - serving commercial facilities; visual resources; historic and cultural resources; water and marine resources; environmentally sensitive habitats; energy facilities; water, sewer, and drainage facilities; and hazards. Issues, goals, objectives, and policies related to each of these areas are also provided. The Implementation Program provides the mechanism to implement each of the identified policies. On February 8, 2006, the Coastal Commission certified the CLUP. The next step in the certification process is the adoption of the Implementation Plan. Once certified, the City will be able to issue most Coastal Development Permits, a process currently under the jurisdiction of the Coastal Commission. City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 4.8.5 ■ Regional Southern California Association of Governments Regional Comprehensive Plan and Guide SCAG, which is the designated Metropolitan Planning Organization for six Southern California counties (Ventura, Orange, San Bernardino, Riverside, Imper'lal, and Los Angeles), is federally -mandated to develop plans for transportation, growth management, hazardous waste management, and air quality. SCAG has prepared the Regional Comprehensive Plan and Guide (RCPG) in conjunction with its constituent members and other regional planning agencies. The RCPG is intended to serve as a framework to guide decision -making with respect to the growth and changes that can be anticipated through the year 2015. The Plan consists of five core chapters that contain goals, policies, implementation strategies, and technical data that support three overarching objectives for the region, including (1) improving the standard of living for all, (2) improving the quality of life for all, and (3) enhancing equity and access to government. Local governments are required to use the RCPG as the basis for their own plans and are required to discuss the consistency of projects of `regional significance" with the RCPG. Specific growth management, regional mobility, and air quality* policies of the RCPG are discussed in the Impacts section, below. Local Zoning Zoning is the instrument that implements the land use designations of the General Plan. In addition to establishing permitted uses, zoning may also establish development standards relating to issues such as intensity, setbacks, height, and parking. Projects submitted for review and approval are evaluated for consistency with the zoning designations. Zoning Districts The City of Newport Beach's General Plan and Zoning Ordinance control land use and development in the City. Zoning districts are designed to protect citizens and their homes and businesses from conflicting activities in scope or purpose within the vicinity. For example, commercial business cannot be conducted in a residential area except under certain conditions. Newport Beach has more than 20 zoning designations within its boundaries. District types are as follows: ■ Residential districts ate designed for dwellings. ■ Business districts contain commercial retail and office businesses. ■ Industrial districts allow the operation of assembly and research and development businesses. ■ Open Space districts contain undeveloped land and allow recreation facilities. ■ Planned Community and Specific Plan districts are established with supplemental zoning requirements that encourage cohesive development within a specific area. 4.8.6 City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 4.8 Land Use and Planning Airport Land Use Law This law requires counties containing airports to prepare an Airport Environs Land Use Plan (AELUP) to provide for the orderly growth of public use airports for a 20-year span and minimize land use conflicts over height and noise within the surrounding area. The AELUP may include building height restrictions, specify allowable land uses, and determine building standards (including soundproofing) within the planning area of each airport. Once an AELUP has been adopted, pertinent city and county general plans and other local land use and building regulations must be made consistent with the AELUP unless findings can be made to justify not making amendments. While John Wayne Airport is not within Newport Beach incorporated City limits, it is immediately adjacent to the northernmost portion of the city referred to the as the "Airport Area". This area is therefore subject to compliance with the AELUP for John Wayne Airport. The relevant policies contained in the AELUP are listed at the end of this section. Charter Section 423 City Charter Section 423 requires voter approval of certain amendments to the Newport Beach General Plan. In its text, Charter Section 423 suggests that the City Council adopt implementing guidelines consistent with its purpose and intent, and the City Council did so. The guidelines outline the information to be provided to the applicant, the Planning Commission, and the City Council during the amendment process. They also describe the informational and procedural requirements after amendment approval to determine if voter approval is required by Charter Section 423. As required, the City Council shall submit the amendment to voters if: ■ The amendment relates to a non-residential use and authorizes an increase in floor area for the property or statistical area that is the subject of the amendment that exceeds 40,000 square feet when compared to the General Plan before approval of the amendment; or ■ The amendment relates to a residential use and authorizes an increase in the number of dwelling units for the property or statistical area that is the subject of the amendment that exceeds 100 dwelling units when compared to the General Plan before approval of the amendment; or ■ The amendment modifies the type or amount of residential use or non-residential use specified for the property or statistical area that is the subject of the amendment such that the proposed use(s) as approved by the amendment generate(s) at least 101 more morning or evening peak hour trips than allowed use(s) before the amendment; or ■ The increase in morning or evening peak hour trips, dwelling units, or floor area resulting from the amendment, when added to 80 percent of the increases in morning or evening peak hour trips, dwelling units, or floor area resulting from amendments in the same statistical area 'over the previous ten years not required to be approved by the voters, exceeds one or more of the voter approval thresholds in Charter Section 423 as specified above. City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 4.8-7 4.8.4 Thresholds of Significance The following thresholds of significance are based on Appendix G of the 2005 purposes of this EIl , implementation of the proposed General Plan Update adverse impact on land use and planning if it would result in any of the following. CEQA Guidelines. For , may have a significant ■ Intensify development within the Planning Area that creates incompatibilities with adjacent land uses ■ Physically divide an established community ■ Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (ncluding, 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 planor natural community conservation plan 4.8.5 Project Impacts, Mitigation Measures, Proposed Policies ® Effects Not Found to Be Significant The IS/NOP prepared for the proposed project did not identify any effects not found to be significant associated with Land Use. Therefore, all thresholds are addressed in this section, ® Impacts and Mitigation Measures Threshold Intensify development within the Planning Area that creates incompatibilities with adjacent land uses Impact 4.8-1 Implementation of the proposed General Plan Update could involve new uses and structures that may result in intensification of development within the Planning Area that creates incompatibilities with adjacent land uses. Land use incompatibility can occur where differences exist among uses that are near each other. These incompatibilities may result from differences in the physical scale of development, noise levels, traffic levels, hours of operation, and other factors. Proposed General Plan Update policies include concepts aimed at achieving land use compatibility. Policy LU 5.1.1 calls for establishment of development regulations for residential projects to create compatible and high quality development. Policy LU 5.1.2 requires transition in building height between non-residential and residential development to minimize conflicts. Policies LU 6.2.5 and 6,16.6 call for design of the non-residential uses of neighborhood -serving commercial and office to be compatible with residential uses when adjoining residential areas, and address issues such as noise, lighting, and parking. All significant new development would be subject to the City's environmental review process which includes project -specific environmental review under CEQA, including mitigation of significant impacts to the extent feasible. 4.8.8 City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 4.8 Land Use and Planning I ' The potential for conflicts exists in particular where mixed use development occurs. The proposed ' General Plan Update adds new mixed use designations. Areas where mixed use development is currently located (e.g. Balboa Peninsula, Mariners' Mile and Newport Center/Fashion Island), would be allowed to develop with more mixed use, and mixed use development would be introduced to the Airport Area. The General Plan includes three general types of Mixed Use Development. MU -A provides vertical mixed use, with retail and other pedestrian -active uses on the ground floor, and the upper floors used for residential units. MU-B provides a horizontally distributed mix of uses, which may include commercial, offices, visitor -serving and marine -related uses along with multi -family residential uses. This designation also permits a vertical mix of uses. The MU-C designation is intended to provide commercial development on or near the bay to encourage coastal -related uses and allow for integrated development ' of residential uses. Policy LU 5.3.1 provides guidance that would minimize conflicts among uses in mixed use facilities. ' Principles to minimize conflicts include: ■ Design and incorporation of building materials and features to avoid conflicts among uses, such as ' noise, vibration, lighting, odors, and similar impacts ■ Visual and physical integration of residential and nonresidential uses ■ Architectural treatment of building elevations and modulation of their massing ■ Separate and well-defined entries for residential units and non-residential businesses ■ Design of parking areas and facilities for architectural consistency and integration among uses. ■ Incorporation of extensive landscape appropriate to its location. Urbanized streetscapes, for ' example, would require less landscape along the street frontage but integrate landscape into interior courtyards and common open spaces. Policy LU 5.2.2 requires buffering of residential uses where they are adjacent to non-residential uses. The policy requires that residential areas be buffered from adjoining non-residential uses to the extent feasible, such as retail commercial and industrial, through the establishment of performance -based regulations, the removal of non -conforming uses, and other tools such as landscape screening. Project -specific features would depend on the types of uses proposed and the specific design of individual projects. Examples of design elements to reduce conflicts include screening of mechanical equipment, and locating these uses away from residential components; specific locations and hours of operation for service deliveries; and separate vehicular entrances for residential and commercial uses. ' Implementation of Policy LU 5.3.1 would therefore ensure that design of mixed use development does not result in significant land use incompatibilities. ' In many locations, the addition of uses similar to existing uses would occur. For instance, additional retail facilities would be permitted in the Fashion Island/Newport Center Area, and additional residential uses ' would be permitted on Balboa Peninsula. Where additional development that is the same as or similar to existing development could occur, these uses would be compatible. Compatibility, including the expansion of mixed use development, is further discussed below for each subarea. Table 3-3 (Project Description) details the land use changes for each of the subareas. II ' City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 4.8-9 West Newport Mesa The West Newport Mesa area contains a mix of residential, office, retail, industrial, and public uses. It is immediately abutted by Hoag Hospital, the City of Costa Mesa to the north, and Banning Ranch to the west. Adjoining Hoag Hospital and on the Newport Technology Center site, properties would be designated for medical -related uses, with up to approximately one million square feet of this type of use, replacing development of existing uses. Properties along the northern edge abutting the City of Costa Mesa would be encouraged to retain light manufacturing and research and development uses. It is possible that adjacent to these uses, in the City of Costa Mesa, additional residential units may be developed. Multi -family residential uses could also increase within this subarea, by approximately 1,070 units, replacing existing commercial and industrial development. The land use pattern would change from interspersed residential, commercial and industrial uses to development that clusters similar uses together. Nonetheless, where residential uses abut industrial uses, the potential for conflict could occur, similar to existing conditions. Existing industrial uses involve the use of light manufacturing equipment, use of hazardous materials, and require the loading/unloading of materials. The types of manufacturing that currently exist within the sub area are generally considered light manufacturing uses that are low intensity. Nevertheless, the operation of manufacturing equipment may result in higher ambient noise levels and/or degraded air quality on a temporary or permanent basis, depending on the specific use and type of equipment. Industrial uses could also involve the transport, use, and disposal of hazardous materials, which could result in accidental spills in the area, as discussed in Section 4.6 (Hazards and Hazardous Materials). Additionally, loading and unloading activities could create noise incompatibilities with adjacent sensitive receptors, Service vehicles associated with industrial uses contribute to local traffic, as well as conflicts associated with truck traffic through or next to residential uses. Other land use incompatibilities include the potential for odors from industrial activities. These effects currently exist due to the presence of light manufacturing and research and development uses adjacent to residential uses. Where new residential uses are developed in the City or in adjacent Costa Mesa, requirements would need to be placed on the new residential uses to minimize land use conflicts with existing industrial designations and uses. The proposed General Plan Update would establish distinct and cohesive districts, which would allow for the further separation of uses in order to minimize conflicts. Residential and industrial uses would abut in a small area adjacent to Production Place and the Costa Mesa boundary, should residential development occur in Costa Mesa. Residential uses currently exist in this area and abut existing industrial uses. At this location and throughout the subarea, policies designed to achieve Goal 6.6 would help increase compatibility with existing and future adjacent residential land uses by encouraging integrated residential and hospital uses within the subarea. Policy LU 6.6.5 encourages the preparation of a master plan for the residential neighborhood, defining park and streetscape improvements that provide amenity for local residents and enhance the area's identity, thereby allowing more separation of uses than currently exists. Because no new conflicts of use would be introduced to the area, upon implementation of the proposed General Plan Update, no compatibility issues would likely result in this subarea. 4.8.10 City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR ; 4.8 Land Use and Planning ' Newport Center/Fashion Island ' Newport Center/Fashion Island is a regional center of business and commerce that includes major retail, professional office, entertainment, hotel, and residential uses in a master planned mixed use development. Fashion Island, a regional shopping center, forms the nucleus of Newport Center, and is framed by this mixture of office, entertainment, and residential. New land uses in this subarea include additional commercial uses (approximately 430,000 so, approximately 600 multi -family residential units, ' and approximately 250 additional hotel rooms. 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. Goals and ' policies contained in the proposed General Plan Update would serve to promote a mixed use, pedestrian - friendly district for this subarea that would continue commercial and residential uses. Policy LU 6.14.5 ' encourages improved pedestrian connections and streetscape amenities connecting the area's diverse districts. Goals contained in the proposed General Plan Update related to mixed use development (Goal 5.3) specifically articulate that such development should promote compatibility among uses. General Plan Policy LU 5.3.1 calls for the consideration of compatibility issues in project design of mixed use development. Thus, mixed use development under the proposed General Plan Update would be, by design, compatible with adjacent non-residential uses. 1 Airport Area ' The Airport Area encompasses the properties abutting and east of John Wayne Airport and is in close proximity to the Irvine Business Complex and University of California, Irvine. This proximity has influenced the area's development with uses that support the airport and University, such as research and development, high technology industrial and visitor -serving uses, such as hotel and car rental agencies. This subarea could be reconfigured to include new residential neighborhoods that could result in the ' extension of present residential development of the Irvine Business Complex to the north. These uses would occur in addition to the maintenance and/or limited expansion of the currently developed mix of office, airport -supporting commercial, hotel, and public uses. Industrial uses would decrease upon ' implementation of residential uses allowed in the proposed General Plan Update. The proposed project contains policies for the various types of proposed land uses and specifies the parameters by which these land uses should be developed to ensure compatibility with both existing development in the area or ' future land uses. Policy LU 6.15.8 encourages commercial development that supports the John Wayne Airport, the existing office uses, and the future residential development under the proposed General Plan Update. Policy LU 6.15.9 allows new multi -family uses to be developed in mixed use buildings that support local commercial land uses. General Plan Update Policy LU 6.15.1 calls for the provision of distinct business park, commercial, and airport -serving districts and residential neighborhoods that are ' integrated to assure a quality environment and compatible land uses. Development in the Airport Area has been historically restricted due to the noise impacts of John Wayne Airport. Much of the southwestern portion of the area is located in the 65 dBA CNEL, which is unsuitable for residential and other "noise -sensitive" uses. Additionally, building heights are currently restricted for aviation safety. Uses outside of the 65 dBA CNEL noise contour are generally considered to be a sufficient distance from airport land uses and associated activities to minimize land use conflicts, ,' City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 4.8.11 with incorporation of appropriate design techniques. Policy LU 6.15.24 requires that all development be constructed within the height limits and residential uses be located outside of areas exposed to the 65 dBA CNEL noise contour specified by the Airport Environs Land Use Plan (AELUP), unless the City Council makes appropriate findings for an override in accordance with applicable law. As such, the possibility exists for residential development to occur within the 65 dBA CNEL noise contour, exposing residents to exterior noise levels of 65 dBA or greater and daily aircraft overflight. Airport uses are considered by design to be incompatible with adjacent residential uses As such, if residential development is constructed within the 65 dBA CNEL noise contour, land use conflicts could occur. Impacts would be signLffcant. The introduction of residential uses to the Airport Area represents a departure from the current commercial/industrial character of the area and a change in the land use pattern of the area. Residential units would be implemented in tracts of land generally a minimum of 10 acres in size, although projects could be as small as 5 acres if certain conditions are met, as specified in Policy LU 6.15.10. The requirements for development on this scale would ensure master planning accompanies the introduction of residential units, and clustering of residential units in a manner to minimize conflicts with existing adjacent uses to the extent feasible. Further, the first phase of residential development in the area would be 50 units per net acre, with subsequent developments at 30 units per net acre. Development of high - density units would result in retention of the existing urban character of the area. The proposed General Plan Update policies described above, which set forth requirements for mixed use developments, would ensure that development is designed to be compatible with adjacent non-residential units. Where development occurs outside of the 65 dBA CNEL noise contour, the introduction of residential uses consistent with the land use pattern set forth in the General Plan update would be less than significant. Banning Ranch Banning Ranch could either be restored and preserved as open space (the priority use), or be developed as a mixed- density residential village. Banning Ranch would need to be acquired for the open space option. Under this scenario, changes on Banning Ranch would be limited to consolidating oil operations, enhancing wetland and other habitats, and providing parkland amenities to serve nearby neighborhoods. No significant land use compatibility impacts would result, however, the potential impact associated with nighttime park lighting on adjacent residential uses is addressed in Section 4.1 (Aesthetics and Visual Quality). Policies LU 6.5.1 through 6.5.6 pertain to both land use options for Banning Ranch. These policies, specifically LU 6.5.3 and 6.5.4, would help maintain Banning Ranch as an area with diverse biological resources under both land use alternatives. These policies promote the restoration and enhancement of existing resources and encourage the future preservation of wetlands and other natural features. If Banning Ranch is not acquired for open space, a residential village with a small component of resident- and-6sitor-serving commercial uses could be developed. If development occurs, policies in the proposed General Plan Update would ensure compatibility between proposed uses, on -site open space areas, and the adjacent existing residential uses. 4.8.12 City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 4.8 Land Use and Planning Policy LU 6.4.5 requires that Banning Ranch, if not restored and preserved as open space, be developed as a cohesive urban form that provides the sense of a complete and identifiable neighborhood. The policy goes on to state that a development pattern should be established that ties together individual uses into a cohesive neighborhood addressing the location and massing of buildings, architecture, landscape, connective street grid and pedestrian walkways and trails, use of key landforms, and similar elements. As a majority of the site would be preserved as open space, and a framework of trails, community parklands, and natural habitats would interconnect residential districts, the village center, other uses, and open spaces (LU Policy 6.4.8), no compatibility issues would likely result in this subarea. Furthermore, changes contemplated in the West Newport Mesa subarea, which abuts Banning Ranch to the east, include strengthening the residential uses in that area, currently characterized by a number of light industrial uses. These changes would improve compatibility between the two subareas by placing similar residential uses in proximity to each other. As discussed above, Policies LU 6.5.1 through 6.5.6 pertain to both land use options for Banning Ranch. These policies help ensure that either development option would result in compatibility with adjacent uses. Policies contained in the Land Use Element discuss consolidation and/or relocation of the oil and gas operations on Banning Ranch, where a significant portion of the Planning Area's production areas are currently located. Policy 6.5.1 specifies that oil operations on Banning Ranch should be relocated or clustered. This would minimize the areas where oil operations would interface with differing uses, under either development scenario for the site. Confinement of oil production to a small portion of the site geographically limits areas where new development or parkland areas would abut these facilities. With regard to the two land use options for Banning Ranch, Policies 3.4 and 6.4.11 ensure that under either option, availability of oil resources would not be altered by encouraging consolidation of oil operations. Balboa Peninsula The Balboa Peninsula is comprised of a series of districts linked by the Newport Boulevard/Balboa Boulevard commercial and residential corridor. These include Lido Village, Cannery Village, McFadden Square, Balboa Village, and surrounding residential neighborhoods. The Plan differentiates Balboa Peninsula into a series of commercial, residential, mixed -use and water -oriented districts. These uses all currently exist in the area. Policy LU 6.8.1 would establish development patterns that promote the reinforcement of Balboa Peninsula's pedestrian scale and urban form as a series of distinct centers/nodes and connecting corridors. To this end, Policies LU 6.9.1, 6.9.2, 6.10.1, 6.11.1, 6.12.1, 6.13.1, 6.13.2, and 6.13.3 indicate the priority uses and discouraged uses within each of the districts within in the subarea. The organization of the subarea into distinct centers and these policies would encourage grouping of compatible uses adjacent to each other, thereby minimizing conflicts of use. Residential use would also be allowed on the waterfront of Balboa Peninsula. These uses could be impacted by noises from the marine -related and visitor -serving uses. As discussed above, General Plan policies would guide development to ensure compatibility among mixed uses. This includes Policies L.U. 5.3.1, which provides the guidelines for mixed use development and LU 5.2.2, which includes provisions for buffering of uses. ' City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 4.8-13 Chapter 4 Environmental Analysis West Newport Highway The West Newport Coast Highway Corridor extends from Summit Street to just past 60'h Street. It is a mixed commercial and residential area, with the former serving the adjoining Newport Shores residential neighborhood, the West Newport residential neighborhood south of Coast Highway, and beach visitors. The proposed General Plan Update encourages enhancement of this area as a gateway for amenities supporting the Orange County River Park. However, the predominant existing mix of uses would remain, such that no conflicts would occur. Old Newport Boulevard The corridor is abutted by residential neighborhoods to the east and Hoag Hospital west of Newport Boulevard. Today, the area is primarily developed with commercial uses and professional offices. Other uses include personal services, restaurants, and specialty shopping such as home fumislvng stores and beauty salons. Several auto -related businesses and service facilities are also located in the corridor. There has been an ongoing transition of uses to medical offices in this subarea, improving compatibility with the adjacent Hoag Hospital. Old Newport Boulevard was formerly the primary roadway leading into the City from the north, containing a diversity of highway -oriented retail and office uses. Shifting of vehicle trips to the parallel (new) Newport Boulevard reduced the corridor's traffic volumes and economic vitality, resulting in significant changes in its land use mix. Many of the existing auto -related businesses and service facilities located in the corridor are incompatible with the predominant pattern of retail service and office uses. The proposed General Plan Update would result in mixed use development, increase office uses by approximately 88,000 sf, residential uses by approximately 430 units, and commercial uses by approximately 44,000 sf. Policy 6.18.1 encourages the development of mixed -use buildings that integrate residential with ground floor retail and townhomes on the east side of Old Newport Boulevard. Implementation of this policy would provide a transition with adjoining residential neighborhoods. In addition, Policy LU 6.18.2 discourages highway -oriented retail uses and new "heavy" retail uses, such as automobile supply and repair uses. Consequently, the existing incompatible uses that currently exist in the subarea would no longer be permitted, and eventually would be phased out over time to provide more compatible uses. Mariners' Mile Mariners' Mile is a heavily traveled segment of Coast Highway extending from the Arches Bridge on the west to Dover Drive on the east. It is developed with a mix -of marine related commercial uses on the south side of Coast Highway, fronting the harbor, and highway -oriented retail on the north side of Coast Highway, inland. Implementation of the proposed General Plan Update, specifically Policy LU 6.19.1 would allow development that would differentiate this subarea into distinct commercial, water -related, and mixed use districts. Goal 6.19 includes the overall objective of encouraging development within this subarea that respects adjacent residential neighborhoods. Policies LU 6.19.1 through 6.19.4 specify locations and land use types that should be encouraged in the different districts within Mariners' Mile. 4.8-14 City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 4.8 Land Use and Planning Commercial uses would be primarily concentrated on bay -fronting properties and include boat sales and storage, sailing schools, marinas, visitor -serving restaurants, and comparable uses. Beyond the properties south of Coast Highway lie boat slips in Newport Harbor, a recreational boating resource. Activities in the area include boat transport, storage, sales and repairs. Marine -related and visitor serving uses in the proposed General Plan Update would be compatible with adjacent harbor activities. Policy 6.19.3 encourages uses that serve marine -related businesses and industries. However, residential use would also be allowed on the waterfront. These uses could be impacted by noise from the marine -related and visitor -serving uses. As discussed above, General Plan policies would guide development to ensure compatibility among mixed uses. This includes Policies L.U. 5.3.1, which provides the guidelines for mixed use development and LU 5.2.2, which includes provisions for buffering of uses. Corona del Mar The Corona del Mar corridor extends along Pacific Coast Highway between Avocado Avenue and Hazel Drive. This subarea is developed with commercial uses and specialty shops that primarily serve adjoining residential neighborhoods, with isolated uses that serve highway travelers and coastal visitors. The proposed General Plan Update encourages development along this corridor to include a pedestrian - oriented "village" serving as the center of community commerce, culture, and social activity and providing identity for Corona del Mar. Policy LU 6.20.1 would accommodate neighborhood -serving uses that complement existing development. Policy LU 6.20.5 permits new development that compliments the scale and form of existing development. The visual character of the area would be enhanced through Policy 5.2.3, which calls for improved aesthetic quality of alleys without impacting service access. Consequently, because new development would generally serve to complement existing uses, no conflicts of use would occur. Other Land Use Changes While land use changes are proposed for other areas of the City by the updated General Plan, these areas would retain the basic land use character of existing uses. Land use intensification would also result throughout the City in areas where no changes in use are proposed, but additional development is permitted. Because no new land use patterns would be established, no conflicts of use would result. The area bounded by Irvine Avenue, 15`h Street, St. Andrews Road, and Coral Place is currently designated for multi -family and is developed with a mix of housing units, including older apartments, small lot units, and single-family detached units. The proposed General Plan Update would re -designate this area as single-family residential to allow for consistency with the current development trend in the area replacing higher -density apartments with small -lot residential and detached units. Another area where changes would take place is along the southern frontage of Westcliff Drive, east of Irvine Avenue, and the western frontage of Dover Drive, south of Westcliff Drive. Changes in this area include re - designating the area from Administrative, Professional, and Financial Commercial uses to mixed use, allowing a mix of office and muld-family residential uses. Any new residential development in this area would be compatible with the existing residential uses behind these properties. The Caltrans Remnant property, bounded by the SR 73, MacArthur Boulevard, and University Drive is currently a vacant property with no land use designation and would be designated for commercial use under the proposed City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 4.8.15 u General Plan Update. The north side of San Miguel Drive, east of San Joaquin Hills Road, and west of Newport Hills Drive, which is currently a single parcel formerly used as a child care facility, abutting multi -family residential uses, would be re -designated as multiple -family residential. This would allow for consistency with adjacent land uses. The property west of Big Canyon Reservoir, north of Pacific View Drive is currently developed with institutional (church) and senior affordable housing. Under the proposed General Plan Update, this area would be re -designated as multi -family residential also to promote consistency with adjacent land uses. Summary In summary, the majority of land use changes proposed under the proposed General Plan Update would not result in incompatibilities or nuisances that rise to the level of significance. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. However, if residential development is constructed within the 65 dBA CNEL noise contour in the Airport Area, land use conflicts would be significant Threshold Physically divide an established community Impact 4.8-2 Implementation of the proposed General Plan Update could physically divide an established community. The General Plan does not include any extensions of roadways or other development features through currently developed areas that could physically divide an established community. Roadway extensions would occur in Banning Ranch if new development occurs in that area. These roadways would be part of a comprehensive development plan and establish linkages among new land uses and to existing land uses, and would' not, therefore result in physical division of an established community. The implementation of the proposed General Plan Update could reduce the extent of office and industrial activities within the Airport Atea. The placement of a mixed use district in this subarea with retention of two commercial nodes —one on the northern boundary and one on the southern boundary —would not result in the physical division of an established community. The area would include horizontal mixed uses, wlilch would result in the presence of commercial uses throughout the area. Existing roadways would continue to provide an interconnected link between various parcels throughout the subarea. Further, throughout the City and larger region, commercial and light industrial areas have viably existed adjacent to residential uses. The change in land use patterns would not have an effect on the office and industrial properties that could result in a subsequent physical change to the environment, The proposed General Plan Update allows limited infill development in select subareas within the City, and sets forth future land use options for Banning Ranch. These types of proposed development would not divide established communities. Impacts would be less than significant. I 0 I 0 0 0 I I I I u 0 0 4.8-16 City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 0 4.8 Land Use and Planning Threshold 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 Impact 4.8-3 Implementation of the proposed General Plan Update could conflict with applicable land use plans, policy, or regulations. Several regionally and locally adopted land use plans, policies, and regulations would be applicable to development under the proposed General Plan Update. These include the 2003 Air Quality Management Plan, 1999 Amendment for Ozone, SCAG's Regional Comprehensive Plan and Guide, Santa Ana River Basin Plan, City of Newport Beach Zoning Code, Newport Beach CLUP, specific plans adopted by the City, and the AELUP for John Wayne Airport. As discussed under Impact 4.2-1 of Section 4.2 (Air Quality), the proposed project would not be consistent with the 2003 Air Quality Management Plan. The SCAG regional plans cover Orange County, which includes the City, and five other counties within Southern California. SCAG's regional plans that require a consistency discussion are the RCPG and the Regional Transportation Plan administered by SCAG. A consistency analysis for the proposed General Plan Update with policies of the SCAG regional plans are provided in Table 4.8-2. The analysis contained in Table 4.8-2 concludes that the proposed project would generally be consistent with SCAG's policies, with the exception of SCAG Policy 4.02. Growth Management Chapter Policy 3.01. The population, housing, and jobs forecasts, 'The proposed increase in dwelling units and associated population which are adopted by SCAG's Regional Council and that exceeds SCAG projections for Newport Beach, but represents less reflect local plans and policies, shall be used by SCAG in all than one percent of total population growth in the region. phases of implementation and review. Policy 3.05. Encourage patterns of urban development and Growth and development under the proposed General Plan Update land use, which reduce costs on infrastructure construction would involve infill development and redevelopment, which would and make better use of existing facilities. minimize costs on infrastructure and make use of existing facilities. Policy 3,09. Support local jurisdictions' efforts to minimize Growth and development under the proposed General Plan Update the cost of infrastructure and public service delivery, and would involve infill development and redevelopment, which would efforts to seek new sources of funding for development and minimize costs on infrastructure and make use of existing facilities. the provision of services. Policy 3.12. Encourage existing or proposed local The proposed General Plan Update policies support public jurisdictions' programs aimed at designing land uses that transportation that provides mobility for residents and encourages encourage the use of transit and thus reduce the need for use of public transportation as an alternative to automobile travel. In roadway expansion, reduce the number of auto trips and addition, maximizing the efficiency of the circulation system through vehicle miles traveled, and create opportunity for residents to the use of transportation system management strategies is also walk and bike. encouraged to reduce total vehicular miles traveled in the City. Further, a majority of the proposed land use changes would encourage more pedestrian -oriented uses and design, which would serve to further reduce automobile trips. This includes expansion of mixed -use development throughout the subareas within the City, which places housing in close proximity to jobs. City of Newport Beach General Plan Update Chapter 4 Environmental Analysis Table 4.8-2 SCAG Regional Comprehensive Plan and Guide Policies SCAG RCPG PoMcles f Cons6fe Policy 3.13. Encourage local Jurisdictions' plans that Growth and development under the proposed General Plan Update maximize the use of existing urbanized areas accessible to would involve Infill development and redevelopment, which would transit through Infill and redevelopment. maximize the use of existing urbanized areas accessible to transit. Policy 3.16. Encourage developments in and around activity The proposed General Plan Update would involve redevelopment in centers, transportation corridors, underutilized infrasWcture discrete subareas that are existing activity centers, which would systems, and areas needing recycling and redevelopment, minimize costs on Infrastructure and make use of existing transportation corridors and areas needing recycling. Policy 3.18. Encourage planned development in locations Due to the development that would be permitted, the project would least likely to cause environmental impact. result in environmental impacts as identified in this EIR. The priority use,identified for -Banning Ranch is retention as open space. If it cannot be acquired for this use, development would be located in the area least likely to cause adverse impacts. Potential environmental impacts from development are minimized to the extent feasible. Other Infill development and redevelopment under this proposed project would occur in already urbanized areas and minimize environmental impacts. Policy 3.20. Support the protection of vital resources such Weiland, groundwater recharge areas, and site drainage issues have as weilands, groundwater recharge areas, woodlands, been or will be addressed by compliance with existing regulations production lands, and land containing unique and administered by the appropriate regulatory agencies (i.e., CDFG, endangered plants and animals. RWQCB, and Corps). The Natural Resource -Element of the proposed General Plan Update contains policies to protect natural and biological resources of the Banning Ranch subarea as well as water quality for the entire Planning Area. Policy 3.21. Encourage the implementation of measures, The proposed General Plan Update includes a Historic Resources aimed at the preservation and protection of recorded and Element, with policies that promote the retention, restoration, unrecorded cultural resources and archaeological sites. adaptive reuse, and maintenance of historic structures and properties in a manner that will conserve the integrity of the resource in the best possible condition. In addition, policies of the proposed General Plan Update also serve to recognize the importance of archeological and paleontological resources and ensure the identification and protection of those resources within the City of Newport Beach. Policy 3.22. Discourage development, or encourage the use Policies have been Included in the proposed General Plan Update to of special design requirements, in areas with steep slopes, minimize all potential environmental hazards. high fire, flood, and seismic hazards. Policy 3,23. Encourage mitigation measures that reduce Policies are contained in the proposed General Plan Update that noise in certain locations, measures aimed at preservation of reduce noise, preserve biological and ecological resources, reduce biological and ecological resources, measures that would exposure to seismic hazards, minimize earthquake damage, and reduce exposure to seismic hazards, minimize earthquake develop emergency response and recovery plans. damage, and to develop emergency response and recovery plans. Policy 3.24. Encourage efforts of local jurisdictions in the Policies included in the proposed General Plan Update would implementation of programs that increase the supply and promote and maintain a balance of housing types and corresponding quality of housing and provide affordable housing as affordability levels to provide for the community's demands for evaluated in the Regional Housing Needs Assessment. housing within all economic segments of the City. Up to 15,336 new residential units (primarily multifamily units) could be provided in the City. 4.8-18 City of Newport Beach General PlanUpdateEIR ' 4.8 Land Use and Planning II J II I! 11 II Policy 3.27. Support local jurisdictions and other service In the Public Services section of this EIR (4.11), fire protection, police providers in their efforts to develop sustainable communities protection, and schools are analyzed. Parks and Recreation is and provide, equally to all members of society, accessible discussed in Section 4.12, and Housing is discussed in Population and effective services such as: public education, housing, and Demographics (Section 4.10). The intent of the proposed health care, social services, recreational facilities, law General Plan Update is to provide these services. enforcement, and fire protection. Core Air Policy 5.11. Through the environmental document review This EIR has been prepared in accordance with this policy. process, ensure that plans at all levels of government (regional, air basin, county, subregional, and local) consider air quality, land use, transportation and economic relationships to ensure consistency and minimize conflicts. Water Policy 11.02. Encourage "watershed management" The Natural Resources Element of the proposed General Plan programs and strategies, recognizing the primary role of Update includes goals and policies related to Water Quality that local governments in such efforts. encourage watershed management programs and strategies. Policy 11.05. Support regional efforts to identify and Policies in the proposed General Plan Update would ensure that cooperatively plan for wetlands to facilitate both sustaining wetland resources are managed and maintained. the amount and quality of wetlands in the region and expediting the process for obtaining wetlands permits. Policy 11.07. Encourage water reclamation throughout the The proposed General Plan Update has identified the minimization of region where it is cost-effective, feasible, and appropriate to water consumption and expanded use of alternative water sources as reduce reliance on imported water and wastewater goals in the Natural Resources Element. Policies to achieve this goal discharges. Current administrative impediments to increased include the promotion of water reuse facilities and increased use of use of wastewater should be addressed. I recycled water. Open Space Chapter Ancillary Goals Policy 9.01. Provide adequate land resources to meet the ' outdoor recreation needs of the present and future residents in the region and to promote tourism in the region. I ' Policy 9.02. Increase the accessibility to open space lands for outdoor recreation. ' Policy 9.04. Maintain open space for adequate protection of lives and properties against natural and man-made hazards. I I The proposed General Plan Update would increase parkland due to potential acquisition of Banning Ranch for open space. Even if Banning Ranch is developed, a substantial portion of the site would remain open space. Provisions for parkland also exist in the Sunset Ridge and Airport Area facilities. The General Plan Update would also preserve existing recreational resources to provide an appropriate range of active and passive parkland facilities to meet park acreage standards and to meet the recreational needs of the Citv's population and promote tourism. Policies in the proposed General Plan Update would create and maintain a parkland system that is identifiable, safe, and accessible to all users. Policies in the proposed General Plan Update would provide open spaces to protect development from natural environmental hazards. ' City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 4.8.19 Table 4.8-2 SCAG Regional Comprehensive Plan and Guide Policies SCAG RCP(; Pokles Prolect ConsWenc Policy 9.05. Minimize potential hazardous development in in the Geology and Solls section (4.5) of this EIR, potential hazards hillsides, canyons, areas susceptible to flooding, associated with development in hillsides and earthquakes are earthquakes, wildfire and other known hazards, and areas analyzed. Potential hazards associated with wildfires are analyzed in with limited access for emergency equipment. Section 4.11(Public Services —Fire Protection) of this EIR. Development in areas susceptible to flooding is analyzed in the Hydrology and Water Quality section (4.7) of this EIR. Developmental hazards associated with emergency access are analyzed in the Hazards and Hazardous Materials section (4.6) of this EIR. Potential hazards discussed in this EIR would be minimized through the Implementation of proposed policies and mitigation measures. Policy 9.06. Minimize public expenditure for infrastructure Policies in the proposed General Plan'Update would serve to ensure and facilities to support urban type uses in areas where that the health, safety and general welfare of residents and visitors of public health and safety could not be guaranteed. the City of Newport Beach would be provided through good land use planning and strict adherence and enforcement of the Uniform Fire Code, Certified Unified Program Agency, and other pertinent sources and documents, Policy 9.08. Develop well -managed viable ecosystems or Poildes in the proposed General Plan Update would protect, known habitats of rare, threatened, and endangered species, enhance, and sustain significant plant and wildlife species and habitat including wetlands. along with protecting natural and biological resources within riparian corridors and wetlands. Policies are also,provided to ensure that wetland resources are managed and maintained. Regional Transportation Plan Policy 4.01. Transportation investments shall be based on The Circulation and Land Use Elements of the proposed General SCAG's adopted Regional Performance Indicators. Plan Update also contain goals and policies to reduce traffic congestion and provide adequate transportation facilities. During preparation of this element, SCAG's plans and policies were considered in formulation of the policies in the General. Plan Update. Policy 4.02. Transportation Investments shall mitigate The Circulation Element includes transportation improvements that environmental impacts to an acceptable level. reduce impacts associated with the local transportation system as a result of implementation of the General Plan Update. However, as discussed in Section 4.13 (TransportatiordTraffc), a significant cumulative unavoidable impact related to freeway ramps would remain. These roadways are outside the City's jurisdiction and control and impacted by regional growth. The proposed General Plan Update includes policies regarding regional traffic mitigation (CE 3.1.4) that encourage participation in programs to mitigate regional traffic congestion. Policy 4.03. Transportation Control Measures shall be a The proposed General Plan Update contains policies to participate in priority. regional air quality managementplans, programs, and enforcement measures, Including Transportation Systems Management (TSM) or Travel Demand Management (TOM). Policy 4.16. Maintaining and operating the existing The proposed General Plan Update incorporates policies aimed at transportation system will be a priority over expanding relieving congestion through implementation of alternative capacity. transportation system management strategies, supporting the development of a public transportation system, and development of a convenient bikeway and hiking trail systems. All improvements would occur within existing rights of way. 4.8.20 City of NewportBedch General Plan Update EIR 1 4.8 Land Use and Planning 1 1 7 I� If [1 I I� II I II II II Santa Ana Basin Plan The Santa Ana Basin Plan is designed to preserve and enhance water quality and protect the beneficial uses of all regional waters. Specifically, the Basin Plan (1) designates beneficial uses for surface and ground waters, (2) sets narrative and numerical objectives that must be attained or maintained to protect the designated beneficial uses and conform to the State's anti -degradation policy, and (3) describes implementation programs to protect all waters in the region. In cases where a Basin Plan does not contain a standard for a particular pollutant, other criteria are used to establish a standard. Other criteria may be applied from State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) documents (e.g., the Inland Surface Waters Plan and the Pollutant Policy Document) or from water quality criteria developed under Section 304(a) of the Clean Water Act. Development within the City is required to comply with all applicable water quality requirements established by the Santa Ana and San Diego RWQCBs and SWRCB. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would be consistent with the relevant Basin Plans, which implement the Porter -Cologne Water Quak. 0 CmrtrolAct. Local Plans Locally -adopted land use plans, policies, or regulations that would be applicable to the proposed project include the City's Zoning Code, Coastal Land Use Plan, specific plans, and the AELUP for John Wayne Airport. The City of Newport Beach Zoning Code, Title 20 of the City's Municipal Code, is one of the primary means of implementing the General Plan. Adoption of the proposed General Plan Update would require a review of the Zoning Ordinance regarding policies pertaining to land use, density/intensity, design and development, resource conservation, public safety, and other pertinent topics to assure consistency. In particular, the Zoning Map would need to be revised to be consistent with the proposed General Plan Update Land Use Plan, incorporating new land use categories and density limits for each parcel. Further, the General Plan Update proposes new designations that would need to be reflected in the Zoning Code. These include a greater range of categories for residential, commercial, and industrial uses; a new "Residential Village" category that provides for a mix of housing types with local services; new mixed use categories, and the separation of "park" and "open space" categories. Further, land use designations for Banning Ranch would need to be established if this area is annexed to the City. However, State law requires that the Zoning Code be revised to reflect the adopted General Plan Update within a reasonable period of time, which is typically one year. During this time, there would be temporary conflicts between the Zoning Code and the proposed General Plan Update; however, development within the City would' be required to adhere to the more restrictive regulation. The City has Specific Plans for several areas of Newport Beach. Specific Plans are generally more limited in their scope than those authorized by the State Government Code. They are more specific than the underlying zoning requirements in their definition of permitted land uses and development standards to reflect the unique characteristics of their planning area. Specific Plan areas include the following. ■ Newport Shores ■ Mariners' Mile ' ■ Cannery Village/McFadden Square ' City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 4.8-21 Chapter 4 Environmental Analysis 11 ■ Santa Ana Heights ■ Central Balboa ■ Old Newport Boulevard ■ Corona del Mar A "place holder" is included in the Code for the anticipated future preparation of a specific plan for Corona del Mar. Upon adoption of the General Plan Update, the City will, review its currently adopted Specific Plans and revise these where necessary to reflect changes made in the proposed General Plan Update, such as land use, density/intensity, design and development. Comparable to the Zoning Ordinance, the statutes allow a "reasonable" time for these modifications, which the courts have generally interpreted to be one year from the date of proposed General Plan Update adoption. As the Specific Plans in the City are typically designed to refine the uses set forth in the General Plan and provide further guidance for development in the area, conflicts are anticipated to be limited, although there could be temporary conflicts between the Specific Plans and the proposed General Plan Update. However, development within the City would be required to adhere to the more restrictive regulation. The Coastal Land Use Plan (CLUP) was prepared as required by the California Coastal Act of 1976 and as part of the Local Coastal Program (LCP). The CLUP sets forth goals, objectives, and policies that govern the use of land and water in the coastal zone within the City of Newport Beach and its SOI, with the exception of Newport Coast and Banning Ranch.63 The City Council adopted the CLUP on December 13, 2005, and the Coastal Commission subsequently certified the CLUP on February 8, 2006. The Local Implementation Plan (LIP) is in the final stages of preparation. The proposed General Plan Update was prepared in consideration of the approved CLUP, and many of its policies were directly incorporated in the Land Use, Natural Resources, Recreation and Public Safety Elements. However, there are a number of policies in the proposed General Plan Update that may deviate from those in the approved CLUP and LIP. Among these are policies for inclusion of housing and mixed -use developments in portions of the coastal zone and the revised land use classification and' density/intensity system. It will be necessary to review and amend the CLUP and LIP for consistency and submit these to the Coastal Commission for certification. During thus time, there would be temporary conflicts between the CLUP and the proposed General Plan Update, however, development within the City would be required to adhere to the more restrictive regulation. The AELUP for John Wayne Airport contains policies governing the land uses surrounding the airport. Specifically, these policies establish development criteria that protect sensitive receptors from airport noise, persons from risk of operations, and height guidelines to ensure aircraft safety. The preparation of the proposed General Plan Update considered the guidelines in the AELUP. The Airport Area in the proposed General Plan Update includes development of new residential uses. This subarea is entirely within the Airport Environs Land Use Plan area and subject to the AELUP. Provided that residential 67 Newport Coast is governed by the previously certified and currently effective Newport Coast segment of the Orange County LocalCoastal Program. Banning Ranch is a Deferred Certification Area due to unresolved planning issues for the area, III IL Cl #I u I I I 1 4.8.22 City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR , 4.8 Land Use and Planning uses remain outside the 65 dBA CNEL contour, the General Plan Update would be consistent with the AELUP. AELUP Policy 3.2.1 identifies the criteria by which development within the boundaries of the AELUP may be found to be inconsistent with the Plan. These are (1) places people so that they are affected adversely by aircraft noise; (2) concentrates people in areas susceptible to aircraft accidents; (3) permits structures of excessive height in areas which would affect adversely the continued operation of the airport; or (4) permits activities or facilities that would affect adversely aeronautical operations. Residential development in the Airport area outside of the 65 dBA CNEL noise contour would ensure that none of these criteria are met, and the project would be consistent with the AELUP. The proposed General Plan Update would also adhere to AELUP Policy 3.2.8 regarding height restriction zones surrounding the JWA (discussed previously in Section 4.8.3, Regulatory Framework), and AELUP Policy 3.2.9, which discusses the criteria used by the Airport Land Use Commission for Orange County to categorize a structure as inconsistent with the AELUP, for any development either within or outside the AELUP planning area. Structures that would be inconsistent with the AELUP include those that: (1) are determined to be a "Hazard" by the FAA; (2) would raise the ceiling or visibility minimums at an airport for an existing or planned instrument procedure; (3) would result in a loss in airport utility; or (4) would conflict with the VFR air space used for the airport traffic pattern or enroute navigation to and from the airport. None of the development permitted under the General Plan Update would be expected to meet these criteria. As previously discussed, the proposed General Plan Update includes Policy LU 6.15.24, which states that development must be constructed within the height limits and residential uses must be located outside of areas exposed to the 65 dBA CNEL noise contour identified in the AELUP, unless the City Council makes appropriate findings for an override in accordance with applicable law. This policy allows the possibility for residential development to occur within the 65 dBA CNEL noise contour or height limits to be exceeded. The Campus Tract area and a large property to its east are currently developed with low intensity industrial, office, and airport related uses, including a number of auto -related commercial uses including carwash, auto -detailing, rental, repair, and parts shops. This area is partially within the 65 dBA CNEL noise contour and could include residential uses, consistent with Land Use Policy 6.15.4. Residential development within any area inside the 65 dBA CNEL would result in conflicts with AELUP Policy 3.2.1, which results in a finding of inconsistent land uses if development places people so that they are affected adversely by aircraft noise or concentrates people in areas susceptible to aircraft accidents. Residential development within the 65 dBA CNEL would place residential units in an area adversely affected by aircraft noise and susceptible to aircraft accidents, since development would be beneath air traffic flight patterns. As such, if the AELUP is overridden by City Council, then development under the General Plan Update would be inconsistent with the AELUP. This impact would be significant. As discussed within this impact, implementation of the proposed General Plan Update would not be inconsistent with applicable adopted plans, regulations, or policies, other than the AELUP if the City Council overrides that document. Therefore, impacts associated with potential inconsistencies with all other applicable land use plans for the City would be less than signi&cant. City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 4.8.23 Threshold Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan The proposed project would not conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan. Implementation of the proposed General Plan Update within the City would be subject to the Orange County Central and Coastal Natural Community Conservation Plan (NCCP). As discussed under Impact 4.3-2 in Section 4.3 (Biological Resources), the project would be in conformance with this conservation plan. Policy NR 10.2 explicitly states that future development must comply with the policies contained within the Orange County Natural Communities Conservation Plan, which would ensure compatibility with the Plan. Therefore, no impactsassociated with potential inconsistencies with the applicable NCCP for the City and SOI would occur. ■ Cumulative Impacts The geographic context for the cumulative impacts associated with land use issues is Orange County, which assumes full buildout of the proposed General Plan Update, in combination with buiidout of the county as currently planned. It is anticipated that future growth within parts of the County would result in infill development. Changes to the existing land use environment in the area could also occur through the conversion of vacant land and low density uses to higher density uses, or through conversions of existing land use (e.g., from commercial to residential). However, it is assumed that this future development would be consistent with the adopted general plans of incorporated cities within the County, as well as zoning requirements. This development is also anticipated to be consistent with CEQA review, mitigation requirements, and design review. Therefore, it can be assumed that through these requirements, future development would be substantially compatible with existing land uses. For this reason, cumulative impacts on land use as a result of incompatibilities between existing and future development would be less than significant. The contribution of the proposed General Plan Update to such cumulative land use impacts is less than significant and is thus not cumulatively considerable because development under the project would be compatible with the land uses that surround it. Tlvs cumulative impact would also be less than significant. It is also anticipated that regional growth will be reviewed for consistency with adopted land use plans and policies by the County, City of Newport Beach, and other incorporated cities, in accordance with the requirements of CEQA, the State Zoning and Planning Law, and the State Subdivision Map Act, all of which require findings of plan and policy consistency prior to approval of entitlements for development For this reason, cumulative impacts associated with inconsistency of future development with adopted plans and policies would be less than significant. In addition, the contribution of the proposed General Plan Update to such cumulative impacts would be less than significant as new development would be compatible with surrounding land uses and consistent with applicable plans, policies, and regulations. As a result, development under the proposed General Plan Update would not contribute to any cumulative 1 1 .1 1 J 1 J I 1 1. 1 1 1 1 4.8.24 City of Newport, Beach General Plan Update EIR 1 4.8 Land Use and Planning I II I� II It II II impacts associated with plan or policy inconsistency. This is considered to be a Jess -than -significant cumulative impact ■ Proposed General Plan Update Policies Nearly all of the proposed General Plan Update Elements and associated policies therein would directly or indirectly affect the land use and planning effects of prospective growth within the City. The following is a partial list of policies that most directly affect implementation of the proposed project, and would further guarantee that project impacts to land use and planning would remain less than significant. Goal LU 1 A unique residential community with diverse coastal and upland neighborhoods, which values its colorful past, high quality of life, and community bonds, and balances the needs of residents, businesses, and visitors through the recognition that Newport Beach is primarily a residential community. Policy LU 1.1 Unique Environment Maintain and enhance the beneficial and unique character of the different neighborhoods, business districts, and harbor that together identify Newport Beach. Locate and design development to reflect Newport Beach's topography, architectural diversity, and view sheds. Policy LU 1.2 Citywide Identity While recognizing the qualities that uniquely define its neighborhoods and districts, promote the identity of the entire City that differentiates it as a special Place within the Southern California region. Policy LU 1.3 Natural Resources Protect the natural setting that contributes to the character and identify of Newport Beach and the sense of place it provides for its residents and visitors. Preserve open space resources, beaches, harbor, parks, bluffs, preserves, and estuaries as visual, recreational and habitat resources. Policy LU 1.4 Growth Management Implement a conservative growth strategy that enhances the quality of life of residents and balances the needs of all constituencies with the preservation of open space and natural resources. Policy LU 1.5 Economic Health Encourage a local economy that provides adequate commercial, office, industrial and marine -oriented opportunities that provide employment and revenue to support high quality community services. ' City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 4.8-25 Chapter 4 Environmenial Analysts Policy LU 1.6 Public Views Protect and, where feasible, enhance significant scenic and visual resources that include open space, mountains, canyons, ridges, ocean, and harbor from public vantage points. Goal LU 3 A development pattern that retains and complements the City's residential neighborhoods, commercial and industrial districts, open spaces, and natural environment. Policy LU 3.4 Banning Ranch Prioritize the retention of Banning Ranch as an open space amenity for the City and region, consolidating oil operations, enhancing wetland and other habitats, and providing parkland amenities to serve nearby neighborhoods. If the property cannot be acquired in a timely manner, allow for the development of a compact residential village that preserves the majority of the site as open space and restores critical habitat in accordance with Policies 6.3.1 through 6.5.5. Goal LU 5.1 Residential neighborhoods that are well -planned and designed, contribute to the livability and quality of life of residents, respect the natural environmental setting, and sustain the qualities of place that differentiate Newport Beach as a special place in the Southern California region. Policy LU 5.1.1 Compatible but Diverse Development Establish property development regulations for residential projects to create compatible and high quality development that contributes to neighborhood character. Policy LU 5.1.2 Compatible Interfaces Require that the height of development in nonresidential and higher density residential areas transition as it nears lower density residential areas to minimize conflicts at the interface between the different types of development. Goal LU 5.2 Commercial centers and districts that are well -designed and planned, exhibit a high level of architectural and landscape quality, and are vital places for shopping and socialization. Policy LU 5.2.2 Buffering Residential Areas Require that residential areas be buffered from adjoining nonresidential uses to the extent feasible, such as retail commercial and industrial, through the establishment of petformance-based regulations, the removal of nonconforming uses, and other tools such as landscape screening. 4.8.26 City of Nevvport Beach General Plan Update EIR ' 4.8 Land Use and Planning 1 Policy LU 5.2.3 Alley Design Improve and enhance the aesthetic quality of alleys without impacting service access. Goal LU 5.3 Districts where residents and businesses are intermixed that are designed and planned to assure compatibility among the uses, that they are highly livable for residents, and are of high quality design reflecting the traditions of Newport ' Beach. Policy LU 5.3.1 Mixed Use Buildings Require that mixed -use buildings be designed to convey a high level of architectural and landscape quality and ensure compatibility among their uses in consideration of the following principles: ■ Design and incorporation of building materials and features to avoid conflicts among uses, such as noise, vibration, lighting, odors, and similar ' impacts ■ Visual and physical integration of -residential and nonresidential uses ■ Architectural treatment of building elevations and modulation of their ' massing ■ Separate and well-defined entries for residential units and nonresidential businesses ■ Design of parking areas and facilities for architectural consistency and integration among uses ■ Incorporation of extensive landscape appropriate to its location; urbanized ' streetscapes, for example, would require less landscape along the street frontage but integrate landscape into interior courtyards and common open spaces Policy LU 5.3.2 Mixed -Use Building Location and Size of Nonresidential Uses ' Require that 100 percent of the ground floor street frontage of mixed -use buildings be occupied by retail and other compatible nonresidential uses, unless specified otherwise by LU 6.0 for a district or corridor. ' Policy LU 5.3.3 Parcels Integrating Residential and Nonresidential Uses Require that properties developed with a mix of residential and nonresidential uses be designed to achieve high levels of architectural quality in accordance with policies 5.1.8 and 5.2.2 and planned to assure compatibility among the ' uses and provide adequate circulation and parking. Residential uses should be seamlessly integrated with nonresidential uses through architecture, pedestrian walkways, and landscape. They should not be completely isolated by walls or other design elements. I ' City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 4.8-27 Goa1LU 6.2 Residential neighborhoods that contain a diversity of housing types and supporting uses to meet the needs of Newport Beach's residents and are designed to sustain livability and a high quality of life. Policy LU 6.2.5 Neighborhood Supporting Uses Allow for the integration of uses within residential neighborhoods that support and are complementary to their primary function as a living environment such as schools, parks, community meeting facilities, religious facilities, and comparable uses. These uses shall be designed to assure compatibility with adjoining residential addressing such issues as noise, lighting, and parking. Goal LU 6.4 If acquisition for open space is not successful, a high -quality residential community with supporting uses that provides revenue to restore and protect wetlands and important habitats. Policy LU 6.4.5 Planned Residential Village Require that Banning Ranch, if not retained as open space, be developed as a cohesive urban form that provides the sense of a complete and identifiable neighborhood. Establish a development pattern that des together individual uses into a cohesive neighborhood addressing the location and massing of buildings, architecture, landscape, connective street grid and pedestrian walkways and trails, use of key landforms, and similar elements. Policy LU 6.4.8 Open Space Network and Parldands Establish a framework of trails, community parklands, and natural habitats that provide the framework around which the residential village's uses are developed and interconnect residentialdistricts, the village center, other uses, and open spaces. Policy LU 6.4.11 Comprehensive Site Planning and Design Require the preparation of a master development or specific plan for any development on the Banning Ranch specifying lands to be developed, preserved, and restored, land uses to be permitted, parcelization, roadway and infrastructure improvements, streetscape improvements, development regulations, architectural design and landscape guidelines, processes for oil operations consolidation, habitat preservation and restoration plan, sustainability practices plan, financial implementation, and other appropriate elements. PolicyLU 6.5.1 Oil Operations Relocate and cluster oil operations. 4.8-28 City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR ' 4.8 land Use and Planning Policy LU 6.5.2 Active Community Park Accommodate a community park of a minimum of 30 acres that contains active playfields that may be lighted and is of sufficient acreage to serve adjoining neighborhoods and, if developed, residents of Banning Ranch. Policy LU 6.5.3 Habitat and Wetlands Restore and enhance wetlands and wildlife habitats, in accordance with the requirements of state and federal agencies. Policy LU 6.5.4 Relationship of Development to Environmental Resources Development should be located and designed to preserve and/or mitigate for the loss of wetlands and drainage course habitat. It shall be located to be contiguous and compatible with existing and planned development along its eastern property line, preserving the connectivity of wildlife corridors, and set back from the bluff faces, along which shall be located a linear park to provide public views of the ocean, wetlands, and surrounding open spaces. Policy LU 6.5.5 Public Views of the Property Development shall be located and designed to prevent residences on the property from dominating public views of the bluff faces from Coast Highway, the ocean, wetlands, and surrounding open spaces. Policy LU 6.5.6 Coordination with State and Federal Agencies Work with appropriate state and federal agencies to identify wetlands and habitats to be preserved and/or restored and those on which development will be permitted. 6.5.11 Goal LU 6.6 A medical district with peripheral medical services and research facilities that support the Hoag Hospital campus within a well -planned residential neighborhood, enabling residents to live close to their jobs and reducing commutes to outlying areas. Policy LU 6.6.1 Hospital Supporting Uses Integrated with Residential Neighborhoods Prioritize the accommodation of medical -related and supporting facilities on properties abutting the Hoag Hospital complex (areas designated as "CO -MD with opportunities for new residential units (areas designated as "RH-C?�. Policy LU 6.6.2 Residential Types Promote the development of a mix of residential types and building scales within the densities permitted by the "RH-A" designation, which may include single-family attached, townhomes, apartments, flats, and comparable units. Residential densities may be increased on a property as a means of promoting City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 4.8-29 a variety of housing types within Newport Mesa, provided that the overall average density of 30 units per adjusted gross acre is not exceeded. PolicyLU 6.6.5 Livable Residential Neighborhood Work with property owners and encourage the preparation of a master plan for the residential neighborhood defining park and streetscape improvements that provide amenity for local residents and enhance the area's identity. Goal LU 6.8 A series of commercial, visitor -serving, marine related, civic, and residential neighborhoods that are vibrant throughout the year, differentiated by their historic and functional characteristics, and architectural style, yet integrated by streetscape amenities. Policy LU 6.8.1 Urban Form Establish development patterns that promote the reinforcement of Balboa Peninsula's pedestrian scale and urban form as a series of distinct centers/ nodes and connecting corridors. Goal LU 6.9 A pedestrian -oriented village environment that reflects its waterfront location, providing a mix of uses that serves visitors and local residents. Policy LU 6.9.1 Priority Uses Encourage uses that take advantage of Lido Village's location at the Harbor's turning basin and its vitality and pedestrian character, including visitor -serving and retail commercial, small lodging facilities (bed and breakfasts, inns), and mixed -use buildings that integrate residential with retail uses (areas designated as "MU-C2", Subarea 'W). Interior parcels (Subarea `B') may also contain mixed use buildings that integrate residential with office uses (designated as "MU -AT). Policy LU 6.9.2 Discouraged Uses Discourage the development of new office uses on the ground floor of buildings that do not attract customer activity to improve the area's pedestrian character and restrict the development of residential along the waterfront to the upper floors of buildings above water -related, visitor -serving commercial, and similar uses. Goal LU 6.10 A pedestrian -oriented residential neighborhood that provides opportunities for live/work facilities and supporting retail uses. Policy LU 6.10.1 Priority Uses Allow multi -family residential and mixed -use buildings that integrate residential above retail or live -work units throughout Cannery Village. Require mixed -use or live -work buildings to be developed on comer parcels. 4.8.30 City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR , 1 Planning4.8 Land Use and Goal LU 6.11 A water -oriented district that contains uses that support and benefit from its location fronting onto the bay, as well as provides new opportunities for ' residential. ' Policy LU 6.11.1 Priority Uses Accommodate water -oriented commercial and supporting uses that support harbor recreation and fishing activities, and mixed -use structures with ' residential above ground level water -oriented uses. Goal LU 6.12 A pedestrian -oriented village that reflects its location on the ocean, pier, and bay ' front, serving visitors and local residents. ' Policy LU 6.12.1 Priority Uses Accommodate visitor- and local -serving uses that take advantage of McFadden Square's waterfront setting including specialty retail, restaurants, and small ' scale overnight accommodations, as well as mixed use buildings that integrate residential with ground level retail. ' Goal LU 6.13 An economically viable pedestrian oriented village that serves local residents, visitors, and provides residential in proximity to retail uses, entertainment, and recreation. ' Policy LU 6.13.1 Village Core (designated as "MU -AT') ' Encourage local- and visitor -serving retail commercial and mixed use buildings that integrate residential with ground level retail or office uses on properties. ' Policy LU 6.13.2 Bay Frontage (designated as CV -A') Prioritize water -dependent, marine -related retail and services and visitor - serving retail. Policy LU 6.13.3 Commercial Properties out of Village Core (designated as "RM-B") ' Promote re -use for residential units. Goal LU 6.14 A successful mixed -use district that integrates an economic and commercial ' centers serving the needs of Newport Beach residents and the subregion, with expanded opportunities for residents to live close to jobs, commerce, ' entertainment, and recreation, and is supported by a pedestrian -friendly environment.. Policy LU 6.14.5 Pedestrian Connectivity and Amenity Encourage that pedestrian access and connections among uses within the district be improved with additional walkways and streetscape amenities ' concurrent with the development of expanded and new uses. ' City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 4.8.31 Goal LU 6.15 A mixed -use community that provides jobs, residential, and supporting services in close proximity, with pedestrian -oriented amenities that facilitates walling and enhance livability. Policy LU 6.15.1 Land Use Districts and Neighborhoods Provide for the development of distinct business park, commercial, and airport -serving districts and residential neighborhoods that are integrated to assure a quality environment and compatible land uses. Policy LU 6.15.3 Underperforming Land Uses Promote the redevelopment of sites with underperforming retail uses located on parcels at the interior of large blocks for other uses, with retail clustered along major arterials (e.g., Bristol, Campus, MacArthur, and Jamboree), except where intended to serve and be integrated with new residential development. Policy LU 6.15.4 Primary Uses Accommodate office, industrial, retail, automobile service, hotels, and comparable uses that are related to and support the functions of John Wayne Airport, as permitted by the "CG-C" designation, while allowing for the redevelopment of properties for residential villages that are integrated with business park uses in accordance with policies 6.15.9 through 6.15.25. Policy LU 6.15.8 Priority Uses .Encourage the development of retail, financial services, dining, hotel, and other uses that support the John Wayne Airport, the Airport Area's office uses, and, as developed, its residential neighborhoods, as well as automobile sales and supporting uses at the MacArthur Boulevard and Bristol Street node. Policy LU 6.15.9 Residential and Supporting Uses Accommodate the development of multi -family residential units, including work force housing, and mixed -use buildings that integrate residential with ground level office or retail uses in areas and supporting retail, grocery stores, and parklands. This may occur as replacement of existing buildings or as infill on parking lots, provided that the parking is replaced in a structure located on - site. Policy LU 6.15.10 Number and'Size of Residential Villages Allow development of a maximum of four (4) mixed use residential villages, each centered on a neighborhood park. and other amenities (as conceptually illustrated in Figure LU23). The first phase of residential development in each neighborhood shall encompass at least 10 gross acres of land, exclusive of existing rights -of -way. The 10 acres may include multiple parcels provided that they are contiguous or face one another across an existing street. The 10 acre requirement may be waived for projects of at least 5 acres if a concept plan is 4.8-32 City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 4.8 Land Use and Planning prepared that integrates existing and new uses into a cohesive mixed -use neighborhood and achieves the objectives for the Airport Area. Policy LU 6.15.24 Airport Compatibility Require that all development be constructed within the height limits and residential be located outside of areas exposed to the 65 dBA CNEL noise contour specified by the Airport Environs Land Use Plan (AELUP)residential, unless the City Council makes appropriate findings for an override in accordance with applicable law. Policy LU 6.15.25 Sustainable Development Practices Require that development achieves a high level of environmental sustainability that reduces pollution and consumption of energy, water, and natural resources. This may be accomplished through the mix and density of uses, building location and design, transportation modes, and other techniques. Among the strategies that should be considered are the integration of residential with jobs -generating uses, use of alternative transportation modes, maximized walkability, use of recycled materials, capture and re -use of storm water on -site, water conserving fixtures and landscapes, and architectural elements that reduce heat gain and loss. Goal LU 6.16 Development along arterial corridors that is compatible with adjoining residential neighborhoods and open spaces, is well designed and attractive, minimizes traffic impacts, and provides adequate parking. Policy LU 6.16.5 Compatibility of Business Operations with Adjoining Residential Neighborhoods Work with local businesses to assure that retail, office, and other uses do not adversely impact adjoining residential neighborhoods. This may include strategies addressing hours of operation, employee loitering, trash pickup, truck delivery hours, customer arrivals and departures, and other activities. Policy LU 6.16.6 Design Compatibility with Adjoining Residential Neighborhoods Require that building elevations facing adjoining residential units be designed to convey a high quality character and assure privacy of the residents, and that properties be developed to mitigate to the maximum extent feasible impacts of lighting, noise, odor, trash storage, truck deliveries, and other business activities. Building elevations shall be architecturally treated and walls, if used as buffers, shall be well -designed and landscaped to reflect the area's residential village character. ' City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 4.8.33 Goal LU 6.18 A corridor of uses and services that support Hoag Hospital and adjoining residential neighborhoods. Policy LU 6.18.1 Priority Uses Accommodate uses that serve adjoining residential neighborhoods and support Hoag Hospital, including, on the east side of the Boulevard, mixed use buildings that integrate residential above ground level retail or office uses and live/work facilities. Policy LU 6.18.2 Discouraged Uses Highway -oriented retail uses should be discouraged and new "heavy" retail uses, such as automobile supply and repair uses, prohibited. Goal LU 6.19 A corridor that reflects and takes advantage of its location on the Newport Bay waterfront, supports and respects adjacent residential neighborhoods, and exhibits a quality visual image for travelers on Coast Highway. Policy LU 6.19.1 Differentiated Districts Differentiate and create cohesive land use districts for key subareas of Mariners' Mile by function, use, and urban form. These should include (a) harbor -oriented uses with limited residential along the waterfront, (b) community/neighborhood serving "village' generally between Riverside Avenue and the southerly extension of Irvine Avenue, and (c) highway - oriented commercial. Policy LU 6.19.2 Bay Fronting Properties (designated as WU-CI") Encourage marine -related and 'visitor -serving retail, restaurant, hotel, institutional, and recreational uses, and allow residential uses on parcels with a minimum frontage of 200 lineal feet where a minimum of 50% of the permitted square footage shall be devoted to nonresidential uses. Policy LU 6.19.4 Inland side of Coast Highway (designated as `WU--BI" and "CG B') Accommodate a mix of visitor and local -serving retail commercial, residential, and public uses. The Coast Highway frontage shall be limited to nonresidential uses. On Inland parcels, generally between Riverside Avenue and Tustin Avenue, priority should be placed on accommodating uses that serve upland residential neighborhoods such as grocery stores, specialty retail; small service office, restaurants, coffee shops, and similar uses. 4.8.34 City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR ' 4.8 Land Use and Planning Goal LU 6.20 A pedestrian -oriented "village" serving as the center of community commerce, culture, and social activity and providing identity for Corona del Mar. Policy LU 6.20.1 Primary Uses Accommodate neighborhood -serving uses that complement existing development. Policy LU 6.20.5 Complement the Scale and Form of Existing Development Permit new development at a maximum intensity of 0.5 FAR, but allow existing buildings that exceed this intensity to be renovated, upgraded, or reconstructed to their pre-existing intensity. Goal NR 10 Protection of sensitive and rare terrestrial and marine resources from urban development. Policy NR 10.2 Orange County Natural Communities Conservation Plan Comply with the policies contained within the Orange County Natural Communities Conservation Plan. Airport Environs Land Use Plan for John Wayne Airport —Land Use Policies The policies listed below are from the AELUP for John Wayne Airport, prepared by the Airport Land Use Commission. These policies are not part of the General Plan Update and are included here for reference only. AELUP 3.2.1 General Policy The General Land Use policy of the Airport Land Use Commission for Orange County shall be: Within the boundaries of the AELUP, any land use may be found to be inconsistent with the AELUP which ■ Places people so that they are affected adversely by aircraft noise, ■ Concentrates people in areas susceptible to aircraft accidents, ■ Permits structures of excessive height in areas which would affect adversely the continued operation of the airport, or ■ Permits activities or facilities that would affect adversely aeronautical operations. AELUP 3.2.8 Height Restriction Zone Any object, which by reason of its height or location would interfere with the established, or planned, airport flight procedures, patterns, or navigational systems, is unacceptable to the Commission. Similarly, any proposal which would cause a diminution in the utility of an airport is unacceptable to the Commission. The standards, criteria, and procedures promulgated by the FAA for the thorough City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 4.8.35 evaluation of development projects are designed to ensure the safe and efficient use of the navigable airspace. The application of these principles by the Commission will ensure the stability of local air transportation, as well as promote land uses that are compatible with the airport environs. However, any object which rises above the height of surrounding development, or which is located in close proximity to any of the various flight paths, must be clearly visible during hours of twilight or darkness and must not threaten, endanger, or interfere with aeronautical operations. Such objects, even if within the above height restrictions, are not acceptable to the Commission unless they are clearly marked or lighted according to FAA standards. AELUP 3.2.9 Airspace/Airport Inconsistency In reviewing projects, the Commission will find any structure, either within or outside of the planning areas, inconsistent with this AELUP if itt ■ Is determined to be a "Hazard" by the FAA; ■ Would raise the ceiling or visibility minimums at an airport for an existing or planned instrument procedure (i.e., a procedure consistent with the FAA -approved airport layout plan or a proposed procedure formally on file with the FAA); ■ Would result in a loss in airport utility, e.g. in a diminution of the established operational efficiency and capacity of the airport, such as by causing the usable ' length of the runway(s) to be reduced; or ■ Would conflict with the VFR air space used for the airport traffic pattern or enroute navigation to and from the airport. AELUP 3.2.10Avigation Easements The dedication of an avigation easement in favor of an airport proprietor is designated a& a method which may be employed by the airport proprietors for controlling and reducing noise problems surrounding airports, pursuant to Title 21, California Code of Regulations, Section 5037. Therefore, in recognition of Section 5037 and in order to codify long-standing Commission policy and practice as exemplified by Airport Land Use Commission Resolution 79-2, the continuing policy of the Commission is that an avigation easement may be considered by the Commission if so requested by a local agency or project proponent as a factor which may render a land use, within the AELUP planning area set forth in Section 3.2.2 (Noise Impact Zone "1'�, consistent with the AELUP. However, nothing in this section shall be deemed to confer upon the Commission the legal jurisdiction or authority to require, compel or mandate the dedication of an avigation easement as a condition of consistency; and the lack of an avigation easement shall not constitute the basis for a determination by the Commission that a project is inconsistent with the AELUP. This section is applicable only to projects submitted to the Commission by local agencies after the adoption of the revisions set forth herein and only to projects within the subject matter jurisdiction of the Commission. 4.8.36 City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR , I I 1 4,8 Land Use .. AELUP 3.3 Specific Policies for Consistency Determinations I� II II II II II II II AELUP 3.3.1 As set forth in Public Utilities Code Sections 21676 and 21676.5 and as discussed in the California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook, a key responsibility of an airport land use commission is to review particular types of local actions for compliance with the criteria and policies set forth in a commission's adopted compatibility plan. AELUP 3.3.2 Section 3.0 of the Airport Environs Land Use Plan sets forth the policies and criteria by which a local action can be reviewed, and a determination made of its consistency/inconsistency with the AELUP. AELUP 3.3.3 The ALUC may find a local action consistent with the AELUP; or AELUP 3.3.4 The ALUC may find a local action consistent with the AELUP with condition(s) attached if the local agency/project proponent offer such conditions. These conditions serve to mitigate a project which would otherwise be found inconsistent with the AELUP; or AELUP 3.3.5 The ALUC may find an action inconsistent with the AELUP. AELUP 3.3.6 Examples of conditions which may serve to mitigate a project/action and thus may permit the ALUC to make a finding of consistency include the following: ■ Requirement for the lighting of structures per FAA Standards as set forth in FAA Advisory Circular 70/7460-1J "Obstruction Marking and Lighting". ■ Specification of maximum density of residential development ■ Specification of maximum intensity of non-residential development ■ Appropriate written notification, (as set forth in the "Noise Disclosure" and "Notice of Airport in Vicinity" definitions), for residential and other noise sensitive land uses (as described in Table 1), of aircraft noise impact, to all initial and subsequent buyers, lessees, and renters within the AELUP Noise Impact Zones set forth in Sections 3.2.2 and 3.2.4, may on a case -by -case basis be a condition/mitigation for a land use to be found consistent with this AELUP. ■ Inclusion of a statement on the Final Tract or Parcel Map and the Deed Disclosure Notice, for property in Noise Impact Zone "1" or Zone "2", that the residential or other noise -sensitive land use property is subject to aircraft noise impact in substantially this form: > This property is in an area in the vicinity of John Wayne Airport and as a result residents and occupants of buildings may experience inconvenience, annoyance or discomfort arising from the noise resulting from aircraft operating at the airport. > State law (Public Utilities Code Section 21670 et seq) establishes the importance of public use airports for the protection of public interest of the people of the State of California. Residents and building occupants near a public airport should therefore be prepared to accept such inconvenience, annoyance, or discomfort from normal aircraft operations. ' City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 4.8-37 Chapter 4 Environmental Analysis > Any subsequent deed conveying parcels or lots shall contain a statement in substantially this form. ■ Presentation of evidence that commercial and industrial structures are sufficiently sound attenuated to allow normal work activities to be conducted. The structures should be attenuated to at least meet the level specified in Section 3.2.3 (Noise Impact Zone "1'). ■ If offered by a local agency or project proponent, dedication of an avigation easement in favor of an airport proprietor for residential and other noise -sensitive uses as described in Table 1 under "Community Facilities" of this AELUP. The dedication of an avigation easement in favor of an airport proprietor is designated as a method which may be employed by airport proprietors for controlling and reducing noise problems surrounding airports, pursuant to Title 21, California Code of Regulations, Section 5037. ■ Application of a "Notice of Airport in Vicinity" prior to January 1, 2004. The Commission may elect to mitigate a residential action/project under the "airport influence area" as defined by Subdivision (b) of Section 11010 of the Business and Professions Code, by including a condition based on the language added to Section 11010 of the Business and Professions Code prior to the operative date Qanuary 1, 2004) of this section by the inclusion of the following language on the Final Tract or Parcel Map and the Deed Disclosure Notice for residential property. NOTICE OF AIRPORT IN VICINITY This property is presently located in the vicinity of an airport, within what is known as an airport influence area. For that reason, the property may be subject to some of the annoyances or inconveniences associated with proximity to airport operations (for example: noise, vibration, or odors). Individual sensitivities to those annoyances can vary from person to person. You may wish to consider what airport annoyances, if any, are associated with the property before you complete your purchase and determine whether they are acceptable to you. ■ Other condition(s) as determined by the Commission which would mitigate an action/project. ■ Impacts and Mitigation Measures No mitigation measures are feasible to reduce impacts associated with land use conflicts and AELUP conflicts. Level of Significance After Policies/Mitigation Measures Impacts associated with land use compatibility would be less than significant, with the exception of land use conflicts from residential development within the 65 dBA CNEL Contour in the Airport Area. Land Use conflicts in the airport area due to residential development, if it occurs, would be significant and unavoidable. 4.8.38 City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR ' 4.8 Land Use and Planning Impacts associated with the physical division of an established community would be less than significant. Impacts associated with potential conflicts with adopted plans and policies would be less than significant, with the exception of AELUP conflicts. If residential development occurs within the 65 dBA CNEL contour, then conflicts with the AELUP would be significant and unavoidable. No Impacts associated with potential inconsistencies with the applicable NCCP would occur. 4.8.6 References Airport Land Use Commission. 2002. Orange County Airport Environs Land Use Plan for John Wayne Airport, December 19. Newport Beach, City of. 2004. Technical Background Report, June. Airport Land Use Commission, 2002. Orange County Airport Environs Land Use Plan for John Wayne Airport. December 19. ' City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 4.8.39 4.9 Noise 4.9 NOISE 4.9.1 Introduction This section evaluates the impacts of the proposed General Plan Update associated with noise within the City of Newport Beach. The Initial Study (Appendix A) identified the potential for the General Plan Update to result in adverse impacts resulting from: the exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of established standards and excessive groundborne vibration or noise levels; a substantial temporary, periodic, or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project; exposure of persons residing or working in the project area subject to a airport land use plan to excessive noise levels. Since there are no private airstrips in the vicinity of the City, the project would not expose people residing or working the project area to excessive noise levels. This effect will not be further discussed in this EIR. Two comment letters associated with noise were received in response to the Initial Study/Notice of Preparation (IS/NOP) circulated for the General Plan Update. The John Wayne Airport QWA) requested that the EIR address impacts of any new residential development policies that may impact the Airport Area, considering JWA's existing and future airport operations and the proximity of this subarea to the Airport. The letter requests that the EIR contain General Plan policies and/or mitigation measures be incorporated that meet specified requirements. The Airport Land Use Commission also requested the EIR contain certain General Plan policies and/or mitigation measures that would reduce impacts related to the nearby airport. Section 4.3.5 (Project Impacts, Mitigation Measures, and Proposed Policies) provides such an analysis. 4.9.2 Existing Conditions ■ Fundamentals of Sound and Environmental Noise Sound is created when objects vibrate and produce pressure variations that move rapidly outward into the surrounding air. The main characteristics of these air pressure waves are amplitude, which we experience as a sound's "loudness," and frequency, which we experience as a sound's "pitch." The standard unit of sound amplitude is the decibel (dB), which is a measure of the physical magnitude of the pressure variations relative to the human threshold of perception. The human ear's sensitivity to sound amplitude is frequency -dependent, and so a modification is usually made to the decibel to account for this; A -weighted decibels (dBAs) incorporate the additional human sensitivity to a sound's frequency. Noise is generally defined as "unwanted" sound, aspects of which can negatively affect the physiological or psychological well-being of individuals or communities. A typical noise environment consists of a base of steady ambient noise that is the sum of many distant and indistinguishable noise sources. Superimposed on this background noise are the effects of distinguishable sources (e.g., an occasional aircraft or train passing, the virtually continuous roar of traffic on a major highway). Table 4.9-1 (Representative Environmental Noise Levels) lists representative noise levels for the environment. City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 4.9-1 Chapter 4 Environmental Analysis Table 4.9-1 Representative Common OufdoorActivifies Environmental Noise Level dBA Noise Levels COmmonlndoorActivMes —110— Rock Band Jet Fly -over at 100 feet —105- -100— Gas Lawnmower at 3 feet —95- -90- -85— Food Blender at 3 feet Diesel Truck going 50 mph at 50 feet —80— Garbage Disposal at 3 feet Noisy Urban Area during Daytime —75— Gas Lawnmower at100feet —70— Vacuum Cleaner at10feet Commercial Area —65— Normal Speech at 3 feet Heavy Traffic at 300 feet —60- -55— Large Business Office Quiet Urban Area during Daytime —50— Dishwasher in Next Room —45— Quiet Urban Area during Nighttime —40— Theater, Large Conference Room (background) Quiet Suburban Area during Nighttime —35- -30— Library Quiet Rural Area during Nighttime —25— Bedroom at Night, Concert Hall (background) —20- -15— Broadcas9Reoording Studio —10- -5— Lowest Threshold of Human Hearing —0— Lowest Threshold of Human Hearing SOURCE: California Department of Transportation 1998 Several quandtadve indicators are commonly used to gauge the likelihood that environmental noise would have an adverse effect on a community. These indicators consider that the most disruptive aspects effect of noise are strongly associated with die average acoustical energy content of the sound over the tune it occurs and/or with the time of day when the sound occurs. The indicators used in this EIR are as follows: L,9, the equivalent energy noise level, is the average acoustic energy content of noise over any chosen exposure time. The L,y is the constant noise level that would deliver the same acoustic energy to the ear as the actual time -varying noise over the same exposure dme. L,y does not depend on the time of day during which the noise occurs. Len, the day -night average noise level, is a 24-hour average L., with a 10 dBA "`penalty" added to noise during the hours of 10:00 P.hL to 7:00 A.M. to account for increased nighttime noise sensitivity. Because of this penalty, the Ldn would always be higher than its corresponding 24-hour L., (e.g., a constant 60 dBA noise over 24 hours would have a 60 dBA L,,, but a 66.4 dBA L.). CNEL, die community noise equivalent level, is an Lj„ with an additional 5 dBA "penalty" for the evening hours between 7:00 P.m to 10:00 P.M. 4.9-2 City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR ' IWM ' Community noise exposures are typically represented by 24-hour descriptors, such as Ls or CNEL. One - hour and shorter -period descriptors are useful for characterizing noise caused by short-term activities, such as the operation of construction equipment. ' Community noise environments are generally perceived as "quiet" when Ld /CNEL is below 45 dBA, "moderate" in the 45 to 60 dBA range, and "loud" above 60 dBA. Very noisy urban residential areas are usually around 70 dBA Ld /CNEL. Along major thoroughfares, roadside noise levels are typically ' between 65 and 75 dBA Ld /CNEL. Three to 5 dBA increments to existing one -hour Leg, or to the Ld /CNEL, are commonly used as threshold for an adverse community reaction to a noise increase. But there is evidence that incremental thresholds in this range may not be significantly protective in areas ' where noise sensitive use are located and Ld /CNEL is already high (i.e., above 60 dBA); in these areas limiting noise increases to 3 dBA or less is recommended.G4 Any noise intrusions that cause short-term interior levels to rise above 45 dBA at night can disrupt sleep. Eight -hour or longer exposures to noise ' levels greater than 85 dBA can cause permanent hearing damage. ' ■ Fundamentals of Environmental Groundborne Vibration Vibrating objects in contact with the ground radiate energy through that medium; if a vibrating object is ' massive enough and/or close enough to the observer, its vibrations are perceptible. The rumbling sound caused by the vibration of room surfaces is called groundbome noise. The ground motion caused by vibration is measured in vibration decibels (VdB). 1 The background vibration velocity level in residential areas is usually around 50 VdB. The vibration velocity level threshold of perception for humans is approximately 65 VdB. A vibration velocity level of ' 75 VdB is the approximate dividing line between barely perceptible and distinctly perceptible levels for many people. Most perceptible indoor vibration is caused by sources within buildings such as the ' operation of mechanical equipment, movement of people, or the slamming of doors. Typical outdoor sources of perceptible groundborne vibration are construction equipment, steel -wheeled trains, and traffic on rough roads. If a roadway is smooth, the groundbome vibration from traffic is rarely ' perceptible. The range of interest is from approximately 50 VdB, which is the typical background vibration velocity level, and 100 VdB, which is the general threshold where minor damage can occur in fragile buildings. ' The general human response to different levels of groundbome vibration velocity levels is described in Table 4.9-2. ' 64 Federal Transit Administration, Transit Noire mid Vibration bapactArrermient, DOT-T-95-16, April 1995. ' City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 4.9.3 Chapter 4 Environmental Analysis Table 4.9-2 Human Response to Different Levels of Groundborne Vibration MraltanVelocityLevel Human Reaction 65 VdB Approximate threshold of perception for many people. 75 VdB Approximate dividing line between barely perceptible and distinctly perceptible. Many people find that transportation -related vibration at this level is unacceptable. 85 VdB Vibration acceptable only if there are an infrequent number of events per day. SOURCE: FederaiTransit Administration1995 ■ Existing Noise Levels Existing ambient daytime noise levels were measured at twenty selected locations on December 18, 2003, and December 19, 2003, in order to identify representative noise levels in various areas of the Planning Area. These locations are shown in Figure 4.9-1. Noise levels were monitored using a Larson -Davis Model 814 precision sound level meter, which meets the standards of the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) for general environmental noise measurement instrumentation. The average noise levels and sources of noise measured at each location are identified in Table 4.9-3. Existing 24-hour traffic noise levels have been calculated for Coast Highway and the roadways with the highest traffic volumes in the Planning Area. This task was accomplished using the Federal Highway Administration Highway Noise Prediction Model (FHWA-RD-77-108). The model calculates the average noise level at specific locations based on traffic volumes, average speeds, roadway geometry, and site environmental conditions. The model was used to calculate noise levels along the Coast Highway, Jamboree Road, MacArthur Boulevard, and other busy streets in the Planning Area. The existing roadway 70 dBA, 65 dBA, and 60 dBA Ldn noise contours are shown in Figure 4.9-2, Figure 4.9-3, and Figure 4.9-4. Existing residential uses in close proximity to these highway and roadway segments are exposed to high noise levels on a regular basis. Table 4.9-4 lists the existing roadway noise levels at 100 feet from roadway centerlines. Construction activities are a regular and on -going source of noise throughout the Planning Area. The noise levels generated by construction activities are generally isolated to the immediate vicinity of the construction site and occur during daytime hours in accordance with City regulations (discussed below). Construction activities also occur for relatively short-term periods of a few weeks to a few months and then the noise sources are removed from the construction area. The Harbor area is a mix of residential and commercial land uses, often located in close proximity to each other. Commercial uses that generate noise include shipyards, and restaurants that create noise on a regular basis from nighttime activities. Sometimes these nighttime activities generate noise levels that disturb nearby residents when they are trying to sleep and result in complaints filed with the City Police Department. Residences throughout the Planning Area are also known to occasionally generate noise from parties that result in complaints filed with the local authorities. I 4.9.4 City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR •SANI`A ANA K'VER'EM L P 11 J l 0 COSTA MESA r' j'' s `• a\' - :-"-•'-�_- - ,': ;-•,� 7 - - IRVINE - BANNING ♦ E _ _ _ . - f �L47 .. _ L RANCH - •} I < v ` EF f \.f �! (159 %C9 ` o SHORES � A ' �A`,! p!< .rr ` _ _ Y `) ". ` J � '� EoxFC'- r s _ "HrCLS ,. i p _ -Np0 �1 - \ /i%. AORiH n1 1 ,_T-� _.' ")! �) Sr''-i J'' EEAM'0+ r ,(. ;` ✓'� `'% i`J- i^ +`A :ram \fit fO:' %'��rr, vp I #.I - �.._,� - e`'0l i, `i• •\ C•, _%lno��� l `-, i.}..,'�{ �i t- - `' - �� -0099O RIDGE T t NEWPORT, f I\ w! ( I T O --�' O OuxFS `, t FASHION r!'. \•` `1, :'1I ' 4 _ _ �„ _ `J L NOR -\� ` O ISIANO _ \ • .j - ..� 1 J ( it' - J, •"`°.0, ..._j ISLE.. \ 0ASY'iO`t _ ,-� ISLE y "paµ"�- ISLANO EN9Oxr' i• - _ _ - COUINs ryC PIER '{ _ _ Az 4AY _ISIANOIL"/ " 1,J • l _ 1—� y - °CqC� -K-_ - $ 4'. i,., '•RR _--__--r - -- _ _.R ,� ;!J _ , BOun85ry BALBOA ISLAN0. \\ 11 ' "� < "::�' . Y , .�-;�.'i },,\ - ,_ _:1; " _. , .•—_ -- 16 PIER 12 `. - �-' _ - ' , - ' 414 THE W iOGE ' CORONA O �.1 .ME -1 ` - Y T CORONA COAST COAST +•e`er CANE6 - A.F�TORT f SNORES CRYSTAL COVE STATE PARK \ N 13 CRYSTAv cm' STATE TARE CITY of NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL PLAN UPDATE EIR Figure 4.9-1 NOISE MEASUREMENT LOCATIONS Legend City Boundary Noise Measurement Locations 0 Hoag Hospital Qz 127 41 st Street -Comer of Balboa Boulevard QB 204 Via Antibes -Comer of Via Lido Nord ® 601 Via Lido Nord -Comer of Via Orvieto Qe Park at Look Out Point © Adjacent to 331 Mayflower -Deana Trailer Park Qi Southwest comer of Patolita Road and Bonnie Doone Terrace © Comer of Park Road and Onyx Road Q 214 Coronado Road ro End of Adana Road I Vacant Lot on Bayside Drive 12 Front Yard of 415 1 /2 Marguerite Avenue rs Crystal Cove Commercial Center -next to housing at south end of parking lot Ia Adjacent to Newport Beach Fire Department Comer of Pt. Conception and El Caption m North of Sausalito Street on Marguerite Avenue 1 Intersection of Son Miguel Drive and Yacht Coquette to 500 yards east of MacArthur Boulevard on Bonira Canyon Drive }v Easibluff DNe N.E. of Vista Del Oro zo Bison and Belcourt Drive North Note: G5 Oat° flolecCon-CASI°te Hone, Zane A, tVD03, Feet. g 0 0.5 1 Pies Sartes ClM Jt6aRMPbt AM2W3. CINBau+6aY. R\YV 28G5. CouYeR AERAMMDV taV 2HHH. CAfa Frs3ec CY.f°bet 2IX1'L Ib Cars a.eaL aE,BI CIE/ eo,5des.2m¢ 2AB, Alcki Ro°tls. F°b°vy 2HH2 atl EPAroc W m. � FlayaM1 NoeTOa.28D3. + I PgledNw 106'ITW I 4.9 Noise J Table 4.9-3 Existing Daytime Noise Noise Measuremenflocalion Levels at Selected PdmaryNoiseSources Locations NoiseleyelSfatisHcs 6 LM L.. 1. Hoag Hospital Traffic on Newport Beach Boulevard 55.6 49.5 63.3 2.127 41s1 Street -Comer of Balboa Boulevard Traffic on Balboa Boulevard 67.4 48.0 77.9 3. 204 Via Antibes -Corner of Via Lido Nord Traffic on Via Lido Nord 59A 44.1 77.2 4.601 Via Lido Nord -Comer of Via Orvieto Traffic on Via Orvieto 58.9 41.0 75.8 5. Park at Look Out Point Traffic on Coast Highway 61.6 53.8 82.5 6. Adjacent to 331 Mayflower-Deanza Trailer Park Traffic on Coast Highway 58.4 45.9 70.5 7. Southwest corner of Patolita Road and Bonnie Doone Terrace Traffic on Coast Highway 58.2 45.1 67.5 8. Corner of Park Road and Onyx Road Traffic on Park Road 61.7 45.2 78.8 9. 214 Coronado Road Traffic on Balboa Boulevard 63.1 48.0 77A 10. End of Adams Road Boating facilities 60.5 50.3 78.7 11. Vacant Lot on Bayside Drive Traffic on Bayside Drive 59.4 42.4 69.9 12. Front Yard of 415Y2 Marguerite Avenue Traffic on Marguerite Avenue 60.5 50.0 75.6 13.Crystal Cove Commercial Center -next to housing at south end of parking lot Commercial use activities 56.0 43.0 72.4 14. Adjacent to Newport Beach Fire Department Traffic on Newport Coast DriveM504 81.1 15. Corner of Pt. Conception and El Capitan Traffic on San Joaquin Road 53.8 16. North of Sausalito Street on Marguerite Avenue Traffic on Marguerite Avenue 82.3 17. Intersection of San Miguel Drive and Yacht Coquette Traffic on San Miguel Drive 85.2 18.500 yards east of MacArthur Boulevard on Bonita Canyon Drive Traffic on Bonita Canyon Drive 75.1 19. Eastbluff Drive N.E, of Vista Del Oro Traffic on Easlbluff Drive 73.0 20. Bison and Belcourt Drive North Traffic on Bison 78.9 SOURCE: EIP Associates 2003: noise monitoring records are provided in the Technical Background Report Noise levels were monitored for 15 minutes at each location on December 18 and 19, 2003. Lmi , the minimum instantaneous noise level experienced during the measurement period. Lmax the maximum instantaneous noise level experienced during the measurement period, Existing Noise Environment The dominant noise sources throughout the Planning Area are transportation -related. These include automobiles, trucks, motorcycles, boats, and aircraft. Motor vehicle noise is of concern, because it is characterized by a high number of individual events, which often create a sustained noise level, and its proximity to areas sensidve to noise exposure. Within the Planning Area, the source of freeway/highway noise is the Corona Del Mar Freeway (State Route 73). There are few residences in proximity to the State Route 73 and the existing residences in proximity to the San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor have already included noise mitigation measures. The major sources of motor vehicle traffic noise from surface streets are Coast Highway, Jamboree Road, and MacArthur Boulevard. Many of the newer residential uses built near the major City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 4.9-7 roadways include some noise protection features (e.g., sound barriers or grade separations). Such features are usually lacking for older residential developments. Newport Beach has the largest small boat harbor in Southern California. 'Thousands of boats operate near noise -sensitive residential uses that border much of Newport Harbor. Noise associated with these boats can be a problem to these residences. Of particular concern are the charter boats, which generate engine noise and' noise from the occupants, as well as use loudspeakers or live entertainment. The JWA serves both general aviation and commercial passenger/cargo operations. Although aircraft noise can be heard throughout the Planning Area, the highest noise levels are experienced just south of the airport and are generated by aircraft departures. Portions of the north -central part of the Planning Area are located within the 65 and 60 dBA CNEL noise contours for JWA, as shown in Figure 4.9-2. Stationary sources of noise within the Planning Area include building mechanical equipment (e.g., air conditioners, ventilation systems, pool pumps, etc); public address systems at schools and retail businesses; mechanical tools at commercial and industrial facilities; and outdoor social and entertainment activities (e.g., nightclub operations in the Harbor area). 4.9.3 Regulatory Setting Various standards have been developed to address the compatibility of land uses and noise levels. The applicable standards are presented in the following discussion. Special emphasis is placed on land uses that are considered to be sensitive to high noise levels. Typical sensitive receptors include residences, schools, child care centers, hospitals, long-term health care facilities, convalescent centers, and retirement homes. Each of these land use types currently occur within the Planning Area. ■ Federal The following federal regulations apply to projects as specified below: ■ The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) requires abatement of highway traffic noise for federally funded highway projects as specified in Code of Federal Regulations (23 CFR Part 772). ■ The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) and Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) each recommend noise and vibration assessment/abatement for federally funded mass transit or high- speed railroad projects that would pass by residential areas. ■ The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) requires minimum noise insulation standards for HUD -funded housing projects as specified in Code of Federal Regulations (24 CFR Part 51, Subpart B). ■ The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) limits residential exterior or interior aircraft noise exposures to no more than 65 dBA CNEL or 45 dBA CNEL, respectively, under its FAR. Part 150 Noise Compatibility Planning program for airports, which apply to the operation of JWA. 4.9-8 City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR ' 1 1 1 1 CITY of NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL PLAN UPDATE EIR Figure 4.9-2 EXISTING NOISE CONTOURS - WESTERN PLANNING AREA Legend Roadway Noise Contours 70 CNEL 65 CNEL 60 CNEL AELUP Noise Contours 70 CNEL 65 CNEL 60 CNEL ----- City Boundary John Wayne Airport me rcYe canon ieoenax+u mmfr.rn x+t+a nano noYa 6.ek a omna..arnr . nA.. merm�sca.n!a wdro wca.iana a,m m m nmm ti aoudrq enecn a w,al..ncn.en. as union nom.a tv �.qr nae�e oa.,een ra wam as av iomi«� a vnaaR g 0 MUM s aW EPPaocMBt UP ayarvew� e vaneran rwcnaee Apl1 7, 2006. cl%� � 105I989 t EIP CITY of NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL PLAN UPDATE EIR Figure 4.9-3 EXISTING NOISE CONTOURS - NORTHERN PLANNING AREA Legend Roadway Noise Contours 70 CNEL 65 CNEL 60 CNEL AEWP Noise Contours 70 CNEL 65CNEL 60CNEL ----- City Boundary John Wayne Airport to rc4 cvxan �r� me mm0+vn c�le Xmllc r48 iaek a oao:xi. wlmn Ilvn Ue..>rm m rol scouts ror warp o�a++em a mmc.oeati ry rc�ge rce rnx.o*q elleca cf wti. Pmnnar. os ami, IeauaPlmr rripv �aenene mlxeeo Iro moel me o'M ioeonm 0 Mlles s..ca:divary EIP"sear,nmm w.a ,�eocrn ma !✓bmlet pl 17, ZDp. 0 EIP 1 1 1 t 1 1 1 CITY of NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL PLAN UPDATE EIR Figure 4.9-4 EXISTING NOISE CONTOURS - EASTERN PLANNING AREA Legend Roadway Nolse Contours 70 CNEL 65 CNEL 60 CNEL ----- Clty Boundary John Wayne Airport re rsie m+an rmaea me m�+v�� wr�e,a4 Me le.� a �ml'm MYn vem ue. mw m rot ¢rnlaM latla ekiet'enr a nmc w®a. rtv wee. m. aruarc ertec4 a.�. a„cn,e,. an emirs rean.a ma �+dx n�..rn mneen mo moel an mP eami g 0 0.25 0.5 Mies a..�arra r�.nma i�. wno ece r,�:rmee mA EIPOaccMs 1pE I ). 2W6 y 1 ImNm ": EIP 4.9 Noise ij n Roadway Table 4.9-4 Existing Roadway RoadwaySegment Noise Levels Reference 6otYOU Feet° DlstancetoNolseContourb 706 65Ldn 606 16th Street Irvine Avenue to Dover Drive 55.7 - - 52 32^d Street West of Newport Boulevard 57.7 - - 71 Avocado Avenue South of San Miguel Drive 62.2 - 65 140 North of Coast Highway 61.8 - 61 132 Balboa Boulevard South of Coast Highway 60.3 - 48 104 Bayside Drive South of Coast Highway 60.2 - - 103 Birch Street Jamboree Road to Von Karmen Avenue 61.0 - 54 116 Von Kerman Avenue to MacArthur Boulevard 61.9 - 63 135 West of MacArthur Boulevard 62.2 - 65 141 North of Bristol Street North 63.8 - 83 179 Bristol Street North to Bristol Street South 63.0 - 73 158 South of Bristol Street South 61.9 - 63 135 Bison Avenue Jamboree Road to MacArthur Boulevard 61.6 - - 128 MacArthur Boulevard to SR-73 Freeway 61.2 - - 121 Bonita Canyon Drive East of MacArthur Boulevard 66.7 60 130 279 West of SR-73 Freeway 64.8 - 98 210 Bristol Street North West of Campus Drive 64.6 - 94 202 Campus Drive to Birch Street 64.9 46 99 214 East of Birch Street 64.8 45 96 207 West of Jamboree Road 63.4 - 78 168 Bristol Street South West of Campus Drive/Irvine Avenue 64.6 - 94 202 Campus Drive to Birch Street 63.6 - 81 175 East of Birch Street 63.4 - 78 168 West of Jamboree Road 66.2 56 121 261 Campus Drive Jamboree Road to Von Karmen Avenue 62.2 - 65 141 Von Karmen Avenue to MacArthur Boulevard 63.2 - 76 163 West of MacArthur Boulevard 65.6 51 109 235 North of Bristol Street North 65.9 53 115 247 Bristol Street North to Bristol Street South 66.2 56 120 258 Coast Highway West of 15th Street 68.0 74 159 344 Superior Avenue to Newport Boulevard 66.3 - 123 264 Newport Avenue to Riverside Avenue 66.3 - 123 265 Riverside Avenue to Tustin Avenue 65.5 - 108 232 Tustin Avenue to Dover Drive 66.5 59 127 273 Dover Drive to Bayside Drive 69.4 91 197 424 Bayside Drive to Jamboree Road 68.9 85 183 394 City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 4.9.15 Chapter 4 Environmental Analysis Roadway TableRoadway RoadwaySegment - . Levels Referenceta,at100 Feeh DfsfancetoNobeContomb 70Gs, 656 606 Jamboree Road to Newport Center Drive 68,3 77 166 358 Newport Center Drive to Avocado Avenue 61.1 64 138 298 Avocado Avenue to MacArthur Boulevard 64.7 — 95 205 MacArthur Boulevard to Goldenrod Avenue 64.9 — 98 211 Goldenrod Avenue to Marguerite Avenue 64,6 43 94 202 Marguerite Avenue to Poppy Avenue 64.3 — 90 193 Poppy Avenue to Newport Coast Drive 66.1 — 119 257 East of Newport Coast Drive 69.3 89 193 415 Dover Drive Irvine Avenue to Westcliff Drive 57.1 — — 65 Westcliff Drive to 161h Street 63.4 36 79 169 16a Street to Cliff Drive 64.0 40 86 184 Cliff Drive to Coast Highway 64,6 44 94 204 Easibluff Drive West of Jamboree Road at University Drive 60.2 — — 103 West of Jamboree Road at Ford Road 60.7 — — 112 Ford Road Jamboree Road to MacArthur Boulevard 61.0 — 54 1116 Hospital Road Placentia Avenue to Newport Boulevard 58.9 — — 85 East of Newport Boulevard 56.2 — — 56 Irvine Avenue Bristol Street South to Mesa Drive 65:7 52 112 241 Mesa Drive to University Drive 66.3 57 123 264 University Drive to Santa Isabel Avenue 66.6 59 128 275 Santa Isabel Avenue to Santiago Drive 63.5 — 79 170 Santiago Drive to Highland Drive 63.2 — 75 162 Highland Drive to Dover Drive 63.2 — 75 162 Dover Drive to Westcliff Drive 62.3 — 66 142 Westcliff Drive to 16th Street 59.6 — — 95 Jamboree Road Campus Drive to Birch Street 68A 78 167 361 Birch Street to MaCArlhur Boulevard 69.0 86 185 400 MacArthur Boulevard to Bristol Street North 68A 78 167 361 Bdstol Street North to Bristol Street South 69.5 93 200 431 Bristol Street South to Bayview, Way 69.5 93 200 431 Bayview Way to University Drive 69.5 93 200 431 University Drive to Bison Avenue 68.5 79 171 367 Bison Avenue to Ford Road 68.7 82 177 381 Ford Road to San Joaquin Hills Road 69.4 92 197 425 4:9.16 City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR ' 4.9 Noise t F 1 !I Roadway Table 4.9-4 Existing Roadway Roadway Segment Noise Levels Reference Ld at 100 feet° Disfance to Noise Confourb 70" 65" 606 San Joaquin Hills Road to Santa Barbara Road 68.1 75 161 347 Santa Barbara Road to Coast Highway 67.8 72 155 334 Coast Highway to Bayside Drive 59.6 - - 95 MacArthur Boulevard Campus Drive to Birch Street 67.1 64 138 298 Birch Street to Von Karman Avenue 66.2 - 121 260 Von Karmen Avenue to Jamboree Road 66.9 63 135 290 South of Jamboree Road 68.1 75 962 349 North of Bison Avenue 71.7 130 279 602 Bison Avenue to Ford Road 72.2 141 303 654 Ford Road to San Joaquin Hills Road 71.6 127 274 590 San Joaquin Road to San Miguel Road 68.6 81 175 377 San Miguel Road to Coast Highway 67.7 70 152 327 Marguerite Avenue South of San Joaquin Hills Road 58.6 - - 81 North of Coast Highway 53.8 - - 39 Mesa Drive East of Irvine Drive 61.0 - 54 116 Newport Boulevard North of Hospital Road 67.2 65 141 304 Hospital Road to Coast Highway 66.8 - 131 283 Coast Highway to Via Lido 65.9 - 115 248 Via Lido to 32nd Street 63.6 - 71 174 South of 32nd Street 62.7 - 70 151 Newport Center Drive North of Coast Highway 63.1 - 75 162 Newport Coast Drive SR-73 Freeway to San Joaquin Hills Road 66.8 62 133 286 South of San Joaquin Hills Road 66.6 - 127 274 North of Coast Highway 65.6 110 296 Placentia Avenue North of Superior Avenue 61.0 - 54 116 Superior Avenue to Hospital Road 58.6 - - 81 Riverside Avenue North of Coast Highway 57.1 - - 65 San Joaquin Hills Road Jamboree Road to Santa Cruz Road 63.7 - 82 177 Santa Cruz Road to Santa Rosa Road 62.1 - 64 138 Santa Rosa Road to MacArthur Boulevard 64.9 - 98 212 MacArthur Boulevard to San Miguel Road 64.3 - 90 194 San Miguel Road to Marguerite Avenue 64.2 - 89 191 Marguerite Avenue to Spyglass Hill Road 63.6 - 81 173 Spyglass Hill Road to -Newport Coast Drive 64.4 - 91 196 San Miguel Drive North of Spyglass Hill Road 59.9 - - 98 South of Spyglass Hill Road 59.9 - - 98 ' City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 4.9.17 Chapter 4 Environmental Analysis Roadway Table • Roadway RoadwaySegrpent Reference tm at 100 keh Distance to Noise Conlourb 70fe, 656 606 North of San Joaquin Hills Road 62.2 — 65 140 San Joaquin Hills Road to MacArthur Boulevard 01.0 _ 54 116 MacArthur Boulevard to Avocado Avenue 61.6 _ 60 128 West of Avocado Avenue 58.8 — — 84 Santa Barbara Drive East of Jamboree Road 60.2 — — 103 Santa Cruz Drive South of San Joaquin Hills Road 57.9 — — 72 Santa Rosa Drive South of San Joaquin Hills Road 60.6 — 51 110 Santiago Drive Tustin Avenue to Irvine Avenue 54.6 — — 44 Spyglass Hill Road San Miguel Drive to San Joaquin Hills Road 56.1 — — 55 Superior Avenue North of Placentia Avenue '62.5 — 68 147 Placentia Avenue to Hospital Road 63.6 — 81 174 Hospital Road to Coast Highway 64.0 — 86 184 University Drive East of Jamboree Road 61.8 — 61 132 Via Lido East of Newport Boulevard 55.3 — — — Von Kerman Avenue Campus Drive to Birch Street 61.6 — 60 129 Birch Street to MacArthur Boulevard 61.0 — 54 116 Westcliff Drive Irvine Avenue to Dover Drive 60.9 — 53 115 SOURCE: EIP Associates 2003: noise contour distance calculations Distances are in feet from roadway centerline. The Identified noise level at 100 feet from the roadway centerline is for reference purposes only as a point from which to calculate the noise contour distances. it does not reflect an actual building location or potential Impact location. b "—" Noise contour Is located within the roadway lanes. ■ State The following state regulations apply to the General Plan Update process and to certain projects in the Planning Area: ■ The Governor's Office of Planning and Research has published guidelines for noise and land use compatibility. Each jurisdiction is required to consider these guidelines when developing its General Plan noise element and determining the acceptable noise levels within its community. Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations establishes California Noise Insulation Standards for all new multi -family residential units, specifically an interior noise standard of 45 dBA. 4.9-18 City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR ' Local The City of Newport Beach has also adopted noise regulations (Chapters 10.26 and 10.28 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code) that identify specific noise restrictions, exemptions, and variances for ' sources of noise within the city. ■ Chapter 10.26 of the Municipal Code sets internal and external noise standards, makes special provisions for HVAC and sound amplification, and sets forth enforcement procedures. It also ' exempts "noise sources associated with construction, repair, remodeling, demolition, or grading of any real property" as long as the construction complies with the regulations found in Section 10.28.040. ' ■ Section 10.28.010 of the Municipal Code regulates `loud and unreasonable" noise, as defined below: ' It is unlawful for any person or property owner to willfully make, allow, continue or cause to be made, allowed, or continued, any loud and unreasonable, unnecessary, or disturbing noise, including, but not limited to, yelling, shouting, hooting, whistling, singing, playing music, or playing ' a musical instrument, which disturbs the peace, comfort, quiet or repose of any area or which causes discomfort or annoyance to any reasonable person of normal sensitivities in the area, after a peace or code enforcement officer has first requested that the person or property owner cease and desist from making or continuing, or causing to make or continue, such loud, unreasonable, unnecessary, excessive or disturbing noise ■ Section 10.28.040 of the Municipal Code regulates noise levels during construction, as specified' ' below: Weekdays and Saturdays. No person shall, while engaged in construction, remodeling, digging, grading, demolition, painting, plastering or any other related building activity, operate any tool, ' equipment or machine in a manner which produces loud noise that disturbs, or could disturb, a person of normal sensitivity who works or resides in the vicinity, on any weekday except between the hours of seven A.M. and six -thirty P.M., nor on any Saturday except between the hours of eight ' A.M. and six P.M. Sundays and Holidays. No person shall, while engaged in construction, remodeling, digging, grading, demolition, painting, plastering or any other related building activity, operate any tool, ' equipment or machine in a manner which produces loud noise that disturbs, or could disturb, a person of normal sensitivity wbo works or resides in the vicinity, on any Sunday or any federal holiday. 4.9.4 Thresholds of Significance ' The following thresholds of significance are based on Appendix G of the 2005 CEQA Guidelines. Pox 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 ' City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 4.9-19 ■ 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, witivn 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 This analysis uses the City of Newport Beach General Plan's existing land use compatibility guidelines to assess the noise exposure of land uses in the project vicinity as follows: ■ 60 dBA CNEL at single family residential, multi -family residential, duplexes, schools, churches, libraries, hospitals, hotels, motels, and mobile homes; ■ 65 dBA CNEL at office buildings, commercial recreational uses such as amusement parks and sports clubs, and parks; ■ 70 dBA CNEL at commercial retail uses, restaurants, banks, service stations, manufacturing uses and warehouses,.golf courses, cemeteries and wildlife habitat. In addition to the above compatibility guidelines, the General Plan specifies that uses that require very quiet interior noise levels, such as amphitheaters, concert halls, or auditoriums, should not be constructed without a detailed noise analysis, and that agricultural uses are compatible with all noise levels, This analysis uses the following Federal Transit Administration's incremental traffic noise impact criteria, which becomes progressively more stringent as the baseline traffic noise levels increase. Thus, these criteria are more protective of communities with high noise exposure. As shown in Table 4.9-5, where the baseline Ld is less than 60 dBA, a permanent increase in roadway traffic noise levels of 3 dBA over baseline ambient noise levels is considered to be substantial and, therefore, significant; where the baseline Ld, is between 60 dBA and 65 dBA, a permanent increase in roadway traffic noise levels of 2 dBA over baseline ambient noise levels is considered to be substantial and, therefore, significant; where the baseline Ld is between 65 dBA and 70 dBA, a permanent increase in roadway traffic noise levels of 1 dBA over baseline ambient noise levels is considered to be substantial and, therefore, significant. Table 4.9-5 Incremental Noise Impact Criteria Uses (CNEL, in dBA) for Noise Sensitive SOURCE: Federal Transit Administration 1995 This analysis uses the Federal Transit Administration's vibration impact thresholds for sensitive buildings, residences, and institutional land uses. These thresholds are given in Table 4.9-6 below. 4.?-20 City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR ' 4.9 Noise I Table 4.9-6 Groundborne Vibration and Noise Impact Criteria Groundbome Vibration Impact Levels Groundbome Noise Impact Levels dB re1 mic Inch/sec dB re 20 micro Pascals Fr uentEventsr Infrequent EvenIS2 RequentEvents Ink uentEvents Land Use Category Category 1: Buildings where low ambient vibration is essential for interior 65 VdB3 65 VdB3 NA4 NA4 operations. Category 2: Residences and Buildings 72 VdB 80 VdB 35 dBA 43 dBA where people normally sleep. Category 3: Institutional land uses with 75 VdB 83 VdB 40 dBA 48 dBA primarily daytime use. SOURCE: Federal Transit Administration 1995 "Frequent Events" is defined as more than 70 vibration events per day. "Infrequent Events" is defined as fewer than 70 vibration events per day. This criterion limit is based on levels that are acceptable for most moderately sensitive equipment such as optical microscopes. Vibration sensitive manufacturing or research will require detailed evaluation to define the acceptable vibration levels. Vibration sensitive equipment is not sensitive to groundborne noise. 4.9.5 Project Impacts, Mitigation Measures, and Proposed Policies ® Effects Not Found to Be Significant Threshold Would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels for a project located within the vicinity of a private air strip? As discussed in the Initial Study, there are no private airstrips in the vicinity of the City. As such, implementation of the proposed General Plan Update would not expose people residing or working the project area to excessive noise levels and would thus have no impact. No further discussion of this effect is required. ■ Project Impacts Threshold Would the project result'in 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? Impact 4.9-1 Implementation of the proposed General Plan Update would generate or expose persons to ambient noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies. Locations throughout the City would experience changes in noise levels as a result of an increase in motor vehicle traffic, as discussed under Impact 4.9-3, below. Based on the information in the existing and future noise contour Figure 4.9-2 through Figure 4.9-7, noise levels in excess of standards City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 4.9-21 established by the City could occur where schools, libraries, health care facilities, and residential uses within the City are, and will continue to be, exposed to exterior noise levels that exceed the City's standard of 60 dBA CNEL. As shown in Table 4.9-8 (below, under the Impact 4.9-3 analysis), there are numerous roadway segments where noise levels would exceed City standards at 100 feet from the roadway centerline. The areas with the greatest potential for this to occur are those roadway segments where the 65 dBA CNEL noise contours extend beyond the roadway right-of-way. It should be noted, however, that roadway noise contours have been generated by a computer model, and may not always reflect true noise conditions at a particular location. Intervening structures or other noise -attenuating obstacles between a roadway and a receptor may reduce roadway noise levels at the receptor. Implementation of policies under the proposed General Plan Update such as those policies associated with Goals N1 and N2 (including requiring that all remodeling/additions to structures comply with the proposed General Plan Update noise standards, requiring the use of walls, berms, interior noise insulation, double paned windows, or other noise mitigation measures in new residential or other new land uses) would reduce noise impacts to future land uses, but would do little to remediate noise effects on existing land uses. The exposure of existing land uses to noise levels in excess of City standards as a result of the future growth under the proposed General Plan is considered a signffeantimpact. Threshold Would implementation of the proposed General Plan result in exposure of people to excessive groundborne vibration or noise? Impact 4.9-2 Implementation of the proposed General Plan would expose persons to vibration levels generated during construction activities that would exceed 72 VdB. Construction activities that would occur under the proposed General Plan Update would have the potential to generate groundbome vibration. Table 4.9-7 identifies vibration levels for common types of construction equipment. Table Equonent - Levels 25 Feet A *xdeWEI SDFed Meet I 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 4.9-22 City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR CITY of NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL PLAN UPDATE EIR Figure 4.9-5 FUTURE NOISE CONTOURS - WESTERN PLANNING AREA Legend Roadway Noise Contours 70CNEL 65 CNEL 60 CNEL AELUP Noise Contours 70 CNEL 65 CNEL 60 CNEL -"" City Boundary John Wayne Airport mp a� cea v. n�+me mmn..m no+b+oec �m gs a �e rqM Mlertl P.e.. Pg/ m Ila ¢cM M hY+q dacartenl a !at owtlt :la �cYd Ine ar++aYS elw�4 a waa �rti. ad ar.dnaauw ma � reaav miwea�, me loon mo ole acwon a urban. Oq of Newport 0 Mlles sous :c*raw�eeacrt rnew awe eboruw '.. vC EIPAQJoea M11). 1WJ. opc 1mnw 4 EIP CITY of NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL PLAN UPDATE EIR Figure 4.9-6 FUTURE NOISE CONTOURS - NORTHERN PLANNING AREA Legend Roadway Noise Contours 70 CNEL. 65CNEL 60 CNEL AELUP Noise Contours 70 CNEL 65 CNEL 60 CNEL ""- City Boundary John Wayne Airport ne na,e wm.. n�a ma �..� oo�bb mans roe qw a acorn• wmm treri P.e.. �w mmi aswa v warp mca++enr a nvnc Q.ea m rcrns rt+s airvlatp enech a.ni. rmcNn. mo man �emrera.s r+V+�ve�.ve aa..em to moo v.f arq aorma, f b�lagh, V 0 Mlles va.cac city a rena*seam. rwr,e uae�ximm ma dP Abmtm br � �. 200E. EIP CITY of NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL PLAN UPDATE EIR Figure 4.9-7 FUTURE NOISE CONTOURS - EASTERN PLANNING AREA Legend Roadway Noise Contours = 70CNEL 65 CNEL = 60 CNEL ----- Clty Boundary John Wayne Airport m r.io waw. maaianme mmanm aa�e nomc � iee` a miw� xmn san he.. mw m rya smurX �a w�o1p plocament a Ut ptl� rof IOutlsis arrnrq MMCY a writ �n�ce.w. ad rqN faYiAet�a n{yR eilenera mMw+F�e imp utl ary bmb� a n,remeq. g a 0.25 os Mies SauceC [,Tyd Mewmrt Beoai. reaea Gve a�cuwe oC 6P Iammn MI 1). 200E. �a w. i moat EIP 4.9 Noise Construction activities will occur at discrete locations in the City and vibration from such activity may impact existing buildings and their occupants if they are located close enough to the construction sites. Based on the information presented in Table 4.9-7, vibration levels could be problematic if sensitive uses are located within about 100 feet of potential project construction sites, where sensitive receptors (e.g., residents, school children) would experience vibration levels that exceed the ETA's vibration impact threshold of 72 VdB. However, impacts related to construction vibration are event and location specific; these impacts would not occur citywide. If impacts occur, the only mitigation that could eliminate the vibration impact is ensuring a distance of approximately 150 feet between construction and existing sensitive receptors. Since it is not feasible to prohibit construction within 150 feet of all existing receptors, there is no feasible mitigation available for the impact. Thus, when construction vibration occurs, impacts would be significant. Threshold Would the project result in a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? Impact 4.9-3 Implementation of the proposed General Plan would result in substantial permanent increases in traffic -related ambient noise levels. Existing and future 24-hour noise levels have been calculated for individual roadway segments within the City of Newport Beach. Table 4.9-4 in the Existing Conditions section lists the existing roadway noise levels within the City; and these noise contours have also been illustrated in Figure 4.9-2, Figure 4.9-3, and Figure 4.9-4. Table 4.9-8 lists the future roadway noise levels within the City with the implementation of the proposed General. Plan; these future noise contours have also been illustrated in Figures 4.9-5, 4.9-6, and 4.9-7. The increase in roadway noise levels from existing conditions compared to future conditions, which includes regional growth and project related traffic, is also shown in Table 4.9-8. Roadway segments that would have a significant increase in noise at 100 feet from the centerline are highlighted in the table. This includes 24 roadway segments along Birch Street, Campus Drive, Coast Highway, Irvine Avenue, Jamboree Road, MacArthur Blvd, and Newport Coast Drive. Many of the affected segments are located in areas where commercial, rather than residential, development would occur. The changes in motor vehicle trips and circulation patterns would increase noise levels within the City by a maximum of 3.7 dBA CNEL, although most increases in noise would be between 1 and 3 dBA. Note that as described in Table 4.9-5, the threshold of significance of the roadway noise increase is dependent upon existing noise levels. Thus, where a roadway noise increase of 1.5 dBA CNEL may not be significant for one roadway segment, it may be significant on another, depending on the existing noise level along the roadway segment. Roadway noise contours are generated by a computer model, and may not always reflect true noise conditions at a particular location. Intervening structures or other noise -attenuating obstacles between a roadway and a receptor may reduce roadway noise levels at the receptor. However, there would almost certainly be receptors that would experience roadway noise levels very similar to those indicated by the noise contours. While there are a number of policies in the General Plan under Goal N2 that would help mitigate the impact of traffic noise on receptors, such as Policy N 2.2 Design of Sensitive Land Uses, City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 4.9.29 Chapter 4 Environmental Analysis or Policy N 16-Barrier Construction Funding, these would mostly influence noise impacts on new , receptors. This is due to the fact that existing receptors cannot easily be redesigned to provide greater , noise attenuation, and it is not always feasible to construct barriers between existing development and roadways. Therefore, along select roadway segments, a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels would result. Impacts would be significant. , TableUpdate kadwaY 1Nstanceto Roadw S ment too 70 Contour lncrease 65 60 16th Street Irvine Avenue to Dover Drive 56.5 - - 56 0.8 32nd Street West of Newport Boulevard 57.7 - - 71 0 Avocado Avenue south of San Miguel Drive 61.8 - 61 132 -0.4 north of Coast Highway 61.4 - 58 124 -OA Balboa Boulevard south of Coast Highway 61.1 - 55 119 0.8 Bayside Drive south of Coast Highway 61,0 - 54 116 0.8 Birch Street Jamboree Road to Von Karman Avenue 63.2 - 76 163 2.2 Von Karman Avenue to MacArthur Boulevard 63.6 - 81 174 1.7 west of MacArthur Boulevard 64.0 - 86 184 1.8 north of Bristol Street North 65.0 - 99 214 1.2 Bristol Street North to Bristol Street South 63.8 - 83 179 0.8 south of Bristol Street South 62.5 - 68 147 0.6 Bison Avenue Jamboree Road to MacArthur Boulevard 63.0 - 74 158 1.4 MacArthur Boulevard to SR-73 Freeway 62,8 - 71 154 1.6 Bonita Canyon Dr. east of MacArthur Boulevard 67.5 68 146 314 0.8 west of SR-73 Freeway 66.7 60 130 279 1.9 Bristol Street North west of Campus Drive 65.5 50 109 234 U.9 Campus Drive to Birch Street 66.1 55 118 255 1.2 east of Birch Street 66.1 55 118 255 1.3 west of Jamboree Road 64.3 - 90 195 0.9 Bristol Street South west of Campus Drive/Irvine Drive 65.3 48 104 225 0.7 Campus Drive to Birch Street 64.9 46 99 214 1.3 east of Birch Street 64.8 45 96 207 1.4 west of Jamboree Road 67.2 65 141 304 1.0 Campus Drive Jamboree Road to Von Karmen Avenue 63.8 - 83 179 1.6 Von Karmen Avenue to MacArthur Boulevard 65.5 50 108 233 2.3 west of MacArthur Boulevard 67.4 67 145 313 1.8 north of Bristol Street North 67.4 67 145 313 1.5 Bristol Street North to Bdslol Street South 67.5 148 318 1.3 Coast Highway west of 15th Street 68.0 F74 159 1 344 0 4.9.30 City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR , u 4.9 Noise 1 LIB I II II II II II Table Roadway 4.9-8 General Plan Update Roadway Segment Traffic Noise Distance Contours to Contour Increase too 70 1 65 60 Superior Avenue to Newport Boulevard 68.0 73 158 340 1.7 Newport Boulevard to Riverside Avenue 67.4 67 144 310 1.1 Riverside Avenue to Tustin Avenue 66.6 59 128 275 1.1 Tustin Avenue to Dover Drive 67.5 69 148 .318 1.0 Dover Drive to Bayside Drive 70.2 103 223 480 0.8 Bayside Drive to Jamboree Road 69.8 98 210 453 0.9 Jamboree Road to Newport Center Drive 69.1 87 187 402 0.8 Newport Center Drive to Avocado Avenue 67.9 72 156 336 0.8 Avocado Avenue to MacArthur Boulevard 65.6 - 110 237 0.9 MacArthur Boulevard to Goldenrod Avenue 65.4 - 106 228 0.5 Goldenrod Avenue to Marguerite Avenue 65.0 46 100 215 0.4 Marguerite Avenue to Poppy Avenue 65.1 - 101 218 0.8 Poppy Avenue to Newport Coast Drive 67.5 68 146 315 1.4 east of Newport Coast Drive 70.7 112 241 526 1.4 Dover Drive Irvine Drive to Westcliff Drive 58.0 - 34 74 0.9 Westcliff Drive to 16th Street 63.8 39 83 179 0.4 16th Street to Cliff Drive 64.5 43 92 199 0.5 Cliff Drive to Coast Highway 65.2 48 103 222 0.6 Eastbluff Drive west of Jamboree Road at University Drive 60.2 - - 103 0 west of Jamboree Road at Ford Road 60.7 - - 112 0 Ford Road Jamboree Road to MacArthur Boulevard 62.6 - 69 148 1.6 Hospital Road Placentia Avenue to Newport Boulevard 60.1 - - 101 1.1 east of Newport Boulevard 58.2 - - 76 2.0 Irvine Avenue Bristol Street South to Mesa Drive 67.2 65 140 302 1.5 Mesa Drive to University Drive 67.6 70 150 323 1.3 University Drive to Santa Isabel Avenue 67.4 67 145 313 0.8 Santa Isabel Avenue to Santiago Drive 64.0 - 86 186 0.5 Santiago Drive to Highland Drive 63.9 - 84 182 0.7 Highland Drive to Dover Drive 64.0 - 86 186 0.8 Dover Drive to Westcliff Drive 63.5 - 79 170 1.2 Westcliff Drive to 16th Street 60.0 - - 100 0.4 Jamboree Road Campus Drive to Birch Street 69.6 94 203 437 1.2 Birch Street to MacArthur Boulevard 70.3 104 225 484 1.3 MacArthur Boulevard to Bristol Street North 69.5 93 200 431 1.1 Bristol Street North to Bristol Street South 70.0 101 217 467 0.5 Bristol Street South to Bayview Way 70.0 101 217 467 0.5 Bayview Way to University Drive 70.0 99 214 461 0.5 University Drive to Bison Avenue 69.1 88 189 406 0.6 Bison Avenue to Ford Road 69.5 93 200 431 0.8 Ford Road to San Joaquin Hills Road 70A 106 228 r 490 1.0 ' City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR Chapter 4 Environmental Analysis Table Roadway 4.9-8 General PlanUpdate !REc.wasegtnent Dhlance to Contour Increase 100 70 65 60 San Joaquin Hills Road to Santa Barbara Drive 69.3 90 194 419 1.2 Santa Barbara Drive to Coast Highway 69.0 86 186 400 1.2 Coast Highway to Bayside Drive 60.6 - 51 110 1.0 MacArthur Boulevard Campus Drive to Birch Street 68.5 79 171 367 1.4 Birch Street to Von Karmen Avenue 67.3 66 142 305 1.1 Von Karrnan Avenue to Jamboree Road 68.1 75 161 347 1.2 south of Jamboree Road 69.6 95 204 439 1.5 north of Bison Avenue 72.5 146 315 678 0.8 Bison Avenue to Ford Road 72.7 151 325 701 0.5 Ford Road to San Joaquin Hills Road 72.1 138 297 640 0.5 San Joaquin Hills Road to San Miguel Road 68.9 84 181 391 0.3 San Miguel Road to Coast Highway 68A 78 167 361 0.7 Marguerite Avenue south of San Joaquin Hills Road 50.7 - - 96 1.1 north of Coast Highway 55.1 - - 47 1.3 Mesa Drive east of Irvine Avenue 61.3 - 57 123 0.3 Newport Boulevard north of Hospital Road 68.2 76 164 352 1.0 Hospital Road to Coast Highway 67.8 71 153 330 1.0 Coast Highway to Via Lido 66.7 - 131 281 0.8 Via Lido to 32nd Street 64.3 - 90 193 0.7 south of 32nd Street 63.5 - 79 171 0.8 Newport Center Drive north of Coast Highway 64.0 - 85 184 0.9 Newport Coast Drive SR-73 Freeway to San Joaquin Hills Road 69.9 98 211 454 3.1 south of San Joaquin Hills Road 69.9 98 211 454 3.3 north of Coast Highway 69.3 89 193 415 3.7 Placentia Avenue north of Superior Avenue 61.0 - 54 116 0 Superior Avenue to Hospital Road 60.6 - 51 110 2.0 Riverside Avenue north of Coast Highway 58.0 - 34 74 0.9 San Joaquin Hills Road Jamboree Road to Santa Cruz Road 64.2 - 89 191 0.5 Santa Cruz Road to Santa Rosa Road 62.5 - 68 146 0.4 Santa Rosa Road to MacArthur Boulevard 66.0 - 116 251 1.1 MacArthur Boulevard to San Miguel Road 65.1 - 102 220 0.8 San Miguel Road to Marguerite Avenue 65.6 - 108 232 1.3 Marguerite Avenue to Spyglass Hill Road 65.6 - 109 236 2.0 Spyglass Hill Road to Newport Coast Drive 66.4 57 123 266 2.0 San Miguel Drive north of Spyglass Hill Road 61.0 - 54 116 1.1 south of Spyglass Hill Road 61.0 - 54 116 1.1 north of San Joaquin Hills Road 62.9 - 72 155 0.7 4.9.32 City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR , 4.9 Noise Table Roadway 4.9-8 General Plan Update Traffic Noise Distance Roadway Segment 100 70 Contours to Contour 1 Increase 1 65 1 60 San Joaquin Hills Road to MacArthur Boulevard 62.2 - 65 141 1.2 MacArthur Boulevard to Avocado Avenue 61.9 - 62 133 0.3 west of Avocado Avenue 59.6 - - 95 0.8 Santa Barbara Drive east of Jamboree Road 61.3 - 57 123 1.1 Santa Cruz Drive south of San Joaquin Hills Road 58.4 - - 78 0.5 Santa Rosa Drive south of San Joaquin Hills Road 61.6 - 60 129 1.0 Santiago Drive Tustin Avenue to Irvine Avenue 55.4 - - 50 0.7 Spyglass Hill Road San Miguel Drive to San Joaquin Hills Road 57.0 - - 63 0.8 Superior Avenue north of Placentia Avenue 63.4 - 78 169 0.9 Placentia Avenue to Hospital Road 62.7 - 71 152 -0.9 Hospital Road to Coast Highway 63.6 - 81 174 -0.4 University Drive east of Jamboree Road 62.6 - 69 148 0.8 Via Lido east of Newport Boulevard 56.2 - - 56 0.9 Von Karmen Avenue Campus Drive to Birch Street 63.0 - 73 158 1 A Birch Street to MacArthur Boulevard 62.5 - 68 147 1.5 Westcliff Drive Irvine Avenue to Dover Drive 60.9 - 53 115 0 SR-55 north of SR-73 78.5 367 790 1702 NA 22nd Street to 19th Street 76.7 278 600 1292 NA SR-73 SR-55 to Campus Drive 77.0 295 634 1367 NA Jamboree Road to University Drive 75.6 237 510 1099 NA Bonita Canyon Road to Newport Coast Dr 77.0 295 634 1367 NA east of Newport Coast Dr 76.8 283 609 1313 NA SOURCE: EIP Associates 2005: plan update contour distance calculations Distances are in feet from roadway centerline. The identified noise level at too feet from the roadway centerline is for reference purposes only as a point from which to calculate the noise contour distances. It does not reflect an actual building location or potential impact location. b "-" Noise contour is located within the roadway lanes. NA -Not Available. Threshold Would the project cause substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? Impact 4.9-4 Implementation of the proposed General Plan Update could expose persons to substantial temporary or periodic ambient noise increases. Under the proposed General Plan, the primary source of temporary or periodic noise within the City would be construction activity and maintenance work. This involves both construction -site activity and the transport of workers and equipment to and from the construction sites. Proposed General. Plan ', I City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 4.9-33 Update Policy N 4.6 would help reduce impacts related to construction noise by limiting the hours of maintenance or construction activity in or adjacent to residential areas. Construction noise is an existing noise source in the City and while the noise levels at existing construction sites may not substantially differ from future construction noise resulting from development under the proposed General Plan Update, it is anticipated that construction noise would be introduced in areas of the City where it did not previously exist. Construction activities would be an ongoing occurrence in the City and, in particular cases, could occur in close proximity to noise -sensitive uses. .Although the proposed General Plan Update limits construction activities to specific days of the week and hours of the day, construction equipment generates high noise levels, as shown in Table 4.9-9 and may not always be reducible to the levels specified in the City Noise Ordinance. Section 10.26.035 of the Municipal Code (Exemptions), exempts "noise sources associated with construction, repair, remodeling, demolition, or grading of any real property." Section 10.26.035 also states that construction noise should fall under the provisions of Section 10.28 of the Code (Loud and Unreasonable Noise). Thus, construction noise is not subject to the noise standards in the Municipal Code, but only during limited hours of the day and days of the week. In sum, 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 City code and when construction noise occurs, impacts would be considered less than significant. Table Ranges rrienf Noise Levels IndBA Log at50Feet' Front Loader 85 Trucks 88 Cranes (moveable) 83 Cranes (derrick) 88 Concrete Vibrator 76 Pneumatic Impact Equipment 85 Jackhammers 88 Pumps 76 Generators 81 Air Compressors 81 Concrete Mixers 85 Concrete Pumps 82 Back Hoe 80 Impact Pile Driving (peaks) 101 Scraper/Grader 89 Paver 89 SOURCE; Federal Transit Administralion 1995 1. Machinery equipped with noise control devices or other noise -reducing design features does not generate the some level of noise emissions as that shown in this table. 4.9.34 City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 4.9 Noise LI Other sources of noise that occur on a periodic or temporary basis include the operation of neighborhood or commercial landscape maintenance equipment, street and parking lot 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. This impact would be less than significant. Threshold Would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels for a project located within an airport land use plan, or where such a plan has not been adopted, within 2 miles of a public airport or public use airport? Impact 4.9-5 Implementation of the proposed General Plan Update would expose sensitive receptors in proximity to the John Wayne Airport to excessive noise levels. As shown in Figure 4.9-5, the 60 and 65 dBA CNEL noise contour for JWA extends into Newport Beach. However, according to Section 3.2.3 of the Airport Environs Land Use Plan (AELUP) prepared for JWA, only areas with noise levels above 65 dB CNEL would be considered "High Noise Impact Zones" and would warrant restrictions on land uses. Table 1 of the AELUP specifies that airport noise levels up to 65 CNEL are "normally consistent" for all uses except residential uses. For residential uses, Table 1 specifies that residential uses are "normally consistent" up to 60 dB CNEL and "conditionally consistent" between 60 and 65 dB CNEL. Residences could still be developed in the "conditionally consistent" zone as long as interior noise levels can be shown to be no higher than 45 dB CNEL. This is also consistent with Policy N 3.2 of the Noise Element of the proposed General Plan Update, which requires that any residential or sensitive noise uses to be located within the 60 dBA or 65 dBA CNEL airport noise contour maintain an interior noise level of 45 dBA CNEL. Policies N 3.1 and N 3.2 would ensure new development is compatible with the noise environment by using the airport noise contour maps as guides to future planning and development decisions and require that any residential or sensitive noise uses be located within the 60 dBA or 65dBA CNEL airport noise contour maintain an interior noise level of 45 dBA CNEL, respectively. Policy N 3.4 states that the City will oppose any attempt to modify existing noise restrictions regarding the airport. These policies would ensure that residential uses would achieve interior noise levels of 45 dBA, consistent with City standards. Thus, impacts on interior noise levels at new land uses in the vicinity of the airport would be less than significant. However, as residences could be developed within the 65 dBA CNEL noise contour, exterior noise would exceed allowable noise levels for residential areas. This would occur only if, consistent with Policy LU 6.15.24, the City makes appropriate findings for an override to allow residential development within the 65 dBA CNEL. In these areas, impacts on exterior noise levels at new land uses in the vicinity of the airport would be significant. Cumulative Impacts The geographic context for the analysis of cumulative noise impacts is the Planning Area. Noise and vibration from localized sources, such as construction sites, HVAC equipment, etc., decreases rapidly City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 4.9-35 with distance from those sources, and so it is very unlikely that noise and vibration from sources distributed throughout the City would be additive to a cumulatively significant degree. Cumulative development (which is similar to the development discussed above under Impact 4.9-2) in the City of Newport Beach would result in the exposure of people to or the generation of excessive groundbome vibration, due to the localized nature of vibration impacts. As there is no feasible mitigation for this impact, cumulative impacts to traffic noise would be significant and unavoidable. Future construction in the City of Newport Beach is not expected to result in a cumulatively significant impact in terms of substantial temporary or periodic increases in ambient noise levels as a result exemptions for "Loud and Unreasonable Noise" in the City's Municipal Code. Other sources of cumulative noise sources would be regulated by the City's Noise Ordinance provisions in the Municipal Code. Therefore, the proposed General Plan Update's cumulative impact is less than significant The anticipated growth in traffic noise, in contrast, is an inherently cumulative phenomenon. The traffic data used for the noise analysis included traffic from all anticipated future developments in the City and region. As noted above, development under the proposed General flan along with regional growth would result in it cumulatively significant permanent increase in the ambient noise level along the 24 roadway segments within the City identified in Table 4.9-8, As discussed in Impact 4.9-3, most of the proposed General Plan policies would mitigate noise at new receptors, but existing receptors would not be able to have roadway noise mitigated to acceptable levels in all cases. As there is no feasible mitigadon for this impact, cumulative impacts to traffic noise would be slgniFieant and unavoidable. As discussed in Impact 4.9-5, impacts on interior noise levels at new land uses in the vicinity of the airport would be less than significant and the cumulative impacts related to the airport land use plan would be less than sigoi6cant. However, as residences could be developed within the 65 dBA CNEL noise contour, exterior noise would exceed allowable noise levels for residential areas. This would occur only if, consistent with Policy LU 6.15.24, the City makes appropriate findings for an override to allow residential development within the 65 dBA CNEL. In these areas, cumulative impacts on exterior noise levels at new land uses in the vicinity of the airport would be significant and unavoidable. ■ Proposed General Plan Policies For most impacts identified in this section, implementation of policies within the Noise Element of the proposed General Plan Update would reduce effects of prospective growth tivithin the City. The policies that are applicable to the proposed project are included below. Goa1N1 Noise Compatibility —Minimized land use conflicts between various noise sources and other human activities. ' Policy N 1.1 Field Surveys for New Development ' Require that all proposed projects are compatible with the noise environment through use of Table N2, and enforce the interior and exterior noise standards shown in TableN3. Proposed projects located in areas projected to be 4.9-36 City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR , exposed to a CNEL of 60 dBA and higher, as shown on Figure N5, shall (a) conduct a field survey to determine the existing levels of noise exposure and ' (G) project the levels that would result from the Plan's projected traffic increases as may be modified from those depicted on Figure N5 by existing building locations, topography, and traffic speed. Based on these findings, ' require that the project meet interior and exterior noise standards. Policy N 1.2 Remodeling and Additions of Structures ' Require that all remodeling and additions of structures comply with the noise standards shown in Table 3 of the Noise Element. ' Policy N 1.3 New Developments in Urban Areas Require that applicants of residential portions of mixed -use projects and high ' density residential developments in urban areas (such as the Airport Area and Newport Center) demonstrate that the design of the structure will adequately isolate noise between adjacent uses and units (common floor/ceilings) in ' accordance with the California Building Code. Policy N 1.4 Infill Projects ' Allow a higher exterior noise level standard for infill projects in existing residential areas adjacent to major arterials if it can be shown that there are no feasible mechanisms to meet the exterior noise levels. The interior standard of ' 45 dBA CNEL shall be enforced for any new residential project. ' Policy N 1.5 New Exterior Noise Level Standards Consider a higher exterior noise level standard for residential portions of mixed -use developments of 65 dBA CNEL, provided that the interior ' standard of 45 dBA CNEL is met. Policy N 1.6 Mixed -Use Developments lots, Encourage new mixed -use developments to site loading areas, parking driveways, trash enclosures, mechanical equipment, and other noise sources ' away from the residential portion of the development. Policy N 1.7 Commercial/Entertainment Uses ' Limit hours and/or require attenuation of commercial/entertainment operations adjacent to residential and other noise sensitive uses in order to ' minimize excessive noise to these receptors. Policy N 1.8 Significant Noise Impacts ' Require the employment of noise mitigation measures for sensitive uses when a significant noise impact is identified. A significant noise impact occurs when there is an increase in CNEL, as shown in the table below. ' City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 4.9.37 Chapter 4 Environmental Analysis Goal N 2 CNEL(dBA) dBA(ncrease 55 3 60 2 65 1 70 1 Over 75 Any increase is considered significant Minimization of Transportation -Related Noise —Minimized motor vehicle traffic and boat noise impacts on sensitive noise receptors Policy N 2.1 New Development Require that proposed noise -sensitive uses in areas of 60 dBA and greater, as determined the analyses stipulated by Policy N 1.1, demonstrate that they meet interior and exterior noise levels. Policy N 2.2 Design of Sensitive Land Uses Require the use of walls, berms, interior noise insulation, double paned windows, or other noise mitigation measures, as appropriate, in the design of new residential or other new noise sensitive land uses that are adjacent to major roads. Application of the Noise Standards in Table N3 shall govern this requirement. Policy N 2.3 Limiting hours of Truck Deliveries Limit the hours of truck deliveries to commercial uses abutting residential uses and other noise sensitive land uses to minimize excessive noise unless there is no feasible alternative. Any exemption shall require compliance with nighttime (10:00pm-7:00am) noise standards. Policy N 2.4 Interagency Coordination to Enforce Standards ,Encourage the enforcement of State Motor Vehicle noise standards for cars, trucks, and motorcycles through coordination with the California Highway Patrol and Newport Beach Police Department. Policy N 2.5 Boating Activities Enforce compliance of all boating activities with the noise standards defined in the Municipal Code. Policy N 2.6 Barrier Construction Funding Establish a program to secure funding for the construction of noise barriers to protect private outdoor yard areas along arterial roadways where existing homes are exposed to noise levels above the City noise standards and develop a priority program for the construction of such barriers. A potential source of 4.9.38 City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR ' such funding may be a fee for new projects, which generate new traffic within the City, as well as road improvement funds where road improvements are made. The amount of these fees should be proportional to the amount of the ' new traffic that is caused by the new project. It should be recognized that noise barriers will not always be feasible mitigation to roadway noise. Noise barriers are most feasible for single family homes where the rear yards are adjacent to the roadway. The feasibility of other situations should be evaluated on a case by case basis. ' Goal N 3 Compatibility with JWA—Protection of the quality of life of Newport Beach residents from noise impacts associated with air carrier operations at JWA. ' Policy N 3.1 New Development Ensure new development is compatible with the noise environment by using the airport noise contour maps as guides to future planning and development decisions. Policy N 3.2 Sensitive Noise Uses Require that any residential or sensitive noise uses to be located within the ' 60 dBA or 65 dBA CNEL airport noise contour maintain an interior noise level of 45 dBA CNEL. Policy N 3.3 Airport Contours Use noise level contours based on the most likely estimate of future airport contours, rather than on assumptions of less likely future operations in determining allowable uses, to the maximum extent allowed by law. Policy N 3.4 Existing Noise Restrictions Oppose any attempt to modify the existing noise restrictions, including the existing curfew and the General Aviation Noise Ordinance, unless the modifications benefit City residents. ' Policy N 3.5 Additional Facilities at JWA Oppose any attempt to construct a second air carrier runway including the acquisition of land necessary to provide required separation of the existing air carrier runway and any proposed facility. Policy N 3.6 Existing Level of General Aviation Operations ' Support any plan or proposal that maintains, and oppose any plan or project that proposes any significant changes to the existing level of general aviation ' operations and general aviation support facilities. ' City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 4.9-39 Chapter 4 Environmental Analysis Policy N 3.7 Remote Monitoring Systems Support preservation or enhancement of the existing remote monitoring systems (RMS) and the public reporting of the information derived from the RMS. Policy N 3.8 Meeting Air Transportation Demand Support means of satisfying some of Orange County's air transportation demand at facilities other than JWA. Policy N 3.9 JWA Amended Settlement Agreement Take all steps necessary to preserve and protect the validity of the JWA Amended Settlement Agreement, including: (imp 19.3) ■ Oppose, or seek protection from any federal legislative or regulatory action that would or could affect or impair the County's ability to operate JWA consistent with the provisions of the JWA Amended Settlement Agreement or the City's ability to enforce the Amended Settlement Agreement. ■ Approving amendments of the JWA Settlement Agreement to ensure continued validity provided the amendments do not impair the quality of life of Newport Beach residents. ■ Continuing to monitor possible amendment of the Airport Noise and Capacity Act of 1990 as well as various FAA Regulations and Advisory Circulars that relate to aircraft departure procedures. Goal N4 Minimization of Nontransportation-Related Noise —Minimized nontransportation-related noise impacts on sensitive noise receptors. Policy N 4.1 Stationary Noise Sources Enforce interior and exterior noise standards outlined in Table N3, and in the City's Municipal Code to ensure that sensitive noise receptors are not exposed to excessive noise levels from stationary noise sources, such as heating, ventilation, and air conditioning equipment. Policy N 4.2 New -Uses Require that new uses such as restaurants, bars, entertainment, parking facilities, and other commercial uses where large numbers of people may be present adjacent to sensitive noise receptors obtain a use permit that is based on compliance with the noise standards in Table N3 and the City's Municipal Code. Policy N 4.3 New Commercial Developments Require that new commercial developments abutting residentially designated properties be designed to minimize noise impacts generated by loading areas, 4.9-40 City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR ' parking lots, trash enclosures, mechanical equipment, and any other noise generating features specific to the development to the extent feasible. ' Policy N 4.4 Limiting Hours of Recreational Activities ' Limit hours when recreational activities in parks and the harbor can take place. Policy N 4.5 Sound -Amplifying Equipment ' Regulate the use of sound -amplifying equipment through the City's Municipal Code. ' Policy N 4.6 Maintenance or Construction Activities Enforce the Noise Ordinance noise limits and limits on hours of maintenance ' or construction activity in or adjacent to residential areas, including noise that results from in -home hobby or work related activities. ' Policy N 4.7 Nuisances Regulate the control of nuisances, such as residential party noise, boat party ' noise, private fireworks and barking dogs, through the City's Municipal Code. Policy N 4.8 Mechanized Landscaping Equipment ' Regulate the use of mechanized landscaping equipment. Goal N 5 Minimization of Construction Noise —Minimized excessive construction -related ' noise. ' Policy N 5.1 Limiting Hours of Activity Enforce the limits on hours of construction activity. ' ■ Mitigation Measures ' No feasible mitigation measures are available to fully mitigate Impact 4.9-2 (construction vibration). As discussed in Impact 4.9-2, the only mitigation that could eliminate the vibration impact is ensuring a distance of approximately 150 feet between construction and existing sensitive receptors. Since it is not ' feasible to prohibit construction within 150 feet of all existing receptors, there is no feasible mitigation available to reduce the impact to less-than-signii cantlevels. I II No feasible mitigation measures are available to fully mitigate Impact 4.9-3 (increased ambient noise levels), although Policy N 1.2, which requires structural upgrades to comply with Noise Element standards, and Policy N 2.6, which funds noise barrier construction where existing homes are exposed to high noise levels, would reduce noise impacts to the uses to which they are applied. However, erecting noise barriers to shield existing homes from roadway noise would not be feasible, from an aesthetic or economic standpoint, in all cases. II City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 4.9-41 Similarly, no feasible mitigation measures are available to fully mitigate Impact 4.9-3 (noise in exceedance of City standards), although Policy N 2.2, which requires noise walls, berms, interior insulation, etc. to protect new noise -sensitive uses near roadways, should be given special urgency in relation to such uses proposed along the road segments identified as those where significant noise increases are expected. ■ Level of Significance After Policies/Mitigation Measures Development under the General Plan would not be exposed to excessive noise from the JWA once new General Plan Update policies are implemented. Receptors that would fall under the airport's 60 dB or 65 dB CNEL noise contours would be required to be consistent with the General Plan. Policies N.3.1 and N.3.2 of the General Plan would ensure that new uses are compatible and achieve appropriate interior noise levels of 45 dB CNEL or less. Policy N 3.4 would ensure that future changes associated with the JWA would be minimized and would not result in adverse effects to receptors. The impact would be less than sigmi6cant. As stated in Impact 4.9-2, construction in the City of Newport would create noise levels that could exceed Municipal Code standards. However, the Municipal Code specifically exempts construction activities from having to comply with the standards, and moreover, the Code both limits construction to daytime hours and prohibits excessive construction noise. Therefore, construction noise impacts would be less than significant. Construction activities would produce groundborne vibration as well as noise. Construction would occur within 100' feet of existing residential development. This would expose the residences to vibration levels in excess of the 72 VdB threshold of significance. There are no mitigation measures available that would ensure that the threshold would not be exceeded in all cases, and there are no General Plan policies that would mitigate the vibration impact. Consequently, this would be a significant and unavoidable impact. As discussed in Impact 4.9-4 and Impact 4.9-5, new development that would result from adoption of the proposed General Plan and regional growth would create noise that would affect new and existing receptors. Most of this noise would be produced by increased traffic on local roads. Many of the proposed General Plan policies, especially those associated with Goal N-2 Transportation Noise would reduce this impact. However, these policies would benefit new receptors more than existing receptors. Existing receptors may still be subjected to new noise levels that are both in excess of General Plan noise standards, and represent permanent and substantial increases. Consequently, even with the proposed General Plan policies to mitigate noise, this would constitute a sigti6cant and unavoidable impact. 4.9.6 References California Department of Transportation (Caltrans).1998. Technical Noise Supplement, Caltrans, October. EIP Associates. 2002. Federal Transit Administration (see FTA citation below; EIP added the calculations for vibration at distance greater than 25 feet, this is why there is a joint citation). 4.9.42 City of Newport Beach -General Plan Update EIR ' 4.9 Noise Federal Transit Administration (FTA).1995. Transit Noise and Vibration InpactAssessment, DOT-T-95-16, April. Newport Beach, City of. 2004. General Plan Technical Backgrorntd Dort Prepared by EIP Associates, June. Urban Crossroads. 2006. City ofNatport Beach General Plan Transportation Strrdj, Newport Beach, Califonria, 22 March. ' City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 4.9-43 I 4.10Population and Housing 1 1 F i i J II 1 n Il 1 1 1 1 1 J 4.10 POPULATION AND HOUSING 4.10.1 Introduction This section evaluates the impacts of the proposed General Plan Update associated with population and housing within the City of Newport Beach. Data used to prepare this section were taken from the United States Bureau of the Census, the California Department of Finance (DOF), and the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG). Full bibliographic entries for all reference materials are provided in Section 4.10.5 (References) of this section. During the Initial Study process, it was determined that the proposed project would potentially have impacts associated with the three population and housing CEQA criteria for determining significance, though these impacts were found to be less than significant. Therefore, all potential impacts (regarding whether the project would induce substantial population growth either directly or indirectly, or displace substantial numbers of existing housing or people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere) were analyzed as part of this EIR. Full bibliographic entries for all reference materials are provided in Section 4.10.5 (References) of this section. Two comment letters associated with population and housing were received in response to the (iS/NOP) circulated for the proposed General Plan Update. The Environmental Quality Affairs Citizens Advisory Committee for the City of Newport Beach requested that the DEIR include an analysis of the number of dwelling units to be added upon buildout of the proposed General Plan Update, including the number of additional residents associated with the addition of these dwelling units. A resident of the City also requested that the DEIR provide reference to the number of people per household under existing and proposed conditions, as well as the percent growth in population that would occur under the proposed project. Sections 4.10.2 (Existing Conditions) and 4.10.4 (Project Impacts, Mitigation Measures, and Proposed Policies) provide such an analysis. 4.10.2 Existing Conditions ■ Population Newport Beach was incorporated in 1906 and the population has increased every decade since then. Table 4.10-1 shows the population growth that occurred during the last 50 years based on available data. As shown, the population in 1950 was 12,120 and by 1960, had more than doubled to 26,564 persons. 5 In 1970, the population nearly doubled again to 49,442 persons and by 1980, the population had reached 62,556 persons. During the following decade, the population increased only slightly to 66,643 .persons in 1990. As of 2005, after annexation of Newport Coast in 2002, the City had a population of 65 City of Newport Beach, Demographics: http://www.city.Newport-beach.ca.us/pin/demo_main.htm, Accessed February 2, 2006. 1 City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 4.10.1 Chapter 4 Environmental Analysts approximately 83,120 residents, while Orange County had a total population of approximately 3,056,865 residents 66 Table Newport Year PopukWon year .. Po Ukftn 1950a 12,120 1996b 69,246 1960a 26,564 1997b 70,512 19709 49,442 1998b 72,951 1980a 62,556 1999b 74,317 1990a 66,643 2000a 70,032 1991b 67,028 2001 75,662 1992b 67,572 2002 72,622 1993b 68,199 2003c 81,4356 1994b 68,572 2004c 82,255b 1995b 6B,920 2005c 83,120b SOURCE: City otNewporf Beach webslte a April Decennial Census of Population, US, Census Bureau b January Revised Estimate, State Deportment of Finance (rates per 1,000 populatlonl Population figure Includes January 1, 2002, annexation of Newport Coast Projections The recent population and household forecasts provided in Table 4.10-2 for the City of Newport Beach, Orange County (OCCOG SubRegion), and SCAG region were prepared by SCAG in 2004. As shown, the projections for existing conditions in the City* and Orange County vary slightly compared to the DOF data. For this reason, DOF data are used for baseline data, while SCAG data are used for future projections in this EIR. SCAG Region Population 118,117,604 119,208,6611 2b.191,117'1 21,137.519 122,035.416 22,890,797 Households I 5,673,585 1 6,072,578 1 6,463,402 1 6,865,355 1 7,263,519 1 7,660,107 SOURCE: SCAG 2004, Growth Forecast 66 State of California, Department of Finance, E-1 City / County Population Estimates, with Annual percent Change, January 1, 2004 and 2005. Sacramento, Califomin, May 2005. 4.10-2 City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR ' '4,10... ® Households A household is defined by the DOF and the Census as a group of people who occupy a housing unit. A household differs from a dwelling unit because the number of dwelling units includes both occupied and ' vacant dwelling units. It is important to note that not all of the population lives in households. A portion lives in group quarters, such as board and care facilities; others are homeless. 1 1 I t t I Vacancy Rates The vacancy rates and affordability of the housing stock are also key elements in the balance between supply and demand in the City's housing market. High vacancy rates usually indicate low demand and/or high prices in the housing market or significant mismatches between the desired and available types of housing. Conversely, low vacancy rates usually indicate high demand and/or low prices in the housing market. However, vacancy rates are not the sole indicator of market conditions. They must be viewed in the context of all the characteristics of the local and regional market and economy. Vacancy rates, which indicate a "market balance" (i.e., a reasonable level of vacancy to avoid local housing shortages, and appropriate price competition and consumer choice), generally range from 1 percent to 3 percent for single-family units, and from 3 to 5 percent for multifamily units. According to DOF, the City currently has a vacancy rate of 10.9 percent. This is substantially higher than that of the County, which currently maintains a vacancy rate of 3.7 Household Size Small households (1 to 2 persons per household [pph]) traditionally reside in units with 0 to 2 bedrooms; family households (3 to 4 pph) normally reside in units with 3 to 4 bedrooms. Large households (5 or more pph) reside in units with 4 or more bedrooms. However, the number of units in relation to the household size may also reflect preference and economics: many small households obtain larger units, and some large families live in small units for economic reasons. Table 4.10-3 compares the number of households in the City of Newport Beach and Orange County for the period 2000-2005. The average household size in the City of Newport Beach increased slightly from 2.09 pph in 2000 to 2.19 pph in 2005. The average household size of 2.19 persons in 2005 is used for projections in this EIR. Tnfal Flnuaehnlds Average Household Size (persons per household) Newport Beach 2.09 2.19 Oranne Countv 3.00 13.09 SOURCE: California State Department of Finance 2000, 2005 ' Household figures represent occupied house units. ' City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 4.10-3 ■ Housing Residential Growth and Dwelling Unit Types Between 1980 and 2005, approximately 11,127 housing units were added to the housing inventory in the City of Newport Beach. This indicates an average yearly increase in the housing stock of approximately 328 housing units. Since 1990, this rate of increase has slowed. Between 2001 and 2005, an average of 200 to 300 housing units per year was added to the housing stock with the exception of 2003, which included the annexation of Newport Coast. 4.10.3 Thresholds of Significance The following thresholds of significance are based on Appendix G of the 2005 CEQA Guidelines. For purposes of this EIR, implementation of the proposed project may have a significant adverse impact on biological resources if it would result in any of the following: ■ 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 4.10.4 Project Impacts, Mitigation Measures, and Proposed Policies ■ Effects Not Found to Be Significant The IS/NOP prepared for the proposed project did not identify any effects not found to be significant associated with Population and Housing. Therefore, all thresholds are addressed in this section. ■ Project Impacts Threshold Would the proposed project 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)? Impact 4.10-1 Implementation of the proposed General Plan Update would induce substantial growth in an area, either directly or indirectly. As discussed in Chapter 1 (Introduction), the baseline used in this EIR consists of 2002 data, as presented in the TBR. This baseline presents a more conservative analysis for this EIR because the TBR does not include the growth authorized under the existing General Plan that occurred between 2002 and 4.10.4 City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 4.10 Population and Housing II the January 2006 IS/NOP publication date. Thus, for the purposes this analysis, the total population upon buildout of the proposed General Plan Update is derived by adding the projected increase to the City's 2002 population rather than the 2005 population. This allows for a more accurate representation of the population in the Planning Area upon buildout of the General Plan Update, and provides a more conservative estimate of the population increase. Residential units developed under the proposed General Plan Update would increase the City's population. In 2002, there were approximately 40,179 residential units in the City. According to Table 3- 3 in the Project Description, buildout of the proposed General Plan Update would increase the number of dwelling units by 14,215 units (approximately 12,515 multi -family units and approximately 1,700 single-family units), for a total of 54,394 units, representing a 35 percent increase in the number of dwelling units over 2002 conditions. Buldout of the existing General Plan would increase the number of dwelling units by 9,549, or a 24% increase over 2002 conditions. According to the DOF, the 2002 population was approximately 72,622 residents. For purposes of comparison, the existing (2005) population is approximately 83,120 residents, which is approximately 465 persons less than what was projected by SCAG in 2004 (Table 4.10-2). However, as discussed previously, the baseline year (2002) is used for all impact analyses in this EIR because the TBR presents a more conservative (or worst -case scenario) analysis. Using the City's existing pph rate of 2.19, the net increase of 9,549 residential units under the existing General Plan would result in a population increase of 20,912 residents. Under the proposed General Plan Update, the potential increases would be greater, as 14,215 residential units would result in a population increase of approximately 31,131 residents. Consequently, this increase would result in a total population of 103,753 persons at buildout of the proposed General Plan Update, which would represent an approximately 43 percent increase in population over the 2002 population and an approximately 37 percent increase in population over existing conditions. This increase is considered to be substantial. This estimated population increase represents the most conservative or worst -case scenario, as it assumes that all allowed units would be built, which has not occurred under the existing General Plan. Additionally, this estimate assumes that all units in the City would be occupied. However, as previously discussed, the City currently has a 10.9 percent vacancy rate, which is substantially higher than that of the County. Thus, units that would likely remain vacant (due to conditions such as seasonal housing) are included in the calculation of the City's population upon buildout of the proposed General Plan Update. Further, implementation of the proposed General Plan Update would include development of more multi -family residential units, which typically have fewer persons residing in each unit as compared to single-family units. Because multi -family residential units do not presently make up a substantial portion of the City's residential land uses, the existing 2.19 pph does not reflect a reduction in future pph rates. The increase in residential units and the associated increase in population would exceed SCAG projections. The number of households in the City is projected by SCAG at 43,100 by 2030, while the number of dwelling units under the proposed General Plan Update would be 54,394 units. The SCAG- projected population is 94,167 by 2030, and the population resulting from the proposed General Plan Update buildout would be approximately 10 percent higher, or 103,753 residents. City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 4.10.5 Because the residential portion of the proposed General Plan Update would substantially increase population growth within the City (by approximately 43 percent over 2002 population, approximately 37 percent over existing conditions, and approximately 10 percent higher than existing SCAG projections), impacts on population growth would be considered sign&cant. Threshold Would the proposed project displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? Would the proposed project displace substantial numbers of existing people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? Implementation of the proposed General Plan Update would not displace substantial numbers of existing housing or people. Development under the proposed General Plan Update would occur primarily on sparse, developable land the City has left, by intensifying current land uses, and through the conversion of land uses of economically underperforming and obsolete development. In addition, new development on the currently vacant Banning Ranch area could occur if this area cannot be retained for open space. No substantial demolition of residential uses is proposed under the General Plan Update. There is an allowance for the loss of ten single-family residential units in the West Newport Mesa subarea, only if these units are sold voluntarily by the owners. These properties could be converted to commercial uses. However, West Newport Mesa would also gain 1,070 multi -£airily residential units, which would be consistent with Policy LU 6.6.2, which promotes the development of a mix of residential types and building scales within the subarea. Since the proposed General Plan Update does not propose uses that would displace substantial numbers of existing, housing or people, there would be no impact. ■ Cumulative Impacts The geographic context for the cumulative impacts associated with population and housing issues is Orange County, which assumes full buildout of the proposed General Plan Update, in combination with buildout of the County as currently planned. SCAG's regional growth data project that the population of Orange County will be 3,552,742 persons in 2030, an increase of 495,877 persons over the County's existing population. SCAG also projects that the population of the City will be 94,167 persons in 2030. The proposed General Plan Update projects that the population of the City will be 103,753 persons in 2030, an increase of 9,586 persons over what SCAG projects in 2030 for the City and Orange County. As stated in Impact 4.10-1, this is an increase of approximately 10 percent over what SCAG projects for the City in 2030. In the cumulative context of Orange County, this represents an increase of approximately less than one percent over what is projected by SCAG for 2030. On a cumulative level, the proposed project would not result in substantial population growth beyond projections, and would not induce substantial population growth in an area, 4.10-6 City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 1 Population either directly or indirectly. This cumulative impact would be less than sigty&cant. The project would have a less -than -significant contribution to this effect. It is currently unknown whether cumulative development within the County could result in demolition of ' existing housing units, displacing existing persons or dwelling units. However, development related to the General Plan Update would not result in or contribute to substantial demolition of existing housing that would displace existing people or dwelling units. If housing units were displaced as a result of future development proposals in the County, relocation plans would be prepared consistent with Federal and State law (similar to Housing Program 4.2.2 in the Housing Element). Thus, the General Plan Update, as well as development within the County, would not result in the displacement of persons or housing ' without providing replacement housing. This cumulative impact would be less than significant. The project would have a less -than -significant contribution to this effect. t■ Proposed General Plan Update Policies The Housing Element of the proposed General Plan Update includes policies that would address issues related to population and housing within the City of Newport Beach. The policies that are applicable to the project are included below. ' Housing Element Goal H 1 Quality residential development and preservation, conservation, and appropriate redevelopment of housing stock Policy H 1.1 Support all reasonable efforts to preserve, maintain, and improve availability and quality of existing housing and residential neighborhoods, and ensure full utilization of existing City housing 1 resources for as long into the future as physically and economically feasible. Housing Program 1.1.1—Improve housing quality and prevent deterioration ' of existing neighborhoods by strictly enforcing Building Code regulations and abating Code violations and nuisances. Housing Program 1.1.2—Participate with the Orange County Housing Authority and Housing and Community Development Division in their administration of rehabilitation loans and grants for low- and moderate - income homeowners and rental property owners to encourage preservation of existing City housing stock. ' Housing Program 1.1.3—Require replacement of housing demolished within the Coastal Zone when housing is or has been occupied by very -low, low-, and moderate -income households within the preceding 12 months. The City shall t prohibit demolition unless a Coastal Residential Development Permit has been issued. The specific provisions implementing replacement unit requirements are contained in the Municipal Code. F L ' City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 4.10.7 Goal H 2 A balanced residential community, comprised of a variety of housing types, designs, and opportunities for all social and economic segments Policy H 2.1 Encourage preservation of existing and provision of new housing affordable to very low, low- and moderate income households. Housing Program 2.1.1—Maintain rental opportunities by restricting conversions of rental units to condominiums unless the vacancy rate in Newport Beach for rental housing is an average 5% of higher for four (4) consecutive quarters, and unless the property owner complies with condominium conversion regulations contained in Chapter 2U3 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. Housing Program 2.1.2—Take all feasible actions, through use of development agreements, expedited development review, and expedited processing of grading, building and other development permits, to ensure expedient construction and occupancy for projects approved with low- and moderate -income housing requirements. Housing Program 2.1.3—Participate with the County of Orange in the issuance of tax-exempt mortgage revenue bonds to facilitate and assist in financing, development and construction of housing affordable to low and moderate -income households. Housing Program 2.1.4—Conduct an annual compliance -monitoring program for units required to be occupied by very low-, low-, and moderate - income households. Policy H 2.2 Encourage the housing development industry to respond to housing needs of the community and to the demand for housing as perceived by the industry, with the intent of achieving the Regional Housing Needs Assessment construction goals within five (5) years. Housing Program 2.2.1—Requite a proportion of affordable housing in new residential developments or levy an in -lieu fee. The City's goal over the five- year planning period is for an average of 20% of all new housing units to be affordable to very low-, low-, and moderate -income households. The City shall either a) require the production of the housing units affordable to very low-, low- or moderate -income households, or b) require the payment of an in -lieu fee, depending on the following criteria for project size: 1. Projects of fifty or fewer units shall have the option of providing the units or paying the in -lieu fee. 2. Projects where more than fifty units are proposed shall be requited to provide the units. All required very low—, low-, and moderate -income units shall be provided on - site unless at an off -site location approved by the City. Implementation of this program will occur in conjunction with City approval of any residential discretionary permits or Tentative Tract Maps. To insure compliance with the 4.10.8 City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR '' I 4.10 Population and Housing I C I I II II 1 I FI d I IIt II II II 20% affordability requirements, the City will include conditions in the approval of discretionary permits and Tentative Tract Maps to require ongoing monitoring of those projects. Housing Program 2.2.2—The City shall provide more assistance for projects that provide a higher number of affordable units or a greater level of affordability. At least 20% of units shall be affordable when assistance is provided from Community Development Block Grant funds or the City's in - lieu housing fund. Housing Program 2.2.3—For new developments proposed in the Coastal Zone areas of the City, the City shall follow Government Code Section 65590 and Title 20. Housing Program 2.2. —All required affordable units shall have restrictions to maintain their affordability for a minimum of 30 years. Housing Program 2.2.5—Advise existing landowners and prospective developers of affordable housing development opportunities available within the Banning Ranch, Airport Area, Newport Center, West Newport Mesa, Mariners' Mile, West Newport Highway, and Balboa Peninsula areas. Housing Program 2.2.6—Periodically contact known local developers and landowners to solicit new affordable housing construction. Housing Program 2.2.7—Participate in other housing assistance programs that assist production of housing. Policy H 2.3 Approve, wherever feasible and appropriate, mixed residential and commercial use developments that improve the balance between housing and jobs. Housing Program 2.3.1—Study housing impacts of proposed major commercial/industrial projects during the development review process. Prior to project approval, a housing impact assessment shall be developed by the City with the active involvement of the developer. Such assessment shall indicate the magnitude of jobs to be created by the project, where housing opportunities are expected to be available, and what measures (public and private) are requisite, if any, to ensure an adequate supply of housing for the projected labor force of the project and for any restrictions on development due to the "Greenlight" initiative. Goal H 3 Housing opportunities for as many renter and owner occupied households as possible in response to the demand for housing in the city Policy 3.2 Enable construction of new housing units sufficient to meet City quantified goals by identifying adequate sites for their construction. Housing Program 3.2.1 Idendfy the following sites as adequate, which will be made available through appropriate zoning and development standards and City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 4.10.9 Chapter 4 Environmental Analysis with public services and facilities needed to facilitate and encourage development of a variety of housing types to meet City housing goals as identified pursuant to Government Code Section §65583(b): Banning Ranch, Airport Area, Newport Center, West Newport Mesa, Matiners' Mile, West Newport Highway, and the Balboa Peninsula areas. Housing Program 3.2.2—Update Zoning Code to reflect housing opportunities provided in the Land Use Element. (Imp 2.1) Housing Program 3.2.3 When requested by property owners, the City shall approve rezoning of developed or vacant property from non-residential to residential uses when appropriate. These rezoned properties shall be added to ' the list of sites for residential development. (Imp 2.1) Goal H 4 Preservation and increased affordability of the city's housing stock for very low— low-, and moderate -income households Policy H 4.2 Maintain and preserve existing City housing stock and improve energy efficiency of all housing unit types (including mobile homes) Housing Program 4.2.1—Investigate the use of Federal funds to provide technical and financial assistance, if necessary, to all eligible homeowners and residential rental property owners to rehabilitate existing dwelling units through low- interest loans or potential loans, or grants to very low, low- and moderate -income, owner -occupants of residential properties to rehabilitate existing units. (Imp 418) Housing 'Program 4.2.2—In accordance with Government Code Section 65863.7, require a relocation impact report as a prerequisite for the closure or conversion of an existing mobile home park. (Imp 17.2) Housing Program 4.2.3--Should need arise, consider using a portion of its Community Development Block Grant funds for establishment and implementation of an emergency home repair program. Energy efficient products shall be required whenever appropriate. (imp 34.2) Housing Program 4.2*—Participate as a member of the Orange County Housing Authority Advisory Committee and work in cooperation with the Orange County Housing Authority to provide Section 8 Rental Housing Assistance to residents of the community. The City shall, in cooperation with the Housing Authority, recommend and request use of modified fair market rent limits to increase number of housing units within the City that will be eligible to participate in the program. The Newport Beach Planning Department shall prepare and implement a publicity program to educate and encourage landlords within the City to rent their units to Section 8 Certificate holders and to make very low-income households aware of availability of the Section 8 Rental Housing Assistance Program. (Imp 19.3) 4.10-10 City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR H 4.10 Population and Housing I I Housing Program 4.2.5—Participate in a Joint Powers Authority of Orange County jurisdictions for the purpose of financing and administering a lease purchase program for first-time homebuyers. (Imp 19.3) Land Use Element The Land Use Element of the proposed General Plan Update includes policies that would address issues related to land use within the City of Newport Beach. The policies that are applicable to the project are included below. ' Goal LU 6.6 A medical district with peripheral medical services and research facilities that support the Hoag Hospital campus within a well -planned residential neighborhood, enabling residents to live close to their jobs and reducing Ll I I I I commutes to outlying areas. Policy LU 6.6.2 Residential Types Promote the development of a mix of residential types and building scales within the densities permitted by the "RH-A" designation, which may include single-family attached, townhomes, apartments, flats, and comparable units. Residential densities may be increased on a property as a means of promoting a variety of housing types within Newport Mesa, provided that the overall average density of 30 units per adjusted gross acre is not exceeded. Impacts and Mitigation Measures While mitigation measures are available for resource sections that analyze the direct impacts of population growth, there are no mitigation measures to reduce the substantial increase in growth alone. Level of Significance After Policies/Mitigation Measures After implementation of the proposed General Plan Update policies, impacts to population and housing would remain significant and unavoidable. 4.10.5 References Applied Development Economics, Inc. 2004. Fiscal Impact Analysis and Model. Munroe Consulting Inc. 2002. Economic Outlook Report 2002—Orange County & Region. Newport Beach, City of. 2003a. General Plan Technical Background Report. Sections 2.3 Population and Demographics & 2.4 Housing. Prepared by EIP Associates. 2003b. Housing Element. 2004. Demographics Data: http://www.dty.Newport-beach.ca.us/pin/ demo_main.htm. City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 4.10-11 Southern California Association of Governments. 2001. RTP Growth Forecast: http://www.scag.ca.gov/forecast/downloads/dty_projections.rls. U.S. Census Bureau. http://factfinder.census.gov. 4.10.12 City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR i 4.11 Public Services 4.11 PUBLIC SERVICES This section evaluates the effects of the proposed project on public services by identifying anticipated demands on existing and planned service availability. The IS/NOP identified the potential for impacts associated with implementation of the proposed General Plan Update on fire protection, police protection, schools, and library services. Parks, although included as a public service in Appendix G of ' the CEQA Guidelines, are analyzed separately in Section 4.12 (Recreation) of this EIR. Similarly, impacts related to emergency access are analyzed in Section 4.13 (Transportation/ Traffic) of this EIR. Existing data sources used to prepare this section were taken from Newport Beach Public Library, Written communication from Linda Katsouleas, Director of Library Services. 6 January, 2006, California Department of Education, Dataquest Website htW://datal cde ca.gov/datnquest, accessed November 18, 2005, California Department of Education Data Website http://www.ed- data.kl2.ca.us/welcome.asp, accessed January 9, 2006, California Department of Finance, Demographic Research Unit, Table E-5, http://www.dof.ca.gov/HTML/DEMOGRAP/E-5a.xls, Accessed December ' 5, 2005, EIP Associates, General Plan Update Technical Background Report, 2004, NBFD Personal communication from Steve Bunting, Fire Marshal. 18 November, 2005, NBFD, Written communication from Steve Bunting, Fire Marshal, 22 November, 2005, NBFD, Written communication from Steve Bunting, Fire Marshal 31 October, 2005, NBPD, Written communication from Todd Hughes, Environmental Services Coordinator. November 7, 2005, Newport Beach Police Department, www.nbpd.org/crime_stadsdcs/2004_particrimes.asp, Accessed November 8, 2005, Riley, Tim. NBFD, iMehra to Jeaa Feml, Metro Cities Fire Manager, January 2, 2005. Full bibliographic entries for all reference 7 materials are provided in Section 4.11.5 (References) of this section. Two comment letters associated with public services were received in response to the IS/NOP circulated for the proposed General Plan Update. The City of Costa Mesa requested that the DEIR include an analysis of potential impacts on the degree to which increases in population and employment as a result of the buildout of the proposed General Plan Update would result in increased demand for Costa Mesa Police and Fire service demands, personnel, and equipment. Sections 4.11.1 and 4.11.2 (Fire Protection and Police Protection, respectively) provide such an analysis. Another comment letter requested that the DEIR include an analysis of the City's capacity to address the needs of the Newport -Mesa Unified School District with the potential expansion or creation of school facilities. Section 4.11.3 provides such 1 an analysis. 4.11.1 Fire Protection M ■ Existing Conditions Service Providers The Newport Beach Fire Department (NBFD) and the Orange County Fire Authority provide fire protection services for the City and Planning Area. The NBFD provides fire protection services for the entire City. Most of the Banning Ranch is not served by the Orange County Fire Authority (OCFA), an ICity of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 4•1 1.1 Chapter 4 Environmental Analysis agency which provides regional fire protection and emergency services to unincorporated portions of Orange County and nineteen city jurisdictions. If Banning Ranch is annexed into the City, potential increases in the need for fire protection services provided by the OCFA and the CMFD would not be required. Instead, all additional need for fire protection services would be assumed by NBFD. Newport Beach Fire Department The NBFD is responsible for reducing loss of life and property from fire, medical, and environmental emergencies, In addition to fire suppression, the NBFDr also provides fire prevention and hazard reduction services. The Fire Prevention Division works in conjunction with the City's Planning, Public Works, and Building Departments to ensure that all new construction and remodels are built in compliance with local and State building and fire codes, including the provision of adequate emergency access and on -site fire protection measures. The City requires all businesses to be inspected annually for Adherence to the fire and life safety codes. Further, the NBFD provides emergency medical services (EMS) from three of its existing fire stations. Private ambulance services are also available within City limits. Fire stations are strategically located throughout the City to provide prompt assistance to area residents. Each fire station operates within a specific district that comprises the immediate geographical area around the station. Upper Newport Bay (and the circulation challenges it creates) result in Newport Beach having more fire stations per population than typical in order to maintain response times. A list of the fire stations in Newport Beach is provided in Table 4.11-1, Tab4.11 le No. -1 Fire Station SheetAddress Facilities Lo @0 Area Fire Station 1 110 Balboa Boulevard Balboa Peninsula Fire Station 2 475 32nd Street Lido Fire Station 3 868 Santa Barbara Newport Center Fire Station 4 124 Marine Avenue Balboa Island Fire Station 5 410 Marigold Corona del Mar Fire Station 6 1348 Irvine Mariner Fire Station 7 2301 Zenith Santa Ana Fire Station 8 6502 Ridge Park Newport Coast SOURCE: NBF020D3 Staffing As of November 2005, the NBFD has 146 full-time employees and over 170 seasonal employees providing 24-hour protection and response to the City's residents and visitors �' The NBFD is divided into four divisions: Operations, Fire Prevention, Training, and Administrative. Operations constitutes the majority of NBFD employees, with 127 full-time staff And 173 seasonal employees, while the Fire 6' Bunting, Steve. Fire Marshal, Newport Beach Fire Department Email to EIP Associates, November 18, 2005. 4.11-2 City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR I' 4.11 Public Services I I I 1 I I U II I Prevention Division has 6 staff, the Training Division has 5 staff members, and the Administrative Division consists of 7 staff members. The NBFD divides its staff into three shifts per day, with approximately 40 personnel working each shift, with an overall total of 112 Fire Suppression and EMS personnel working at the eight Newport Beach fire stations each day. Each of the eight fire stations has one engine company, while three have paramedic vans, and two have ladder trucks. Of the 112 NBFD employees located at the eight NBFD stations, seven paramedics serve per shift. Two are always on duty at Stations 2, 3, and 5 with paramedic ambulances. In addition, Station 8 has 1 paramedic firefighter that rides on the engine. Each engine or truck company has a staff of 3 persons per 24-hour period: 1 captain, 1 engineer (driver), and 1 fire fighter, with the exception that on one engine the firefighter position is staffed with a paramedic firefighter. Each paramedic ambulance has a staff of 2 firefighter -paramedics per 24-hour period. Table 4.11-2 below summarizes the staffing and equipment per station. Staiton Table 4.11-2 Stations Location Equipment and Staffing Chart Manpower 1 Balboa Peninsula 1 Fire Engine 1 Captain,1 Engineer,1 Firefighter 2 Lido 1 Fire Engine 1 Captain, 1 Engineer,1 Firefighter 1 Ladder Truck 1 Captain, 1 Engineer,1 Firefighter 1 Paramedic Van 2 Firefighter Paramedics 3 Fashion Island 1 Fire Engine 1 Captain, 1 Engineer,1 Firefighter 1 Ladder Truck 1 Captain, 1 Engineer,1 Firefighter 1 Paramedic Van 2 Firefighter Paramedics 1 Battalion Chief 1 Battalion Chief 4 Balboa Island 1 Fire Engine 1 Captain,1 Engineer,1 Firefighter 5 Corona Del Mar 1 Fire Engine 1 Captain,1 Engineer,1 Firefighter 1 Paramedic Van 2 Firefighter Paramedics 6 Mariners' 1 Fire Engine 1 Captain,1 Engineer,1 Firefighter 7 Santa Ana Heights 1 Fire Engine 1 Captain,1 Engineer, I Firefighter 8 Newport Coast 1 Fire Engine 1 Captain,1 Engineer,1 Firefighter Paramedic SOURCE: Steve Bunting, Fire Marshal, NBFD, October 31, 2005. Other Services As mentioned above, the NBFD provides additional services beyond fire protection and EMS. These services include the following. ■ The NBFD oversees 16 full-time lifeguards, and up to 173 part-time seasonal lifeguards during the summer season. Lifeguards are headquartered at the Newport Pier, and there is a lifeguard boathouse in the Orange County Sheriff's Facility on Bayside Drive with three boats. During the summer months, mid June through Labor Day, there are approximately 37 lifeguard towers that are open throughout the day. Throughout the rest of the year, the headquarters remains open and ' City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 4.11-3 lifeguards patrol the beach in rescue vehicles; however, no towers are open, except in periods in spring with heavy beach use. ■ Another service of the NBFD is to handle incidents associated with hazardous materials. The NBFD's goal is to protect the public health and the environment throughout the City from accidental releases and improper handling, storage, transportation and disposal of hazardous materials through coordinated efforts of regulation, management, emergency response, enforcement, and site mitigation oversight. The hazardous materials personnel are responsible for in-house training and education, and do not respond to emergencies. In case of a hazardous materials emergency, Huntington Beach Fire Department or Orange County Fire Department is called. ■ The Ocean Safety and Beach Rescue (OSBR) service, an activity that requires special training and, equipment, allows the NBFD to offer advanced technical rescue capabilities. Members of the OSBR Committee, which consists of NBFD personnel certified as California State instructors for Rescue Systems and Emergency Trench Rescue, are trained in confined space rescue, high angle rescue, the use of Biopack self-contained breathing apparatus's, helicopter rescue, rescue diving, and other specialties. Calls for Service The NBFD responded to 272 fire incidents and 5,381 medical incidents in the City of Newport Beach during 2004. During this time, approximately 2,200 additional calls for service within the City that required a response were handled by the NBFD. Additionally, the NBFD either responded to or assisted in the response to approximately 1,012 incidents outside of City limits. A summary of the incidents to which the NBFD responded to during 2004 are summarized in Table 4.11-3, below. Table00 rype oflncldent ReuwwsIn2004 Within City limits Fire 272 Medical 5,381 Hazardous Materials 95 Other Emergencies 1,238 Service 865 Subtotal (within City limits) 7,851 Outside City limits Ire 155 Medical 653 Hazardous Materials 9 Other Emergencies 152 Service 41 Strike Team 2 Subtotal (outside City limits) 1,012 Total 8,863 SOURCE: Riley, Tim, NBFD. Memo to Jean Ferret, Metro Cities Fire Manager, January 2, 2005 4.11.4 City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 4.11 Public Services The table above shows that the eight fire stations serving the City of Newport Beach responded to a total of 8,863 incidents, which results in an average of about 1,107 incidents per station. It should be noted that 68 percent of the responses were medical emergency calls. In Newport Beach, these medical emergencies are handled by the closest available engine company and closest paramedic ambulance, from one of the three fire stations with paramedic ambulances (i.e., Fire Stations 2, 3, and 5). Thus, each paramedic ambulance responded to an average of 2,011 medical emergencies in 2004. These numbers are well within the number of calls recommended by the Insurance Service Office (ISO) when rating a community for fire insurance rates. Specifically, the ISO recommends that a second company be put in service in a fire station if that station receives more than 2,500 calls per year. The reason for this recommendation is to assure reliability of response to a structure fire. If an engine company provides support to the paramedic ambulance by responding to medical aid calls, and this impacts the station's response to structure fire calls, it may be prudent to add another paramedic ambulance or support squad vehicle and increase staffing at that fire station with the most medical aid traffic. A high volume of calls also creates a high potential for multiple calls occurring at once (multiple queuing), which can result in a company being unavailable to respond to a structure fire. Thus, if this forces a response from other stations farther away, it can result in a larger fire before assistance artives. Fires in Newport Beach represent about five percent of all calls, with structure fires representing less than two percent of all calls. This is due to the use of modern fire and building codes, effective fire prevention inspection work by the NBFD, and effective public education. Fires, when they do occur in newer occupancies, are generally kept small by fire sprinkler systems and the efforts of the NBFD. Although structural fires can occur in any developed areas within the Planning Area, the older portions of the City are especially susceptible to this hazard. Areas such as Balboa Peninsula, Balboa Island, and Corona del Mar contain structures dating from the early 1900s. Due to the age of the structures, older building standards and fire codes were applied, non -fire -resistive construction materials were used, and no current internal sprinklers or other fire safety systems are in place. Another contributing factor is the density of construction in these areas. Generally, residences are built with 3- or 4-foot setbacks. Within these setbacks, projections such as bay windows and roof eaves are allowed, which affect emergency access to the sides and back of the residences. Narrow streets within these areas also make it difficult to maneuver and position response vehicles. Service Performance Measures Personnel to Population Ratio The personnel to population ratio is approximately 0.48 firefighters for each 1,000 residents. However, personnel to population ratios are no longer considered by fire managers to be valid measurements of service, particularly for comparisons to other agencies. Factors that cause a variable between one agency and another include local geography, response times, building codes, demographics, local economic conditions, revenue and, ultimately, the level of service desired by local policy makers. Irrespective of the I City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 4.11-5 Chapter 4 Environmental Analysis 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. Response Times Fire and emergency medical response time is one of the NBFD's highest priorities. For emergency response, it is recommended that a three- to four -person engine company arrive within a 5-minute response time to 90 percent of all structure fire calls in the City, and within a 10-minute response time to the remaining 10 percent. Response time is defined as 1 minute to receive and dispatch the call,1 minute to prepare to respond in the fire station or field, and 3 minutes driving time at 35 miles per hour (mph) average (for an approximate distance not exceeding 1.75 miles behveen the responding fire station and the incident location). Actual response statistics for the NBFD for 2004 are provided in Table 4.11-4 below. These response times are measured from the time the dispatch is made to arrival at the scene by the responding engine company. The averages show that the majority of the fire units in the City reach their destination within the preferred 5-minute response time, and all units respond within 6 minutes of the call being received by dispatch. The longer response times are for Fire Station 8 located in Newport Coast, a large area serviced by one fire station. Arrival, station No. 1111M, 1121111 ZWP,X14-1J for Each Unif in - NBFD for 2004 Ayerew Re Time nutes Year2002 1 3 minutes 51 seconds 2 4 minutes 10 seconds 3 4 minutes 32 seconds 4 4 minutes 29 seconds 5 4 minutes 36 seconds 6 4 minutes 31 seconds 7 4 minutes 55 seconds 8 5 minutes 58 seconds Average Totals 4 minutes 28 seconds SOURCE: Bunting, Steve, Fire Marshal, NBFD. Email to UP Assoclates. Novemper22, 2005. In addition to these components, there is another component called "set up" time. This is the time it takes firefighters to get to the source of a fire and get ready to fight the fire. This may range from 2 minutes at a small house fire to 15 minutes or more at a large or multistory structure, such as a fire at Fashion Island, Hoag Memorial Hospital, or a large condominium complex. GB Steve Bunting, Fire Marshal, Newport Beach Fire Department, October 31,-2005. 4.11.6 City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR I 4.11 Public Services An additional goal of the NBFD is to have a three- to four -person ladder truck company with an aerial device, a second engine company with three to four persons, a paramedic ambulance, and a fire battalion chief to arrive within a 10-minute response time interval to 80 percent of all structure fire calls within the City. ISO recommends a truck company within 2.5 miles if there are five or more buildings that are three or more stories or 35 feet or more in height, or five buildings with fire flow needs greater than 3,500 gallons per minute. Fire Station 2 in Lido provides this level of service for the high rises on the west side of Newport Beach. Fire Station 3 in Newport Center provides this level of service for the high rises in the Fashion Island and Airport areas. An additional truck company from Costa Mesa or Santa Ana can respond via automatic aid, if needed, within 5 miles of the City limits. Structural fire response requires numerous critical tasks to be performed simultaneously. The number of firefighters required to perform the tasks varies based upon the risk. The number of firefighters needed at a maximum high -risk occupancy, such as a shopping mall or large industrial occupancy would be significantly higher than for a fire in a lower -risk occupancy. Given the large number of firefighters that are required to respond to a high -risk, high -consequence fire, fire departments increasingly rely on automatic and mutual aid agreements to address the fire suppression needs of their community. If additional resources are needed due to the intensity or size of the fire, a second alarm may be requested. The second alarm results in the response of at least another two engine companies, and a ladder truck. Beyond this response, additional fire units are requested via the automatic or mutual aid agreements. Insurance Service Office (ISO) Rating The ISO provides rating and statistical information for the insurance industry in the United States. To do so, ISO evaluates a community's fire protection needs and services, and assigns each community evaluated a Public Protection Classification (PPC) rating. The rating is developed as a cumulative point system, based on the community's fire -suppression delivery system, including fire dispatch (operators, alarm dispatch circuits, telephone lines available), fire department (equipment available, personnel, training, distribution of companies, etc.), and water supply (adequacy, condition, number and installation of fire hydrants). Insurance rates are based upon this rating. The worst rating is a Class 10, while the best is a Class 1. Based on the type and extent of training provided to fire -company personnel and the City's existing water supply, Newport Beach currently has a Class 2 ISO rating. Projected Needs As mentioned previously, the NBFD does not use population projections to determine projected future needs. The NBFD's service goals are based on accepted service levels within Fire Protection, such as a 5- minute response time for a first -arriving fire engine at a fire or medical aid event, and 8-minute response time for a fist -arriving fire engine for a paramedic unit. As part of the operating budget, the NBFD has an equipment replacement program which guarantees replacement of all of its apparatus needs, such as vehicles and boats. The NBFD maintains both front line and reserve fire vehicles for both fire suppression and emergency service needs. There are 8 front line engines and 3 reserve engines; 2 front line ladder trucks; a squad, which serves as a reserve truck or engine; three front line paramedic vans and 2 reserve paramedic vans. 'Because of the relatively new age City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 4.11-7 Chapter 4 Environmental Analysis of the entire inventory, the vehicles are very reliable and require very little down time for major repairs.' Most fire stations in Newport Beach were built in the 1950's and 1960's and therefore are currently deficient in the areas of capacity, serviceability, and physical condition. They will need to be replaced or upgraded in order to meet current needs. Remodeling plans are also underway for the Fite Station 1 (Balboa Peninsula) and Fire Station 5 (Corona Del Mar). Fire Station 7 (Santa Ana Heights) is currently housed within a temporary trailer but will be relocated to a new fire station within Santa Ana Heights that will soon be under construction. That new station will also be home to the NBFD's new training center, which will include a classroom, drill tower and drill'. grounds.70 Securing adequate acreage of land to meet the needs of modern facilities will be a challenge in a City that is already predominantly built out. The NBFD is looking for available land to meet the immediate needs of Fire Station 5 (Corona del Mar), as it currently houses one fire Engine in the station and one paramedic unit in a temporary structure. NBFD staffing levels have historically been driven not by population as much as by location. As of September 2003, the NBFD is conducting an in-house operational research study using various programs to optimize station locations based upon growth in geographic areas. Development of the Banning Ranch property could trigger the need of a new station. The NBFD is also studying the effect of a full buildout of Newport Coast with regard to their response time criteria. It may be necessary to relocate a station of add a new station in the Newport Coast area, south of Corona Del Mar. Station 5 (Corona Del Mar), which has a paramedic unit, might be relocated to a point further east on Coast Highway to better serve the down coast area. In the Airport Area, an increase in density by both infill and conversion of low rise properties to mid and high rise will necessitate the addition of a ladder truck company* to the Santa Ana Heights fire station. In designing the new Santa Ana Heights fire station, the NBFD considered this possible change in density and planned for the future addition of a ladder company at that station, when and if the need arises. The NBFD is also currently analyzing the need to add a fourth paramedic unit 71 ■ Regulatory Context Local Regulations City of Newport Beach Municipal Code Title 9 Fire Code of the City's Municipal Code, which was updated in 2002, contains provisions that deal with a range of issues including articulating fire ]low requirements, the provision of automatic sprinkler systems in public buildings, requiring an accurate occupant count in public places, and the provision of emergency, power in public assembly places. 69 Steve Bunting, Fire Marshal, Newport Beach Fire Department, October 31, 2005. 90 Steve Bunting, Fire Nfarsbal, Newport Beach FireDepartment, October 31, 2005. 71 Steve Bunting, Fire Marshal, Newport Beach Fire Department, October 31, 2005. 4,11.8 City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR I 4.11 Public Services I Thresholds of Significance The following thresholds of significance are based on Appendix G of the 2005 CEQA Guidelines. For purposes of this EIR, implementation of the proposed General Plan Update may have a significant adverse impact on fire protection 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 E3 Project Impacts, Mitigation Measures, and Proposed Policies Effects Not Found to Be Significant The IS/NOP prepared for the proposed project did not identify any effects not found to be significant associated with Fire Protection. Therefore, all thresholds are addressed in this section. Project Impacts Threshold Would the project 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? Impact 4.11.1-1 Implementation of the proposed General Plan Update could increase the demand for fire protection services, which could result in the need for additional fire facilities. Development under the proposed General Plan Update would increase the population in the Planning Area. However, an increase in population, by itself, would not increase demand for fire protection services. The provision of fire stations varies more as a function of the geographic distribution of structures than of population increases. The NBFD's service goals are also based on accepted service levels, such as a 5-minute response time for a first -arriving fire engine at a fire or medical aid event, and an 8-minute response time for a first -arriving fire engine for a paramedic unit. As stated previously, the NBFD is currently operating at acceptable levels of fire protection services. The NBFD has indicated that the proposed development of Banning Ranch, proposed as an alternative under the proposed General Plan Update could require the addition of one new fire station to compensate for additional demand for fire protection services. In addition, full buildout of the Newport Coast area could also require relocation of a station or the addition of a new station according to the NBFD. The Airport Area would be reconfigured to include new residential neighborhoods that would result in the extension of present residential development of the Irvine Business Complex (IBC) to the north. Currently, there is no residential development within the Airport Area. Under bulldout of the proposed General Plan Update, 4,300 multi -family units would be constructed in this area. As a result of I City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 4.11-9 Chapter 4 Environmental Analysis this development, demand for 24-hour residential medical service could increase. These proposed increases in development density in the Airport Area by both infill and conversion of commercial and industrial properties to residential use would also result in the need for an additional ladder truck company to the Santa Ana Heights Fire Station. In general, the NBFD's ability to support the needs of future growth is dependent upon its ability to secure sites for construction and equipment for new fire stations in a timely manner. However, policies contained in the proposed General Plan Update require that adequate infrastructure be provided as new development occurs. For example, compliance with Policy LU 3.2 would ensure that growth and development would be coordinated with the provision of adequate infrastructure. Thus, fire staffing and facilities would be expanded commensurately to serve the needs of new development to maintain the current response time. policies contained in the Safety Element would further ensure that development would comply with fire protection regulations. Policy S6-18 ensures that building and fire codes will be continually updated to provide for fire safety design. Additionally, any new development that would occur under the proposed General Plan Update would be required to comply with all applicable Federal, State, and local regulations governing the provision of fire protection services, including adequate fire access, fire flows, and number of hydrants. The City of Newport Beach has adopted the 2001 California Fire Code (Title 9'was updated in 2002 at the time 2001 California Code was adopted) with City amendments and some exceptions. These provisions include construction standards in new structures and remodels, road widths and conflgurations designed to accommodate the passage of fire trucks and engines, and requirements for minimum fire flow rates for water mains. Finally, if new facilities would need to be constructed to accommodate increased demand on fire protection services, further environmental review would be required as specific facilities are proposed. In addition, all significant new development would be subject to the City's environmental review process which includes project -specific environmental review under CEQA. Compliance with applicable regulations and policies contained in the proposed General Plan Update would ensure impacts remain less than sign&cant. No mitigation is necessary. Cumulative Impacts Since development under the proposed General Plan Update takes into account all projected future growth and development within the Planning Area, the project impact, as discussed under Impact 4.11.1-1, also analyzes cumulative impacts witivn the NBFD service area. As discussed under Impact 4.11.1-1, with implementation of proposed policies contained in the General Plan Update, adequate fire protection and emergency medical services would be provided in the Planning Area. Furthermore, it is anticipated that demand created by residents at the IBC would adversely affect fire demand in the Planning Area such that new facilities would be required, and this cumulative impact would be less than sign cant. Proposed General Plan Update Policies The Land Use and Safety Elements of the proposed General Plan Update include policies that would address issues related to fire.protection, The policies that are applicable to the project are included below. 4.11-10 City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 4.11 Public Services Land Use Element Goal A living, active, and diverse environment that complements all lifestyles and enhances neighborhoods, without compromising the valued resources that make Newport Beach unique. It contains a diversity of uses that support the needs of residents, sustain and enhance the economy, provide job opportunities, serve visitors that enjoy the City's diverse recreational amenities, and protect its important environmental setting, resources, and quality of life. Policy LU 2.8 Adequate Infrastructure Accommodate the types, densities, and mix of land uses that can be adequately supported by transportation and utility infrastructure (water, sewer, storm drainage, energy, and so on) and public services (schools, parks, libraries, seniors, youth, police, fire, and so on). Goal A development pattern that retains and complements the City's residential neighborhoods, commercial and industrial districts, open spaces, and natural environment. Policy LU 3.2 Growth and Change Enhance existing neighborhoods, districts, and corridors, allowing for re -use and infill with uses that are complementary in type, form, scale, and character. Changes in use and/or density/intensity should be considered only in those areas that are economically underperforming, are necessary to accommodate Newport Beach's share of projected regional population growth, improve the relationship and reduce commuting distance between home and jobs, or enhance the values that distinguish Newport Beach as a special place to live for its residents. The scale of growth and new development shall be coordinated with the provision of adequate infrastructure and public services, including standards for acceptable traffic level of service. Goal6.1 A diversity of governmental service, institutional, educational, cultural, social, religious, and medical facilities that are available for and enhance the quality of life for residents and are located and designed to complement Newport Beach's neighborhoods. Policy LU 6.1.1 Adequate Community Supporting Uses Accommodate schools, government administrative and operational facilities, fire stations and police facilities, religious facilities, schools, cultural facilities, museums, interpretative centers, and hospitals to serve the needs of Newport Beach's residents and businesses. City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 4.11.11 Chapter 4 Environmental Analysis Safety Element Goal S6 Protection of human life and property from the risks of wildfires and urban fires. Policy S6.8 Update Building and Fire Codes Continue to regularly update building and fire codes to provide for Ere safety design. Policy 56.9 Retrofitting of Nonsprinklered Buildings Encourage owners of nonsprinklered properties, especially high- and mid -rise structures, to retrofit their buildings and include internal fire sprinklers. Mitigation Measures No mitigation measures are necessary, as the proposed General Plan Update policies fully mitigate the impacts to fire protection. Level of Significance After Policies/Mitigation Measures Impacts associated with fire protection would be less than signiricantwith implementation of the proposed General Plan Update policies. 4.1.1.2 Police Protection t Existing Conditions Service Providers The Newport Beach Police Department (NBPD), the Orange County Sheriff Department (OCSD), and the Costa Mesa Police Department (CMPD) provide police services to the City and the Planning Area. The NBPD provides local police services to the City of Newport Beach. Centrally located at 870 Santa Barbara Drive, the NBPD provides services in crime prevention and investigation, community awareness programs, and other services such as traffic control. A majority* of Banning Ranch within the Planning Area is served by the North Operations Division of the Orange County Sheriff's Department. The neatest Sheriff's station to the Planning Area is located at 550 North Flower Street in the City of Santa Ana. However, as the proposed General Plan Update includes annexation of these areas into the City, potential increases in the need for police services provided by the OCSD and the CMPD would not be required. Instead, all additional need for police services would be assumed by NBPD. 4.11-12 City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR rI IJ Staffing Levels and Equipment 1 As of November 2005, the NBPD employed a total of 280 personnel, including 1 Chief, 3 Captains, 7 Lieutenants, 22 Sergeants, 109 sworn officers, 85 civilian personnel, and 53 seasonal and part-time ' personnel. The NBPD is currently separated into, three divisions (Support Services, Patrol/Traffic, and Detectives), all of which are overseen by the Office of the Chief of Police. ' As of 2005, NBPD had the following equipment at their disposal: ■ 27 marked patrol units, including crew -cab truck and commercial enforcement truck ■ 34 unmarked vehicles (includes special weapons van, crime scene van, hostage negotiation van, and volunteer trucks) ■ 3 prison transport vans ■ 14 motorcycles ■ 3 beach squads ■ 3 helicopters with surveillance equipment (owned by Airborne Law Enforcement [ABLE] a joint powers authority of the Cities of Newport Beach and Costa Mesa) ' ■ 3 K-9 (dog unit) ■ 15 bicycles (Bicycle Unit includes Parking Enforcement and Volunteers) II I' I I, I I I It II Currently, there are no immediate or near -future plans for expansion of police facilities, staff, or equipment inventory.72 Staffing Standards There are no current law enforcement staffing standards available. NBPD currently has authorization for 148 sworn officers, and as of January 2005, approximately 85,120 residents live within the City of Newport Beach.73 The existing ratio of 1.7 officers per 1,000 -residents allows the NBPD to meet the needs of a permanent and transient population that can swell to 200,000 on any given day. The increase in population is due to the influx of beachgoers, daytime employment, and visitors to the City. This figure is a broad indicator of available service;'however, it should be considered in concert with more primary indicators including the following:' ■ Volume of calls for service ■ Number of violent crimes ■ Number of Part I crimes (Part I crimes are the eight most serious crimes and include homicide, forcible rape, aggravated assault, burglary, larceny -theft, auto theft, and arson). Classification of Calls All emergency calls for police, fire, and paramedic services are initially answered by one of the 14 full- time or three part-time dispatchers at the Dispatch Center. While the number of calls received varies with the season, an average of 2,000 emergency calls is received per month, with an average answer time of 72 Todd Hughes, Environmental Services Coordinator, NBPD, personal communication, November 7, 2005. 73 California Department of Finance, Demographic Research Unit, http:/hvunv.dofci.=/HTDfL/DEMOGRAP/E-5a.xls, Accessed December 5, 2005. City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 4.11-13 Chapter 4 Environmental Analysis f L, I just five seconds. If an incident requires fire or paramedic response, the caller is connected with Metronet, who provide fire and emergency medical services dispatch for seven cities as part of a joint powers agreement. Currently, the total number of calls received in the Dispatch Center is nearing 200,000 per year. Although not all calls to the Center require a physical response, an average of 60,000 events per year are dispatched. Dispatchers use a radio system to communicate with police officers in the field, animal control and parking control officers, as well as the helicopters, other Orange County law enforcement agencies, and neighboring dispatch centers. In 2005, the average police response time to emergency calls was reported as just under 4 minutes, while the average response time for non -emergency calls is 7 minutes. According to the NBPD, current response times are acceptable.'" Crime Statistics Table 4.11-5 illustrates the various Part I offenses for 2004 that took place in the City. Criminal offenses in 2005 increased from the previous year. In 2005, 3,137 Part I crimes were reported to the NBPD, compared to 2,693 in 2004. As indicated in Table 4.11-5, the principal crime reported in the City was larceny -theft, with the primary crime under this category consisting of burglary -theft from a motor vehicle. Other frequently reported Part I crimes include burglary and simple assault. ■ Regulatory Context There are no Federal, State, or local policies that are directly applicable to police services within the Planning Area. ■ Thresholds of Significance The following thresholds of significance are based on Appendix G of the 2005 CEQA Guidelines. For purposes of this EIR, implementation of the proposed project may have a significant adverse impact on police protection services if it would result in any of the following- 0 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. In Project Impacts, Mitigation Measures, and Proposed Policies 7+Todd Hughes, EmironmentatServices Coordinator, Newport Beach Police Department, personal communication, November 7, 2005. II II II II II I II II II II I II 11 4.11.14 City of Newport Beach General,Pion Update EIR 't I 4,11 Public Services If II II Effects Not Found to Be Significant The IS/NOP prepared for the proposed project did not identify any effects not found to be significant associated with Police Protection. Therefore, all thresholds are addressed in this section. Offense YIDTotai Criminal Homicide 3 Forcible Rape 10 Robbery 26 Assault 598 Aggravated 42 Simple 556 Burglary 584 Residential 269 Commercial 207 Garage 108 Larceny -Theft 1,711 Petty Theft 506 Grand Theft 402 Burglary/Theft From a Motor Vehicle 803 Grand Theft Auto 196 Arson 9 Total 3,137 SOURCE: Project Impacts 23, 2006 1 crimes.asp. Threshold Would the project 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? Impact 4.11.2-1 Implementation of the proposed General Plan Update could increase the demand for police protection services, which would result in the need for additional police facilities. As mentioned under Impact 4.11.1-1, implementation of the proposed General Plan Update would ' potentially increase the City's population. As previously discussed, the NBPD currently maintains an acceptable level of service, which could be diminished through implementation of the General Plan I ICity of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 4.11-15 Chapter 4 Environmental Analysis Update. Under the proposed General Plan Update, approximately 31,131 additional people would reside within the City limits upon full-buildout.73 The General Plan Update contains policies to ensure that adequate law enforcement is provided as the City experiences future development. For example, Policy LU 2.8 ensures that only land uses that can be adequately supported by the City's Public Services should be accommodated. Compliance with this policy would ensure that adequate service ratios are maintained. To maintain the current ratio of 1.7 officers per 1,000 residents, NBPD would need to provide an additional 53 officers upon buildout of the General Plan Update. Maintaining NBPD's current ratio of 0.60 non -sworn personnel per sworn officer would result in the addition of 32 non -sworn personnel. The addition of 84 police personnel would require that the NBPD construct additional police facilities. As previously discussed, the NBPD does not have any immediate or near future plans for expansion of police facilities, staff, or equipment inventory. It is currently not known whether the existing NBPD site could accommodate a larger facility, or whether a new site or a substation would be considered. All significant new development of police facilities would be subject to the City's environmental review process which includes project -specific environmental review under CEQA. Therefore, this impact would be less thaa signi&cant. Cumulative Impacts The geographic context for the analysis of cumulative impacts associated with police protection services would be the NBPD service area. Since development under the proposed General Plan Update takes into account all projected future growth and development within the Planning Area, the project impact, as discussed under Impact 4.11.2-1, also analyzes all cumulative impacts within the NBPD service area. As required by the proposed General Plan Update policies, the City would be required to adequately serve all areas with appropriate police services. Thus, as potential impacts to police services would be less than significant with implementation of the proposed General Plan Update policies listed below, the cumulative impacts to police services would also be less than sign&cant. Proposed General Plan Update Policies The Land Use Element of the proposed General Plan Update includes policies that would address issues of police protection services. The policies that are applicable to the project are included below. 75 Based on 2.189 residents per dwelling unit Figure from California Department of Finance,Demogmphic Research Unit http:/hi�clv.doF.ca pnv/H iTfi./i)R�fpC RAP/E-Rasle, Accessed December 5, 2005. 4.11.16 City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 1 i J 71 IJ 4.11 Public Services Land Use Element Goal A living, active, and diverse environment that complements all lifestyles and enhances neighborhoods, without compromising the valued resources that make Newport Beach unique. It contains a diversity of uses that support the needs of residents, sustain and enhance the economy, provide job opportunities, serve visitors that enjoy the City's diverse recreational amenities, and protect its important environmental setting, resources, and quality of life. Policy LU 2.8 Adequate Infrastructure Accommodate the types, densities, and mix of land uses that can be adequately supported by transportation and utility infrastructure (water, sewer, storm drainage, energy, and so on) and public services (schools, parks, libraries, seniors, youth, police, fire, and so on). Goal A development pattern that retains and complements the City's residential neighborhoods, commercial and industrial districts, open spaces, and natural environment. Policy LU 3.2 Growth and Change Enhance existing neighborhoods, districts, and corridors, allowing for re -use and infill with uses that are complementary in type, form, scale, and character. Changes in use and/or density/intensity should be considered only in those areas that are economically underperforming, are necessary to accommodate Newport Beach's share of projected regional population growth, improve the relationship and reduce commuting distance between home and jobs, or enhance the values that distinguish Newport Beach as a special place to live for its residents. The scale of growth and new development shall be coordinated with the provision of adequate infrastructure and public services, including standards for acceptable traffic level of service. Goal6.1 A diversity of governmental service, institutional, educational, cultural, social, religious, and medical facilities that are available for and enhance the quality of life for residents and are located and designed to complement Newport Beach's neighborhoods. Policy LU 6.1.1 Adequate Community Supporting Uses Accommodate schools, government administrative and operational facilities, fire stations and police facilities, religious facilities, schools, cultural facilities, museums, interpretative centers, and hospitals to serve the needs of Newport Beach's residents and businesses. City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 4.11-17 Mitigation Measures No mitigation measures are necessary. Level of Significance After Policies/Mitigation Measures Impacts to police services resulting from implementation of the proposed project would be less than significant. 4.11.3 Schools ■ Existing Conditions The Newport -Mesa Unified School District (NMUSD), with a service area of 58.83 square miles, provides educational services to the City of Newport Beach, City of Costa Mesa, and other unincorporated areas of Orange County. The Airport Area is served by the Santa Ana Unified School District (SAUSD). A small portion of the City located in the eastern part of the City is served by the Laguna Beach Unified School District (LBUSD). Public School Facilities NMUSD serves the majority of the City and has thirty-two public schools including twenty-two elementary schools, two junior high schools, five high schools, two alternative education centers, and one adult school. Of these, two high schools, one middle school, and eight elementary schools are located within Newport Beach City limits. Table 4.11-6 lists all the NMUSD school facilities. The SAUSD consists of fifty-six: public schools including thirty-seven elementary schools, nine middle schools, six high schools, one alternative education center, two adult schools, and one community day school. The closest of these schools to the Airport Area is Taft Elementary School, located at 500 Keller Avenue, approximately 1.3 miles from the John Wayne Airport. The LBUSD consists of one high school, one middle school, and two elementary schools. The closest of the schools to the Planning Area is El Morro Elementary School located at 8681 N Coast Hwy, just southeast along the coast from the City of NewportBeach. Approximately 22,487 students were enrolled in NMUSD schools during the 2004/05 academic year. Table 4.11-6 shows the enrollment for each school in the NMUSD. Private School Facilities Several private schools are also located either within City limits or in the local area and available to the City's residents for educational services. Those located in Newport .Beach include Carden Hall Harbor Day School (K4), Our Lady Queen of Angles (K-8), St. Andrews Presbyterian (K-8), Newport Christian School (1( 6), Newport Montessori School (K-2) and Tutor Time Child Care/Learning Center a<) and Sage Hill School (9-12). 4.11.18 City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 4.11 Public Services Hiah Schools Corona del Mar High 2,214 Costa Mesa High* 1,947 Estancta High* 1,402 Newport Harbor High 2,471 Orange Coast Middle College High School* 84 Middle Schools Ensign (Horace) Intermediate 1,202 Tewinkle (Chades W.) Middle* 1,145 Elementary Schools Adams Elementary* 549 Andersen (Roy 0.) Elementary 530 California Elementary* 382 College Park Elementary* 410 Davis Elementary* 794 Eastbluff Elementary 334 Harbor View Elementary 444 Kaiser (Heinz) Elementary* 753 Killybrooke Elementary* 457 Lincoln Elementary 637 Mariners' Elementary 686 Newport Coast Elementary 604 Newport Elementary 436 Newport Heights Elementary 611 Paularino Elementary* 326 Pomona Elementary* 465 Rea (Everett A.) Elementary* 752 Sonora Elementary* 386 Victoria Elementary* 390 Whittier Elementary* 638 Wilson Elementary* 617 Woodland Elementary* 516 Alternative and Adult Schools Back Bay Alternative High School* 179 Monte Alternative Vista High School* 126 Newport -Mesa Alternative Adult Education Center* N/A SOURCE (for Enrollment statistics): California Department of Education. 2005. Dataquest Website htip://data l.cde.ca.gov/dataquest, accessed 18 November. Located in Costa Mesa City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 4.11-19 Chapter 4 Environmental Analysis Standards Several standards are used to measure the adequacy of the educational facilities being provided for students in grades K-12. In general, school capacity, or number of students per classroom, is the primary standard by wluch educational facilities adequacy is measured. According to NMUSD administrators, current school capacity is adequate. Capacity at the SAUSD is currently unknown, and capacity at the LBUSD is above the current enrollment creating an excess of 394 seats in the district. Another measure of the adequacy of educational facilities is -campus size. It should be noted that no singular standard for school size exists for California educational facilities. The rule -of -thumb approach used for the past several decades recommends a minimum 10 net usable acres for elementary schools, 25 acres for middle schools and 35 to 40 acres for high schools. According to NMUSD staff, most of the elementary and high schools are near or above these standards, while both NMUSD middle schools are below the standard. As land constraints and evolving educational needs have necessitated revisions to these standards, the California Department of Education has published The Guide to Scbool SiteAnalyrdt and Deuelopuentin order to establish a valid technique for determining acreage for new schools that permit each district to accommodate its individual conditions. The Department of Education recommends that a site utilization study be prepared for a potential site, based on these formulas. While facility standards are used by planners, the NMUSD also uses other statistics to evaluate schools in the District. As previously mentioned, approximately 22,487 students were enrolled at the primary, secondary, and high school level for the 2004/05 school year. For the same year, the NMUSD's pupil -to - teacher ratio was 20.7. This number is below the ratio for Orange County, which maintained a ratio of 22.3, However, the pupil -to -teacher ratio was slightly higher than the State's at 20.6 pupils per teacher. Average class size for the NMUSD was 29.5 pupils, while average class size for the County and State were 27.3 and 29.3, leaving NMUSD with 2.2 and 0.2 more students per classroom, respectively.' The SAUSD also uses other similar statistics to evaluate schools in the District. Approximately 61,693 students were enrolled at the primary, secondary, and high school level for the 2004/05 school year. For the same year, the SAUSD's pupil -to -teacher ratio was 24.7. This number is above the ratio for Orange County, which, as mentioned above, maintained a ratio of 22.3. The pupil -to -teacher ratio was also higher than that State's at 20.6 pupils per teacher. Average class size for the SAUSD was 29.3, while, as mentioned above, average class size for the County and State were 27.3 and 29.3, leaving SAUSD with 2 more students per classroom than the County standard, and the same number of students as the State standard. In addition, the LBUSD uses various ratios to evaluate the adequacy of the schools in their District. Approximately 2,706 students are currently enrolled in the 2005-2006 school year in all of the LBUSD schools. The total operating capacity of the school district is 3,100 students, which leaves 394 seats open 16 California Department of Education, Dataquest Website http://www.cd-datn.kl2.ca.vs/welcome.asp, accessed January• 9, 2006. 4.11-20 City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR I 1 4.11 Public Services under current enrolment. The district maintains a pupil -to -teacher ratio of 20 for Kindergarten through ' third grade, 30 for fourth and fifth grades, and 31.5 for sixth through twelfth grades. The average ratio for the entire district is 25.4 pupils -to -teachers. This number is slightly above the orange county pupil -to - student ratio of 22.3 and above the state pupil -to -student ratio of 20.6. The district aims to keep class i size at approximately the same levels at the pupil -to -student ratio which, when the .type of school and number of each type is taken into account, leaves 25.47' students in each classroom on average. This average number of students per classroom is below the county and state levels of 27.3 and 29.3, ' respectively. Projected Needs NMUSD does not currently identify any projected needs. Planned Improvements There is currently a Measure A Bond renovation in progress throughout the District. During ' construction, portable classrooms will accommodate the displaced student population. The program will modernize 28 campuses in the District, all of which are at least 25 years old and have not previously been ' modernized with State funds. All construction activity under the Measure A program is expected to be completed in 2006. ' ® Regulatory Context There are no federal, state, or local policies that are directly applicable to schools within the Planning Area. ® Thresholds of Significance The following thresholds of significance are based on Appendix G of the 2005 CEQA Guidelines. For ' purposes of this EIR, implementation of the proposed project may have a significant adverse impact on schools if it would result in any of the following- 0 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. L 1 77 2 elementary schools @ avg. 20 per class,1 middle school @ avg. 30 per class, and I high school @ avg. 31.5 per class = ((2*20)+30+31.5)/4 = 25.4 students per class average ' City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 4.11-21 G Project Impacts, Mitigation Measures, and Proposed Policies Effects Not Found to Be Significant The IS/NOP prepared for the proposed project did not identify any effects not found to be significant associated with Schools. Therefore, all thresholds are addressed in this section. Project Impacts Threshold Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered schools, or the need for new or physically altered schools? Impact 4.11.3-1 Implementation of the proposed General Plan Update would result in an increase in the student enrollment which could result in the need for additional staff and school facilities The NMUSD provides school services to the City of Newport Beach as well as the City of Costa Mesa and other unincorporated areas. The Airport Area is served by the SAUSD. Currently, the NMUSD has thirty-tvo public schools including twenty-two elementary schools, two junior high schools, five high schools, two alternative education centers, and one adult school that provide school services to Newport residents. The SAUSD consists of fifty-six public schools including thirty-seven elementary schools, nine middle schools, six high schools, one alternative education center, two adult schools, and one community day school. School capacity is the primary indicator of adequacy for educational facilities. According to NMUSD administrators, current school capacity is adequate to serve current levels of enrollment. Another measure of educational facilities is campus size. As described in the Existing Conditions section, the rule - of -thumb approach used for the past several decades recommends a minimum of ten net usable acres for elementary schools, 25 acres for middle schools and 35 to 40 acres for high schools. According to NMUSD staff, most of the elementary and high schools are near or above these standards, while the two middle schools are below the standard. Additionally, as previously discussed for the NMUSD, the pupil - to -teacher ratio for 2004 was below that of the County and only slightly higher than that of the State. Average class size within the NMUSD for the same period was 20.7. This is slightly higher than both County and State average class size.'s In order to accurately define the adequacy of the LBUSD, a school capacity to enrollment comparison is made. The LBUSD is currently operating with 2,706 seats filled and an overall operating capacity of 3,100 seats. This leaves an excess of 394 seats in the District showing that the District has adequate educational facilities. In addition, as outlined in the Existing Conditions section, the LUASD is slightly 78 California Department of Education, Dataquest Wehsite http://w%v%vcd-data,kl2.ci.us/-,velcomeisp,,tccessed January 9, 2006, 4.11.22 City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR I 4.11 Public Services above the pupil -to -teacher ratio for the district by approximately 3 students and above the state average by approximately 5 students. Presently, the enrollment capacity and operating conditions of the SAUSD are unknown. Thus, this analysis presents a worst -case scenario and assumes that the District is operating either at or above enrollment capacity. In addition, as outlined in the Existing Conditions section, the SAUSD is slightly above the pupil -to -teacher ratio for the district by approximately 2 students and above the state average by approximately 4 students. In the City, implementation of the proposed General Plan Update would result in the construction of approximately 14,215 dwelling units over existing conditions within the City . The increase in dwelling units would increase enrollment in the local schools serving Newport Beach. Using California Department of Finance population projections, and assuming that approximately 20 percent of the potential increase in population would represent children attending grades K through 12, implementation of the proposed General Plan Update would result in an enrollment increase of approximately 6,230 students (3,115 elementary school students, 1,557 students for middle schools, and 1,558 high school students) in the Planning Area. As previously discussed, the Airport Area is served by the SAUSD. This subarea would experience an increase of 4,300 residential units over existing conditions, contributing approximately 1,883 students (out of the total anticipated increase of approximately 6,230 students, city-wide) to the Area's student population. Because the current capacity of the SAUSD is unknown, it is possible that this potential increase in students may exceed the District's capacity. Similarly, of the total increase of approximately 6,230 students within the City, it is assumed that approximately 4,347 students could attend schools within the NMUSD, which could potentially exceed the capacity of the District. However, the proposed General Plan Update has developed goals and policies to address these issues and to ensure compliance with standard levels of service. Specifically, Policy LU 6.1.1 accommodates the provision of adequate school facilities within Newport Beach in order to serve the needs of residents, and Policy LU 6.1.2 allows for the development of new public and institutional facilities within the City provided that the use and development facilities are compatible with adjoining land uses, environmentally suitable, and can be supported by transportation and utility infrastructure. In addition, although school districts are not subject to the City's environmental review process, Policy LU 6.1.4 encourages school districts to plan their properties and design buildings at a high level of visual and architectural quality that maintains the character of the neighborhood or district in which they are located, and in consideration of the design and development policies for private uses specified by the General Plan Update. In addition to the SAUSD and NMUSD, the LBUSD would accommodate new students located in the southeast region of the City which is within the boundaries of the LBUSD. Limited residential development is proposed within the eastern boundaries of Newport Coast, and thus, it is anticipated that implementation of the General Plan Update would result in a small enrollment increase within the LBUSD. However, LBUSD staff has indicated that the district would be able to accommodate the additional students with the remaining open seats and with the school related revenue the new residences City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 4.11-23 Chapter 4 Environmental Analysis would bring to the City of Laguna Beach. The District has been aware of the potential increase in number of students to be enrolled in the LBUSD from the aforementioned area and, additionally, expects there to be no problems with the admittance of those students into District schools'9 Consequently, it is anticipated that the construction of additional schools within the LBUSD would not be necessary as a result of implementation of the General Plan Update. However, with the potential exceedence of capacity at the SAUSD and NMUSD, implementation of the proposed General Plan Update would likely require construction of new school facilities. However, adherence to the policies contained in the proposed General Plan Update, would ensure that impacts related to the provision of new educational facilities would be less than significant. Cumulative Impacts Since development under the proposed General Plan Update takes into account all projected future growth and development within the NMUSD service area, and the affected areas of the SAUSD, the project impact, as discussed under Impact 4.11.3-1, also analyzes cumulative impacts to schools. Based on the projected school district enrollment presented in Impact 4.11.3-1, implementation of the proposed General Plan Update would result in approximately 6,230 students within the City at buildout. The NMUSD has acknowledged that maximum student population would increase beyond the current enrollment of 22,487 by the year 2025. For the purposes of tivs cumulative analysis, development within the IBC is considered. It is presently unclear how many residential units the IBC would add to the area, however, Residential development in the IBC is anticipated to substantially increase enrollment in the SAUSD. As previously discussed, residential development in the Airport Area would also contribute to increases in enrollment in the SAUSD. However, implementation of proposed General Plan Update policies (such as LU 6.1.2) would allow for the development of new public and institutional facilities within the City provided that the use and development facilities are compatible with adjoining land uses, environmentally suitable, and can be supported by transportation and utility infrastructure. In addition, as previously discussed, new school construction would be subject to project -specific environmental review. Therefore, cumulative impacts associated with the provision of new educational facilities are considered less than significant. Additionally, the projeces contribution to this impact would not be cumulatively considerable, and would be less than significant. Proposed General Plan Update Policies The Land Use Element of the proposed General Plan Update includes policies that would address issues related to schools. The policies that are applicable to the project are included below, 79 Jetta, Erik. LBUSD. Personal Communication. 3-15-06. I 4.11-24 City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR , 4.11 Public Services Land Use Element Goal A living, active, and diverse environment that complements all lifestyles and enhances neighborhoods, without compromising the valued resources that make Newport Beach unique. It contains a diversity of uses that support the needs of residents, sustain and enhance the economy, provide job opportunities, serve visitors that enjoy the City's diverse recreational amenities, and protect its important environmental setting, resources, and quality of life. Policy LU 2.1 Resident Serving Land Uses Accommodate uses that support the needs of Newport Beach's residents including housing, retail, services, employment, recreation, education, culture, entertainment, civic engagement, and social and spiritual activity that are in balance with the community natural resources, and open spaces. Policy LU 2.8 Adequate Infrastructure Accommodate the types, densities, and mix of land uses that can be adequately supported by transportation and utility infrastructure (water, sewer, storm drainage, energy, and so on) and public services (schools, parks, libraries, seniors, youth, police, fire, and so on). Goal A development pattern that retains and complements the City's residential neighborhoods, commercial and industrial districts, open spaces, and natural environment. Policy LU 3.2 Growth and Change Enhance existing neighborhoods, districts, and corridors, allowing for re -use and infill with uses that are complementary in type, form, scale, and character. Changes in use and/or density/intensity should be considered only in those areas that are economically underperforming, are necessary to accommodate Newport Beach's share of projected regional population growth, improve the relationship and reduce commuting distance between home and jobs, or enhancd the values that distinguish Newport Beach as a special place to live for its residents. The scale of growth and new development shall be coordinated with the provision of adequate infrastructure and public services, including standards for acceptable traffic level of service. I ' City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 4.11-25 Chapter 4 Environmental Analysis Goal6.1 A diversity of governmental service, institutional, educational, cultural, social, religious, and medical facilities that are available for and enhance the quality of life for residents and are located and designed to complement Newport Beach's neighborhoods. Policy LU 6.1.1 Adequate Community Supporting Uses Accommodate schools, government administrative and operational facilities, fire stations and police facilities, religious facilities, schools, cultural facilities, museums, interpretative centers, and hospitals to serve the needs of Newport Beach's residents and businesses. LU 6.1.2 Siting of New Development Allow for the development of new public and institutional facilities within the City provided that the use and development facilities are compatible with adjoining land uses, environmentally suitable, and can be supported by transportation and utility infrastructure. LU 6J.4 Compatibility of Non -City Public Uses .Encourage school and utility districts and other government agencies that may be exempt from City land use control and approval to plan their properties and design buildings at a high level of visual and architectural quality that maintains the character of the neighborhood or district in which they are located and in consideration of the design and development policies for private uses specified by this Plan. Mitigation Measures No mitigation measures are required. Level of Significance After Policies/Mitigation Measures The proposed General Plan Update policies ensure that impacts to schools would remain less than signiEcant. 4.11.4 Libraries ■ Existing Conditions The Newport Beach Public Library (NBPL) provides library services and resources to the City of Newport Beach. 4.11.26 City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR , 4.11 Public Services n F II I Library Facilities NBPL consists of a Central Library and three branch library facilities located throughout the City. The Central Library, which occupies four acres on Avocado Avenue near Newport Center, is a 15,305 square foot building that serves as a school library as well as a public library. The replacement Mariners' Library branch, located at 2005 Dover Drive, will be open in 2006. The NBPL system is currently staffed by approximately 90 employees. Table 4.11-7 lists the names and locations of the NBPL library facilities. Table Name Location Date ofConslruction I Sizes .# Central Library 1000 Avocado Avenue 1994 54,000 Mariners' Library 2005 Dover Drive 2006 15,305 Balboa Branch Library 100 East Balboa Boulevard 1925 (remodeled in 1960 6,000 Corona Del Mar Branch Library 420 Marigold Avenue 1959 (remodeled in 1988) 3,795 SOURCE: Kotsouleas, Undo. Memo to EIP dated 6 January 2006. The four libraries serve 84,098 active borrowers. The system circulates 1,475,025 items annually and over 885,852 people visit the libraries in the NBPL system. Libraries have changed rapidly due to the transition to electronic documents over the past 15 years. While circulation of books and other physical items within the NBPL system continues to grow at an annual rate of three to seven percent, remote access (via the internet) to library resources has increased at an annual rate of twenty percent. Many resources are available through specialized databases licensed to NBPL, and with a library account, can be accessed from remote locations 24 hours a day. Librarians now provide information retrieval guidance and training to customers and students both on and off site. Use of remote access to library databases appears to be especially prevalent with Newport Coast residents. Projected Needs Typically, libraries assess their needs on a ratio of volumes per measure of population. However, as acknowledged by NBPL, the recent changes in the type of resources used at NBPL facilities (hardcopies vs. electronic documents) have made it increasingly difficult to predict the type and amount of resources required to adequately serve the local population. The NBPL has indicated that within the next 20 years, the changing role of libraries in Newport Beach will need to be addressed with remodeling, expansion of existing buildings, and the possible construction of a new library branch. The Central Library Children's Department may need to be expanded to accommodate the increasing child population in the community. According to the NBPL, this expansion would need to be based on a flexible plan which could be adjusted to accommodate a potential rapid change in demographics. The NBPL also anticipates that the Balboa Branch of the library may need to be expanded, remodeled, or rebuilt. City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 4.11-27 Chapter 4 Environmental Analysis Planned Improvements According to NBPL, a new facility (of a minimum size of 15,000 square feet with adequate parking) may be required as the City's population continues to grow. In the near future, the NBPL will focus on refining existing services and remodeling existing facilities rather than a increasing the number of facilities. There are no immediate plans for significant expansion of NBPL facilities. ■ Thresholds of Significance The following thresholds of significance are based on Appendix G of the 2005 CEQA Guidelines. For purposes of this EM implementation of the proposed project may have a significant adverse impact on libraries if it would result in any of the following: ■ 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. © Project Impacts, Mitigation Measures, and Proposed Policies Effects Not Found to Be Significant The IS/NOP prepared for the proposed project did not identify* any effects not found to be significant associated with Libraries. Therefore, all thresholds are addressed in this section. Project Impacts Threshold Would the project result in substantial adverse environmental impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered libraries, or the need for new or physically altered libraries? Impact 4.11.4-1 Implementation of the proposed General Plan Update could result in the need for additional library facilities in order to maintain acceptable service ratios. Upon full buildout of the proposed General Plan Update, the population in the Planning Area would increase by 31,131. This increase in residents would increase the demand for library services and facilities. Policy LU 2.8 of the proposed General Plan Update would help ensure that adequate library facilities are provided to the City's residents and that public services can adequately support new development. However, as stated previously, due to the growing need for electronic resources, former service standards (e.g., a certain number of volumes per thousand residents) are no longer appropriate when assessing the needs of the NBPL. Therefore, increased development in the City does not necessarily immediately equate to an increase in total volumes or square feet of library space. However, through compliance with policies contained in the proposed General Plan Update, it is anticipated that any future identified need would be adequately met. Any development associated with new library facilities would be subject to 4.11-28 City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 43 1 Public Services project -specific environmental review. As such, impacts associated with library services would be less than significant. ' Cumulative Impacts As the NBPL serves the entire City and the proposed General Plan Update is confined to the limits of the City, the geographic context for the analysis of cumulative impacts associated with library services would be the capacity of the NBPL. Since development under the proposed General Plan Update takes into account all projected future growth and development within the City, the project impact, as discussed under Impact 4.11.4-1, also analyzes cumulative impacts with regard to the NBPL. Therefore, ' as discussed in Impact 4.11.4-1, with implementation of the proposed General Plan Update policies, adequate library services would be provided and project impacts would be less than significant. As such, this cumulative impact would also be less than significant. ' Proposed General Plan Update Policies The Land Use Element of the proposed General Plan Update includes policies that would address issues related library services. The policies that are applicable to the project are included below. ' Land Use Element ' Goal A living, active, and diverse environment that complements all lifestyles and enhances neighborhoods, without compromising the valued resources that make Newport Beach unique. It contains a diversity of uses that support the needs of ' residents, sustain and enhance the economy, provide job opportunities, serve visitors that enjoy the City's diverse recreational amenities, and protect its important environmental setting, resources, and quality of life. Policy LU 2.1 Resident Serving Land Uses ' Accommodate uses that support the needs of Newport Beach's residents including housing, retail, services, employment, recreation, education, culture, entertainment, civic engagement, and social and spiritual activity that are in ' balance with the community natural resources, and open spaces. Policy LU 2.8 Adequate Infrastructure ' Accommodate the types, densities, and mix of land uses that can be adequately supported by transportation and utility infrastructure (water, sewer, storm drainage, energy, and so on) and public services (schools, parks, libraries, seniors, youth, police, fire, and so on). ,F' ' City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 4.11.29 Chapter 4 Environmental Analysis A development pattern that retains and complements neighborhoods, commercial and industrial districts, opi environment. Policy LU 3.2 Growth and Change Enhance existing neighborhoods, districts, and corridors, allowing for re -use and infill with uses that are complementary in type, form, scale, and character. Changes in use and/or density/intensity should be considered only in those areas that are economically underperforming, are necessary to accommodate Newport Beach's share of projected regional population growth, improve the relationship and reduce commuting distance between home and jobs, or enhance the values that distinguish Newport Beach as a special place to live for its residents. The scale of growth and new development shall be coordinated with the provision of adequate infrastructure and public services, including standards for acceptable traffic level of service. A diversity of governmental service, institutional, educational, cultural, social, religious, and medical facilities that are available for and enhance the quality of life for residents and are located and designed, to complement Newport Beach's neighborhoods. Policy LU 6.1.1 Adequate Community Supporting Uses Accommodate schools, government administrative and operational facilities, fire stations and police facilities, religious facilities, schools, cultural facilities, museums, interpretative centers, and hospitals to serve the needs of Newport Beach's residents and businesses. Residential neighborhoods that contain a diversity of housing types and supporting uses to meet the needs of Newport Beach's residents and are designed to sustain livability and a high quality of life. Policy LU 6.2.5 Neighborhood Supporting Uses Allow for the integration of uses within residential neighborhoods that support and are complementary to their primary function as a living environment such as schools, parks, community meeting facilities, religious facilities, and comparable uses. These uses shall be designed to assure compatibility with adjoining residential addressing such issues as noise, lighting, and parking. Mitigation Measures mitigation measures are necessary, as the proposed General Plan Update policies fully mitigate the City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 4.11 Public Services Level of Significance After Policies/Mitigation Measures The proposed General Plan Update policies ensure that impacts to libraries would remain less than slgni. cant. 4.11.5 References California Department of Education. 2005. Dataquest Website htm•//datal.cde.ca.gov/dataquest accessed November 18. 2006. Ed Data Website http://www.ed-data.kl2.ca.us/welcome.asp, accessed January 9. California Department of Finance. 2005. Demographic Research Unit, Table E-5, http://www.dof.ca.gov/HTML/DEMOGRAP/E-5a.xls, Accessed December 5. EIP Associates. 2004. General Plan Update Technical Background Report. Newport Beach Fire Department (NBFD). 2005. Personal communication from Steve Bunting, Fire Marshal.18 November. 2005. Written communication from Steve Bunting, Fire Marshal. 22 November. 2005. 31 October. Newport Beach Police Department (NBPD). 2005. Written communication from Todd Hughes, Environmental Services Coordinator. November 7,. 2005. www.nbpd.org/crime—stadsdcs/2004particrimes.asp, Accessed November 8, 2005. Newport Beach Public Library. 2006. Written communication from Linda Katsouleas, Director of Library Services. 6 January. Riley, Tim. NBFD. 2005. Memo to Jean Ferrel, Metro Cities Fire Manager, January 2. City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 4.11.31 '4.12 Recreatilon and Open Space 4.12 RECREATION AND OPEN SPACE 4.12.1 Introduction This section evaluates the impacts of the proposed General Plan Update associated with recreation and open space within the City of Newport Beach. Existing data sources used to prepare this section were taken from EIP Associates, Technical Background Report 2004, and EIP Associates, General Plan Update Recreation Element 2005. ' During the Initial Study process, it was determined that the proposed project would potentially cause impacts associated with substantial physical deterioration of recreational facilities and physical adverse effects on the environmental resulting from expansion or construction or recreational facilities. In addition, the Initial Study determined that the proposed project would potentially cause impacts related to the construction or expansion of facilities in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response ' times or other performance objectives. This impact, although included in the public services section in Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, is analyzed in this section of the EIR. Full bibliographic entries for all reference materials are provided in Section 4.12.6 (References) of this section. Two comment letters associated with recreation and open space were received in response to the (IS/NOP) circulated for the proposed General Plan Update. A Newport Beach resident requested that ' the DEIR include an analysis of the proposed project's adherence to regulations imposed by the Quimby Act. Another comment letter requested that the DEIR contain a discussion of the amount of park and ' open space that will be provided within the boundaries of the Banning Ranch subarea. Section 4.12.5 provides such analyses. ' 4.12.2 Existing Conditions Parklands and recreational facilities are important land use components in an urban environment, ' providing both visual relief from the built environment and contributing to residents' quality of life through recreation and aesthetic value. 'M Parks and Recreational Facilities ' The City has approximately 286 acres of developed parks and approximately 90 acres of active beach recreation acreage, for a total of 376.8 acres 80 Newport Beach's parklands range in size from mini -parks such as the Lower Bay Park (0.1 acre) to the 47.6-acre Bonita Canyon Sports Park. School facilities also provide indoor and outdoor recreational opportunities in the City, while greenbelts and open space areas 80 The term "Active recreation" is used throughout this document and refers to an area or activity that requires the use of organized play areas including, but not limited to, softball, baseball, football, and soccer fields; tennis and basketball courts; and various forms of childreres play equipment. "Passive recreation," conversely, typically does not require the use of organized play areas. Passive recreation areas are often open space areas, which can include "pocket" parks, trails, and other unimproved lands. ' City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 4.12.1 provide passive recreational opportunities or open space relief. These park and recreation facilities are described below. Additionally, bikeways, jogging trails, pedestrian trails, recreation trails, and regional equestrian trails are also available in Newport Beach. Park Types Community Park Community parks serve the entire City and are easily accessible via arterial roads. Community parks are those with improvements such as community buildings, parking, swimming, facilities for picnicking, active sports, and other facilities that serve a larger population. Community Parks may have a particular theme or orientation such as active sports or aquatic facilities. Mini Park. Mini parks are smaller parks which may take one of two different forms. Most mini parks are less than one acre in size, serve a quarter -mile radius and are located within a neighborhood, separate from major or collector roads. Some mini parks serve the entire City and are located as urban trail heads along major trails or streets. Neighborhood Park. Neighborhood parks serve all ages and are generally one to eight acres in size. They are located adjacent to public schools when possible. Neighborhood parks contain a wide variety of improvements which can include turf areas, active sport fields and courts, community buildings, play apparatus and picnic facilities. Other improvements might include senior centers, youth centers, and aquatic facilities. View Park View parks are smaller passive parks designed to take advantage of a significant view. They are often located on coastal bluffs to focus upon ocean or bay views. Most view parks are between one- half to three acres in size and serve the entire City. View parks are generally improved with landscaping, walkways and benches. Greenbelt. Greenbelts in public or private ownership are included in this category. They may include areas with some recreational facilities, although the primary function of the area is passive open space. Open Space. Open space includes passive and active open space areas which do not function as public parks but do provide open space relief. Such areas may or may not be accessible to the general public. Public Beach. Public beaches serve a number of local and regional functions. In some neighborhoods, beaches function as neighborhood or community parks. Easy accessibility, lack of entrance fees, and a lack of other available parks has contributed to this function. Public beaches all include sandy beach areas adjacent to the bay or ocean and may include active sports, snack bars, showers, drinking fountains, restrooms, walkways, docks, benches, shade trees, and parking areas. ]From observation, it has been determined that active beach recreation takes place within About 100 feet of the water's edge. Therefore, this Element treats this seaward 100 feet of the public beaches in the City as active recreation acreage. School. Public schools are a part of the recreation system in the City because field and playground areas can serve the general public during weekends and after school. 4.12.2 City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR '4.12 Recreation and.. Parks ' According to Section 19.52.040 (Parkland Standard) of the City's Municipal Code, the City's parkland standard is five acres per 1,000 residents. As of June 2005, it is estimated that a total of 415.6 acres of ' parklands ate needed within the City to accommodate the current population of 83,120 residents (utilizing the City standard of five acres per 1,000 population). As shown in Table 4.12-1, below, there are an existing total of 286.4 acres of parks and 90.4 acres of active beach recreation within Newport ' Beach with a combined total of 376.8 acres. Thus, this represents a total deficit of 38.8 acres of combined park and beach acreage citywide. L C C Servke Area b)=n9FCI1KAC1eQaU.JuneZwa ParkAcres Needed Park Acres Edsting Active Beach Recreaffon Acreage Combined Parkl Beach Acreage DeficitO EKcess + 1. West Newport 64.7 9.1 34 43.1 -21.6 2. Balboa Peninsula 26.5 6.5 44 50.5 +25.0 3. Newport Heights/Upper Bay 64.3 50.2 0 50.2 -14.1 4. Santa Ana Heights 3.2 6.8 0 6.8 +3.6 5. Lower Bay 17.3 0.1 0 0.1 -17.2 6. Balboa Island 17.9 0.3 1 1.3 -16.6 7. Eastbluff 31.3 71.0 0 71.0 +39.7 8. Big Canyon 13.9 0 0 0 -13.9 9. Newport Center 10.9 19 0 19 +8.1 10. Corona del Mar 44.4 1 23.9 1 11.4 1 35.3 1 -9.1 11. Harbor View 72.2 99.5 0 99.5 +27.3 12. Newport Coast* 50 58.1` 0 .50 Totals 415.6 a 286.4 90.4 6 376.8 -38.8" • Newport Coast Private Park Area is 58.1 ac. Newport Coast parks use and maintenance are suatecr TO me terms or me rie- Annexation Agreement. "Deficit/excess acreage if no additional parks are built. 083,120 x 5 cc. per thousand = 415.6 cc. b Includes beach area where active recreation takes place (i.e., typically within 100 feet of the water). In addition, there are 174 acres of passive beach open space, 136 acres of open space land in the Upper Bay Ecological reserve, and an undetermined amount of water open space in the Upper Bay and Newport Harbor. The acreages are presented by service area, a designation created by the City for ease of park planning, overall operations, and parkland maintenance. These divisions also allow equitable administration of parkland dedications and fees provided by residential development. Seven of the 12 service areas are experiencing a deficit in this combined recreation acreage. Three planned parks in West Newport, Newport Center, and Newport Coast would help alleviate the citywide park deficit. In addition to a deficit in combined park and beach recreation acreage, there is also an overall shortage in active playfields throughout Newport Beach. Many of the service areas within the City, as discussed in greater detail below, may have a park surplus but are still experiencing a deficit in active playfields. Also, it is difficult to provide playfields because of the large amount of land required for sports fields, the lack of suitable 1 City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 4.12-3 Chapter 4 Environmental Analysis vacant land, and the high cost of such land within the City. Existing parks are illustrated on Figure 4.12-1, proposed parks and the City's service areas are displayed on Figure 4.12-2. Circulation and Improvement and Open Space Agreement Some of the City's parks and open space areas consist of dedicated lands through the Circulation and Improvement and Open Space Agreement (CIOSA). This agreement is between the City.of Newport Beach and The Irvine Company, and has allowed building entitlements for The Irvine Company in exchange for payments for circulation projects, an interest free loan, and land for open space and potential senior housing sites for the City. The amount of open space land dedication was substantially more than what would have been required under the City's Park Dedication Ordinance. Six sites have been dedicated under CIOSA in Newport Beach, and include: Back Bay View Park, Newport Center Park (formerly Newport Village), Newporter Knoll, Freeway Reservation, Upper Castaways, and Harbor Cove. Another site, located at Jamboree Road and MacArthur Boulevard, has been offered for dedication and will be dedicated upon issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for final CIOSA project Recreational facilities The City's parks contain a variety of recreational facilities, with areas available for organized sports including soccer fields, baseball diamonds, tennis courts, volleyball courts, and basketball courts. Recreational opportunities exist for children in many of the play areas in the City's parks. Biking and walking trails are also popular recreational amenities. Swimming pools are available to the public at aquatic facilities at the Marian Bergeson Aquatic Center and Newport Harbor High School through joint use agreements with the Newport -Mesa Unified School District. Additional recreational resources in the City include three community centers, several multipurpose recreation centers, a senior center, and two gymnasium facilities. Locations of these recreational facilities are also shown on Figure 4.12-1. Private facilities, including yacht clubs, golf courses, and country clubs are also facilities that serve residents of Newport Beach. Sharing of Parks and Recreation Facilities Public schools within the City under the jurisdiction of the Newport -Mesa Unified School District contain a number of important recreation facilities. Currently, after -school recreational use of these facilities is utilized by youth and adult residents through joint use agreements between the school district and the City. 4.12-4 City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR CITY of NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL PLAN UPDATE EIR Figure 4.12-1 SERVICE AREA LOCATIONS Legend ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ SERVICE AREA BOUNDARY g O Mle Soucx NanDntl/anq�.n 3Nnit Jue t99& %WNM t061 EIP CITY of NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL PLAN UPDATE EIR Figure 4.12-2 PROPOSED PARK AND RECREATIONAL FACILITIES Legend rr# Newport Center Park !!!� Sunset Ridge Park Rklge Park Road Park Santa Aro HeUhls rk Pocket Pa' Morino Park 1 Soma Ano Vghts LJ Communi Park �j NElwpon Gott Community Center" ❑B Oays Senior Center" rJ SeMce Areo Boundary �i City Boundary 0'%0 Highway O County Boundary bocl bcofim al Prcpmstl PJJ9ope POh to CatlFxmceC " Npgwlkro of entllip IIX'fly g 0 0.5 1 SaErar: LN tY Nw.}piB Jr.'M'b 4bEPME}.`bla'DN ,i.1 %. lw?gm 4.12 Recreation and Open Space ■ Marine Recreation and Facilities Throughout its history, Newport Beach has been a major marine recreational center. There are over eight miles of sandy beaches that provide opportunities for sunbathing, volleyball, swimming, surfing, windsurfing and other recreational activities. Newport Bay and Harbor are used for a wide variety of recreational activities, including boating, diving, excursions, fishing, kayaking, paddle boarding, parasailing, towing, sailing, swimming, and windsurfing. Coastal Recreation Opportunities As previously discussed, public beaches serve a number of local and regional functions, while providing the largest coastal recreation opportunity within Newport Beach. Public beaches all include sandy beach areas adjacent to the bay or ocean and may include active sports, snack bars, showers, drinking fountains, restrooms, walkways, docks, benches, shade trees and parking areas. Public beaches are shown in Figure 4-12-1. Other coastal recreation opportunities include two recreational piers, provided by the City. The 800-foot Newport Pier is located at the end of Newport Boulevard (McFadden Place) in McFadden Square. The 950-foot Balboa Pier is located at the end of Main Street in Balboa Village. Additionally, the City provides ten public docks in the harbor, which can be used for boat launching and fishing. The Newport Aquatic Center property is also co -owned by the City and County, but is leased and privately operated by the Center. Located on Northstar Beach, the Newport Aquatic Center provides an opportunity for the public and members to kayak and canoe in Upper Newport Bay as well as advanced training facilities for world -class athletes. The County and the State own four recreational areas in Newport Beach, as shown in Figure 4.12-1. The privately operated 100-acre Newport Dunes Aquatic Park provides opportunities for camping, boating, canoeing, kayaking, swimming and other water and beach activities. The 752-acre Upper Newport Bay State Marine Park (formerly Ecological Reserve) and 140-acre Upper Newport Bay Nature Preserve provide opportunities for canoeing, kayaking, horseback riding, biking, and hiking. Lastly, Crystal Cove State Park also provides coastal recreation opportunities with 3.5 miles of beach and 2,000 acres of undeveloped woodland which is popular for biking, hiking, and horseback riding. Approximately 240 acres is located within the City. The offshore waters are designated as an underwater park. The beach is popular with swimmers and surfers. Visitors can explore tidepools and sandy coves. Commercial areas adjacent to beaches and the bay play an important role in providing and enhancing recreational activities. A large number of businesses provide recreational services to residents and visitors that include charter, entertainment and excursion vessels, sports equipment rentals, launching facilities, amusement facilities, and shops and restaurants. City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 4.12.9 Shoreline Access The public's right to access recreational features such as the Pacific Ocean beaches, Lower Newport Bay/Harbor, and Upper Newport Bay are important. According to the City's Coastal Land Use Plan, there are two basic types of public access; vertical access (access to the shoreline), and lateral access (access along the shoreline). Newport Beach has developed an extensive system of access to ocean beaches and the bay. Virtually all of the Pacific Ocean shoreline beaches are public and' the bay is accessible via public beaches, parks, street ends, shoreline trails, walkways, and boardwalks. ® Parkland Needs by Service Areas Although the City of Newport Beach appears largely built out, there are a number of vacant parcels available for future development. The proposed General Plan Update Land Use Element projects additional population increases through infill development, intensification of existing uses, and annexations. Therefore, in addition to any unmet park and recreation needs of the present population, the demand for recreation facilities will grow. In addition, the Land Use Element allows for higher density development within the City, where opportunities for different types of park and recreational facilities may arise. Specific service area needs for parks and recreational facilities, as well as marine recreation and facilities, are described below. Park Surplus Two of the 12 service areas within the City, Newport Center and Harbor View, have no identified park and recreation needs, as discussed below. Service Area 9-Newport Center. There is park surplus within tivs service area. The Back Bay View Park was completed in the summer of 2005, and a new passive park, Newport Center Park, is planned for development sometime after 2006. Service Area 11—Harbor View. There is a surplus in park area, and the Harbor View service area contains substantial active and passive recreation facilities within this service area. Park Needs Service Area 1—West Newport. Most of West Newport's recreation land is in beaches. There is a deficit of 21.6 acres, and a need for sports fields within a new community or neighborhood -level park. There is a future park site identified in this service area, Sunset Ridge Park, which is designated as an active park to include ball fields, picnic areas, a playground, parking, and restrooms. Additionally, an active community park (possibly lighted) is planned in Banning Ranch, regardless of the ultimate development of the site, to accommodate the service area and Citywide needs for active sports fields. Service Area 2—Balboa Peninsula. Like West Newport, most of the peninsula's recreation area is in beaches. This area has little vacant land for development and the population is expected to remain stable. Although there is currently a surplus in park acreage, any future park needs can be satisfied via the 4.12.10 City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 4.12 Recreation and Open Space ' renovation and upgrading of facilities, such as those at Las Arenas Park and Peninsula Park. Additional ' active park facilities are desirable, along with support facilities such as restrooms, showers and drinking fountains. There is also a need for additional boat launching and mooring facilities, as well as pedestrian pathways to and along the Bay. ' Service Area 3—Newport Heights/Harbor Highlands. This area is largely built out and contains several important park and recreation facilities. Substantial school recreation facilities, including Newport ' Harbor High School, Ensign Junior High, Mariners Elementary, and Newport Heights Elementary, compensate for the deficiency in total park area. Service Area 4—Santa Ana Heights/Airport Commercial. There is currently a park surplus, and the present two -acre Bayview Park and the proximity of the Upper Bay recreation area provide substantial recreational opportunities for this area. There is also a planned pocket park and the City is planning a joint use community center project with the YMCA. However, this service area is experiencing a shortfall in active playfields. In addition, the population within this service area is expected to increase under the proposed General Plan Update. Future development, however, will be subject to special provisions that require the provision of on -site recreational amenities, and dedication of land or payment of in -lieu fees. Currently, there is no open space available to develop an active park in this area. Service Area 5—Lower Bay. This area contains Lido Isle and the Bayside Drive area and is largely built out. Although there is a deficiency in park area, the service area has substantial private recreational and boating facilities. It is also adjacent to Area 3 (Newport Heights) where there are extensive recreational facilities. Because of these factors and the fact there is little or no vacant land suitable for park use, the provision of additional parkland is probably not feasible in this area. Service Area 6—Balboa Island. This area is similar, in terms of recreation needs and conditions with a deficiency in park area, to Area 5 above. However, Balboa Island contains more public recreational t facilities in the form of public beach area, the Carroll Beek Community Center, and Balboa Island Park (a mini park). The acquisition of additional parkland is probably not feasible in this area. Service Area 7—Eastbluff/North Ford. Although there is a numerical excess of existing parkland in this area, most of the land is limited to passive use, such as Big Canyon Park, Additional sports fields and other active facilities will be needed to satisfy the recreational demands from new development. However, this Service Area is adjacent to Service Area 11 Harbor View, which contains the 47.6 acre sports park in Bonita Canyon that is available to all Newport Beach residents. Service Area 8—Big Canyon/Belcourt. Although there are substantial private facilities, there are no public recreation facilities in this area; thus, there is park deficiency. However, this service area is adjacent ' to service area 11 Harbor View, which contains the 47.6 acre Bonita Canyon Sports Park that is available to all Newport Beach residents. ' Service Area 10—Corona del Mar. Although there is a deficiency in park area, existing active and passive facilities should meet present and future need, provided these facilities are renovated and upgraded to meet demand for sports fields and active recreation. City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 4•12-11 Service Area 12---Newport Coast. This area is deficient in public facilities, but exceeds the City park ratio standard if its extensive private facilities are included. Currently, there is one public park planned for development in the future at the end of Ridge Road, and a neighborhood community center that will include meeting and activity rooms and a gymnasium. The remaining parks in the service area are operated and maintained pursuant to the Pre -Annexation Agreement, which requires that the City lease back public open space areas and parks to one or more of the homeowners associations in the service area. The City+'s Recreation Department has not been permitted to offer programs at the privately - operated parks. 4.12.3 Regulatory Setting ■ Federal Regulations There are no Federal regulations applicable to parkland or recreational facilities. ■ State Regulations Quimby Act The QuhvGy Act was established by the California legislature in 1965 to provide parks for the growing communities in California. The Act authorizes cities to adopt ordinances addressing park land and/or fees for residential subdivisions for the purpose of providing and preserving open space and recreational facilities and improvements. The Act requires the provision of three acres of park area per 1,000 persons residing within a subdivision, unless the amount of existing neighborhood and community park area exceeds that limit, in which case the City may adopt a higher standard not to exceed five acres per 1,000 residents. The Act also specifies acceptable uses and expenditures of such funds. State Public Park Preservation Act The primary instrument for protecting and preserving parkland is the State Public Park Preservation Act. Under the Public Resource Code, cities and counties may not acquire any real property that is in use as a public park for any non park use unless compensation or land, or both, are provided to replace the parkland acquired. This provides no net loss of parkland and facilities. State Street and Highway Code The State Street and Highway Code assists in providing equestrian and hiking trails within the right-of- way of County roads, streets, and highways. II i L! I Ti n I, I I� 4.12.12 City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR I 4.12 Recreation and Open Space ■ Local Regulations City of Newport Beach Park Dedication Ordinance Parkland dedication standards associated with the Quimby Act and the Newport Beach Subdivision Code are applicable to development in the City. Chapter 19.52, Park Dedication and Fees of the City's Municipal Code provides for the dedication of land, the payment of fees in lieu thereof or a combination of both, for park or recreational purposes in conjunction with the approval of residential development. Newport Beach's park dedication requirement is five acres per 1,000 persons. In -lieu fees are placed in a fund earmarked for the provision or rehabilitation of park and recreation facilities that can serve the subdivision. The park dedication ordinance also provides for credit to be given, at the discretion of the City Council, for the provision of private recreation facilities within a new residential development or for the provision of park. and recreation improvements to land dedicated for a public park. If allowed, the private facilities or public improvements are credited against the dedication of land and/or the payment of in -lieu fees. The ordinance is not applicable to non-residential subdivisions. City of Newport Beach Circulation Improvement and Open Space Agreement Another important agreement that contributes to the City's development and acquisition of parkland and open space areas is the CIOSA, an agreement with the Irvine Company. In exchange for various building entitlements, the City of Newport Beach receives pre -payment of required "fair -share" road improvement fees, a commitment to construct road improvements adjacent to the proposed projects, an interest free loan, and land for recreation and open space areas and potential senior housing sites. 4.12.4 Thresholds of Significance The following thresholds of significance are based on Appendix G of the 2005 CEQA Guidelines. For purposes of this EIR, implementation of the proposed project may have a significant adverse impact on 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 City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 4.12-13 Chapter 4 Environmental Analysis 4.12.5 Project Impacts, Mitigation Measures, and Proposed Policies Effects Not Found to Be Significant The IS/NOP prepared for the proposed project did not identify any effects not found to be significant associated with recreation and open space. Therefore, all thresholds are addressed in this section. ■ Project Impacts Threshold Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility Would occur or be accelerated? Impact 4.12-1 Implementation of the proposed General Plan Update could result in increased use of existing parks or recreational facilities that could accelerate physical deterioration of those facilities. As discussed previously, there is currently a deficit of approximately 38.8 acres of combined park and beach acreage citywide, with seven of the 12 service areas experiencing a deficit in this combined recreation acreage. An increase in population resulting from implementation of the proposed General Plan Update may place a higher demand on these facilities such that deterioration of these facilities could be accelerated. The proposed General Plan Update does propose the construction and expansion of park and recreational facilities in the future; however, it is possible that the pace of development for these new parkland and recreational facilities may not be the same as rate of population growth in the City. Thus, the possibility exists for the accelerated deterioration of existing recreational facilities due to increased demand and use. However, the proposed General Plan Update simultaneously provides goals and associated policies to address these potential issues. For example, Goal R 2 requires the maintenance and preservation of existing parks and recreation facilities. Among the policies designated to accomplish this goal is Policy R 2.1, which promotes dhe use of funding from the City's Park Dedication Fee Ordinance to enhance existing parks and recreation facilities. Policy R 2.2 contributes to dais goal by protecting public parkland from non -recreational uses, requiring that any loss of parkland through governmental action be replaced in -kind. In addition, Goal R 1 strives to provide adequate park and recreational facilities that meet the recreational needs of existing and new residents of the community. Among the policies identified to achieve this goal include Policy R 1.1, which requires future development to dedicate land or pay in -lieu fees at a minimum of five acres of parkland per 1,000 residents (per existing City code). In addition, Policy R 1.4 requires the park fee assessed to new residential development to be updated regularly, and Policy R 1.5 considers development of incentives for private development to provide usable open space. Developers of new high -density residential developments on parcels eight acres or larger are required to provide on -site recreational amenities, as required under Policy R 1.3. Policy R 1.10 provides additional 11 I I 1 I I r i 4.12-14 City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 4.12 Recreation and Open Space n I I 7 LI park and recreational facilities that meet the needs as identified by direct feedback from residents, analysis of future trends, and through observations by Recreation and Senior Services staff. The construction and enhancement of park and recreational facilities and implementation of the goals and policies proposed in the General Plan would ensure that increased demand and use resulting from an increase in citywide population would not significantly accelerate the deterioration of existing recreational facilities. This impact would be less than signiffcant. Impacts to the Airport Area Although impacts related to physical deterioration of recreational facilities are considered less than significant for the majority of the Planning Area, there is a greater possibility for impacts to occur in Airport Area. Currently, the Airport Area has no residential units. The proposed General Plan Update could add 4,300 multi -family residential units to this area. Because no residential development exists in this area today, there are no existing park facilities. New residents would most likely use the 47.6-acre Bonita Canyon Sports Park, which is open to all City residents. However, this park is already being fully utilized, and the increased usage resulting from the increase in population could contribute to this facility's physical deterioration. Policy LU 6.15.15 of the proposed General Plan Update requires residential developers to dedicate and develop a neighborhood park of at least eight percent of gross land area, with a minimum size of one acre, in the first phase of development in each residential neighborhood. This is in addition to the private recreational facilities required in proposed General Plan Update Policy R 1.3. The recreational facilities provided by these policies would be at the neighborhood level, and there is the potential for additional use and deterioration of existing sports fields at Bonita Creek and Bonita Canyon Sports Park. However, the policies under Goal R 2 of the proposed General Plan Update would help ensure that existing parks and recreation facilities are maintained and preserved. Implementation of Policy R 2.1 would maintain existing facilities, thereby reducing impacts related to deterioration, by using funding from the City's Park Dedication Fee Ordinance to enhance existing parks and facilities such as Bonita Canyon Sports Park. With implementation of Policy R 2.1, impacts related to deterioration of parks and recreation facilities in the Airport Area would be less than signMeant. Threshold Would the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? and Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new pr 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? ' City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 4.12.15 Impact 4.12-2 Implementation of the proposed General Plan Update could include new parks and recreational facilities to maintain acceptable service ratios. The proposedproject could result in adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of these facilities. Implementation of the proposed General Plan Update would entail both construction and expansion of parks and recreational facilities to suit the needs of current and future City residents. The proposed General Plan Update could result in population increases through infill development and intensification of existing uses. Therefore, in addition to any unmet park and recreation needs of the present population, the demand for recreation facilities will grow. In addition, the proposed General Plan Update allows for higher density development within the City, where opportunities for different types of park and recreational facilities may arise. As stated previously, as of June 2005, it was estimated that a total of 415.6 acres of parkland were needed within the City to accommodate the current population of 83,120 residents (utilizing the City standard of five acres per 1,000 population). With approximately 376.8 acres of existing parkland (including active beach recreation areas), there was a total deficit of approximately 38.8 acres of combined park and beach acreage citywide. Policy R 1.10 in the proposed Recreation Element includes three planned parks in West Newport, Newport Center, and Newport Coast, a planned pocket park and a potential park site in Santa Ana Heights, would help alleviate this deficit, but there are also existing shortfalls of specific recreational facilities including, but not limited to, active playfields, indoor sports facilities, community pool facilities, and boating facilities. The proposed General Plan Update strives to alleviate these park and recreational deficits through the goals and policies identified within the Recreation Element. For example, Policy R 1.1 requires future development to maintain the City standard by dedicating land or paying in -lieu fees at a minimum of five acres of parkland per 1,000, and Policy R 1.4 requires the park fee assessed to new residential development to be updated on a regular basis. Policy R 1.5 considers the possibility of incentives for private commercial and office development to provide usable open space such as rooftop courts, pocket parks, public plazas, jogging trails, and pedestrian trails. In addition, Policy R 1.10 would provide additional park and recreation facilities that meet the needs as identified by direct feedback from residents, analysis of future trends, and through observations by Recreation and Senior Services staff. Future development under the proposed General Plan Update could also include a relatively new land use within the City —high density residential. This new type of land use may include non-traditional types of recreational facilities. Policy R1.3 would requite developers of new high -density residential developments on parcels eight acres or larger, to provide on -site recreational amenities. For these developments, 44 square feet of on -site recreational amenities shall be provided for each dwelling unit in addition to the requirements under the City's Park Dedication Ordinance. On -site recreational amenities can consist of public urban plazas or squares where there is the capability for recreation and outdoor activity. These recreational amenities can also include swimming pools, exercise facilities, tennis courts, and basketball courts. Where there is insufficient land to provide on -site recreational amenities, the developer shall be required to pay the City of Newport Beach cash in -lieu that would be used to develop or upgrade nearby recreation facilities to offset user demand as defined in the City's Park Dedication Fee 4.12-16 City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 4.12 Recreation and Open Space II Ordinance. Thus, implementation of Policy R 1.3, coupled with the City's park dedication fee, would provide adequate park and recreational facilities to serve the proposed new land use. Adherence to these policies contained in the proposed General Plan Update would ensure that acceptable parkland ratios are maintained. Development of the facilities to maintain this ratio could result in adverse physical impacts to the environment. For example, while the Sunset Ridge and Santa Ana Heights park sites are disturbed, and are not likely to contain sensitive resources, there could be lighting and glare impacts if Sunset Ridge is developed with lighted fields. The Newport Center, Newport Coast and Banning Ranch park locations have not experienced development or much disturbance,'and aesthetic, biological, or hydrology impacts could occur from their development as parks. All significant new development of recreational facilities would be subject to the City's environmental review process which includes project -specific environmental review under CEQA. Consequently, through the environmental review process, the future provision of new or physically altered parks or recreational facilities would not result in substantial adverse physical impacts. This impact is less than significant. ■ Cumulative Impacts The geographic context for the analysis of cumulative impacts associated with parks and recreational facilities is the City of Newport Beach and its SOI, including all cumulative growth therein, as represented by full implementation of the proposed General Plan Update. Development under the proposed General Plan Update could have a significant adverse affect on existing parks and recreational facilities in terms of increased use. However, the proposed General Plan Update policies which require future development to dedicate land or pay in -lieu fees at a minimum of five acres of parkland per 1,000 persons, and require the use of funding from the City's Park Dedication Fee Ordinance to enhance existing parks and recreation facilities (proposed General Plan Update Policies R1.1 and R2.1), among several other related proposed policies, would reduce impacts related to deterioration of existing parks and recreation facilities. Thus, adverse physical impacts related to the expansion and construction of parks and recreational facilities would not be cumulatively considerable. Therefore, the proposed General Plan Update's cumulative impact would be less than significant. Cumulative development under the proposed General Plan Update would result in the development parkland and recreational facilities in order to maintain acceptable service ratios (five acres per 1,000 residents). Development of new facilities would be done in accordance with policies contained in the General Plan Update, including Policies 111.1 and 111.2. All significant new development of recreational facilities would be subject to the City's environmental review process which includes project -specific environmental review under CEQA. Consequently, through the environmental review process, the future provision of new or physically altered parks or recreational facilities in the Planning Area would not result in substantial adverse physical impacts. Consequently, the projeces contribution to this impact would not be cumulatively considerable. The proposed General Plan Update's cumulative impact would be less than significant. City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 4.12-17 Chapter 4 Environmental Analysis ■ Proposed General Plan Update Policies The Recreation Element of the proposed General Plan Update includes policies that would address issues related to recreation within the City of Newport Beach. The policies that are applicable to the project are included below. Policies identified below that are also contained in the Harbor and Bay Element are denoted with an "HB". Land Use Element Goal LU 6.15 A mixed -use community that provides jobs, residential, and supporting services in close proximity, with pedestrian -oriented amenities that facilitates walking and enhance livability. Policy LU 6.15.15 Standards To provide a focus and identity for the entire neighborhood and to serve the daily recreational and commercial needs of the community within easy walking distance of homes, dedicate and improve at least eight percent of the gross land area (exclusive of existing rights -of -way) of the first phase of development in each neighborhood as a neighborhood park. In every case, the neighborhood park shall be at least one acre in area and shall have a minimum dimension of 150 feet. Park acreage shall be exclusive of existing or new rights -of -way, development sites, or setback areas. A neighborhood park shall satisfy some or all of the requirements of the Parkland Dedication Ordinance, as prescribed by the Recreation Element of the General Plan. This requirement may be waived for the Quail Street residential neighborhood provided that it can be demonstrated that the development parcels tie too small to feasibly accommodate the park. On -site common open space may be used to satisfy a portion of the parkland dedication requirements if the open space is at least 10,000 square feet in area; one side abuts a public right-of-way; and it is open to the public during daylight hours. Recreation Element Goal R 1 Provision of Facilities —Provision of adequate park and recreation facilities that meet the recreational needs of existing and new residents of the community. Policy R 1.1 Provision of Parkland Require future development to dedicate land or pay in -lieu fees at a minimum of 5 acres of parkland per 1,000 persons. Policy R 1.2 New Residential Subdivisions Require developers of new residential subdivisions to provide parklands at five acres per 1,000 persons, as stated in the City's Park Dedication Fee Ordinance, 4.12.18 City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR II 4.12 Recreation and Open Space or to contribute in -lieu fees for the development of public recreation facilities meeting demands generated by the development's resident population. Policy R 1.3 High -Density Residential Developments Require developers of new high -density residential developments on parcels eight acres or larger, to provide on -site recreational amenities. For these developments, 44 square feet of on -site recreational amenities shall be provided for each dwelling unit in addition to the requirements under the City's Park Dedication Ordinance. On -site recreational amenities can consist of public urban plazas or squares where there is the capability for recreation and outdoor activity. These recreational amenities can also include swimming pools, exercise facilities, tennis courts, and basketball courts. Where there is insufficient land to provide on -site recreational amenities, the developer shall be required to pay the City of Newport Beach cash in -lieu that would be used to develop or upgrade nearby recreation facilities to offset user demand as defined in the City's Park Dedication Fee Ordinance. The acreage of on -site open space developed with residential projects may be credited against the parkland dedication requirements where it is accessible to the public during daylight hours, visible from public rights -of -way, and is of sufficient size to accommodate recreational use by the public. However, the credit for the provision of on -site open space shall not exceed 30% of the parkland dedication requirements. Policy R 1.4 Park Fee Update Update the park fee assessed to new residential development in lieu of dedicating park land on a regular basis Policy R 1.5 Density Bonuses Consider development of incentives such as density bonuses for private commercial, office, and other developments to provide usable open space such as rooftop courts, pocket parks, public plazas, jogging trails, and pedestrian trails. Policy R 1.6 Parkland Acquisition Criteria Use the following criteria when considering acquisition for parkland: a. City's identified current and projected needs for recreation and sports facilities b. City's needs for recreation facilities based on location of existing facilities c. The preservation of natural resources, historic and cultural areas d. Ease of accessibility e. Usability of proposed parklands considering topography and other landform constraints f. Consistency with established parks and recreational facility Goal City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 4.12-19 Chapter 4 Environmental Analysis g. Fiscal impact on General Fund for any immediately needed refurbishments and on -going maintenance h. The existence of a deficiency in a particular Service .Area Policy R 1.9 Parkland Site Suitability In the event that surplus school sites become available for parkland acquisition, site desirability should be evaluated using the following criteria: a. Does the school site currently provide recreational facilities that have been identified to meet local or community -wide needs? b. Are other public lands in the vicinity of the school site inadequate to meet the identified existing or foreseeable needs of the community for recreation or open space purposes? c. Is the school site a more economical or otherwise more feasible alternative than other parcels which are available as potential sites in the area? Policy R 1.8 Private Parldand Coordinate with the appropriate home owners association to conduct City recreation programs on private parkland. Policy R 1.9 Passive Parks Use underutilized City rights -of -way located on Ocean Boulevard and Bayside Drive in Corona del Mat as passive parks, Policy R 1.10 Priority for Facility Provision Provide additional park and recreation facilities that meet the needs as identified by direct feedback from residents, analysis of future trends, and through observations by Recreation and Senior Services staff, as shown in Figure R2 Parks 1. Newport Center Service Area: Develop Newport Center Park as a passive park 2. West Newport Service Area: Develop Sunset Ridge Park, an active park with playfields, picnic areas, a playground, and other facilities 3. Newport Coast Service Area: Develop an active park located at the end of Ridge Park Road, and develop a community center and a gymnasium 4. Santa Ana Heights/Airport Commercial Service Area: Develop a pocket park in Santa Ana Heights 5. West Newport Service Area: In the Banning ranch area develop an active community park of 20 to 30 acres with consideration of night lighting 6. Balboa Peninsula Service ,Area: Develop the Marina Park site for marine and/or recreational facilities 4.12-20 City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR I 4.12 Recreation and Open Space 1 II II Recreation Facilities 1. Complete the Santa Ana Heights and Newport Coast Community Centers in a manner that allows the provision of a variety of recreational programs while meeting the needs of the community 2. Renovate the Oasis Senior Center to continue to function as a multipurpose senior center that meets the needs of the senior population 3. Renovate the existing recreation facilities to ensure they are a safe environment and offer quality programs and services Policy R 1.11 Update of Priority for Facility Provision Review the list of identified community park and recreation needs on a regular basis, and update them as priorities for facilities change. Policy R 1.12 Update of Priority Usage Review policies regularly for priority usage of facilities to ensure fair and balanced assignments. Priority hierarchy shall be weighted for programs that are inclusive in nature and provide for the recreational enrichment of community's youth, adults, groups, and businesses. Scheduling shall be done in a manner that accommodates both the needs of organized activities as well as casual use by residents. Consideration shall also be given to the proper maintenance and revitalization of facilities when scheduling programs and activities. Goal R 2 Maintenance and Preservation —Maintenance and preservation of existing parks and recreation facilities Policy R 2.1 Enhancement of Facilities Use funding from the City's Park Dedication Fee Ordinance to enhance existing parks and recreation facilities. Policy R 2.2 Preservation of Public Parkland Protect public parkland from non -recreational uses; any loss of parkland through governmental action shall be replaced in -kind. Policy R 2.3 Preservation of Public Beaches Preserve all public beaches for public only purposes. Goal R 3 Accessibility of Facilities —Accessible parks and recreation facilities to persons with disabilities Policy R 3.1 Adequate Access Ensure that parks and recreation facilities include provisions for adequate access for persons with disabilities and that existing facilities are appropriately City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 4.12-21 Chapter 4 Environmental Analysis retrofitted to include such access as required by the Americans with Disabilities Act. Goal R 5 Joint Use Facilities —Maximized use of the community's recreational resources by coordinating with the agencies responsible for non -city recreational facilities and open space. Policy R 5.1 Non -City Facilities and Open Space Utilize non -City recreational facilities and open space (i.e., Newport -Mesa Unified School District, county, and state facilities) to supplement the park and recreational needs of the community. Maintain the use of existing shared facilities, and expand the use of non -city facilities/amenities where desirable and. feasible. Policy R 5.2 School Districts Expand and maintain existing joint use agreements with Newport -Mesa Unified School District for use of facilities that will enhance the provision of parks and recreational facilities for residents. Policy R 5.3 New Joint -Use Agreements Develop additional long-term, joint -use agreements with other public and private agencies to assure recreation facilities for future generations. Policy R 5.4 Maintenance of Existing Facilities Maintain existing joint use of facilities for City -operated recreational programs on City -owned properties that are used for other purposes, as needed., Policy R 5.5 Public Facilities Design public facilities to incorporate recreational elements such as children's play areas, rooftop courts, pocket parks, and usable public plazas. Policy R 5.6 New joint -Use Facilities Explore use of government -owned surplus or remnant parcels for public park use. Goal R 6 Provision of Coastal Recreational Opportunities —Protection and enhancement of a wide -range of recreational opportunities along the coast and beaches. Policy R 6.1 Protection of Recreational Opportunities Protect recreational opportunities along the coast and beaches from non - recreational uses. Where feasible, expand and enhance recreational opportunities along the coast and beaches. 4,12-22 City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR U 4.12 Recreation and Open Policy R 6.2 Interagency Coordination Cooperate with the State Department of Parks and Recreation, the State Department of Fish and Game, and Orange County to protect, expand and enhance opportunities for recreational activities at County and State beaches and parks. Policy R 6.3 Recreational Commercial Uses Allow recreational commercial uses in commercial areas adjacent to beaches and the bay. Goal R 8 Provision of Marine Recreation Facilities —Provision and maintenance of marine recreation related facilities that enhance the enjoyment of the City's natural resources Policy R 8.1 Existing Facilities Utilize existing City marine recreational facilities, including piers, docks, bays, beaches and educational and support facilities such as the intercollegiate rowing facilities, marine ways and services, launching facilities, pump -out stations, parking facilities, restrooms, showers, drinking fountains, and concessions. Policy R 8.2 Provision of New Facilities Provide additional marine recreational, educational and support facilities and opportunities as feasible. Policy R 8.5 Support Facilities Protect and, where feasible, expand, and enhance: (Policy HB6.4) ■ Waste pump -out stations ■ Vessel launching facilities ■ Low-cost public launching facilities ■ Marinas and dry boat storage facilities ■ Guest docks at public facilities, yacht clubs and at privately owned -marinas, restaurants and other appropriate locations ■ Facilities and services for visiting vessels • Facilities necessary to support vessels berthed or moored in the harbor, such as boat haul out facilities ■ Existing harbor support uses serving the needs of existing waterfront uses, recreational boaters, the boating community, and visiting vessels ' City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 4.12.23 Goal R 9 Provision of Public Access —Provision and maintenance of public access for recreational purposes to the City's coastal resources. (Goal HB6) Policy R 9.1 Provision of Public Coastal Access Provide adequate public access to the shoreline, beach, coastal parks, trails, and bay, acquire additional public access points to these areas and provide parking, where possible. (Policy HB6.1) Policy R 9.5 Private/Gated Communities Protect public access to coastal resources from private/gated communities. ® Impacts and Mitigation Measures No mitigation measures are necessary, as the proposed General Plan Update policies fully mitigate the impacts. Level of Significance After Policies/Mitigation Measures After implementation of the proposed General Plan Update policies, impacts to parks and recreational facilities would be less than significant 4.12.6 References EIP Associates. 2004. Technical Background Report. . 2005. General Plan Update Recreation Element. 4.12.24 City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR ' 4.13 Transportation/Traffic 4.13 TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC 4.13.1 Introduction This section evaluates the potential for implementation of the proposed General Plan Update to result in impacts to traffic, circulation, parking, access, and other transportation modes, including the potential for the proposed General Plan Update to increase local and regional traffic volumes, exceed a level of service (LOS) standard, increase hazards due to a design feature, interfere with emergency access, result in an inadequate parking supply, or conflict with applicable alternative transportation programs. Data used in preparation of this section is taken from the City of Newport Beach General Plan Transportation Study (GPTS) conducted for the project by Urban Crossroads (UC) and included as Appendix D of this document (the appendices to the traffic report itself can be found on the City's website). The GPTS evaluates existing traffic conditions at the project area, future traffic conditions at the project area (without implementation of the proposed General Plan Update), and traffic conditions following implementation of the proposed General Plan Update. The GPTS evaluated two buildout alternatives: Without Project (buildout of existing General Plan) and With Project (buildout of proposed General Plan Update) conditions. In addition, a supplement to the GPTS was prepared to analyze the direct effects of the proposed General Plan Update without surrounding regional growth (Existing With Project). The supplement to the GPTS is included as Appendix E. This scenario identifies traffic growth related only to the anticipated growth within the City of Newport Beach. Full bibliographic entries for all reference materials are provided in Section 4.13.6 (References) of this section. Seven comment letters associated with transportation and traffic were received in response to the IS/NOP circulated for the proposed General Plan Update. One comment letter requested that the DEIR include an analysis of all intersection improvements and associated potential impacts, including consideration of feasible alternatives. Two comment letters received from adjacent municipalities also requested that the DEIR include an analysis of impacts due to proposed transportation improvements, particularly in terms of impacts at intersections bordering the neighboring municipalities of Irvine and Costa Mesa. Both John Wayne Airport GWA) and the California Department of Transportation requested that the DEIR adhere to all regional, State, and Federal regulations that apply to transportation. Another comment letter requested that the DEIR discuss proposed mitigation measures for particularly congested intersections, availability of funding for transportation improvements, and impacts related to the expansion of intersections and roadways. The Environmental Quality Affairs Citizens Advisory Committee called for the DEIR to contain a discussion of impacts associated with increased traffic congestion, impacts from transportation improvements associated with the provision of . visitor -serving land uses, and consideration of alternative modes of transportation. Section 4.13.5 provides such analysis. For analytical purposes, traffic impacts associated with implementation of the General Plan Update are derived from the existing environmental setting from 2002, which is used throughout this EIR. This baseline year (2002) is used for all impact areas analyzed in this traffic chapter to determine impacts. The City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 4.13-1 use of this data presents a more conservative analysis for this BIR because it does not include the growth authorized under the existing General Plan that occurred between 2002 and the January 2006 NOP publication date. As a result, the potential growth under the proposed General Plan Update is actually less than what was used to analyze the environmental impacts in this analysis. Thus, the analysis presents a worst -case scenario based upon the maximum buildout potential development within the City and adjacent areas from 2002 through 2030. 4.13.2 Existing Conditions This section provides an assessment of existing conditions in the Newport Beach Transportation Model (NBTM) primary modeling area (project study area), including a description of the street and highway system, traffic volumes on these facilities, and operating conditions of the selected intersections. The primary study area of the NBTM is generally bounded by the Brookhurst Street/Santa Ana River on the west, Adams Avenue/Baker Street/Campus Drive/SR-73 on the north, Crysud Cove State Park on the east, and the Pacific Ocean on the south. The primary study area is shown on Figure 4.13-1. ■ Regional Access Regional access to the City is provided by several freeways. The 405 Freeway runs north to south within Southern California, and intersects both the 73 and 55 Freeways. State Route 55 extends south from State Route 91 and terminates in the City of Newport Beach at Finley Ave. State Route 73 extends through the northerly part of the City, connecting the 55 and 405 Freeways with Interstate 5. Highway 1 (Coast Highway) runs along the California coast and all the way through Newport Beach. Figure 4.13-1 shows the regional transportation network .providing access to the City of Newport Beach. ■ Local Access Newport Beach fronts on the Pacific Ocean causing the City to have access from only three directions. In addition, upper Newport Bay acts as a barrier, resulting in only two east/west routes through Newport Beach (Coast Highway and the Bristol Street/SR 73 corridor). J WA also acts as a barrier to circulation on the City's edge, and contributes to congestion on some city streets. There are two ferries that provide water access; these include the Santa Catalina Ferry and' the Balboa Ferry. Major access routes within the City include SR-55 (Newport Blvd.), the Coast Highway, and SR-73. In addition to these major access routes within the City there is an extensive network of City streets (e.g., Jamboree Road, MacArthur Boulevard, and Irvine Avenue) that provide internal movement in the City. Figure 4.13-2 details street names and sizes based on number of lanes and street type. The following list of major access routes includes the range of traffic volumes that they carry. Bristol Street North and Bristol Street South operate as a one-way couplet of northwest/southeast three - lane roadways on the north and south sides of SR-73. Traffic volumes on these secondary arterials range from 16,000 to 31,000. 4,13.2 City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR CITY of NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL PLAN UPDATE EIR Figure 4.13-1 NEWPORT BEACH TRAFFIC MODEL (NBTM) PRIMARY STUDY AREA Legend •••• City Boundary nU' of M porf Booch i . 6 i Not to Scale s ce uema�ooa,. zoos CITY of NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL PLAN UPDATE EIR Figure 4.13-2 NEWPORT BEACH EXISTING THROUGH LANES Legend # NumberotThrough Loner D DMded U UndMded 10 Not to Scole Scum, UTm Cxwoocb. =5 *d No 10579-03 ' Campus Drive is a north/south (between Bristol Street South and MacArthur Blvd) and east/west ' (beginning east of MacArthur Blvd) four -lane divided roadway. It has traffic volumes between 16,000 and 30,000 average daily trips (ADT). ' Coast Highway is a northwest -southeast roadway with six to seven lanes between the Santa Ana River and Newport Boulevard, five divided lanes between Newport Boulevard and the projection of Irvine ' Avenue, four lanes between Irvine Avenue and Dover Drive, seven divided lanes between Dover Drive and Jamboree Road, eight lanes as it approaches Jamboree Road, six lanes between Jamboree Road and MacArthur Boulevard, four divided lanes between MacArthur Boulevard and Newport Coast Drive, and ' six divided lanes beyond Newport Coast Drive. It has daily traffic volumes between 30,000 and 73,000 ADT. A field study of traffic on Coast Highway demonstrated that up to 20 percent of the traffic on this roadway is regional through traffic, with no origin or destination in Newport Beach. ' Dover Drive is a north/south roadway with two undivided lanes between Irvine Avenue and Westcliff Drive and is a divided four lane roadway between Westcliff Drive and Coast Highway. It has traffic ' volumes between 9,000 and 29,000 ADT. Irvine Avenue is a northeast/southwest roadway with four divided lanes between Mesa Drive and ' Sherington Place. It briefly transitions to six divided lanes just south of Bristol Street South, and is two undivided lanes south of Sherington Place. It has traffic volumes up to 33,000 ADT just south of Bristol ' Street South, and as low as 12,000 ADT near 16t' Street. Jamboree Road is a northeast/southwest roadway with six divided lanes between Coast Highway and ' Campus Drive. South of Coast Highway it is a four -lane divided roadway. Jamboree Road has volumes between 30,000 and 67,000 ADT. Volumes south of Coast Highway are 12,000 ADT. ' MacArthur Boulevard is a north/south six -lane divided roadway, with a short four -lane divided portion north of Coast Highway, and an eight -lane divided portion between Ford Road and Bison Avenue. Volumes range between 22,000 and 63,000 ADT. A field study of traffic on MacArthur Boulevard ' showed that up to 20 percent of the traffic on this roadway is regional through traffic, with no origin or destination in Newport Beach. ' Newport Boulevard is a northeast/southwest divided roadway with three lanes and two lanes in the southbound direction and two lanes in the northbound direction south of SR-73 to 19"' Street. It becomes a six -lane divided roadway between 19'h Street and Coast Highway. It has volumes between ' 29,000 and 48,000 ADT. Newport Coast Drive is a north/south roadway with a four -lane divided portion between Bonita Canyon ' Drive and San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor, a six -lane divided portion between SJHTC and Coast Highway. Newport Coast Drive carries traffic volumes ranging from 11,000 to 21,000. ' City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 4.13.5 Existing Traffic Volumes and Level of Service The local arterial roadway carrying the highest traffic volume in the NBTM primary modeling area is MacArthur Boulevard. A daily traffic count of approximately 63,000 vehicles per day was identified on MacArthur Boulevard between Bison Avenue and Ford Road. Newport Boulevard has a maximum volume of 53,000 VPD south of Coast Highway. Coast ,Highway has a maximum volume of 51,000 ADT between Bayside Drive and Dover Drive. Existing Traffic Volumes The GPTS examined roadway segment capacities within and around the City of Newport Beach. Figure 4.13-3 shows the ADT on segments within the City and Figure 4.13-4 shows these roadway segments and the volume/capacity (V/C) ratios assigned to each based on existing traffic volumes and roadway capacities. The ratio of daily roadway segment w1umer to daily planning level capacities provides a measure of the roadway segment level of service. Although the City of Newport Beach does not control conditions on local area freeways, freeway mainline and ramp V/C ratios are presented for informational purposes. The roadway segments that currently exceed a 0.90 V/C ratio are listed below. ■ Newport Boulevard north of Via Lido ■ Irvine Avenue north of University Drive ■ Jamboree Road north of Bayview Way ■ Jamboree Road north of University Drive ■ MacArthur Boulevard north of Ford Road ■ MacArthur Boulevard north of Coast Highway ■ Irvine Avenue south of University Drive ■ Bristol Street South east of Birch Street ■ Coast Highway east of Dover Drive ■ Coast Highway east of MacArthur Boulevard ■ Coast Highway east of Goldenrod Avenue ■ Coast Highway east of Marguerite Avenue ■ Coast Highway west of Riverside Drive ■ Bristol Street North west of Campus Drive ■ Bristol Street Southwest of Campus Drive ■ Bristol Street South west of Jamboree Road The daily capacity of a roadway correlates to a number of widely varying factors, including traffic pealing characteristics, traffic turning volumes, and the volume of traffic on crossing streets. The daily capacities are therefore most appropriately used for long range General Plan analysis, or as a screening tool to determine the need for more detailed peak hour analysis. More detailed peak hour analysis has been conducted at key intersections in the vicinity of all these roadway segments to quantify actual peak hour operations and levels of service. Table 4.13-1 presents daily roadway capacities used in this analysis. 4.13.6 City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR CITY of NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL PLAN UPDATE EIR Figure 4.13-3 EXISTING COUNT AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC (ADT) Legend g vehicles Per Day(000'S) 4 QNofmwp 11 ch 7,6 Not to Scale Sgire U2m�osvoalx 2W5 Oleo) No.1099-0 CITY of NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL PLAN UPDATE EIR Figure 4.13-4 XISTING VOLUME/CAPAC (V/C) RATIOS Legend #.## volunelcopodt0cw D Not to Scale S Mftb iCimuooCsm damp 1057M 4.13 Transportation/Traffic t I I II II II I Glassftafon Table 4.13-1 Roadway Curb-fo-Curb Right -of -Way Wfdfh Segment #oftanes MedianWMdfh Capacities Approximate Ca ac Minimum kaI Maximum 8 Lane Divided 158 Variable 8 14-18 60,000 68,000 75,000 Major Augmented Variable Variable 6-8 Variable 52,000 58,000 70,000 Major 128-134 106-114 6 14-18 45,000 51,000 65,000 Primary Augmented Variable Variable 4-6 Variable 35,000 40,000 50,000 Primary 104-108 84 4 16-20 30,000 34,000 45,000 Secondary 84 64 4 0 20,000 23,000 30,000 Commuter 60-70 40-50 2 0 7,000 10,000 20,000 r The daily capacity of a roadway correlates to a number of widely varying factors, including traffic peaking characteristics, traffic turning volumes, and the volume of traffic on crossing streets. The actual daily capacity of a roadway can thus vary widely. The daily capacities are therefore most appropriately used for long range. General Plan analysis, or as a screening tool to determine the need for more detailed peak hour analysis. Couplets: Secondary couplet-2 lanes for each leg Primary couplet-3 lanes for each leg Major couplet-4 lanes for each leg Existing Intersection Conditions The GPTS examined 62 study intersections within and around the City of Newport Beach. The selected intersections include any major arterial to arterial intersections in the City as well as a number of smaller local intersections of local concern. Table 4.13-3 lists these intersections along with the existing intersection conditions based on Intersection Count Utilization (ICU) and the corresponding Level of Service (LOS); it lists the intersections in their existing state prior to any future buildout or transportation upgrades. ICU values are used to determine levels of service at study area intersection locations (refer to Table 4.13-2). To calculate the ICU value for an intersection, the volume of traffic using the intersection is compared with the capacity of the intersection. The ICU is expressed as a decimal percent (e.g., 0.86) of the intersection capacity used. Level of Service ICU Value A 0-0.60 B 0.61-0.70 C 0.71-0.80 D 0.81-0.90 E 0.91-1.00 F > 1.00 City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 4.13.9 Chapter 4 Environmental Analysis Table• Intersection Intersection S6 EK9 A.M. Peak Hour P.M. PeakHour ICU T Los ICU Los 2. Superior Av. & Placentia Av. 0.66 B 0.67 B 3. Superior Av. & Coast Hw, 0.84 D 0.90 D 4. Newport BI. & Hospital Rd. 0.54 A 0.70 B S. Newport BI. & Via Lido 0.41 A 0.37 A 6. Newport BI. & 32nd St. 0.73 C 0.78 C 7. Riverside Av. &,Coast-Hw. 0.84 D 0.93 E 8. Tustin Av. & Coast Hw. 0.80 C 0.67 B 9. MacArthur BI. & Campus Dr. 0.61 B 0.85 D 10. MacArthur BI. & Birch St. 0.49 A 0.66 B 11. Von Karman Av. & Campus Dr. 0.55 A 0.79 C 12. MacArthur St. & Von Karmen Av. 0.46 A 0.53 A 13. Jamboree Rd. & Campus Dr. 0.74 C 0.85 D 14. Jamboree Rd. & Birch St. 0.65 A 0.60 A 15. Campus Dr. & Bristol St. (N) 0.77 C 0.94 E 16. Birch St. & Bristol St. (N) 0.66 B 0.61 B 17. Campus DrArvine Av. & Bdstol St. (S) 0.72 C 0.58 A 18. Birch St. &, Bristol St. (S) 0.46 A 0.44 A 19. Irvine Av. & Mesa Dr. 0,70 B 0.94 I. 20. Irvine Av. & University Dr. 0.82 D 0.89 D 21. Irvine Av. & Santiago Dr. 0.66 B 0.72 C 22. Irvine Av. & Highland Dr. 0,57 A 0.60 A 23. Irvine Av. & Dover Dr. 0.72 C 0,64 B 24. Irvine Av. & Westcliff Dr. 0.57 A 0.77 C 25. Dover Dr. & Westdiff Dr. 0.38 A 0.48 A 26, Dover Dr. & 161h St. 0.55 A 0,67 A 27. Dover Dr. & Coast Hw. 0.70 B 0.74 C 28. Bayside Dr. & Coast Hw. 0.69 B 0.70 B 29. MacArthur BI. & Jamboree Rd. 0.88 D 0.91 E 30, Jamboree Rd, & Bristol SL (N) 0,55 A 0.69 A 31. Bayview Pi. & Bristol St. (S) 0.48 A 0.56 A 32. Jamboree Rd. & Bristol St. (S) 0.75 C 0.72 C 33. Jamboree Rd. & Bayview Wy. 0.41 A 0.57 A 34, Jamboree Rd. & Eastbluff Dr. /University Dr. 0.60 A 0.64 B 35. Jamboree Rd. & Bison Av. 0.45 A 0.51 A 36. Jamboree Rd. & Eastbluff Dr./Ford Rd. 0.69 B 0.65 B 37. Jamboree Rd. & San Joaquin Hills Rd. 0.56 A 0.57 A 38. Jamboree Rd. & Santa Barbara Dr. 0.47 A 0.63 B 39. Jamboree Rd. & Coast Hw. 0.68 B 0.74 C 40. Santa Cruz Dr. & San Joaquin Hills Rd. 0.36 A 0.36 A 41. Santa Rosa Dr. & San Joaquin Hills Rd. 0.32 A 0.52 A 4.13.10 City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR ' 4.13 Transportation/Traffic I I H Table. Intersection Intersection S & AM. Peak Hour I P.M.Peak Hour ICU LOS ICU LOS 42. Newport Center Dr. & Coast Hw. 0.40 A 0.52 A 44. Avocado Av. & San Miguel Dr. 0.33 A 0.72 C 45. Avocado Av. & Coast Hw. 0.58 A 0.66 B 46. SR-73 NB Ramps & Bison Av. 0.31 A 0.37 A 47. SR-73SB Ramps & Bison Av. 0.26 A 0.17 A 48. MacArthur BI. & Bison Av. 0.63 B 0.60 A 49. MacArthur BI. & Ford Rd./Bonita Canyon Dr. 0.71 C 0.90 D 50. MacArthur BI. & San Joaquin Hills Rd. 0.64 B 0.93 E 51. MacArthur BI. & San Miguel Dr. 0.56 A 0.65 B 52. MacArthur Bl. & Coast Hw. 0.60 A 0.71 C 53. SR-73 NB Ramps & Bonita Canyon Dr. 0.55 A 0.43 A 54. SR-73 SB Ramps & Bonita Canyon Dr. 0.30 A 0.41 A 55. Spyglass Hill Rd. & San Miguel Dr. 0.28 A 0.31 A 56. San Miguel Dr. & San Joaquin Hills Rd. 0.44 A 0.54 A 57. Goldenrod Av. & Coast Hw. 0.99 E 0.69 B 58. Marguerite Av. & San Joaquin Hills Rd. 0.31 A 0.35 A 59. Marguerite Av. & Coast Hw. 0.83 D 0.82 D 60. Spyglass Hill Rd. & San Joaquin Hills Rd. 0.44 A 0.30 A 61. Poppy Av. & Coast Hw. 0.61 B 0.65 B 62. Newport Coast Dr. & SR-73 NB Ramps 0.45 A 0.31 A 64. Newport Coast Dr. & San Joaquin Hills Rd. 0.37 A 0.29 A 65. Newport Coast Dr. & Coast Hw. 0.47 A 0.50 A ' In addition to Table 4.13-3, Figure 4.13-5 shows these same intersections and corresponding intersection IDs to match the table. The existing General Plan Circulation Element identifies LOS D or better as ' acceptable. LOS E and F are therefore considered unacceptable. Those intersections which have a LOS of E or lower are listed below. ■ Riverside Avenue (NS)/Coast Highway (EV/) P.M. peak only ' ■ Campus Drive (NS)/Bristol Street (N) (EV P.M. peak only ■ Irvine Avenue (NS)/Mesa Drive (EW) P.M. peak only ■ MacArthur Boulevard (NS)/Jamboree Road (EV) P.M. peak only ' ■ MacArthur Boulevard (NS)/San Joaquin Hills Road (EV) P.M. peak only ■ Goldenrod Avenue (NS)/Coast Highway (EVE A.M. peak only II ■ J '' City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 4.13.11 CITY of NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL PLAN UPDATE EIR Figure 4.13-5 INTERSECTION COUNT LOCATIONS Legend • Interectlon Count Locotlon # Womecllon ID PACIFIC D OCEAN Not to Scale Swca: IYe m CNIDoaCt 20D5 I pga�l Hw 105�9b3 I EJP m m I• m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m 4.13 Transportation/Traffic I 1 C I n L Freeway/Tollway and Ramp Conditions Table 4.13-4 shows the operational levels of service of the segments within City boundaries. The existing volumes on the SR-73 Freeway through Newport Beach indicate that the A.M. peak hour peak direction is northbound, while the P.M. peak hour peak direction is southbound. This flow pattern is consistent with the southern parts of Newport Beach and Orange County consisting mainly of residential housing. The following mainline segments of the SR-73 Freeway within the City of Newport Beach operate at a deficient level of service (LOS E or F) in either the A.M. or P.M. peak hour: ■ SR-73 Freeway Northbound: > SR-55 Freeway to Jamboree Rd. (A.M./ P.M.) ■ SR-73 Freeway Southbound: > SR-55 Freeway to Jamboree Rd. (P.M.) Table 4.13-4 Existing SR-73 A,M.Segment Freeway/Toll ADT Way Mainline Northbound Analysis Southbound Lanes Volume LOS Lanes Volume 10S 55 Fw. to Jamboree Rd. 150,000 3 11,909 F 3 3,841 C Jamboree Rd. to Bonita Canyon Dr. 63,000 3 5,002 D 3 1,613 A Bonita Canyon Dr. to Newport Coast Dr. 67,000 4 5,319 C 4 1,716 A Newport Coast Dr. to Toll Plaza 66,000 3 5,240 D 3 1,690 A P.M. Segment ADT Northbound Southbound Lanes Volume LOS Lanes I Volume LOS 55'Fw. to Jamboree Rd. 150,000 3 6,273 F 3 10,152 F Jamboree Rd. to Bonita Canyon Dr. 63,000 3 2,635 B 3 4,264 C Bonita Canyon Dr. to Newport Coast Dr. 67,000 4 2.802 B 4 4,535 C Newport Coast Dr. to Toll Plaza 66,000 3 21760 B 3 4,467 D Table 4.13-5 summarizes the results of existing freeway ramp operations. Under Existing conditions, the ramps in Newport Beach operating at a deficient level of service (LOS E or F) are: ■ Bristol Street Northbound Off (A.M./P.M.) ■ Bristol Street Southbound Off (A.M./P.M.) ■ Jamboree Road Northbound On (A.M) ■ Jamboree Road Southbound On (A.M./P.M.) ■ MacArthur Boulevard Northbound On (A.M.) ■ MacArthur Boulevard Southbound Off a.m. (A.M./P.M.) ■ Bison Avenue Northbound Off (A.M.) ■ Newport Coast Drive Northbound Off (A.M.) ■ Newport Coast Drive Northbound On (A.M.) ' City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 4.13.13 Chapter 4 Environmental Analysis Table Ramp Move onRamp LanesV0,1 Lanes Length of Acceleration Deceleration Lane PeakHour Volume Den LOS . A.M. PAL AM. P.M. A.M. P.M.Bristol St. NB Off 3 3 1 0 1,096 544 53.6 48.7 F F Bristol St. SB Off 3 52 2 2,725 1,632 941 NOM 6.3 A F Jamboree Rd. NB On 3 5 1 120 559 597 43.5 25.4 Fz C Jamboree Rd. SB On 3 2 1 1,700 578 1,203 31.8 87.4 Fz F MacArthurBl. NB Off 3 5,002 2,635 2 1,480 1,598 176 9.1 NOM A A MackthurBl. NB On 3 5,002 2,635 1 340 1,636 1,883 44.1 33.6 F D MacArthurBl. SB Off 3 1,613 4,264 1 1,340 2,026 1,882 9.9 24.2 Fr F University Dr. NB On 3 5,002 2,635 1 200 281 533 33.2 22.8 D C University,Dr. SB Off . 3 1,613 4,264 1 1,400 466 603 4.3 19.7 A B Bison Av. NB Off 3 5,002 2,635 1 0 481 119 38.2 22.6 E C Bison Av. NB'On 3 5,002 2,635 1 250 160 549 31.9 22.7 D C Bison Av. SB Off 3 1,613 4,264 1 0 745 434 17.6 32.2 B D Bison Av. SB On 3 1,613 4,264 1 740 71 247 10.2 26.2 B C Bonita Canyon Dr. NB Off 4 5,319 2,802 1 1,250 305 189 18.0 6.3 B A Bonita Canyon Dr. NB On 3 5,002 2,635 1 2.440 249 106 21.8 6.6 C A Bonita Canyon Dr. SB Off 4 1,613 4,264 1 0 114 163 12.0 23.9 B C Bonita Canyon Dr. SB On 4 1,613 4,264 1 400 514 143 11.3 16.8 B B Newport Coast Dr. NS Off 3 5,240 2,760 1 0 298 220 36.6 23.5 E C Newport Coast Dr. NB On 4 5,240 2,760 1 1,250 598 286 35.6 18.5 F B Newport Coast Dr. SB Off 4 1,716 4,535 1 0 222 119 13.0 24.8 B C Newport Coast Dr. SB On 3 1,716 4,535 1 360 156 219 13.7 29A B D Ramp failure due to ramp volumes over capacity. 2 Worse LOS with lower volume due to adjacent ramp Influence ■ Regional Facilities Regional transportation facilities serve the needs of travelers through Newport Beach, and residents and workers that travel between Newport Beach and other locations. Major roadway system features such as freeways, airports, and marine terminals serve regional traffic. The facilities that provide regional access to Newport Beach include the I-405 Freeway, SR 55 Freeway, SR-73 Freeway/Tollway and Coast Highway (Highway 1). Coast Highway is owned and operated by Caltrans with the exception of the segment between Jamboree Road and Newport Coast Drive. Newport Boulevard from Finley Street to the northerly city limits at Industrial Way is also under Caltrans jurisdiction. Caltrans controls the signal timing and coordination of these roadways which may conflict with the City's needs and desires to provide a balance between regional and local traffic needs. Regional traffic interacting with Newport Beach generally accesses the City roadway system through the freeway ramps. Ramp intersections are maintained and controlled by Caltrans. Ramp capacity constraints 4.13-14 City of NewportBeach General Plan Update EIR ! can sometimes (during peak hours) slow access to the freeway system, potentially resulting in a back-up ! of freeway traffic onto the local roadway system. Conversely, traffic exiting the freeway system can sometimes cause congestion that affects the freeway mainline. ! ■ Public Transportation Public bus service is provided by Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA). An established ! network of bus routes provides access to employment centers, shopping and recreational areas within the City. OCTA periodically updates a county -wide Bus Service Implementation Program (BSIP) which includes changes to service levels and route configurations. Figure 4.13-6 shows existing public -transit service in Newport Beach. Local bus routes in the City of ! Newport Beach include the following. ■ Route 1 (along Coast Highway) ■ Route 47 (provides access from Balboa Boulevard north of Fairview Street) ■ Route 55 (from 17th Street in Costa Mesa providing access to Newport Centex/Fashion Island) ■ Route 57 (along Bristol Street and jamboree Road to Newport Center) ■ Route 71 (from the Balboa Pier north along the SR-55 freeway) ! ■ Route 75 (from Newport Center up Jamboree Road) ■ Route 76 (along San Miguel Drive and MacArthur Boulevard) ■ Route 79 (from Newport Center along Eastbluff Drive to University Drive) The Newport Transportation Center and Park -and -Ride facility is located at MacArthur Boulevard and San Joaquin Hills Road in Newport Center. Community Bus Route 178 passes through the Airport Area ! of Newport Beach before entering Santa Ana Heights. Additional bus service passes very near to Newport Beach, particularly in the vicinity of JWA and the University of California, Irvine. Public transportation service typically operates periodically throughout the day, with less frequent or even no ! service in the middle of the night. t ■ Air Travel Air travel for residents, workers, and visitors in Newport Beach is most conveniently available at JWA (located just northwest of Campus Drive along the City boundary). In addition to JWA, air travel is provided at Los Angeles International, Long Beach, Ontario and various other regional airports. ! 0 Marine Transport The presence of Newport Harbor and the proximity of the City of Newport Beach to the Pacific Ocean ! create opportunities for water transportation modes. Specific examples of alternative travel modes in Coastal Newport Beach include the Santa Catalina Ferry (providing access from the Balboa Pavilion to ! Santa Catalina Island), and the Balboa Ferry (connecting Balboa Island to the Balboa Peninsula). ! City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 4.13-15 CITY of NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL PLAN UPDATE EIR Figure 4.13-6 EXISTING PUBLIC TRANSIT ROUTES Legend ..... 47 55 -- 57 ■-� 71 CUCCA 75 r--O-O 76 r—r r 79 krrrr 178 000 470 H� 471 —---- CBy Bader Not to Scde 5a,c.ueoaaomaa4+. M pmod W10579A1, EI.P: ■ Parking Parking availability is limited in the coastal portions of Newport Beach, especially during the peak ' summer months. Balboa Peninsula, Balboa Island, Mariners' Mile, Corona Del Mar, and West Newport are areas of high use. To address this issue, the Balboa Peninsula Parking Management Plan was completed in 1999. The Plan included recommendations to modify meter time limits (ongoing), create a visitor parking guide, implement a bus layover area (completed), chalk mark tires to enforce time limits, improve red curb and intersection visibility (completed), increase meter fees (completed), implement a business parking permit program, implement a shared use parking program, monitor lot utilization ongoing), develop a pier lot validation program, and develop a shared valet parking program. Implementing valet services has also been suggested for both the Balboa Peninsula and Mariners' Mile. Trail System Trail systems, while providing alternates to automobile travel, also provide recreational opportunities for the community. The existing trail system in Newport Beach has been developed to provide access for commuter and recreational bicyclists and equestrians, along with pedestrians. ' The Newport Beach bikeways system contains off-street bike paths, sidewalk bikeways, and on -street bike trails. The existing bikeway facilities in the study area are shown on Figure 4.13-7. Newport Beach has off-street bike paths primarily along parts of Coast Highway, Irvine .Avenue, University Drive, Jamboree Road, Spyglass Hill Road, and San Joaquin Hills Road. Additional off -road facilities are located ' in the San Diego Creek Channel along Newport Bay and through Buffalo Hills Park. Sidewalk bikeways include the access roads to Fashion Island and the following: ' ■ Coast Highway from the westerly city limit to Riverside Drive, and from the projection of Irvine Avenue to Avocado Avenue ■ Balboa Boulevard ■ Campus Drive/Irvine Avenue ■ Dover Drive ■ MacArthur Boulevard ' ■ Von Karman Avenue ■ Jamboree Road ■ Bristol Street ■ Eastbluff Drive ■ Bayside Drive ■ Bison Avenue ' ■ Ford Road ■ Spyglass Hill Road ■ Marguerite Avenue ■ San Joaquin Hills Road On -street bike trails occur on San Miguel Drive, Newport Coast Drive, Irvine Avenue, Coast Highway and other minor streets throughout the City. ' City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 4.13.17 CITY of NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL PLAN UPDATE EIR Figure 4.13-7 NEWPORT BEACH EXISTING BICYCLE FACILITIES Legend m Otastreet ease Path � Sdewoke&kewa/ — — — - — Oadtreet eketraa V Not to Scde Souea ebmanmoo6c� rtc{ectw ras�vw Iti■t rr ✓� �' »' i! aw MI m Ir M m r Recreational use of alternative travel modes (especially bicycle and pedestrian) is prevalent in the City of ' Newport Beach. The Back Bay and Ocean Front/Seashore Drive trails are particularly popular for recreation. 1 4.13.3 Regulatory Setting ■0 Federal ■ There are no relevant federal regulations applicable to the proposed General Plan Update. ' 0 State Statewide Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) administers transportation programming. Transportation programming is the public decision making process which sets priorities and funds projects envisioned in long-range transportation plans. It commits expected revenues over a multi -year period to transportation projects. The STIP is a multi -year capital improvement program of transportation projects on and off the State Highway System, funded with revenues from the State Highway Account and other funding sources. 10 local ' Orange County Congestion Management Plan The Congestion Management Plan (CMP) requires that a traffic impact analysis be conducted for any project generating 2,400 or more daily trips, or 1,600 or more daily trips for projects that directly access the CMP Highway System (HS). Per the CMP guidelines, this number is based on the desire to analyze any impacts that will be three percent or more of the existing CMP highway system facilities' capacity. The CMPHS includes specific roadways, which include State Highways and Super Streets, which are now known as Smart Streets, and CMP arterial monitoring locations/intersections. Therefore, the CMP traffic impact analysis (TIA) requirements relate to the potential impacts only on the specified CMPHS. The CMP system consists of the following: ■ MacArthur Boulevard Qamboree Road to Coast Highway) ■ Jamboree Road (between city limit and MacArthur Boulevard) ■ Coast Highway (throughout) ■ Newport Blvd (from north city limit to Coast Highway) Orange County Growth Management Plan In August 1988, the Orange County adopted a Growth Management Plan, which presents a conceptual framework for coordinating traffic facilities and public facilities and services with new development. The Growth Management Plan also spawned several plans and programs, including the Development ' City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 4.13.19 Chapter 4 Environmental Analysis Monitoring Program, which evaluates the extent of new development and compliance with phasing requirements, and the Facilities Implementation Plans, which evaluate public facility needs and propose financing mechanisms. The most comprehensive legislation affecting growth management is Measure M, approved by the County voters in November, 1990. The measure requires each jurisdiction in the County to adopt a Growth Management Element with specific contents and guidelines. City of Newport Beach Municipal Code Guidelines and provisions related to transportation and parking are addressed in Tide 12 (Vehicles and Traffic); Title 15 (Buildings and Construction) in Chapter 15.38 (Fair Share Ttaffic Contribution Ordinance) and Chapter 15.40 (Traffic Phasing Ordinance); and in Title 20 in Chapter 20.64 (Transportation Demand Management Ordinance) and Chapter 20.66 (Off -Street Parking and Loading Spaces Required) of the City Municipal Code. Title 12 Vehicles and Traffic Title 12 addresses traffic and parking enforcement, as well as safety programs, trails programs, bicycle use, skateboarding use, and other temporary traffic and parking protocols. Chapter 15.38 Pair Share Traffic Contribution Ordinance Chapter 15.38 has been established by the City Council to establish a fee, based upon the unfunded cost to implement the Master Plan of Streets and Highways, to be paid in conjunction with the issuance of a building permit. The ordinance sets forth procedures for calculating the fair -share amounts for residential projects, hotel/motels, and office/retail/commercial uses, which are adopted by City Council resolution. The fee is updated to reflect changes in the Consumer Price Index annually. Chapter 15.40 Traffic Phasing Ordinance Section 15.40 has been established by the City Council to ensure that the effects of new development projects are mitigated by developers as they occur. Specifically, the ordinance was established to provide a uniform method of analyzing and evaluating the traffic impacts of projects that generate a substantial number of average daily trips and/or trips during the morning or evening peak hour period; to identify the specific and near -term impacts of project traffic as well as circulation system improvements that will accommodate project traffic and ensure that development is phased with identified circulation system improvements; to ensure that project proponents, as conditions of approval, make or fund circulation system improvements that mitigate the specific impacts of project traffic on primary intersections at or near the time the project is ready for occupancy; and to provide a mechanism for ensuring that a project ptoponent's cost of complying with traffic related conditions of project approval is roughly proportional to project impacts. 4.13.20 City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR , 4.13 Transportation/Traffic Chapter 20.64 Transportation Demand Management Requirements The Transportation Demand Management requirements apply to all new, nonresidential development projects that are estimated to employ a total of one hundred (100) or more persons, or the current limit set forth by the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) in Rule 2202, whichever is lower at the time of project submittal. No building or grading permit shall be issued, and no construction shall commence, for any project covered by this chapter until the Planning Commission makes written findings that a transportation demand management program has been developed that will do all of the following: reduce the number of peak -period vehicle trips generated in association with the additional development; promote and encourage the use of alternative transportation modes, such as ridesharing, carpools, vanpools, public transit, bicycles and walking; and provide those facilities that support such alternate modes. Chapter 20.66 Off -Street Parking and Loading Regulations Requirements to provide off-street parking and loading spaces are identified in Section 20.66. Different requirements have been identified for residential, commercial, industrial, eating and drinking establishments, office buildings, and shopping centers. 4.13.4 Thresholds of Significance The following thresholds of significance are based on Appendix G of the 2006 CEQA Guidelines. For purposes of this EIR, implementation of the proposed project would 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) Intersections The threshold used in this EIR for intersections is based on the existing General Plan Circulation Element, which provides for the construction of intersection improvements to ensure service levels as close to LOS D as possible. Although LOS D is not a specific standard in the existing Circulation Element, intersections that operate at LOS E or F have been regarded as deficient. The LOS D objective for major intersections reflects the City's desire to maintain stable traffic flow throughout the City, City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 4.13-21 recognizing that peak -hour congestion may occur at locations near freeways or other locations with , unusual traffic characteristics due to regional traffic flow. This EIR also uses LOS D as the threshold for intersection performance. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) analysis has been performed at sixty-one (62) study area intersections (refer to Figure 4.13-5 [Intersection Count Locations]). ICU values are used to determine levels of service at study area intersection locations. To calculate the ICU value for an intersection, the volume of traffic using the intersection is compared with the capacity of the intersection. The ICU is ' expressed as a decimal (e.g., 0;86) of intersection capacity used. ■ Roadway Links 1 The existing General Plan Circulation Element sets a goal for acceptable LOS for roadway links. The goal is a volume/capacity (V/C) ratio of lower than 0.9 at the time of buildout of the existing General Plan. This EIR continues to use the same goal as a threshold for roadway link performance. The daily capacity values, which are given in ADT, are as follows: ■ Principal Arterial-60,000-73,000 ADT ■ Major Arterial-45,000-67,000ADT ■ Primary Arterial-30,000-45,000 ADT ■ Secondary Arterial-20,000-30,000 ADT ■ Commuter Roadway-7,000-11,000 ADT The daily capacity of a roadway correlates to a number of widely varying factors, including ttaffic peaking characteristics, traffic turning volumes, and the volume of traffic on crossing streets. The daily capacities are therefore most appropriately used as a screening tool to determine the need for more detailed peak hour analysis. ■ Congestion Management Program Arterials The CMP requires that a traffic impact analysis be conducted for any specific development project ; generating 2,400 or more daily trips, or 1,600 or more daily trips for projects that directly access the CMP Highway System. Per the CMP guidelines, this number is based on the desire to analyze any impacts that will be 3 percent or more of the existing CMP highway system facilities' capacity. The CMP guidelines specify that specified arterials maintain an LOS of E or better for acceptable performance. As this Program EIR does not entide a specific project, a traffic impact analysis per CMP guidelines is not included in this EIR. Any development project that is proposed will be required to perform its own CMP traffic analysis as part of the environmental review process. LI I 4.13.22 City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 4.13 Transportation/Traffic 4.13.5 Analytic Method, Project impacts, Mitigation Measures, and Proposed Policies ■ Analytic Method for Traffic Analysis The NBTM 3.1 travel demand forecasting tool has been developed to identify traffic and circulation issues in and around the City. The NBTM 3.1 tool has been developed in accordance with the requirements and recommendations of the Orange County Subarea Modeling Guidelines Manual (August, 1998) and has been found by the Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) to be consistent with these guidelines. The NBTM 3.1 is intended to be used for roadway planning and traffic impact analyses. The latest version of the NBTM has been used to evaluate the proposed General Plan Update buildout. The model has been updated during the General Plan Update process to incorporate the most current demographic data available. The buildout alternatives are analyzed using a "constrained roadway system." The constrained system in this analysis deletes those improvements from the currently adopted General Plan Circulation Element that have been deemed "uncertain." These improvements are the extension of SR-55 and the widening of Jamboree Road north of Ford Road, grade separation at MacArthur Boulevard/Jamboree Road, extension of 17`s Street, and extension of 15" Street to Coast Highway. The 19th Street Bridge over the Santa Ana River, and the widening of Coast Highway through Mariners' Mile were excluded from the earlier land use alternatives analysis, but added back in for the GPTS because the land use alternatives analysis indicated that these improvements are critical to the operations of the roadway system. Traffic impacts without these improvements are discussed in the Special Issues section of the GPTS (Appendix D) and in the General Plan Traffic Study Preliminary Alternatives Analysis (May 3, 2005) 81 All the scenarios in the GPTS include regional traffic. Therefore, many of the conclusions presented in this section are based on a cumulative traffic analysis. However, because field study conducted as part of the traffic source analysis showed that up to 20 percent of total traffic on key roadways is regional traffic with no origin or destination in Newport Beach, a supplement to the GPTS was prepared to demonstrate the effects of the proposed General Plan Update, without surrounding regional growth. Comparing this supplemental scenario (Existing With Project) and the General Plan Buildout With Project scenario reveals the impacts of regional growth on the transportation system, and results in conclusions regarding the traffic impact of the proposed General Plan Update alone. Trip Generation Trip generation is the initial step in determining future traffic conditions. Trip generation calculations for the General Plan Buildout With Project (including regional traffic growth) and Existing With Project (excluding regional traffic growth) scenarios are identical, as both of these scenarios include buildout of the proposed General Plan Update. The difference lies outside the City, where the General Plan Buildout With Project scenario contains forecast trip generation for the surrounding region (including forecasted '' 81 This report can be found at die City of Newport Beach General Plan Update website: http•//www nbvision2025.com/. iCity of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 4.13-23 Chapter 4 Environmental Analysis growth in the surrounding cities, Orange County, and beyond), and the Existing With Project scenario includes only existing (2002) trip generation for the surrounding region. The difference between these two scenarios shows the amount of traffic increase that would result from regional growth, regardless of future development in the City, and the amount of traffic increase that would result from the proposed project on its own. Trip generation rates were derived during the NBTM update to reflect conditions in Newport Beach. In Coastal areas, residential uses were found to generate less traffic than in other areas of the City. Daily Coastal trip generation is approximately 85 to 87 percent of trip generation in the majority of the City. Therefore, an adjustment of approximately 12 to 15 percent was made in trip generation for land uses in this area as part of the traffic model validation and is reflected in the General Plan Transportation Study. In conjunction with analysis of land use alternatives, research was conducted to determine whether trip rate adjustments are appropriate for certain .kinds of land uses being considered in the,proposed General Plan Update. For mixed use developments, it was found that there is a range in trip generation savings of 10 to 40 percent. The adjustment applied for the Newport Beach General Plan Transportation Study is 10 percent, at the conservative end of research findings. High-rise apartments have been shown to generate up to and beyond 40 percent fewer trips than typical apartments. To portray a conservative worst case scenario, a factor of 20 percent is used for high-rise apartments in the GPTS. Daily Traffic Volumes and Performance Daily roadway segment analysis (including freeways) requires calculating the daily traffic volume divided by the roadway segment capacity. The City of Newport Beach daily roadway capacities used in this analysis were previously presented in Table 4.13-1. For analysis purposes, the upper end of the approximate daily capacity range has been used. The methodology to analyze freeway ramp operations is more complicated than for the mainline analysis. In addition to ramp volumes and lanes, the number of freeway mainline lanes, freeway mainline volumes, and the length of acceleration/deceleration lane(s) is also required. To determine the amount of traffic associated with summer recreation, peak season daily traffic volumes have been collected for select locations (primarily in coastal areas) of the City of Newport Beach. Daily traffic volume counts were collected over a one week period in August of 2003 for each selected roadway segment. For each roadway segment selected for summertime counts, the highest typical weekday (Tuesday through Thursday) volume has been compared to the shoulder season count volume at the same location. All segments increase for summer conditions by at least five percent and as much as 74 percent. The only location with a volume increase of more than 30 percent is on Balboa Boulevard east of 20th Street on the Peninsula. Peak Hour Performance Intersection operations can be the major constraints to traffic flow on arterial streets. Therefore, peak hour intersection operations are the best measure of performance of the roadway system. The current goal for acceptable level of service in the City of Newport Beach is as close to LOS D as possible. 4.13.24 City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR I 4.13 Transportation/Traffic 1 Calculations of the change from Existing Conditions to General Plan Buildout With Project and Existing With Project have been calculated and are discussed below in the analysis of project impacts. ■ Project Impacts Threshold Would the proposed project cause an increase in traffic that 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)? Impact 4.13-1 Implementation of the proposed General Plan Update could result in a substantial increase in the number of vehicle trips, volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections compared to existing conditions. The buildout alternatives are analyzed using a roadway system that incorporates the constrained roadway network explained earlier in this Section 4.13.5. The figures and tables referenced throughout this impact analysis can be found at the end of the discussion, following the significance conclusion. Figure 4.13-8 summarizes the General Plan Buildout With Project scenario daily traffic volumes and Figure 4.13-9 summarizes the General Plan Buildout With Project V/C ratios throughout the City of Newport Beach. Both figures include regional traffic growth. The highest daily traffic volume increases over existing (2002) counted volumes occur on Campus Drive, Irvine Avenue, Coast Highway, Jamboree Road, MacArthur Boulevard, Newport Boulevard, and Newport Coast Drive. Each of these facilities experiences an increase in excess of 10,000 vehicles per day. Without Project, traffic volumes citywide would increase by 26.9 percent over 2002 counts; and With Project, volumes would increase by 30.9 percent. When traffic from development that has occurred between 2002 and 2005 is added to the analysis, the citywide volume increase Without Project would be 20.1 percent, and the increase With Project would be 23.9 percent. As shown through comparison of the Existing With Project scenario (which does not include any regional traffic growth) with the General Plan Buildout With Project scenario, regional traffic is directly responsible for over half of the total traffic volume increases on the City's arterial roadway system. The proposed General Plan Update itself would generate approximately 44 percent of the total increase in traffic, or a 13 percent increase from existing (2002) traffic volumes. The next step in the analysis is to use daily traffic volumes to conduct daily roadway segment capacity analysis at study area roadways. The following 17 segments currently operate at V/C ratios greater than 0.90. ■ Newport Boulevard north of Via Lido ■ Irvine Avenue north of University Drive ■ Jamboree Road north of Bayview Way ■ Jamboree Road north of University Drive ■ MacArthur Boulevard north of Ford Road ■ MacArthur Boulevard north of San Joaquin Hills Road ■ MacArthur Boulevard north of Coast Highway ' City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 4.13.25 CITY of NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL PLAN UPDATE EIR Figure 4.11M GENERAL PLAN BUILDOUT WITH PROJECT AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC (ADT) L 13+ a9� 17 a,9 °6 20 M s ` Legend 19 u19 # Vehicles Per Oav(000'S) u ° 433 A u a ° 9e � N as D 22 u 1 aG S 3 a 4 9 23 N t2 S ♦'� la c 2p eY I 1 Im 6 // tx sz 1 ,t J ' Y' 32 ♦n aO 6 l 40 T 3 d pp[ 1 2 -u ✓ Y to SS YY a+ j S 9 14 6 S7 °1 16 ��+ t 6 + 12 : 6 72 16 2 t2 a u s 13 9 U ! r ` a 19 C • 25 S 16 24 26 12 1 2 20 6 ° 29 °t 11 a6 ze { n 6 �t zo / q` t 1]ryd NT`Pnt Eeoal a F` _ 13 ,� 6 U 13 °\ 6$ 20 R6 E � ° 12 i s 1 zz wl / � ` `SO 26 PACIFICx 2° '�•=•x ° 35 vxs OCEAN Not t0 SCde S0uc3. Ubm q°mw0t. 2005 Pc{ea N] 10529M EIP. � '� � �` � � � '!• � it � 1• 1� 1• � >• � � � CITY of NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL PLAN UPDATE EIR Figure 4.13-9 GENERAL PLAN BUILDOUT WITH PROJECT VOLUME/ CAPACITY (V/C) RATIOS Legend #.## Volume/Capacity aNpl Newpate h 1 Not to Scale Saace Um C..Ms, zoos gedM 1a7M Chapter 4 Environmental Analysts ■ Irvine Avenue south of University Drive ■ Bristol Street South east of Birch Street ■ Coast Highway east of Dover Drive ■ Coast Highway east of MacArthur Boulevard ■ Coast Highway east of Goldenrod Avenue ■ Coast Highway east of Marguerite Avenue ■ Coast Highway west of Riverside Drive ■ Bristol Street North west of Campus Drive ■ Bristol Street South west of Campus Drive ■ Bristol Street South west of Jamboree Road In the Existing With Project Scenario (excluding regional traffic growth), the following additional fourteen segments would operate at daily V/C ratios greater than 0.90, as a result of the proposed General Plan Update. Because of improvements included in the proposed Circulation Element, the V/C ratio for the MacArthur Boulevard north of Coast Highway segment falls below 0.91. ■ Irvine Avenue north of Santiago Drive ■ Irvine Avenue north of Dover Drive ■ Dover Drive north of Westcliff Drive ■ Jamboree Road north of San Joaquin Hills Road ■ MacArthur Boulevard north of Bison Avenue ■ Newport Coast Drive north of SR-73 Northbound Ramps ■ Newport Boulevard south of Hospital Road ■ Hospital Road east of Newport Boulevard ■ Bristol Street North east of Birch Street ■ Coast Highway east of Bayside Drive ■ Coast Highway east of Jamboree Road ■ Coast Highway east of Poppy Avenue ■ Coast Highway west of Superior Avenue/Balboa Boulevard ■ Dover Drive west of Irvine Avenue Buildout of the proposed General Plan Update (General Plan Buildout With Project scenario) including regional growth adds the following ten roadway segments expected to operate with daily V/C ratios greater than 0.90. These additional segments are the result of growth in regional traffic. ■ Jamboree Road north of Campus Drive ■ Jamboree Road north of Birch Street ■ Irvine Avenue north of Highland Drive ■ Dover Drive north of Coast Highway ■ Jamboree Road north of Ford Road ■ Newport Coast Drive north of San Joaquin Hills Road ■ Jamboree Road south of Birch Street ■ Campus Drive east of MacArthur Boulevard ■ Ford Road east of MacArthur Boulevard ■ Coast Highway east of Newport Coast Drive The daily capacity of a roadway correlates to a number of widely varying factors, including traffic peaking characteristics, traffic turning volumes, and the volume of traffic on crossing streets. The daily capacities 4.13.28 City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR ' 4.13 Transportation/Traffic are therefore most appropriately used for long range General Plan analysis, or as a screening tool to determine the need for more detailed peak hour analysis. More detailed peak -hour analysis has been conducted at key intersections in the vicinity of all these roadway segments to quantify actualpeak hour operations and levels of service. The final step in analysis, and the most meaningful for evaluating how the roadway system will function, is intersection volume and geometric data for the intersections selected for analysis. A comparison of the General Plan Buildout With Project scenario ICUs to existing (2002) ICUs is shown on Table 4.13-6. The projected ICUs do not assume any improvements beyond minimal improvements associated with the constrained network. 4.13-6 General Plan Buildout Intersection (NSIM with Project ComparisonTable A.M.PeakHour Intersection Capacity Utilization I P.M. Peak Hour Extding Count VRh Nolect Delta Extsttng Count With Pro DeBa 1a. Bluff Rd. & Coast Hw. NIA 0.61 NIA NIA 0.89 NIA 1 b.15th St. & Coast Hw. NIA 0.72 NIA NIA 0.90 NIA 2. Superior Av. & Placentia Av. 0.66 0.67 0.01 0.67 0.57 -0.10 3. Superior Av. & Coast Hw. 0.84 0.88 0.04 0.90 0.76 -0.14 4. Newport BI. & Hospital Rd. 0.54 0.83 0.29 0.70 0.96 0.26 5. Newport BI. & Via Lido 0.41 0.58 0.17 0.37 0.41 0.04 6. Newport BI. & 32nd St. 0.73 0.86 0.13 0.78 0.91 0.13 7. Riverside Av. & Coast Hw. 0.84 0.97 0.13 0.93 0.93 0.00 8. Tustin Av. & Coast Hw. 0.80 0.94 0.14 0.67 0.83 0.16 9. MacArthur BI. & Campus Dr. 0.61 0.81 0.20 0.85 1.24 0.39 10. MacArthur BI. & Birch St. 0.49 0.79 0.30 0.66 0.90 0.24 11. Von Karman Av. & Campus Dr. 0.55 0.73 0.18 0.79 0.97 0.18 12. MacArthur BI. & Von Karman Av. 0.46 0.54 0.08 0.53 0.65 0.12 13. Jamboree Rd. & Campus Dr. 0.70 0.93 0.23 0.85 1.18 0.33 14. Jamboree Rd. & Birch St. 0.61 1.00 0.39 0.60 0.84 0.24 15. Campus Dr. & Bristol St. (N) 0.77 1.02 0.25 0.94 1.06 0.12 16. Birch St. & Bristol St. (N) 0.66 0.90 0.24 0.61 0.72 0.11 17. Campus DrArvine Av. & Bristol St. (S) 0.72 0.89 0.17 0.58 0.78 0.20 18. Birch St. & Bristol St. (S) 0.46 0.51 0.05 0.44 0.54 0.10 19. Irvine Av. & Mesa Dr. 0.70 0.98 0.28 0.94 1.19 0.25 20. Irvine Av. & University Dr. 0.82 1.19 0.37 0.89 1.09 0.20 21. Irvine Av. & Santiago Dr. 0.66 0.69 0.03 0.72 0.77 0.05 22. Irvine Av. & Highland Dr. 0.57 0.60 0.03 0.60 0.65 0.05 23. Irvine Av. & Dover Dr. 0.72 0.78 0.06 0.64 0.69 0.05 24. Irvine Av. & Westcliff Dr. 0.57 0.66 0.09 0.77 0.82 0.05 25. Dover Dr. & Westcliff Dr. 0.38 0.38 0.00 0.48 0.54 0.06 26, Dover Dr. & 16th St. 0.55 0.60 0.05 0.57 0.60 0.03 City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 4.13-29 Chapter 4 Environmental Analysts Table 4.13-6 General Plan Buildout Inleamfion (NSIEVO with Project Comparison Intersection To Existing Capacity Utilization AM.PeakHour P.M.PeakHour &Aft Count With Della t3mng Count With Prolect Della 27. Dover Dr. & Coast Hw. 0.70 0.81 0.11 0.74 0.94 0.20 28. Bayside Dr. & Coast:Hw. 0.% 0.89 0.20 0,70 0.85 0.15 29, MacArthur BI. & Jamboree Rd. 0.88 0.93 0.05 0.91 1.02 0.11 30. Jamboree Rd. & Bristol St. (N) 0.55 0.6B 0.13 0.59 0.67 0.08 31. Bayview PI. & Bristol St. (S) 0.48 0.60 0.12 0.66 0.63 0.07 32. Jamboree Rd. & Bristol St. (S) 0.75 0.94 0.19 0.72 0.87 0.15 33. Jamboree Rd. & Bayview Wy. 0.41 0.45 0.04 0.57 0.67 0.10 34. Jamboree Rd. & Eastbluff Dr. /University Dr. 0.60 0.68 0.08 0,64 0,67 0.03 35. Jamboree Rd. & Bison Av. 0.45 0.52 0.07 0.51 0.62 0.11 36. Jamboree Rd. & Eastbluff Dr./Ford Rd. 0.69 0.80 0.11 0.65 0.77 0.12 37, Jamboree Rd. & San Joaquin Hills Rd. 0.56 0.61 0.05 0,57 0.72 0.15 38. Jamboree Rd. & Santa Barbara Dr. 0.47 0.58 0.11 0.63 0.79 0.16 39. Jamboree Rd. & Coast Hw. 0.68 0.77 0.09 0.74 0.80 0.06 40. Santa Cruz Dr. & San Joaquin Hills Rd. 0.36 0.38 0.02 0.36 0,34 -0.02 41. Santa Rosa Dr. & San Joaquin Hills Rd. 0.32 0.41 0.09 0,52 0.71 0,19 42. Newport Center Dr. & Coast Hw. 0.40 0.48 0.08 0,52 0.63 0.11 44, Avocado Av. & San Miguel Dr. 0.33 0.36 0.03 0:72 0.79 6.07 45. Avocado Av. & Coast Hw. 0.58 0.73 0.15 0.66 0,78 0.12 46. SR-73 NB Ramps & Bison Av. 0.31 0.52 0.21 0.37 0.61 0.24 47. SR-73 SB Ramps & Bison Av. 0.26 0.42 0.16 0.17 0.32 0.15 4& MacArthur Bl. & Bison Av. 0.63 0.78 0.15 0.60 0.79 6.19 49. MacArthur Bl. & Ford Rd./Bonita Canyon Dr. 0,71 0.80 0.09 0.90 1.00 0.10 50. MacArthur Bl. & San Joaquin Hills Rd. 0.64 0.79 0.15 0.93 1.12 0.19 51. MacArthur Bl. & San Miguel Dr. 0.56 0.64 0.08 0.65 0.75 0.10 52. MacArthur Bl. & Coast Hw. 0.60 0.72 0.12 0.71 0.78 0,07 53. SR-73 NB Ramps & Bonita Canyon Dr. 0.55 1.06 0.51 0.43 0.76 0.33 54. SR-73 SB Ramps & Bonita Canyon Dr. 0.30 0.46 0.16 0.41 0.66 0.25 55. Spyglass Hill Rd. & San Miguel Dr. 0.28 0.30 0.02 0.31 0.38 0.07 56. San Miguel Dr. & San Joaquin Hills Rd. 0.44 0.55 0.11 0.54 0.74 0.20 57. Goldenrod Av. & Coast Hw. 0.99 0.99 0.00 0,69 0.69 0.00 58. Marguerite Av. & San Joaquin Hills Rd. 0.31 0,42 0.11 0.35 0.51 0.16 59.Margueote Av. & Coast Hm 0.83 0.98 0.15 0.82 1,00 0.18 60. Spyglass Hill Rd. & San Joaquin Hills Rd. 0.44 0.66 0A6 0.30 0.49 0.19 61. Poppy Av. & Coast Hw. 0.61 0.70 0.09 0.65 0.76 0.11 62. Newport Coast Dr. & SR-73 NB Ramps 0.45 0.65 0.20 0.31 0.40 0.09 64. Newport Coast Dr. & San Joaquin Hills Rd. 0.37 0.62 0,25 0.29 0.49 0.20 65. Newport Coast Dr. & Coast Hw. 0.47 0.70 0.23 0.50 0.73 0.23 4.13-30 City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR , ' As shown in Table 4.13-6, the following six intersections currently have ICU values greater than 0.90: ' ■ Riverside Drive (NS)/Coast Highway (BW) (P.M.) ■ Campus Drive (NS)/Bristol Street North (EW) (P.M.) ■ Irvine Avenue (NS)/Mesa Drive (EW) (P.M.) ' ■ MacArthur Boulevard (NS)/Jamboree Road (EW) (P.M.) ■ MacArthur Boulevard (NS)/San Joaquin Hills Road (EW) (P.M.) ■ Goldenrod Avenue (NS)/Coast Highway (EW) (P.M.) 1 7 L IrI L_ II II I 1 In the Existing With Project Scenario (proposed General Plan Update buildout not including regional growth), the following additional five intersections would operate at daily V/C ratios greater than 0.90, as a result of the proposed General Plan Update. ■ Newport Boulevard (NS) / Hospital Road (EW) (P.M) ■ Riverside Drive (NS) / Coast Highway (EW) (P.M.) ■ MacArthur Boulevard (NS) / Campus Drive (EW) (P.M.) ■ Jamboree Road (NS) / Campus Drive (EW) (P.M.) ■ Irvine Avenue (NS) / University Drive (EW) (P.M.) With buildout of the proposed General Plan Update and regional growth, the following fourteen additional intersections would have ICU values greater than 0.90 (LOS E or worse) in either peak period: ■ Newport Boulevard (NS)/32"d Street (EW) (P.M.) ■ Tustin Avenue (NS)/Coast Highway (EW) (P.M.) ■ Von Karman Avenue (NS)/Campus Drive (EW) (P.M.) ■ Jamboree Road (NS)/Campus Drive (EW) (P.M.) ■ Jamboree Road (NS)/Birch Street (EW) (P.M.) ■ Campus Drive (NS)/Bristol Street North (EW) (P.M.) ■ Irvine Avenue (NS)/Mesa Drive (EW) (P.M.) ■ Irvine Avenue (NS)/University Drive (EW) (P.M.) ■ Dover Drive (NS)/Coast Highway (EW) (P.M.) ■ MacArthur Boulevard (NS)/Jamboree Road (EW) (P.M.) ■ Jamboree Road (NS)/Bristol Street South (EW) (P.M.) ■ MacArthur Boulevard (NS)/Ford Road/Bonita Canyon Drive (EW) (P.M.) ■ SR-73 NB Ramps (NS)/Bonita Canyon Drive (EW) (P.M.) ■ Marguerite Avenue (NS)/Coast Highway (EW) (P.M./P.M.) A comparison of the General Plan Buildout With Project and Existing With Project scenarios shows that approximately 26 percent of the additional growth in traffic and projected deficiencies at intersections not currently operating with a deficiency would be directly related to growth in the City of Newport Beach; the remainder of intersection deficiencies would be caused by growth in regional (surrounding area) traffic. Without regional growth, only five intersections would reach an ICU value of greater than 0.90 (LOS E or worse) without improvements beyond minimal improvements associated with the constrained network. The deficiencies that would result at the fourteen additional intersections listed above are the result of growth in regional traffic, and are not attributable to implementation of the proposed General Plan Update. Further intersection analysis has been performed to determine improvements necessary to provide acceptable levels of service, LOS D or better. Table 4.13-7 compares the ICU results with and without I City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 4.13.31 improvements. Improvements necessary to provide acceptable levels of service are shown in , Table 4.13-8. Improvements that recluire the least additional right-of-way or other environmental impacts are included in the proposed Circulation Element. These improvements result in LOS D or better at all but five intersections within the City as a result of traffic increases from both regional growth and the proposed General Plan Update. Three of these intersections currently operate at LOS E, and their , performance does not worsen as a result of the proposed General Plan Update. Although improvements to achieve LOS D at some of these intersections may be technically feasible, they would be contrary to proposed project objectives to preserve community character, and/or would compromise the safety of ' pedestrians and bicyclists. Without the effects of regional traffic, improvements are needed at only one of the study area , intersections where deficiencies were identified for Post-2030 conditions. Only the intersection of Riverside Drive and Coast Highway would not meet the LOS D standard. The proposed General Plan Update, without growth in the region, would increase traffic volume 13 percent over 2002 traffic counts, and would increase the number of roadway segments exceeding a V/C ratio of 0.90 from 17 to 30. With improvements included in the proposed Circulation Element, buildout of the proposed General Plan Update alone, without growth in the region, would not cause any intersection to fail to meet the City's standard of LOS D. Because intersection operations are considered to be the most meaningful measure of the performance of the roadway system, this impact related to the proposed General Plan Update would be less than significant. Impact 4.13-2 Implementation of the proposed General Plan Update would contribute to a substantial increase in deficient freeway segments and ramps. For the General Plan Buildout With Project scenario, which includes regional growth, the volumes on all freeway segments in Newport Beach would increase compared to existing conditions. With anticipated regional improvements, the following three segments, in addition to the one existing deficient segment, would be deficient under the General Plan Buildout With Project scenario. As shown in the Existing With Project scenario (proposed General Plan Update buildout excluding regional traffic growth), the General Plan Update alone would not cause any freeway segment to become deficient. ■ SR-73 Freeway Northbound ' > 'Bonita Canyon Drive to Newport Coast Drive (P.M) , > Newport Coast Drive to Toll Plaza (P.M.) ■ SR-73 Freeway Southbound > SR-55 Freeway to jamboree Rd. (P.M.) The proposed General Plan Update would contribute to a significant cumulative impact, since needed ' improvements exceed the current maximum planned improvements. lblainline freeway operations can Also, be negatively affected by ramp operational problems. The ramp volumes for the General Plan Buildout With Project scenario result in operational deficiencies. Table 4.13-9 summarizes the analysis. The deficient ramps are listed below. The three Newport Coast Drive ramps are deficient only as a result , of regional traffic growth. ■ Bristol Street Northbound Off (A.M.) ■ jamboree Road Southbound On (P.M.) 4.13-32 City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR I Table 4.13-7 Intersection Analysis Summary for General Plan Buildout with Project IntersectionApproacmanes° levetot Northbound Soufhbound Eastbound Westbound ICU Traffic Service L T R L T R ! I T R L T R A.M. P.M. A.M. PAt hdersection ConhoF FeasibiftlComments Bluff Rd. (NS) at: • Coast Hw. (EW) > LOS D Improvements TS 0 0 0 2 0 2> 2 3 0 0 3 1 0.61 0.89 B D Shares Southbound volume with 15th St. 15th St. (NS) at: • Coast Hw. (EW) > LOS D Improvements TS 0 0 0 2 0 2> 2 3 0 0 3 1 0.72 0.90 C D Shares Southbound volume with Bluff Rd. SuperiorAv. (NS) at: • Placentia Av. (EW) TS 1 2 1 1 2 d 1 1 1 0.5 1.5 0 10.88 0.67 0.57 B A • Coast Hw. E TS 1.5 1.5 0 1.5 1.5 2> 2 3 d 1 4 d 0.76 D C Newport BI. (NS) at: • Hospital Rd. (EW) TS 1 3 1 1 3 d 2 1 1 1 2 0 0.83 0.96 D E > LOS D Improvements TS 2 3 1 1 3 d 2 1 1 1 2 0 0.83 0.89 D D Consistent with historic plan • Via Lido (EW) TS 0 3 1 2 3 0 0 0 0 1 0 2> 0.58 0.41 A A • 32nd St. (EW) TS 1 2 d 1 2 0 1.5 0.5 1 0.5 1.5 1>> 0.86 0.91 D E > LOS D Improvements TS 1 2 d 1 2 0 2 1 0 1 1 1>> 0.58 0.66 A B Restriin ISi nal modification only Riverside Av. (NS) at: • Coast Hw. (EW) TS 0 1 d 0.5 0.5 1> 1 2 0 1 3 1 0.97 0.93 E E > LOS EImprovements TS 0 1 d 0.5 0.5 1> 1 3 0 1 3 0 0.68 0.9 B E Consistent with historic plan. Would remove 5 parking and WB RT lane on north side of street. > LOS D Improvements TS 0 1 d 0.510.51 1> 1 2 3 0 1 3 0 0.7410.901 C I D Severe ROW constraints. Tustin Av. (NS) at: • Coast Hwy. (EW) TS 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 2 0 0 3 1 0.94 0.83 E D > LOS D Improvements TS 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 3 0 1 0 3 1 1 0.64 0.83 B D MacArthur BI. (NS) at: • Campus Dr. (EW) TS 1 4 1 1 4 1 2 3 1 2 3 1>> 0.81 1.24 D F > LOS E Improvements TS 1 4 1 1 3.5 1.5 2 3 d 2 3 1>> 0.78 0.98 C E > LOS D Improvements TS 2 4 1 1 3.5 1.5 2 3 1 2 3 1>> 0.78 0.88 C D Would require narrow lanes or minor landscape area reductions. • Birch St. E TS 1 3 1 1 1 1 4 1 0 11.5 1.5 0 1 2 1>> 10.79 1 0.9D C D City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 4.13-33 Chapter 4 Environmental Analysis Table 4.13.7 Intersection Analysis Summary for General Plan Buildout with Project Irderseclor> Lanes° evelot Nadhbound Southimnd Eastbound Westboundenrke Trattic L T R L T- R L T R L T R M. PAt Intersection Conholb FeasW/Comments Von Kerman Av. (NS) at: • Campus Dr. (EW) TS 1 2 1>> 1 2 0 1 2 1 1 2 0 70.89C E > LOS DAltematrve 1 TS 1 2 0 1 2 0 2 2 0 1 2 0 D Can be accomplished within existing curb to curb section by eliminating NB and EB RT lanes. > LOS D Alternative 2 TS 1 2 0 1 2 0 1 2 0 1 3 0 D > LOS DAltemative 3 TS 1 2 -1>> 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 0 D Logical (high -demand movement) improvement. Would encroach on landscape area -on north leg of 1 intersection. > LOS D Altemative 4 TS 2 1>> 1 3 0 1 2 1 1 2 0 0.73 0.83 C D Logical (high demand movement) improvement Would encroach on landscape area on north leg and south leg of intersection. MacArthur BL (NS) at • Von Kansan Av. TS 1 3 1 1 3 1 1 2 1>> 2 1 1>> -0.54 0.65 A B Jamboree Rd. (NS) at • Campus Dr. (EW) TS 2 4 0 2 3 0 2 2 1>> 2 2 1 0.93 1.18 E F > LOS E Improvements TS 2 4 1 2 4 0 2 2 0 2 2 1>_ 0.88 0.99 D E > LOS D Improvements TS 2 4 1> 2 4 0 2 2 0 2 2 1? 0.88 0.90 D D • Birch St. (EW) TS 1 3 0 1 3 1>> 1.5 0.5 1>> 0 1 0 1.00 0.84 E D > LOS D Alternative 1 TS 1 3 0 1 4 1>> 1.5 0.5 1>> 0 1 0 0.89 0.78 D C > LOSDA1femadve2 TS 2 1 3 1 0 1 1 3 1 1>> 11.5 10.5 1>> 0 1 1 0 10.8T 0.79 I D I C Campus Dr. (NS) at • Bristol St N (EW) TS 2 3 0 0 4 2 0 0 0 2 4 0 1-.02 1.06 F F > LOSE Improvements TS 2 3 0 0 4 2 0 0 0 2 5 0 0.95 0.9 E E Based on field reconnaissance, it appears this could be accomplished on inside (south side), 6 involving improvements to SR-73 NB On -ramp. > LOS D Altemative 1 TS 2 4 0 0 4 1>> 0 0 0 2 5 0 0.79 0.86 C D SB Free Right implies braided ramp to allow access to Freeway -Runway height limit issues > LOS D Altemative 2 TS 1 2 4 1 0 0 4 3 0 10 0 2 5 0 0.79 0.86 C D Impacts u ding on NW comer Birch St. (NS) at • _ Bristol St. N- TS 2 1 2 0 1-0 1.5 2.5 1 0 0 1 0 1.5 3.5 1 0 0.90 0.72 D C Campus Dr. (NS) at 1 1 1 • Bristol SL S TS 0 5 0 1 3 0 1.5 2.5 2 0 0 0 0.89 0.78 D C 4.13-34 City of Newport Beach General Plan Update BR Table 4.13-7 Intersection Analysis Summary for General Plan Buildout with Project /ntersecfionAr proach Canso Levelof Nodhbound I Southbound Eastbound Westbound ICU TrofiC Service L T R L T R L T I R L T R A.M. PM A.M. PM Intenection COnlrolb FeasibUy/Comments Birch St. (NS) at • Bristol St. S E TS 0 2.5 1.5 2 2 0 1.5 3.5 0 0 0 0 0.51 0.54 A A Irvine Av. (NS) at: • Mesa Dr. (EW) TS 1 2 d 1 2 d 1 1 0 1 1 1 0.98 1.19 E F > Funded Improvements TS 1 3 1 1 3 1 1 1 1 2 1 0 0.68 0.94 B E > LOS DAltemative 1 TS 1 3 1 1 3 1 1 1 1> 1 2 0 0.74 0.87 C D Highly problematic ROW /topographic issues on the west leg of the intersection. > LOS D Alternative 2 TS 1 3 1 1 3 1 1 1 0 2 1 0 0.71 0.86 C D Assumes reallocated P.M. WB LT I Thru Volume • University Dr. (EW) TS 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 D 1 1 D 1.19 1.09 F F > LOS D Improvements TS 1 3 0 1 3 1 1.5 0.5 1 1 1 d 0.81 0.84 D D ROW and potential environmental issues. • Santiago Dr. (EW) TS 1 2 0 1 2 d 0 1 d 0 1 d 0.69 0.77 B C • Highland Dr. (EW) TS 1 2 d 1 2 d 0 1 d 0 1 d 0.60 0.65 A B • Dover Dr. (EW) TS 1 2 d 1 2 d 1 1 0 1 1 d 0.78 0.69 C B • Westcliff Dr. E TS 2 1 2 1 d 2 2 1 d 1 2 1 2 0 1 1 2 1 0 10.66 0.821 B I D Dover Dr. (NS) at: • Westcliff Dr. (EW) TS 2 2 0 0 1 1 2 0 1>> 0 0 0 0.38 0.54 A A • 16th St. (EW) TS 1 2 d 1 2 d 0.5 0.5 d 1 1 1 0.60 0.60 A A • Coast Hw. (EW) TS 1 1 1 3 1 1 2 3 0 1 3 1>> 0.81 0.94 D E > LOS D Improvements TS 1 1 1 3 1 1 2 3 0 1_ 4 1>> 0.81 0.78 D C Hiqhlv problematic ROW issues. Bayside Dr. (NS) at: 1 • Coast Hw. EW TS 2.5 0.5 0 1 1 d 1 3 1 1 4 0 0.89 0.85 D D MacArthur BI. (NS) at: • Jamboree Rd. (EW) TS 2 3 1> 2 3 1>> 2 3 1>> 2 3 1>> 0.93 1.02 E F > LOS E Improvements TS 2 3 1> 2 3 1>> 2 3 1>> 3 3 1>> 0.89 0.92 D E Jamboree improvement only. > LOS D Altemative 1 TS 2 3 1> 2 3 1>> 2 4 1>> 3 3 1» 0.88 0.85 D D Feasible at -grade improvements. > LOS D Altemative 2A TS 2 0 0 2 3 1 0 0 1 2 3 1 0.42 0.77 A C Grade separated alternative. > LOS D Alternative 2B TS 0 3 1 0 0 0. 2 3 0 0 0 0 0.76 0.70 C B_ Grade separated alternative. Jamboree Rd. (NS) at: • Bristol St. N E TS 2 3 0 0 2.5 1.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.68 0.67 B B Bayview PI. (NS) at: • Bristol St. S EW TS 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 4 1 0 0 0 0.60 0.63 A B City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 4.13-35 Chapter 4 Environmental Analysis Table 4.13-7 Intersection Analysis Summary for General Plan Buildout with Project IntersectionApproach lames° Levelof Nodhbound SoultrbourKlI Edbound I Westbound T=Jr ICU Servke L T I R L T R L I T R 1 I T I R A.M. P.M. A.M. PAIL Inkffsection CW*DP /Comments Jamboree Rd. (NS) at • Bristol St S (EW) TS 0 5 0 0 3 0 1.5 1.5 2 0 0 0 0.94 0.87 E D > LOSDAItemativel TS 0 6 0 0 4 0 1.5 1.5 2 0 0 0 0.90 0.82 D D Improvements currently understudy. > LOS D Altemative 2 TS 0 5 0 0 3 0 2.5 1.5 2 0 0 0 0.72 0.78 C C Appears feasible, but might cause operational issues. • Bayview Wy. (EVV) TS 1 4 0 1 4 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 0.45 0.67 A B • Eastbluff DrJUniversity Dr. TS 1 3 1 2 3 1 1.5 0:5 1 1.5 1.5 1>> 0.68 0.67 B B (EVV) • Bison Av. (EW) TS 0 3 d 2 3 1 1 0 1 2 0 2 0.52 0.62 A B • Eastbluff DrJFord Rd. (EVV) TS 2 3 0 2 3 1 1 1 1>> 1.5 1.5 1 0.80 0.77 C C • San Joaquin.Hills Rd. (EW) TS 1 3 1>> 2 3 1 1.5 1.5 1 2 1 1>> 0.61 0.72 B C • Santa Barbara Dr. (EW) TS 1 3 1 2 3 1 1 1 0 1.5 0.5 1 0.58 0.79 A C • Coast Hw. TS 1 2 0 1 2 1>> 1 3 4 0 12 4 1>> 10.77 0:80 C C Santa Cruz Dr. (NS) at • San Joaquin Hills Rd. TS 2 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 3 0 1 3 0 0.38 0.34 A A Santa Rosa Dr. (NS) at • San Joaquin Hills Rd. TS 1 1 1> 1 1 1 1 3_ 0 2 3 0 0.41 0.71 A C Newport Center Dr. (NS) at • CoastHw. 0 2 0 1>> 2 3 0 0 3 1>> 0.48 0.63 A B Avocado Av. (NS) at • San Miguel Dr. (EW) TS 1 1 1> 1 1 1> 1 2 0 2 2 0 0.36 0.79 A C • CoastHw. TS 1 1 1 1.5 0.5 1 1 3 d 1 3 1 0.73 0.78 C C SR-73 NB Ramps (NS) at 1 I • Bison Av. TS 1.5 0 1.5 0 0 0 1 2 0 0 2 1 0.52 0.61 A B SR-73 SB Ramps (NS) at 1 1 I • Bison Av. TS 0 0 0 2 0 1>> 0 2 1 2 2 0 0.42 0.32 A A 4.13-36 City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR r II M M 4.13 TronsportatianiTraffic Table 4.13-7 Intersection Analysis Summary for General Plan Buildout with Project IrrfersectanApprowhlanev Levelof NoMbound Soulhbound I Eastbound Westbound ICU Trafic Servke, C I i I R L 7 I R L I i R L T R A.M. P.M. Intersection Controh FeadbOylCommenh MacArthur BI. (NS) at: • Bison Av. (EW) TS 2 4 1>> 2 4 1> 2 2 1>> 2 2 1 0.78 0.79• Ford Rd.IBonita Canyon TS 2 4 1>> 2 4 1>> 2 2 1 2 2 1>> 0.80 1.00Dr. TCE (EW) > LOS D Improvements TS 2 4 1 3 4 1>> 2 2 1 2 2 1>> 0.79 0.89 • San Joaquin Hills Rd. (EW) TS 2 3 1 2 3 1>> 2 3 0 1 2 1>> 0.79 1.12 C F > LOSEAItemativel TS 2 4 0 3 3 1>> 2 3 0 1 2 1>> 0.68 0.94 B E > LOS EAltemative 2 TS 2 4 0 2 3 1>> 3 3 0 1 2 1>> 0.69 0.92 B E > LOS EAltemative 3 TS 2 3 1 3 3 1>> 3 3 0 1 2 1>> 0.71 0.91 C E > LOS D Improvements TS 2 4 0 3 3 1>> 3 3 0 1 2 1>> 0.65 0.82 B D All 3 improvements req'd to achieve LOS "D " May require narrow lanes and lead I lag LT operations. • San Miguel Dr. (EW) TS 2 3 1 2 3 1> 2 2 0 2 2 d 0.64 0.75 B C • Coast Hw. E TS 0 0 0 2 0 1» 2 3 0 0 3 1>> 0.72 0.78 C C SR-73 NB Ramps (NS) at: • Bonita Canyon Dr. (EW) TS 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 2 1 1 2 0 1.06- 0.76 F C > LOS D Improvements TS 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 2 1 2 2 0 0.84 0.63 D B SR-73 SB Ramps (NS) at: • Bonita Canyon Dr. TS 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 2 1 2 3 0 0.46 0.66 A B Spyglass Hill Rd. (NS) at- 0 San Miguel Dr. EW TS 0 1 d 0 1 1 1 2 d 1 2 d 0.30 0.38 A A San Miguel Dr. (NS) at: • San Joaquin Hills Rd. E TS 1 2 0 1 2 1> 2 3 0 1 3 0 0.55 0.74 A C Goldenrod Av. (NS) at: • Coast Hw. E TS 1 I 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 2 d 1 2 d 0.99 0.69 E 1 B Marguerite Av. (NS) at: • San Joaquin Hills Rd. (EW) TS 1.5 0.5 1 1 1 0 1 2 1> 1 3 d 0.42 0.51 A A • Coast Hw. (EW) TS 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 2 1 1 2 0 0.9 1.00 E E > LOS D Improvements TS 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 3 0 1 3 0 0.77 0.83 C D Highly problematic ROW issues. Inconsistent with Corona Del Mar character. Spyglass Hill Rd. (NS) at: 1 1 1 • San Joaquin Hills Rd. EW TS 1 1 0 1 1 d 1 2 1 1 2 d 0.60 0.49 A A City -of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 4.13-37 Chapter 4 Environmental Analysis Table 4.13-7 Intersection Analysis Summary for General Plan Buildout with Project rntenecfionApproachLonese Leveld Nadhbound Southbound Eastbound I WeAXKmd Traffic ICU Scwlce L T R L 7 R L T R L T R A.M. M AJN. P.M. Inkmection Cor" Feasibft/Comments Poppy Av. (NS) at: • Coast Hw. E TS 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 2 0 1 2 0 0.70 0.76 B C Newport Coast Dr. (NS) at: • SR-73 NB Ramps (EW) TS 0 2 1>> 0 2 0 0 0 0 1.5 0 0.5 0.65 0.40 B A • San Joaquin Hills Rd. (EW) TS 2 3 0 0 3 1 1 0 2> 0 0 0 0.62 0.49 B A • Coast Hw. (EW) TS 1 1 1 2 1 1>> 1 3 1 1 3 1>> 0.70 0.73 B C > LOS D Improvements TS 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 2 d 1 3 0 0.71 0.69 C B Highly problematic ROW issues. Inconsistent with 1 Corona Del Mar character. e When a right turn is designated, the lane can either be sfriped or unstrfped. To function as a right turn lane there mustbe sufficient width for right fuming vehicles to travel outside the through lanes. c TS=Traffic Signal L = Leff; T= Through; R = Right;> = Overlap; >> =Ree Right; Bold -underline = Improvement 4.13-38 City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR M M M M M M M r M M M M M M M M M M M Bluff Rd. (NS) at: • Coast Hw. (EW) Provide two SB left turn lanes and two SB right turn lanes (2nd with overlap phase). Provide two EB left turn lanes. Provide one WB right turn lane. 15th St. (NS) at: • Coast Hw. (EW) Provide 2nd SB right turn lane with overlap phase. Provide 2nd EB left turn lane. Newport BI. (NS) at: • Hospital Rd. (EW) Provide 2nd NB left turn lane. • 32nd St. (EW) Restripe EB to provide 2 left turn lanes, and 1 shared through -right lane. Restripe WB to provide 1 left turn lane,1 through lane, and 1 free right turn lane. Riverside Av. (NS) at: • Coast Hw. (EW) Provide 3rd EB through lane. Tustin Av. (NS) at: • Coast Hw. (EW) Provide 3rd EB through lane. MacArthur BI. (NS) at: • Campus Dr. (EW) Provide 2nd NB left turn lane. Restripe SB to provide 3.5 through lanes and 1.5 right turn lanes. Von Karman Av. INS) at: • Campus Dr. (EW) Provide 2nd EB left turn lane. Jamboree Rd. (NS) at: • Campus Dr. (EW) Provide 1st NB right turn lane with overlap phase. Provide 4th SB through lane. Provide WB right turn overlap phase for current right turn lane. • Birch St. (EW) Provide 4th SB through lane. Campus Dr. (NS) at: • Bristol St N (EW) Provide 5th WB through lane. Irvine Av. (NS) at: • Mesa Dr. (EW) > Funded Improvements Provide 3rd NB through lane. Provide 3rd SB through lane. Provide 1st EB right turn lane. Provide 2nd WB left turn lane. > Additional Improvements • University Dr. (EW) Construct funded improvements, but EB right turn lane not necessary. Provide 3rd NB through lane. Provide 3rd SB through lane. Restripe EB to include 1.5 left turn lanes, 0.5 through lane, and 1 right turn lane. MacArthur BI. (NS) at: • Jamboree Rd. (EW) Provide 4th EB through lane. Provide 3rd WB left turn lane. Jamboree Rd. (NS) at: • Bristol St S (EW) Provide 6th NB through lane. Provide 4th SB through lane. MacArthur BL INS) at: • Ford Rd./Bonita Canyon Dr. Provide 3rd SB left turn lane. (EW) • San Joaquin Hills Rd. (EW) Provide 4th NB through lane. Provide 3rd SB left turn lane. Provide 3rd EB left turn lane. SR-73 NB RamDs (NS) at: _ • Bonita Canyon Dr. (EW) I Provide 2nd WB left turn lane. City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 4.13-39 Chapter 4 Environmental Analysis Table Ramp 4.13-9 Move General LanesonFwy. Plan Buildout fteewaryVolume with Project RampLanes SR-73 Freeway Peak Hour Ramp tengthofAccekraNion Peak HourVotume DecekraffonLanetFO A.M. P.M. Analysis I LOS A.M. P.M. A.M. P.M. A.M. P.M. Bristol St. With improvements NB Off NB Off 5 6 10,718 10,718 5;646 5,646 1 2 0 280 2,280 2,280 920 920 54.7 34.8 30.5 17.1 F D D B Bristol St. SB Off 5 3,457 9,137 2 2,725 1,370 690 NOM NOM A A Jamboree Rd. NB On 5 7,780 4,09B 1 120 480 850 21.0 17.3 C B Jamboree Rd. • with improvements SB On SB On 5 6 3,483 3,483 9,205 9,205 1 1 1,700 1,570 630 630 1,610 1,610 15.1 12.7 38.0 30.6 B B F D MacArthur Bl. NB Off 5 7,780 4,098 2 1,480 930 490 0.8 NOM A A MacArthur Bl. • with improvements NB On NB On 5 6 7,780 7,780 4,098 4,098 1 2 340 340 2,570 2,570 2,210 2,210 - 32.1 -a 25.2 F D F C MacArthur Bl. • with improvements SB Off SB Off 5 6 2,516 2,510 6,633 6,633 1 2 1.340 1,340 2,220 2,220 2,310 2,310 15.8 3.2 28.5 11.2 F1 A F1 B University Dr. NB On 5 7,780 4,093 1 200 1,310 1,470 22.5 20.2 C C University Dr. SB Off 5 2,510 6,633 1 1,400 800 840 72 19.7 A B Bison Av. NB Off 5 7,780 4,098 1 _ 0 520 330 34.5 22.3 D C Bison Av. NB On 5 7,780 4,098 1 250 280 860 19.0 16.0 B B Bison Av. SB Off 5 2,510 6,633 1 U 1,000 380 20.9 29.7 C D Bison Av. SB On 5 2,510 6,633 1 740 120 440 9.6 21.4 A C Bonita Canyon Dr. NB Off 6 10,797 5,687 1 1,250 980 220 30.1 12.8 D B Bonita Canyon Dr. • with improvements NB On NB On 5 5 7,780 7,780 4,098 4,098 1 1 2,440 1,020 720 720 420 420 47.8 34.4 22.9 20.5 F D C C Bonita Canyon Dr. SB Off 5 2,510 6,633 1 0 410 500 17.6 30.3 B D Bonita Canyon Dr. SB On 5 2,510 6,633 1 400 300 820 10.9 19.7 B B Newport Coast Dr. • with improvements NB Off NB Off 5 6 10,162 10,162 5,353 5,353 1 1 0 240 560 560 290 290 43.0 34.9 25.8 21.3 F D C C Newport Coast Dr. • with improvements NB On NB On 5 6 10,162 10,162 5,353 5,353 1 1 1,250 860 480 480 330 330 53.3 34.8 27.4 20.5 F D C C Newport Coast Dr. • with improvements SB Off SB Off 6 6 3A83 3A 9,205 9,205 1 1 0 240 680 680 1,050 1,050 20.8 18.7 37.1 34.9 C B E D 4.13-40 City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR r M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M Ramp { Move I Lanes on fWy. A.M. V aP.M. Ramp Lanes I Decekw6on Lane n P Hour V P.M. A.M. P.M. AK PAt Newport Coast Dr. SB On 6 3,483 1 9,205 1 360 460 600 13.0 1 21.7 1 B C SOURCE: Urban Crossroads 2006 Bold -underline = Improvement o Ramp failure due to romp volumes overcapacity. City of Newport Beach -General Plan Update EIR 4.13-41 in MacArthur Boulevard Northbound On (A.M./P.M) is MacArthur Boulevard Southbound Off (A.M./P.Df.) ■ Bonita Canyon Drive Northbound On (A.M.) ■ Newport Coast Drive Northbound Off (A.M.) ■ Newport Coast Drive Northbound On (A.Af.) ■ Newport Coast Drive Southbound Off (P.rr.) Impacts related to freeway mainlines and ramps are considered significant. Threshold Would the proposed project exceed, eitherindividually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? Impact 4.13-3 Implementation of the proposed General Plan Update could result in exceeding, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated toads or highways. The project would result in an acceptable LOS per CUP (LOS E or better) for all CMP arterials in Newport Beach. CMP arterials include: ■ Coast Highway (SR-1) throughout the City ■ MacArthur Blvd from Coast Highway to Jamboree ■ Newport Boulevard (SR 55) from north City limit to Coast Highway ■ Jamboree from northern City boundary to MacArthur Boulevard Impacts to designated roads or highways would be less than significant Threshold Would the proposed project result in a change in air traffic pattems, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in locations that results in substantial safety risks? Impact 4.13-4 Implementation of the proposed General Plan Update could result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in locations that results in substantial safety risks. In 1985, the City, County, Stop Polluting Our Newport (SPON) and the Airport Working Group (AWG) entered into a stipulation (1985 JWA Settlement Agreement) to resolve Federal Court litigation regarding the Master Plan that was initiated by the County. The 1985 JWA Settlement Agreement, among other things: (a) limited the number of "average daily departures" (ADD) certain commercial aircraft based on noise generating characteristics; (G) limited the number of passengers served each year at JWA (expressed in terms of "million annual passengers" or "MAP' to 8.4 MAP after construction of the new terminal; and (c) required the County to maintain the curfew then effect at JWA as wellas an ordinance restricting operations by general aviation aircraft that generated more noise than the permitted by commercial aircraft. 4.13.42 City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR I� 4.13 Transportation/Traffic I 1 II 1 In 2002, the City, County, SPON, and AWG approved amendments of the 1985 Settlement Agreement amendments (2002 Amendments) that, among other things: (a) increased the maximum number of noise regulated air carrier ADD from 73 to 85; (G) increased the service level limit from 8.4 to 10.3 MAP until January 1, 2011 and to 10.8 MAP on and after January 1, 2011 (with 500,000 seats allocated to regional jets); and (c) increased the maximum number of passenger loading bridges from fourteen to twenty. Prior to approval of the 2002 Amendments, the County, as lead agency, prepared an Environmental Impact Report (EIR 582) that fully evaluated significant impacts of the proposed increases in commercial air carrier operations and passenger service levels. The County concluded, based on the analysis in EIR 582 that the 2002 Amendments would cause or make worse an unsatisfactory level of service at the Campus Drive/Bristol North intersection but that impact would be mitigated to a level of insignificance with implementation of improvements that have been installed. The County also concluded that the 2002 Amendments would have a significant and unavoidable adverse impact at four freeway ramps and that any improvements were outside the jurisdiction of the County (and City). The City made similar findings. The County as lead agency and the City as a responsible agency both adopted appropriate statements of overriding considerations. In 2004 the County prepared an Addendum to EIR 582 (Addendum) to address impacts specific to the design and construction of the improvements authorized by the 2002 Amendments. The Addendum concluded that peak hour trips generated by JWA were actually less than projected in EIR 582—in some cases by eight percent less —"because of changes in passenger arrival patterns that have occurred due to recently implemented passenger security checks, with arrivals being spread out into off-peak times." (Addendum p. 3.2-4) The traffic analysis of the proposed General Plan Update has assumed the additional trips contemplated by the 2002 Amendments. The proposed General Plan Update and related circulation system improvements at Campus and Bristol North will not result in any significant impacts to those intersections in the Airport Area that are used by JWA patrons and that were evaluated in EIR 582. In fact, the proposed conversion of office and commercial uses to residential uses has the ,potential to improve operating conditions (compared to the existing General Plan) for the Birch/Bristol North intersection in the P.M. peak hour and the Campus Drive/Irvine/Bristol South intersection in the P.M. peak hour. Project impacts related to JWA operations are less than significant. Threshold Would the proposed project substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? Impact 4.13-5 Implementation of the proposed General Plan Update could substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment). There are no site -specific project plans at this time, so project layouts, driveway locations, land use types, or intensities are unknown. Without such detail, it is not possible, using available traffic analysis procedures, to estimate some types of impacts. Therefore, on -going development proposals must be reviewed on a case -by -case basis as they arise, and as such details such as driveway location or City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 4.13.43 intersection modification become known. The City cannot address these project impacts in this Draft EIR as it would be too speculative to try to determine how any particular development would be constructed. In addition, Section 15145 of the CEQA Guidelines specifically states that if a particular impact or project is too speculative for evaluation, then analysis in the EIR is not required. However, the circulation improvements identified in Table 4.13-10 would be implemented with this program. None of these improvements would introduce new safety hazards at intersections or along roadway segments, as most would increase capacity and flow. In addition, Policies within the Circulation and Land Use Elements (CE 1.3.2, 2.2.1, 2.2.5) provide for maintaining and enhancing existing roadways, increasing safety of roadways, and balancing safety, quality of life and efficiency in the design of circulation and access. These policies of the proposed General Plan Update would help reduce hazards due to design features. This impact would be less than significant. Threshold Would the proposed project result in inadequate emergency access? Impact 4.13-6 Implementation of the proposed General Plan Update could result in inadequate emergency access. The proposed General Plan Update would be required to meet all applicable local and State regulatory standards for adequate emergency access. As discussed in Chapter 3 Project Description, proposed General Plan Update policies related to disaster planning include measures for effective emergency response to natural or human -induced disasters that minimizes the loss of life and damage to property, wl- le also reducing disruptions in the delivery of vital public and private services during and following a disaster. Policies related to coastal hazards are included to ensure that adverse effects of coastal hazards related to tsunamis and rogue waves to people and property are minimized. Additionally, the project would be required to comply with applicable Municipal Code and Fire Code requirements regarding emergency access. As discussed in Section 4.6 Hazards (Impact 4.6-8), the proposed General Plan Update Safety Element also contains Policies S 9.1, S 9.2, and S 9.4 to ensure that the City's Emergency Management Plan is regularly updated, provides for efficient and orderly citywide evacuation, and also ensures that emergency services personnel are familiar with the relevant response plans applicable to the City. Further, Policy S9.5 of the Safety Plan calls for the distribution of information about emergency planning to community groups, schools, religious institutions, business associations, and residents. Consequently, the project would provide adequate emergency access to the project area. Therefore, any potential impacts would be less than sign&cant, and no mitigation is required. Emergency access during construction activities, as it pertains to access to and from roadways surrounding the project area, is addressed in Section 4.6 (Hazards and Hazardous Materials) of this EIR 4.13.44 City of Newport Beach General -Plan Update EIR 4.13 Transportation/Traffic I Threshold Would the proposed project result in inadequate parking capacity? Impact 4.13-7 Implementation of the proposed General Plan Update could result in inadequate parking capacity. As identified in Environmental Setting, parking availability is limited in the coastal portions of Newport Beach, especially during the peak summer months. Balboa Peninsula, Balboa Island, Mariners' Mile, Corona Del Mar, and West Newport are areas of high use. Specific remedies are being considered for these areas, for example, the Balboa Peninsula Parking Management Plan included parking surveys/studies and recommendations. Recommendations include providing a permit program, installing parking meters, consolidating public parking, developing a shared parking program, developing a shuttle system for special events, and developing a parking enforcement and collection program, among other things. The City has begun to implement some of these recommendations. Valet services have also been suggested for both the Balboa Peninsula and Mariners' Mile. The proposed General Plan Update includes policies in the Circulation Element (CE 7.1.1 through CE 7.1.13, and CE 7.2.1 through CE 7.2.3) that specifically address providing adequate and convenient parking throughout the city. Policies include encouraging shared parking, developing parking management programs, and collecting/using in -lieu fees to develop additional parking. In addition, implementation of the proposed General Plan Update would not avoid implementation of parking standards or requirements in the Municipal Code. With regard to parking, each development would be required to comply with the parking standards (on -street and off-street) identified in the Municipal Code. Impacts related to parking would not occur with implementation of the proposed General Plan Update and would be less than signiEcant. Threshold Would the proposed project conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? Impact 4.13-8 Implementation of the proposed General Plan Update could conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks). The Circulation Element contains new General Plan policies related to transportation systems management, transportation demand management, water transportation services and waterfront walkways, and maintains all existing policies. These policies (e.g., Policies CE 6.1.1., CE 6.1.2, CE 6.1.3, CE 6.2.1, CE 6.2.2, CE 6.2.3, CE 5.1.14, CE 5.1.15, CE 5.1.16, CE 5.2.1, and CE 5.2.2) encourage alternative modes of transportation, use of intelligent transportation systems, encourage enhancement and maintenance of public water transportation services and expanded public water transportation uses and land support facilities. Policies related to waterfront walkways include encouraging the development of walkways along the Lido Marina Village boardwalk, along Rhine Channel, between Lido Village and Mariners' Mile, and along the Mariners' Mile waterfront. Intersection improvements proposed as part of the Circulation Element update do not affect the implementation of these policies. In addition, improvements at some intersections have been limited to protect bicycle and pedestrian safety. City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 4.13-46 Chapter 4 Environmental Analysis Therefore, the proposed General Plan Update would not conflict with existing policies regarding alternative transportation. Impacts would be less than significant and no mitigation is necessary. ■ Cumulative Impacts Cumulative traffic impacts are based on the future traffic volumes presented in the discussion of Impacts 4.13-1 through 4.13-8, above. Future traffic volumes for the General Plan Buildout With Project and General Plan Buildout Without Project scenarios were projected using the NBTM and by incorporating all of the regional model data and projects on the regional system within and outside of the City. This includes traffic from neighboring jurisdictions. These projections include all reasonably foreseeable and probable future projects in the region. Therefore, the traffic analysis provided for the Project Study Area has already accounted for cumulative traffic impacts. To summarize the impacts of the proposed General Plan Update, including growth in regional traffic, traffic volumes would increase 30.9 percent over 2002 counts, and 23.9 percent over 2005 levels. The number of roadway segments with a V/C ratio greater than 0.90 would increase from 17 to 40. With improvements included in the proposed Circulation Element, the number of intersections operating at LOS E or worse would decrease from six under existing conditions to five. As indicated previously, intersection operations are the most meaningful measure of performance of the roadway system. Therefore, cumulative impacts associated with increased traffic volumes in the Project Study Area from buildout of the proposed General PlanUpdate would be less than signi6eant. However, cumulative impacts associated with freeway segments and ramps would be significant and unavoidable. Additionally, the project's contribution to this impact would be cumulatively considerable and significant and unavoidable. ® Proposed General Plan Update Policies Implementation of policies within the Circulation, Land Use, and Safety Elements of the proposed General Plan Update would reduce impacts associated with transportation and circulation. The policies that are applicable to the project are included below. Policies identified below that are also contained in the Harbor and Bay Element are denoted with an "HB." Transportation and Circulation Element The Circulation Element of the proposed General Plan Update has proposed conceptual intersection improvements within the City in an effort to support future development designated in the Land Use Plan of the proposed General Plan Update. The conceptual intersection improvements proposed under the Circulation Element are shown in Table 4.13-10. It is important to note that the conceptual intersection improvements are based on long-term forecasts of buildout conditions using the NBTM. The types of conceptual intersection improvements that have been investigated include the creation of new through lanes and turn lanes. These are conceptual improvements, and alternative improvements that would achieve acceptable operations could be substituted. The traffic analysis prepared for this EIR for the General Plan covers the entire City and the SOI area. The actual development patterns may occur differently than anticipated in this document due to market forces. For example, the pace of development may be faster or slower than anticipated by the analysis, or 4,13.46 City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 4.13 Transportation/Traffic it could not occur at all. There are no site -specific project area plans at this time, so the project layout, driveway locations, land use types, or intensities are unknown. Without such detail, it is not possible, using available traffic analysis procedures, to accurately estimate future intersection -specific impacts or mitigation requirements. Therefore, ongoing development activity and development proposals must be reviewed on a case -by -case basis as they arise, and as such details such as building type, density, and driveway location become known. The City cannot address these impacts in this Draft EIR as it would be too speculative to try to determine where, and if any, particular development would be constructed. In addition, Section 15145 of the CEQA Guidelines specifically states that if a particular impact or project is too speculative for evaluation, then analysis in the EIR is not required. The analysis contained in the General Plan EIR document should be considered as a guide to traffic impacts and recommended improvements and are subject to subsequent analysis. • • - 1 Transportation Improvements• - • • • - • General Update Intmectlon Additional lntersectlonlm ovementswithProect 1 Bluff Rd. (NS) at Coast Hw. (EW) Provide two SB left -turn lanes and two SB right -turn lanes (2nd with overlap phase). Provide two EB left -turn lanes. Provide one WB right -turn lane. 2 15th St. (NS) at Coast Hw. (EW) Provide 2nd SB right turn lane with overlap phase. Provide 2nd EB left turn lane. 3 Newport BI. (NS) at Hospital Rd. (EW) Provide 2nd NB left turn lane. 4 Riverside Av. (NS) at Coast Hw. (EW) Provide 3rd EB through lane. 5 MacArthur BI. (NS) at Campus Dr. (EW) Provide 2nd NB left turn lane. Restripe SB to provide 3.5 through lanes and 1.5 right turn lanes. 6 IEW) arman Av. (NS) at Campus Dr. Provide 2nd EB left turn lane. 7 Jamboree Rd. (NS) at Campus Dr. (EW) Provide NB 1st right turn lane with overlap phase. Provide 4th SB through lane. Provide WB right turn overlap phase for current right turn lane. 8 Campus Dr. (NS) at Bristol St. N (EW) Provide 5th WB through lane. Provide 3rd NB through lane. Provide 3rd SB through lane. Provide 1st EB right turn lane. Provide 2nd WB left turn lane. Construct funded improvements, but EB 9 Irvine Av. (NS) at Mesa Dr. (EW)-Funded right turn lane not necessary. Improvements University Dr. (EW) Provide 3rd NB through lane. Provide 3rd SB through lane. Restripe EB to include 1.5left turn lanes,1.5 through lanes, and 1 right turn lane. 10 MacArthur BI. (NS) at Jamboree Rd. Provide 4th EB through lane. Provide 3rd WB left turn lane. (EW) 11 Jamboree Rd. (NS) at Bristol St. S (EW) Provide 6th NB through lane. Provide 4th SB through lane. MacArthur BI. (NS) at Ford Rd./Bonita Provide 3rd SB left turn lane. 12 Canyon Dr. (EW) and San Joaquin Hills Provide 3rd SB left turn lane. Provide 3rd EB left turn lane. Provide 4th NB Rd. (EW) through lane. 'I City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 4.13-47 Transportation and Circulation Element Mobility Goal CE 1.1 An overall transportation system that facilitates the movement of people and goods within and through the City of Newport Beach and accommodates conservative growth within the City of Newport Beach, but is not expanded primarily to accommodate growth in the surrounding region. Policy CE 1.1.1 Comprehensive Transportation System Provide a diverse transportation system that provides mobility options for the community. Policy CE 1.1.2 Integrated System of Multiple Modes Provide an integrated transportation system that supports the land use plan set forth in the Land Use Element. Policy CE 1.1.3 Levels of Service Related to Community Character Establish level of service standards that reflect the character of the various unique districts and neighborhoods of Newport Beach. Goal CE 1.2 Reduced summertime visitor traffic impacts. Policy CE 1.2.1 Wayfmding Implement way -finding signs, especially for tourist destinations. Policy CE 1.2.2 Shuttle Service Encourage remote visitor parking and shuttle services. Policy CE 1.2.3 Traffic System Management Identify and implement measures, such as special traffic signal timing, to reduce the impact of high volume summer traffic on persons living along and around the beach and bay, as well as visitors. Policy CE 1.2.4 Public Transit Support and encourage OCTA efforts to provide / fund summertime expanded bus service and/or local shuttle services to reduce visitor traffic. 4.13-48 City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR ' ' Goal CE 1.3 Truck routes that support goods movement to and from land use in the City while minimizing adverse impacts to residents or businesses. ' Policy CE 1.3.1 Truck Routes ' Allow truck use of City streets except selected residential and arterial streets adjacent to residential areas necessary to minimize impacts of truck traffic on residential areas. Policy CE 1.3.2 Impacts of Trucks Provide appropriately designed and maintained roadways to safely accommodate truck travel and minimize noise and vibration. ' Policy CE 1.3.3 Management of Truck Activities Actively manage trucking activities related to oversize loads such as large boats and comparable characteristics. Roadway System ' Goal CE 2.1 A roadway system that provides for the efficient movement of goods and people in the City of Newport Beach, while maintaining the community's character and its residents' quality of life. Policy CE 2.1.1 Level of Service Standards ' Plan the arterial roadway system to accommodate projected traffic at the following level of service standards: A. Level of Service (LOS) "D" throughout the City, unless otherwise noted. t 1 1 B. LOS "E" at the following Airport Area intersection: Campus Drive (NS) at Bristol Street North PE V( and any intersection shared with Irvine. C. LOS "E" at the following intersections in the pedestrian oriented area of Coast Highway in Mariners' Mile: Riverside Avenue (NS) at Coast Highway (EW) and Dover Drive (NS) at Coast Highway (EVI). D. LOS "E" at Marguerite Avenue (NS) at Coast Highway (EVE in the pedestrian oriented area of Coast Highway in Corona del Mar. E. Accept LOS "E" at Goldenrod Avenue (NS) at Coast Highway (EV/) in the pedestrian oriented area of Coast Highway in Corona del Mar. Policy CE 2.1.2 Traffic Phasing Ordinance Update the Traffic Phasing Ordinance to maintain consistency with the General Plan Circulation Element level of service standards. ' City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 4.13.49 Policy CE 2.1.3 Street and Highway Network Construct the circulation system described on the map entitled Newport Beach Circulation Element -Master Plan of Streets and Highways shown in Figure CEl and Figure CE2 (cross-section). Policy CE 2.1.4 Current Traffic Data Monitor traffic conditions on an ongoing basis and update Master Plan as necessary. Policy CE 2.1.5 Roadway Improvements Pursue construction of intersection improvements shown on Figure CE3 or alternate improvements that achieve an acceptable level of service. Policy CE 2.1.6 Protection of Right -of -Way Protect right-of-way for designated future streets and highways through all practicable means. Goal CE 2.2 A safe and efficient roadway system. Policy CE 2.2.1 Safe Roadways Provide for safe roadway conditions by adhering to nationally recognized improvement standards and uniform construction and maintenance practices. Policy CE 2.2.2 Up -to -Date Standards Periodically review and update street standards to current capacity and safety practices. Policy CE 2.2.3 Traffic Control Design traffic control measures to ensure City streets and roads function with safety and efficiency. Policy CE 2.2.4 Driveway and Access Limitations Limit driveway and local street access on arterial streets to maintain a desired quality of traffic flow. Wherever possible, consolidate driveways and implement access controls during redevelopment of adjacent parcels. Policy CE 2.2.5 Neighborhood Traffic Calming Balance safety, quality of life, and efficiency when considering traffic calming improvements to local neighborhood streets. 4.13-50 City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR ' Policy CE 2.2.6 Emergency Access Provide all residential, commercial, and industrial areas with efficient and safe access for emergency vehicles. i Policy CE 2.2.7 Alleys Alleys in new developments shall be 20' wide to facilitate circulation. Goal CE 2.3 Optimal roadway system operation. ' Policy CE 2.3.1 Coast Highway Ownership Pursue ownership of Coast Highway throughout Newport Beach, as opportunities arise, so that Coast Highway can be improved to its ultimate width in Mariners' Mile consistent with the City's vision and to provide the City with more opportunities to increase operational efficiencies. Policy CE 2.3.2 Roadway Maintenance Support roadway maintenance programs that inspect, repair, and rehabilitate pavement surfaces in order to preserve the high quality of City streets and thoroughfares. Policy CE 2.3.3 Traffic Conditions Data Base Monitor traffic conditions and optimize traffic signal operations and coordination on an ongoing basis. Policy CE 2.3.4 Improvements to Reflect Changing Traffic Conditions ' Based on the monitoring of traffic conditions, consider additional improvements in areas with operations issues, such as intersections with heavy turn volumes (e.g. additional turn lanes, traffic signal progression, etc.). Goal CE 3.1 A network of regional facilities which ensures the safe and efficient movement of people and goods from within the City to areas outside its boundaries, and ' minimizes the use of City streets by regional through traffic. Policy CE 3.1.1 Freeway System ' Encourage ongoing regional investment in the freeway system. Policy CE 3.1.2 Integration of Transportation Systems with Adjoining Communities and the Region Interface with regional and surrounding local agencies, such as Caltrans, ' OCTA, the County of Orange, John Wayne Airport, the Cities of Irvine, Costa Mesa, and Huntington Beach, and the University of California, Irvine to implement systems that serve the needs of regional travelers in a way that ' minimizes impacts on Newport Beach residents. ' City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 4.13.51 Chapter 4 Environmental Analysis Policy CE 3.1.3 Regional Consistency The City of Newport Beach Master Plan of Streets and Highways (shoam on Figure CE1) shall be consistent with the Orange County Master Plan of Arterial Highways. Policy CE 3.1.4 Regional Traffic Mitigation Participate in programs (Congestion Management Program, Growth Management Program, etc.) to mitigate regional traffic congestion. Policy CE 3.1.5 19"' Street Bridge Advocate for the implementation of needed regional Master Plan improvements, and be a strong advocate for construction of the 19th Street bridge across the Santa Ana River. Public Transportation Goal CE 4.1 A public transportation system that provides mobility for residents and encourages use of public transportation as an alternative to automobile travel. Policy CE 4.1.1 Public Transit Efficiency Support efforts by OCTA and other agencies to increase the effectiveness and productivity of transit services, possibly including local shuttle services. Policy CE 4.1.2 Transit Services for Special Need Populations Support efforts to increase accessible transit services and facilities for the elderly, disabled, and other transportation disadvantaged persons. Policy CE 4.1.3 Seasonal Public Transit Coordinate with OCTA to provide seasonal, recreational, and special events shuttles. Policy CE 4.1.4 Land Use Densities Supporting Public Transit Accommodate residential densities sufficient to support transit patronage, especially in mixed' use areas such As the Airport Area. Policy CE 4.1.5 Airport Shuttles Encourage the use of airport shuttle services to minimize the impacts of air travelers on the local roadway system. Policy CE 4.1.6 Transit Support Facilities Participate in efforts to develop transit support facilities, including park -and - ride lots, bus stops, and shelters. 4.13.52 City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 4.13 Transportation/Traffic Policy CE 4.1.7 School Transit Monitor the demand for additional private, public, and school transportation available to serve the needs of K-12 students and advocate for improvements in traffic from students. Alternative Transportation Modes Goal CE 5.1 Convenient trail systems that satisfy recreational desires and transportation needs. Policy CE 5.1.1 Trail System Promote construction of a comprehensive trail system as shown on Figure CE4 and Figure CE5. Policy CE 5.1.2 Pedestrian Connectivity Link residential areas, schools, parks, and commercial centers so that residents can travel within the community without driving. Policy CE 5.1.3 Pedestrian Improvements in New Development Projects Require new development projects to include safe and attractive sidewalks, walkways, and bike lanes in accordance with the Master Plan, and, if feasible, trails. Policy CE 5.1.4 Linkages to Citywide Trail System and Neighborhoods Require developers to construct links to the planned trail system, adjacent areas, and communities where appropriate. Policy CE 5.1.5 Bikeway System Cooperate with state, federal, county, and local agencies to coordinate bikeways and trails throughout the region. Policy CE 5.1.6 Bicycle Supporting Facilities Incorporate bicycle and pedestrian facilities in the design plans for new streets and highways and, where feasible, in the plans for improving existing roads. Policy CE 5.1.7 Bicycle Safety Provide for safety of bicyclists, equestrians, and pedestrians by adhering to current national standards and uniform practices. Policy CE 5.1.8 Bicycle Conflicts with Vehicles and Pedestrians Minimize conflict points among motorized traffic, pedestrians, and bicycle traffic. City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 4.13-53 Chapter 4 Environmental Analysis Policy CE 5.1.9 Integrated Bicycle Improvements Coordinate community bicycle and pedestrian facilities in a citywide network for continuity of travel. Policy CE 5.1.10 Bicycle Trail Signage Develop and implement a uniform signing program to assist the public in locating, recognizing, and utilizing public bikeways and trails. Policy CE 5.1.11 School Access Work with schools to promote walking, biking, safe drop-off, and other improvements. Policy CE 5.1.12 Pedestrian Street Crossings Implement improved pedestrian crossings in key high volume areas such as Corona Del Mar, Mariners' Mile, West Newport, Airport Area, Newport Center/Fashion Island, and the Balboa Peninsula. Policy CE 5.1.13 Overhead Pedestrian Street Crossings Consider overhead pedestrian crossings in areas where pedestrian use limits the efficiency of the roadway or signalized intersection. Policy CE 5.1.14 Newport Harbor Trails and Walkways Develop and implement a long-range plan for public trails and walkways to access all appropriate commercial areas of the harbor, as determined to be physically and economically feasible including- (Policy HB 6.2) a. Extension of the Lido Marina Village boardwalk across all of the waterfront commercial properties in Lido Village. b. Provide a continuous waterfront walkway along the Rhine Channel, connecting Cannery Village and McFadden Square waterfront commercial areas with Las Arenas Beach at 19th Street. c. Provide a walkway connecting the Lido Village area with Mariners' Mile. d. Provide a continuous walkway along the Mariners' Mile waterfront from the Coast Highway/Newport Boulevard Bridge to the Balboa Bay Club. Policy CE 5.1.15 Equestrian Trails Maintain the existing equestrian trail system in Santa Ana Heights. Policy CE 5.1.16 Bicycle and Pedestrian Safety Provide for the safety of bicyclists and pedestrians through provision of adequate facilities, including maintenance of extra sidewalk width where feasible. 4.13.54 City of Newport Beach General Plah Update EIR 11 4.13 Transportation/Traffic 1' Goal CE 5.2 Enhanced and maintained public water transportation services and expanded public water transportation uses and land support facilities. Policy CE 5.2.1 Marine Terminals ' Coordinate the location of marine terminals with other components of the transportation system to ensure convenient multi -modal access and adequate parking. Policy CE,5.2.2 Expanded Water Transportation Modes Promote opportunities to expand water transportation modes, such as water based shuttle services and water taxis. Transportation Systems Management (TSM)/Travel Demand Management (TDM) Goal CE 6.1 An efficient circulation system through the use of transportation systems management. Policy CE 6.1.1 Traffic'Signals Improve traffic signal operations by optimizing signal timing, interconnecting signalized intersections along arterial streets, and installing computerized 1 master traffic signal control systems in intensively utilized areas. Policy CE 6.1.2 Intelligent Transportation Systems Explore and implement intelligent transportation system and infrastructure improvements which will reduce peak hour traffic from that forecast in this Element. MPolicy CE 6.1.3 Coordination with Adjacent Jurisdictions ' Coordinate operations with adjacent jurisdictions to enhance the efficiency of inter -jurisdictional roadway system operations. ' Goal CE 6.2 Reduced automobile travel through the use of travel demand management strategies. Policy CE 6.2.1 Alternative Transportation Modes Promote and encourage the use of alternative transportation modes, such as ridesharing, carpools, vanpools, public transit, bicycles, and walking; and provide facilities that support such alternate modes. Policy CE 6.2.2 Support Facilities for Alternative Modes Require new development projects to provide facilities commensurate with development type and intensity to support alternative modes, such as preferential parking for carpools, bicycle lockers, showers, commuter 1 City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 4.13-55 Chapter 4 Environmental Analysis information areas, rideshare vehicle loading areas, water transportation docks, and bus stop improvements. Policy CE 6.2.3 Project Site Design Supporting Alternative Modes Encourage increased use of public transportation by requiring project site designs that facilitate the use of public transportation and walking. Parking Goal CE 7.1 An adequate supply of convenient parking throughout the City. Policy CE 7.1.1 Required Parking Require that new development provide adequate, convenient parking for residents, guests, business patrons, and visitors. Policy CE 7.1.2 Parking In -Lieu Fees Establish an in -lieu parking fee that the City may require to be paid when a development is not able to provide required parking. Policy CE 7.1.3 Funding of Shared Panting Facilities Use in -lieu fees and other funds to develop public shared parking facilities in areas with inadequate parking supply. Priority shall be given to spending fees in areas that will benefit those who contributed the fees. Policy CE 7:1.4 Expanded Parking in Corona del Mar Permit conversion of Corona Del Mar residential lots adjacent to commercial areas and commercial lots for parking to support commercial uses. Encourage continued use of existing parking on residential zoned lots, as well as existing shared parking lots. Policy CE 7.1.5 Avon Street Municipal Parking Lot Relocation Consider relocation of the Avon Street municipal lot to better serve commercial uses in Mariners' Mile. Policy CE 7.1,6 Public Use of Private Parking Facilities Encourage the use of commercial, office, and institutional parking areas for use as public parking to serve coastal recreational areas during weekends and holidays, in conjunction with public transit or shuttles where appropriate. Policy CE 7.1.7 Shared Parking Facilities Consider allowing shared parking in mixed use and pedestrian oriented areas throughout the City. 4.13.56 City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR ' it 'J ' Policy CE 7.1.8 Parking Configuration Site and design new development to avoid use of parking configurations or management programs that are difficult to maintain and enforce. Policy CE 7.1.9 Parking Requirements for Pedestrian -Oriented and Local -Serving Uses Consider revised parking requirements for small scale neighborhood serving commercial uses in areas that derive most of their trade from walk-in business, ' especially where on -street or other public parking is available. M Policy CE 7.1.10 Parking for Marine Recreational Users Provide adequate parking as necessary in the vicinity of visitor serving marine uses, including marinas, water transportation terminals, boat ramps, as well as Mparking suitable for service vehicles in commercial marinas and berthing areas. Policy CE 7.1.11 Curb Cuts Require new development to minimize curb cuts to protect on -street parking spaces. Close curb cuts to create on street parking spaces wherever feasible. Policy CE 7.1.12 Alley Access Require alley access to parking areas for all new development in areas where ' alley access exists. Policy CE 7.1.13 Up -to -Date Parking Requirements Periodically review and update off-street parking requirements to ensure that new development provides off-street parking sufficient to serve approved uses. Goal CE 7.2 An efficiently operated parking system. ' Policy CE 7.2.1 Parking Management Develop parking management programs for areas with inadequate parking. Policy CE 7.2.2 Parking Signage Provide improved parking information and signage. Policy CE 7.2.3 Shared Valet Service Explore the feasibility of shared valet parking programs in areas with high parking demand and less conveniently located parking facilities, such as Mariners' Mile and McFadden Square. 1 ICity of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 4.13.57 Chapter 4 Environmental Analysis Transportation Funding Goal CE 8.1 Adequate funding for needed transportation infrastructure and operations. Policy CE 8.1.1 Transportation User and Benefit Fees Support legislation to increase transportation user and benefit fees, and to index such fees to keep pace with inflation, in order to provide the additional revenues for needed transportation facilities and services. Policy CE 8.1.2 State Highway Revenues Support legislation to increase state highway revenues as needed to maintain and rehabilitate the existing state highway system and to match all available federal highway funding. Policy CE 8.1.3 Innovative Transportation Funding Support the evaluation and implementation of innovative transportation financing mechanisms such as local tax increment districts, benefit assessment districts, and joint development and use of transportation centers. Policy CE 8.1.4 Local Street and Highway Revenues Support measures to increase local street and highway revenues as needed to fund all road reconstruction, operation, and maintenance cost. Policy CE 8.1.5 Comprehensive Funding Program Support measures to develop and implement a continuing funding program, including private sector participation and an equitable fare structure, to fund the construction, operation and maintenance of transit facilities and services. (Imp 7.2, 29.1, 44.7, 44.8) Policy CE 8.1.6 Annual Budgeting for Improvements Annually review and consider budgeting for projects contributing to completion of the Master Plan of Streets and Highways. Policy CE 8.1.7 Fair Share Fee Ordinance Periodically review the Fair Share Fee Ordinance, reassess the unfunded cost of required improvements and adjust the required Fair Share Fees as appropriate. Policy CE 8.1.8 Roadway Improvements Funding Fund costs of major roadway facility and intersection improvements through gas tax revenues, federal, state, and county grants, and City ordinances to avoid burdening the General Fund to the extent that this is possible. 4.13.58 City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR , ' Policy CE 8.1.9 Right -of -Way Dedication ' Require the dedication of needed right-of-way in conjunction with approval of subdivision maps or other discretionary approvals. Policy CE 8.1.10 Development Requirements Require development to provide the needed roadway improvements adjacent to a site, commensurate with project impact and in accordance with the Master Plan of Streets and Highways. Policy CE 8.1.11 Joint Funding with Adjoining Jurisdictions Pursue joint funding of improvements in areas (such as the Airport Area) where traffic growth and/or needed improvements are demonstrably based upon traffic contributions or improvements that are a joint responsibility of Newport Beach and one or more adjacent jurisdictions/agencies. Policy CE 8.1.12 Measure M Restrictions Measure M sales tax revenues shall not be used to replace private developer funding that has been committed for any project or normal subdivision obligations. ' Policy CE 8.1.13 Transportation Improvement or Special Assessment District Establish a transportation improvement or special assessment district to fund improvements needed in the Airport area. Land Use Element Goal LU 2 A living, active, and diverse environment that complements all lifestyles and enhances neighborhoods, without compromising the valued resources that make ' Newport Beach unique. It contains a diversity of uses that support the needs of residents, sustain and enhance the economy, provide job opportunities, serve visitors that enjoy the City's diverse recreational amenities, and protect its ' important environmental setting, resources, and quality of life. Policy LU 2.8 Adequate Infrastructure Accommodate the types, densities, and mix of land uses that can be adequately supported by transportation and utility infrastructure (water, sewer, storm drainage, energy, and so on) and public services (schools, parks, libraries, seniors, youth, police, fire, and so on). I ' City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 4.13.59 Chapter 4 Environmental Analysis Goal LU 3 A development pattern that retains and complements the City's residential neighborhoods, commercial and industrial districts, open spaces, and natural environment. Policy LU 3.2 Growth and Change Enhance existing neighborhoods, districts, and corridors, allowing for re -use and infill with uses that are complementary in type, form, scale, and character. Changes in use and/or density/intensity should be considered only in those areas that are economically underperforming, are necessary to accommodate Newport Beach's share of projected regional population growth, improve the relationship, and reduce commuting distance between home and jobs, or enhance the values that distinguish Newport Beach as a special place to live for its residents. The scale of growth and new development shall be coordinated with the provision of adequate infrastructure and public services, including standards for acceptable traffic level of service. Goal LU 6.4 If acquisition for open space is not successful, a high -quality residential community with supporting uses that provides revenue to restore and protect wetlands and important habitats. Policy LU 6.4.6 Approaches for a Livable Neighborhood Site and design development to enhance neighborhood quality of life by: ■ Establishing a pattern of blocks that promotes access and neighborhood identity ■ Design streets to slow traffic, while maintaining acceptable fire protection and traffic flows ■ Integrating a diversity of residential types within a neighborhood, while ensuring compatibility among different residential types ■ Orienting and designing the residential units to relate to the street frontage ■ Locating and designing garages to minimize their visual dominance from the street ■ Incorporating sidewalks and parkways to foster pedestrian activity ■ Promoting architectural diversity Goal LU 6.15 A mixed -use community that provides jobs, residential, and supporting services in close proximity, with pedestrian -oriented amenities that facilitates walking and enhance livability. Policy LU 6.15.19 Walkable Streets Retain the curb -to -curb dimension of existing streets, but widen sidewalks to provide park strips and generous sidewalks by means of dedications or easements. Except where traffic loads preclude fewer lanes, add parallel 4.13.60 City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR I parking to calm traffic, buffer pedestrians and provide short-term parking for visitors and shop customers. Policy LU 6.15.20 Connected Streets Require dedication and improvement of new streets as shown on Figure LU23. The illustrated alignments are tentative and may change as long as the routes provide the intended connectivity. If traffic conditions allow, connect new and ' existing streets across MacArthur Boulevard with signalized intersections, crosswalks, and pedestrian refuges in the median. ' Policy LU 6.15.24 Airport Compatibility Require that all development be constructed within the height limits and ' residential be located outside of areas exposed to the 65 dBA CNEL noise contour specified by the Airport Environs Land Use Plan (AELUP), unless the City Council makes appropriate findings for an override in accordance with ' applicable law. Safety Element ' Aviation Hazards Goal S 8 Residents, property, and the environment are protected from aviation -related hazards. Policy S 8.1 Firefighter Training Program Provide a formalized Aircraft Rescue Fire Fighting training program (including airport and aircraft familiarization, fuel fire extinguishment, hazards associated with airplanes and aircraft cargo, safety procedure, aviation communications, evacuation, and rescue operations) for all firefighters and Chief Fire Officers in 1 Newport Beach. Policy S 8.4 Mutual Aid Agreements Develop clear mutual aid agreements and Memoranda of Understanding with the airport fire service, county emergency and law enforcement agencies, United States Coast Guard, private ferry providers, and other potential resources. Goal S 9 Effective emergency response to natural or human -induced disasters that minimizes the loss of life and damage to property, while also reducing disruptions in the delivery of vital public and private services during and following a disaster. Policy S 9.1 Review and Update Emergency Plans Review and update, as necessary, the City's Emergency Management Plan on an annual basis. (Imp 38.2, 39.2) ICity of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 4.13.61 Policy S 9.2 Emergency Management System Training Conduct annual training sessions using adopted emergency management systems. Coordinate with other urban area jurisdictions to execute a variety of exercises to test operational and emergency plans. Policy S 9.4 Familiarity with National and State Response Plans Ensure that all Newport Beach personnel are familiar with the National Incident Management System, the National Response Plan, the State of California Master Mutual Aid Agreement, the Orange County Operational Area Mutual Aid Plan, and any other relevant response plans consistent with their position in the City's Emergency Management Plan. (Imp 38.2, 39.2) Policy S 9.5 Emergency and Disaster Education Programs Sponsor and support education programs pertaining to emergency/disaster preparedness and response protocols and procedures. Distribute information about emergency preparedness to community groups, schools, religious institutions, transient occupancy establishments, and business associations ® Impacts and Mitigation Measures Measures to reduce impacts to freeway segments and ramps would need to be implemented through Caltrans. Implementation of such mitigation is outside the jurisdiction of the City. Therefore, although feasible mitigation may be available to reduce impacts identified in Impact 4.13-2, it cannot be guaranteed that such measures would be implemented. As such, no feasible mitigation is available to the City to reduce impacts to freeway segments and ramps. Level of Significance After Proposed Improvements In the Circulation Element and Implementation of the Proposed General Plan Update Policies Intersection analysis has been performed to determine the additional improvements necessary to provide acceptable levels of service. Table 4.13-6 summarizes intersection analysis for 'buildout conditions, including potential improvements and discussion regarding improvement feasibility. Table 4.13-7 also compares the ICU results with and without additional improvements. Improvements necessary to provide acceptable levels of service are listed in Table 4.13-10. Improvements that require the least additional right-of-way or other environmental impacts have generally been recommended. Individual intersections improvements are provided in the GPTS (Appendix D) for each location requiring improvements. Impacts associated with intersections, CMP arterials, air traffic patterns, design hazards, emergency access, and parking within the Planning Area would be less than sign&cant upon implementation of the identified proposed General Plan Update policies, Cumulative impacts would also be less than significant. As no feasible mitigation has been identified to reduce impacts related to freeway mainlines and ramps, this project and cumulative impacts would remain significant and unavoidable. 4.13.62 City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 4.13 Transportation/Traffic II 4.13.6 References Urban Crossroads. 2006. City ofNervport Beach General Plan Transportation Study, Newport Beach, California, 22 March. 2006. Existing with Project Evaluation, 27 March. City of Newport Beact 4.14 Utilities and Service Systems 4.14 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS This section evaluates the impacts of the proposed General Plan Update associated with utilities and service systems within the City of Newport Beach. During the Initial Study process, it was determined that the proposed General Plan Update would result in potential impacts related to water supply, water and wastewater treatment facilities, and solid waste. Full bibliographic entries for all reference materials are provided in Section 4.14.5 (References) of this section. No comment letters were received during the IS/NOP comment period. 4.14.1 Water System ■ Existing Conditions Water service within the Planning Area is provided by the City, Irvine Ranch Water District (IRWD), and Mesa Consolidated Water District (Mesa). Figure 4.14-1 illustrates the service boundaries of each provider in the Planning Area. Water Infrastructure City of Newport Beach The City provides water service to most of the Planning Area encompassing approximately 36 square miles, as shown in Figure 4.14-1. Presently, Banning Ranch is outside of any water provider service area; however, if the Banning Ranch area is annexed to the City, the City intends to provide service to this area. The City provides water service to nearly 75,600 people and various land uses. The City water supplies are imported water purchased from the Municipal Water District of Orange County (MWDOC), groundwater pumped from the Orange County Groundwater Basin, and reclaimed water. Through the existing infrastructure totaling over 210 miles within the City's service area, water is delivered via transmission mains and distribution lines. Existing water lines range from 1 to 36 inches, with the majority of the pipelines ranging from 8 to 12 inches in diameter. Transmission mains convey water to various sections of the distribution system and the distribution lines deliver water to local areas. In addition, the City's water infrastructure includes five pump stations and 43 pressure reducing stations. The water distribution system is divided into five major pressure zones that serve elevations from sea level to 725 feet above sea level. Within the region, there are four main groundwater basins: the La Habra Basin, the San Juan Basin, the Laguna Canyon Basin, and the Lower Santa Ana Basin. These basins supply several cities and agencies, and are administered by Basin Pumping Percentages, as allocated by the Orange Coast Water District (OCWD). The City receives its groundwater from the Lower Santa Ana Basin (Basin), which is also called the Coastal Plain of Orange County Groundwater Basin. Since 1997, the City has operated four City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 4.14-1 Chapter 4 Environmental Analysis groundwater wells in Fountain Valley at the Dolphin Avenue and Tamura School sites. Each site contains one shallow well and one deep well. Upon extraction, the water travels over six miles in 30-inch transmission mains, through the cities of Fountain Valley, Huntington Beach, Costa Mesa, and eventually into Newport Beach. From the wells, the groundwater is conveyed to the 16'h Street Reservoir at the City's utilities yard, and then to different areas within the City's service boundaries. Water Storage The City uses three water system storage reservoirs: Big Canyon Reservoir, Zone 4 Reservoir, and 16 h Street Reservoir. The Big Canyon Reservoir, which is 'located in Corona del Mar and shown in Figure 4.14-1, is a distribution and storage concrete earthen dam reservoir that has a capacity of approximately 196 million gallons (MG) and a maximum water surface elevation of 302 feet. However, the City maintains this reservoir at an average level of about 286 feet, providing approximately 300 acre- feet (AF) (98 MG) of storage. A cover was installed on the reservoir in 2005. The Zone 4 Reservoir is a circular 1.5 MG below -grade concrete tank that has a maximum elevation of 663 feet, located on Muir Beach Circle. The 16'h Street Reservoir is a buried cast -in -place concrete tank that has a capacity of 1 MG, located at 951 West 16'h Street. As discussed above, this reservoir serves as a holding tank for well water. Fire Flows As discussed in further detail. in Section 4.11 (Public Services) of this EIR, the Newport Beach Fire Department is responsible for fire suppression within the City. The Fire Department relies on the area's infrastructure, including the adequacy of nearby water supplies to suppress fire. Thus, the City has adopted the section of the 2001 California Fire Code that lists the minimum required fire flow and flow duration for buildings of different floor areas and construction types (Appendix III -A of the Fire Code.) Fire flow is the flow rate of water supply (measured in gallons per minute) available for fire fighting measured at 20 pounds per square inch (psi) pressure. Available fire flow is the total water flow available at the fire hydrants, also measured in gpm. Consistent with the California Fire Code, Section 9.04.450 of the City's Municipal Code indicates that, in buildings fitted with approved internal automatic sprinkler systems, the minimum required fire flow for that structure may be reduced by up to 50 percent, as approved by the Fire Chief, but the resulting Ere flow cannot be less than 1,500 gpm ' Irvine Ranch Water District The service area covered by IRWD is approximately 85,019 acres, or 133 square miles, located in southern -central Otange County, which includes a portion of Newport Beach as well as other surrounding cities. IKWD is responsible for serving the southeastern portion of the Planning Area, which includes the Newport Coast and Newport Ridge areas, as shown in Figure 4.14-1. In addition, IRWD serves small portions along the northern boundary of the Planning Area, including the areas of Santa Ana Heights, Bonita Canyon, a portion of the Airport Area, and Bay Knolls. In total, IRWD serves 82 Irvine Ranch Water District. 2003. %Vatcr Resources Management Plan. Adopted 2000, most recently updated in 2003. 17 4.14-2 City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR I CITY of NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL PLAN UPDATE EIR Figure 4.14-1 WATER INFRASTRUCTURE AND SERVICE AREAS Legend -•- City Boundary Water Infrastructure Water Providers City of Newport Beach Irvine Ranch Water District Mesa Consolidated Water District Hydrogrophy Tidelands and Submerged Lands Waterway Roads State and Federal Highway Streets Note Water Infrastructure data for Irvine Ranch Woter District not available, M1ore: G6 Flo Pxyeclbn V.91oN PV�e, ld6 b. 1N➢8d, iEel. g 0 0.5 1 Mies sa.cac cxra I+..oa+em�n. walA'•ie.. eve aaas. on en+n�r. s*.v zw: am, rnw mm. co,�dv.. nev soon: la cb,.. euau;. ana a+r �� 1fLU EWL Mpr FoaY Lelury 2(p1 aw CP A1p�o^ la[. G6 R(yvn, Npa'rrov Id,'Gbn. Rcjai Nw 105)4N EIP 414 Utilities and Service Systems I approximately nine square miles within the Planning Area, which accounts for approximately seven percent of IRWD's total service area boundaries. IRWD is a multiservice agency that provides potable and nonpotable water and wastewater services to a population of approximately 316,000. IRWD's current population of 316,000 is approximately 73 percent of the ultimate projected population estimated at 434,511 for 2030 as IRWD prefers to diversify and rely less on imported water and more on local supplies, and has therefore developed extensive groundwater pumping capacities to meet potable demands in addition to imported supplies. The source of IRWD's potable groundwater supply is the Lower Santa Ana River Basin within the Orange County Groundwater Basin (Basin). Potable water is pumped from approximately 16 wells in the Dyer Road Well Field (DRWF), located in the City of Santa Ana. These wells, ranging from 400 to 1,200 feet in depth, extract water from the Orange County Groundwater Basin. The DRWF supply is conveyed to the IRWD distribution system via a 54-inch-diameter transmission main located in Dyer Road (Barranca Parkway in the City of Irvine). The additional IRWD water supply is provided by imported treated water, primarily from MWD, through two major transmission pipelines. The existing nonpotable water system consists of two subsystems: (1) a reclaimed water system that delivers reclaimed water, supplemental and untreated water, and limited nonpotable groundwater from the Irvine Subbasin (within the Basin) and (2) an untreated water system that delivers imported untreated water and local runoff via the Irvine Lake Pipeline to supplement the reclaimed water system. Existing water mains throughout the Planning Area range in size from 8 to 24 inches in diameter.64 Water Storage IRWD divides potable water system storage into four categories: operational storage, fire flow storage, seasonal storage, and emergency storage. Operational and fire storage, and in some cases emergency storage, are typically provided in local storage facilities (tanks). Seasonal and emergency storage are closely aligned with source of supply issues and are provided through seasonal use of the groundwater basin. Nonpotable storage includes the operational and seasonal storage categories, with operational storage typically being provided in tanks and seasonal storage in large open reservoirs. Within the IRWD service boundaries, three existing tanks provide potable water storage to the Planning Area in three water pressure service zones with the following existing capacities: (1) Coastal Zone 2 (2 MG); (2) Coastal Zone 4 (6.5 MG); and (3) Coastal Zone 6 (2.6 MG). In addition, IRWD has three existing tanks that provide nonpotable water storage within the Planning Area including the San Joaquin Reservoir as shown in Figure 4.14-1, Coastal Zone D, and Coastal Zone G. Operated by IRWD, the total existing capacity of the San Joaquin Reservoir is approximately 3,000 AF. Coastal Zone D has an existing capacity of 5 MG and Coastal Zone G has an existing capacity of 2.5 MG. B%Irvine Ranch Water District, 2005. Urban VaterMauagewent Plan, November. 64 Irvine Ranch Water District. 2003. Ir%ater Resources Management Plant. Adopted 2000, most recently updated in 2003. City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 4.14.5 Fire Protection Water Currently, in the IRWD, public fire protection water is provided through unmetered connections to the potable water system (i.e., fire hydrants and fire line connections). Although previously requested by the Orange County Fire Authority (OCFA), public fire protection connections to the nonpotable water system as secondary sources have not been approved by the California Department of Health Services (CDHS). IRWD provides water for private fire protection via on -site or on -property water lines, which typically serve private fire hydrants and automatic building fire sprinkler systems. Mesa Consolidated Water District Mesa Consolidated Water District serves a small portion of the western boundary of the Planning Area, which includes the area directly north of Banning Ranch as well as the area east of Newport Shores to Superior Avenue for a service area of approximately less than one-half square mile. As discussed previously, no water service provider (including Mesa Consolidated Water District) presently provides water to Banning Ranch itself. The total service area covered by Mesa includes approximately 19 square miles, which includes Costa Mesa, part of Newport Beach. The area served by Mesa within the Planning Area accounts for approximately one percent of Mesa's total service boundaries. Wafer Treatment and Drinking Wafer Quality City of Newport Beach The drinking water supply for the City is a blend of mostly groundwater from the Orange County groundwater basin and also surface water imported by MWD. MWD's imported water source is mostly the Colorado River, with augmentation by the State Water Project from Northern California. The groundwater comes from a natural underground reservoit managed by the Orange County Water District that generally stretches from the Prado Dam and fans across the northwestern portion of Orange County. The City's imported surface water supply is treated at either one of two treatment plants: (1) the MWD Diemer Filtration Plant, located in Yorba Linda, or (2) MWD's Weymouth Filtration Plant, which is located in the San Gabriel Valley. Typically, the Diemer Filtration Plant receives a blend of Colorado River water from Lake Matthews through the MWD lower feeder and State Water Project water through the Yorba Linda Feeder. The blend ratio between the two sources varies from year to year.'' Treatment capacity at the Diemer Filtration Plant is approximately 520 MGD, with existing average winter flows at approximately 140 MGD, increasing to approximately 375 MGD in the summer. Thus, during the winter the plant operates at approximately 27 percent capacity, during the summer at approximately 72 percent capacity.' Similar to the Diemer Plant, the treatment capacity at the Weymouth Filtration Plant is approximately 520 MGD. Existing average winter flows are approximately 220 MGD, and existing summer flows are &- Irvine Ranch Water District. 2003. 16'ater Resources Managenienl Pla», 4-8. Adopted 2000, most recently updated in 2003. 4.14.6 City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR , 4.14 Utilities and Service Systems 7 L 11 II II approximately 340 MGD. Therefore, the Weymouth Filtration Plant operates at approximately 42 percent during the winter, and at approximately 65 percent during the summer." Currently, the City's groundwater supply is treated at the City's Utility Yard, located at 949 W. 16`h Street, and consists of five pumps and two chamber reservoirs that can accommodate up to 1.5 MG each. The groundwater is blended with surface water and treated with sodium hypochlorite (the equivalent of household bleach), which is a typical application to achieve a potable water, supply, before eventually being pumped through the water distribution system. In addition, the new Big Canyon Reservoir Disinfection Facility was put into service December 2004.e8 Irvine Ranch Water District Similar to the City's surface water treatment process, the majority of IRWD's imported potable water is supplied from a single source, the MWD Diemer Filtration Plant, located north of Yorba Linda. In addition to Diemer-treated imported water, IRWD also receives potable water from MWD's Weymouth Filtration Plant via the Orange County Feeder." As discussed previously, the Diemer Filtration Plant currently operates at approximately 27 percent capacity during the winter and at approximately 72 percent capacity during the summer, while the Weymouth Filtration Plant operates at approximately 42 percent during the winter and at approximately 65 percent during the summer.90 Local groundwater is purified at disinfection facilities near the Dyer Road Wellfield before it is provided to customers. An Annual Water Quality Report is distributed by IRWD to customers each April, providing water testing results and information about water quality. Currently, the drinking water provided by IRWD meets and exceeds all quality standards set by both the State and Federal government." Mesa Consolidated Water District For purposes of this analysis, since Mesa provides potable water service to a nominal portion of the Planning Area, water treatment and drinking water quality information was not obtained from the service provider. Wafer Supply and Demand City of Newport Beach Domestic water for the Planning Area is supplied by both groundwater and imported surface water sources, as previously discussed. Currently, 75 percent of the water supplied by the City's service area is 86 Trask, Willy. 2004. Personal communication with Metropolitan Water District, Water Quality Division, 9 January. 87 Trask, Willy. 2004. Personal communication with Metropolitan Water District, Water Quality Division, 9 January. 88 Antista, Pete. 2006. Written communication with Utilities Director, City of Newport Beach. 20 March. 89 Irvine Ranch Water District. 2003. Vater Resources Management Plan, 4-8. Adopted 2000, most recently updated in 2003. 90 Trask Willy. 2004. Personal communication with Metropolitan Water District, Water Quality Division, 9 January. 91 Irvine Ranch Water District, 2005. Annual Water Quality Report. Website: http://unv%v.irwd.com/WaterQuality/\VQReport2005.pdf City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 4.14-7 Chapter 4 Environmental Analysis supplied by groundwater from the Orange County Groundwater Basin, and the remaining 25 percent of water supply is provided by MWD, which delivers water imported from the Colorado River and State Water Project. The groundwater supply for the City's water system is extracted from two well sites, as discussed above, established in Fountain Valley," Current and Projected Water Supplies Table 4.14-1 shows the projected water supply and demand for the City through 2030. Water Supply Sources MWDOC 6,404 5,758 6,157 6,362 6,226 6,256 OCWD (Lower Santa Ana Basin) 14,927 13,590 14,921 14,778 14,990 14,960 Recycied Water (projected use) 317 444 478 500 '500 500 Total Water Supply Sources 18,648 19,792 21,556 21,640 21,716 21,716 Projected Demand 18,648 19,792 21,556 21,640 21,716 21,716 SOURCE; City of Newport Beach. 2005 Urban Water Management Plan (Table 3-5 and Table 4-81, December The future supply projection assumes that the City will continue to produce groundwater and purchase local water. Currently, the City purchases imported water from the Municipal Water District of Orange County (MWDOC) through MWD. According to the City of Newport Beach's 2005 Urban Water Management Plan, water supplies can continue to meet the City's imported water needs until the year 2030. Beyond that date, improvements associated with the State Water Project supply, additional local projects, conservation, and additional water transfers would be needed to adequately serve the City. The Groundwater Replenishment System (GRS), a joint venture by OCWD and the Orange County Sanitation District (OCSD), will help to reduce Orange County and Newport Beach's reliance on imported surface water by taking treated wastewater and injecting it into the groundwater basin. GRS will be online by 2007, and will produce approximately 70,000 acre feet of water per year. OCWD, which provides the groundwater supply to the City, projects that there would be sufficient groundwater supplies to meet any future demand requirements in Newport Beach. As such, the future water supply projections in Table 4.14-1 are based on implementation of City conservation programs, additional recycled water, additional production of groundwater, and MWDOC efforts to reduce the City's dependence on imported water supplies from MWD. According to the 2005 UWMP, desalinated water is not currently perceived to be a viable option for the City water supply, and neither brackish nor impaired groundwater is pumped. Though the City is not pursuing desalination as a potential water supply, some of its neighboring agencies and its wholesale water supplier (MWDOC) are actively investigating the possibility. MWDOC has performed preliminary 92 Newport Beach, City of 1999. VaterlllasterPlau. 4.14.8 City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR , 4.14 Utilities and Service Systems siting and cost analyses, and the City of Huntington Beach, in conjunction with a private entity, has approved the facility. Currently, no potential for the desalination of brackish groundwater has been identified in Newport Beach. In addition, the City does not transfer and/or exchange any water supply to or from other entities, and it is not anticipated that transfer or exchange will occur in the future. Water Supply Reliability During short-term periods of water supply reductions, the City would implement its water shortage contingency plan. Table 4.14-2 includes the anticipated local and imported water supplies for the City during a normal water year, a single dry water year, and multiple dry water years. Factors that could result in an inconsistent water supply are climactic in nature, according to the 2005 Urban Water Management Plan. 2010 Table 4.14-2 Normal Water.Year,(Average) Supply Reliability SingkDryYear MuIN)Je.DrVWafer Years 2008 2009 2010 Local Supply 14,034 12,439 13,293 12,094 12,439 % of Normal 88.6% 94,7% 86.2% 88.6% 5,758 8,450 7,260 8,099 8,450 Imported Supply %of Normal 146.8% 126.1% 140.7% 146.8% 2015 Normal Water Year (Ave6ge) Single DryYear(1961) Mu18 Water Years 20081959 20091960 20101961 15,399 12,840 13,670 12,041 12,840 Local Supply %of Normal 83.4% 88.8% 78.2% 83.4% 6,157 9,911 8,706 10;114 9,911 Imported Supply %of Normal 161.0% 141.4% 164.3% 161.0% 2020 Normal Water Year (AvmraW) Single Dry Year (1961) MuN WalerYears 2008 1959 2009 1960 20101961 Local Supply 15,278 11,526 14,075 11,652 11,526 %of Normal 75.4% 92.1% 76.3% 75.4% Imported Supply 6,362 %of Normal 11,314 177.8% 8,978 141.1% 10,771 169.3% 11,314 177.8% 2025 Normal Water Year (Awrage) SingleDry Year (1967) MuNi le WaterYears 2008 1959 2009 1960 20101961 Local Supply 15,490 12,195 14,138 12,343 12,195 % of Normal 78.7% 91.3% 79.7% 78.7% Imported Supply 6,226 % of Normal 10,726 172.3% 9,006 144.6% 10,168 163.3% 10,726 172.3% 2030 NormalWaWYear(Ammge) Single Dry Year (1961) MuIN le -Water Years 20081959 20091960 2010 961 15,460 11,817 14,531 12,211 11,817 Local Supply % of Normal 76.4% 94.0% 79.0% 76.4% Imported Supply 6,256 11,104 8,639 10,308 11,104 %of Normal 177.5% 138.1% 164.8% 177.5% SOURCE: City of Newport Beach. 2005 Urban Water Management Plan (Table 4-y), December City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 4.14.9 Chapter 4 Environmental Analysis Since the City's entire potable water demand is met with imported and' local water supplies, the City is highly dependent on OCWD and MWD to meet its needs during dry years. However, MWD does not anticipate any shortages in the dry -year scenarios analyzed, and in addition, Tables 4.14-3 and 4.14-4 indicate that in both normal water and single dry precipitation years, the City would have sufficient water to meet its customers' needs through 2030. Table 4.14-5 through Table 4.14-9 show supply and demand during multiple dry -precipitation years through 2030, and indicate that during this time period, the City would have sufficient water to meet its customer's needs. 2010 1 2015 2020 1 2025 2030 Supply totals 19,792 21,556 21,640 21,716 21,716 Demand totals 19,792 21,55E 21,640 21,716 21,716 Difference 0 0 0 0 0 Difference as % of Supply 0.0% 0.0% 010% 0.0% 0.0% Difference as % of Demand 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 010% 0.0% SOURCE: City of Newport Beach, 2005 Urban Water Management Plan, December. 2010 2015 1 2020 2025 1 2030 Supply totals 26,889 22,751 22,841 22,921 22,921 Demand totals 4889 22,751 22,841 22,921 22,921 Difference 0 0 0 0 0 Difference as % of Supply 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 010% 0.0% Difference as % of Demand 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% SOURCE: City of Newport Beach, 2005 Urban Water Management Plan, December. TableProjected Supply • • Demand Multiple Dry -Year •• Ending 2006 Comparison During in 2010 11' 2007 2008 Supply totals 20,553 20,193 20,889 Demand totals 20,553 20,193 20,889 Difference 0 0 0 Difference as % of Supply 0.0% 0.00/0 0.0% Difference as % of Demand 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% SOURCE: City of NeWporl Beach, 2005 Urban Water Management Plan, December. 4.14.10 City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR ' 4.14 Utilities and Service Systems Table• -• Supply • • Demand Multiple Dry -Year Period Ending 2013 Comparison During in 2015•2015 1 2014 1 2015 Supply totals 22,376 22,155 22,751 Demand totals 22,376 22,155 22,751 Difference 0 0 0 Difference as % of Supply 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Difference as % of Demand 1 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% SOURCE: City of Newport Beach, 2005 Urban Water Management Plan, December. 2018 2019 2020 Supply totals 23,053 22,423 22,841 Demand totals 23,053 22,423 22,841 Difference 0 0 0 Difference as % of Supply 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Difference as % of Demand 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% SOURCE: City of Newport Beach, 2005 Urban Water Management Plan, December. Table 4.14-8 Projected Supply and Demand Comparison Multiple Dry -Year - •• Ending in 2025 supply 1 2023 1 2024 During 2025 Supply Totals 23,144 22,511 22,921 Demand Totals 23,144 22,511 22,921 Difference 0 0 0 Difference as % of Supply 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Difference as % of Demand 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% SOURCE: City of Newport Beach, 2005 Urban Water Management Plan, December. supiolly 2028 2029 2030 Supply Totals 23,170 22,519 22,921 Demand Totals 23,170 22,519 22,921 Difference 0 0 0 Difference as % of Supply 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Difference as % of Demand 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% SOURCE: City of Newport Beach, 2005 Urban Water Management Plan, December. City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 4.14.11 Chapter 4 Environmental Analysis Irvine Ranch Water District Approximately 35 percent of IRWD's current water supply is purchased from MWD, with the remaining 65 percent coming from local groundwater wells."" The majority of imported potable water is supplied from the MWD Diemer Filtration Plant.74 For many years, IRWD received all of its water from imported sources. However, in 1979, IRWD began developing a series of local wells called the Dyer Road Wellfield Project in order to alleviate dependency on imported water sources."' In general, areas in southem-central Orange County served by the IRWD receive groundwater from mid -April through mid - October and imported water from mid -October through mid April96 Historical water demands for IRWD's total service area are presented in Table 4.14-10, as presented in the IRWD's Water Resources Master Plan. As discussed previously, the area served within the Planning Area represents approximately seven percent of IRWD's total service area. With the exception of the drought years in the early 1990's, water use showed a slow upward trend, due to growth in water use by residential, commercial, and industrial users. Demand (AF) 1 61,070 1 65,550 1 77,850 1 61,870 1 88,860 1 86,550 SOURCE: Irvine Ranch Water District Water Resources Master Plan, adopted 2000, most recently updated in 2003, Figure ES-1 Table 4.14-11 illustrates the estimated future water supply and demand during normal conditions. As shown, IRWD has sufficient water to meet customer needs through 2030 in average demand years, based on a continued commitment to conservation, additional recycled water use, and additional groundwater treatment 97 The projected supply in IRWD's Urban Water Management Plan assumes new potable groundwater supplies will be developed as planned to greatly reduce reliance on imported water under normal and dry 93Indne Ranch Water District, 2005. IR\VD Fact Sheet, July. Website: http://www.invd.com/Mcdialnfo/factshcctpdf °+ Irvine Ranch Water' District, 2005. Urban Water Management Plan, November. 95Irvine Ranch Water District 2005. IR\BUD Fact Sheet, July. Website: http://Nv%v\v.invd,com/Aledialnfo/factsheet.pdf 91 Irvine Ranch Water District. 2004. January Website: Nvw%v.invd.com/WaterQuafity/WatctSources.htn-A 97 Irvine Ranch \water District, 2005. Urban \Water ALtnagement Plan, November. 4.14.12 City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 1 '' ' 4.14 Utilities and Service Syste year operating conditions. Imported water deliveries are expected to be reduced in the projected supply ' mix, only because IRWD is developing local supplies; however, IRWD owns more capacity in the imported supplies than what is projected in this analysis. It is anticipated that MWD imported water will be required for supplemental supply as well as peak and emergency conditions. 98 Secure, potable water supplies are required to meet (1) maximum day demands under normal operating conditions, and (2) to meet maximum month demands under worst -case, short-term supply outage ' scenarios. In the event of a single dry year, IRWD has sufficient supply to meet demand without requiring any reduction in use. In regards to IRWD's imported supplies, MWD fully expects to be 100 percent reliable throughout the next 20 years through effective management of its water supply.' ' IRWD's effective water efficiency improvements and additional water supply will help to enhance IRWD's water supply position and ensure IRWD meets projected water demand. The District will continue to assess improving water supplies, including expanding water recycling through conversions, groundwater storage, other groundwater treatment methods, or other such water supply alternatives. If ' necessary, for subsequent dry years, the District would enter into a Stage I alert of the Water Shortage Contingency Plan, and emphasize voluntary reduction in water use to all customers, but may not impose any additional restrictions. IRWD anticipates having sufficient water supplies to meet estimated demands under projected multiple dry year scenarios'00 Mesa Consolidated Water District On an annual basis, Mesa delivers approximately 8 billion gallons (24,500 AF) of water to various users.101 Approximately 75 percent of Mesa's water is provided by local groundwater pumped from ' Orange County's natural groundwater basin via nine wells. Similar to the City's service, the remaining 25 percent of Mesa's water is imported water from MWD, which delivers water imported from the Colorado River and State Water Project. At various times of the year, Mesa will supplement its groundwater with imported water.102 As discussed previously, the area served within the Planning Area represents approximately one percent of Mesa's total service area. Thus, information regarding water demand and use was not obtained. Recycled Water City of Newport Beach The City of has approximately 10 miles of recycled water distribution pipeline, which currently supplies eight recycled use sites. Recycled water is supplied to the City from the Orange County Water District (OCWD) from Fountain Valley as part of OCWD's Green Acres Project. OCWD produces ' approximately 7.5 mgd of tertiary treated, disinfected recycled water. Some of the sites served by recycled 98Irvine Ranch Water District, 2005. Urban Water Management Plan, November. 99Irvine Ranch Water District, 2005. Urban Water Management Plan, November. 100 Irvine Ranch Water District, 2005. Urban Water Management Plan, November. 101 Mesa Consolidated Water District. 2003. Water Quality Report. ' 102 Mesa Consolidated Water District. 2003. Water Quality Report. ' City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 4.14-13 Chapter 4 Environmental Analysis water include the Newport Beach County Club, the Big Canyon Country Cub, median strips, and a City- ownedpark. Potential recycled water users are locations where recycled water could replace potable water use. These potential users are typically landscape or agricultural irrigation systems. In 2003, the City identified potential recycled water users by looking at past studies, water and irrigation meter records, and assistance from OCWD. 'User types included golf courses, landscape medians, school athletic fields, a cemetery, and park irrigation. Specific potential customers were listed, along with an estimate of recycled water use at that site. The City has identified and approached all of the cost-effective end users, and the number of users could only be increased if a neighboring agency provided the reclaimed water and provided it to the City. However, in most areas, the cost to install mains and services would make the conversion very expensive or cost prohibitive. The City currently serves approximately 3,336 AFY of irrigation demand using potable water, but these demands are mostly located a long distance from the existing recycled system, and it is not cost-effective to connect. To promote dte use of recycled water, the City provides financial incentives by offering a 20 percent discount off potable water rates. The current rate for recycled users is $1.66 per unit (one unit equals 748 gallons). Irvine Ranch Water District Currently, reclaimed accounts for over 20 percent of IRWD's total water resource demands.103 The reclaimed water is delivered through a completely separate distribution system that includes more than 245 miles of pipeline, eight storage reservoirs, and twelve pump stations throughout IRIND's entire service area. Reclaimed water was otiginally served to agricultural users and expanded to include landscape irrigation (parks, golf courses, school grounds and play fields, community associations, open space area, green belts). Eventually, the reclaimed water system expanded further to include front and backyard irrigation for large estate -sized residential lots, toilet flushing for large commercial buildings, carpet dying, construction dust tontrol, and a cooling tower application. In addition, many water features such as fountains are filled with reclaimed water. IRWD's recycled water program has enhanced local water supply reliability for both IRWD and the region, because it directly offsets the need for firm treated, imported water for municipal irrigation, and other nonpotable uses. Mesa Consolidated Water District At the time of preparation of this document, limited information was available regarding Mesa's recycled water program. However, it is known that Mesa encourages commercial and industrial customers to use reclaimed water for greenbelt areas."'4 103 In7ne Ranch Water District, 2005. Urban Water Management Plan, November. 104 Mesa Consolidated Water District, Website: http://wtvw.mesawater.org/htmi/new_customer.htm, accessed on January 27, 2006. 4.14.14 City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR ■ Regulatory Context Federal Regulations Clean Water Act The Federal Clean Water Act (CWA) establishes regulatory requirements for potable water supplies including raw and treated water quality criteria. The City of Newport Beach would be required to monitor water quality and conform to the regulatory requirements of the CWA. Safe Drinking Water Act The Federal Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) established standards for contaminants in drinking water supplies. Maximum contaminant levels or treatment techniques were established for each of the contaminants. The listed contaminants include metals, nitrates, asbestos, total dissolved solids, and microbes. State Regulations Safe Drinking Water Act (1976) California enacted its own Safe Drinking Water Act. CDHS has been granted primary enforcement responsibility for the SDWA. Title 22 of the California Administrative Code establishes CDHS authority and stipulates drinking water quality and monitoring standards. These standards are equal to or more stringent than the Federal standards. Recycled Water Regulations Within the State of California, recycled water is regulated by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the State Water Resources Control Board, Regional Water Quality Control Boards, and DHS. The State Water Resources Control Board has adopted Resolution No. 77-1, Policy with Respect to Water Reclamation in California. This policy states that the State Board and Regional Boards will encourage and consider or recommend for funding water reclamation projects that do not impair water rights or beneficial instream uses. The CDHS establishes the recycled water uses allowed in the State, and designates the level of treatment (i.e., undisinfected secondary, disinfected secondary, or disinfected tertiary) required for each of these designated uses (Title 22, California Code of Regulations). The Regional Water Quality Control Boards implement the State Board's Guidelines for Regulation of Water Reclamation and issue waste discharge permits that serve to regulate the quality of recycled water based on stringent water quality requirements. The State Department of Health Services develops policies protecting human health and comments and advises on Regional Water Quality Control Board permits. City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 4.14.15 Title 22 The California Water Code requires the Department of Health Services (DHS) to establish water reclamation criteria. In 1975, the DHS prepared Title 22 to fulfill this requirement. Title 22 regulates production and use of reclaimed water in California by establishing three categories of reclaimed water: primary effluent, which typically includes grit removal and initial sedimentation or settling tanks; adequately disinfected, oxidized effluent (secondary effluent) which typically involves aeration and additional settling basins; and adequately disinfected, oxidized, coagulated, clarified, filtered effluent (tertiary effluent) which typically involves filtration and chlorination. In addition to defining reclaimed water uses, Title 22 also defines requirements for sampling and analysis of effluent and requires specific design requirements for facilities. Local Regulations City of Newport Beach Municipal Code Chapter 14.16 of the City's Municipal Code, Water Conservation, provides a mechanism for quickly imposing mandatory water conservation measures ranging from voluntary consumption reductions to measures that restrict water usage to the minimum necessary for basic human health and sanitation. The mandatory restrictions on water use, the prohibitions of activities that waste water as well as the penalties and surcharges provided by this chapter, are the minimum controls necessary to insure adequate supplies of water are available now and in the future. In addition, Chapter 14.17, Water -efficient Landscaping, establishes reasonable procedures and standards for the design, installation, and maintenance of water -efficient landscapes in conjunction with new construction projects within the City to promote the conservation and efficient use of water within the City and prevent the waste of available water resources. ■ Thresholds of Significance The following thresholds of significance are based on Appendix G of the 2005 CEQA Guidelines. For purposes of this EIR, implementation of the proposed project may have a significant adverse impact on water systems within the Planning Area if it would result in any of the following: ■ Require or result in the construction and/or expansion of water supply facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts ■ Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed © Project Impacts, Mitigation Measures, and Proposed Policies Effects Not Found to Be Significant The IS/NOP prepared for the proposed project did not identify any effects not found to be significant associated with water systems. Therefore, all thresholds are addressed in this section. 4.14-16 City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 4.14 Utilities and Service Systems ' Project Impacts C' 1 h Threshold Would the project require or result in the construction of new and/or expanded water treatment or conveyance facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? Impact 4.14.1-1 Implementation of the proposed General Plan Update could require or result in the construction of new and/or expanded water treatment plants or water conveyance systems in the Planning Area. As discussed in the Existing Conditions section, the City's imported surface water supply is primarily treated at the MWD Diemer Filtration Plant, located in Yorba Linda, with a treatment capacity of approximately 520 MGD, flowing at an average of 140 MGD in the winter (27 percent capacity) and 375 MGD in the summer (72 percent capacity). In addition to Diemer-treated imported water, IRWD also receives potable water from MWD's Weymouth Filtration Plant, which operates at approximately 42 percent capacity during the winter and 65 percent capacity during the summer. Currently, the City's groundwater supply is treated at the City's Utility Yard, located at 949 W. 16`s Street, and consists of five pumps and two chamber reservoirs that can accommodate up to 1.5 MG each. In addition, the new Big Canyon Reservoir Disinfection Facility was put into service December 2004. Additional development accommodated under the proposed General Plan Update would increase water use within the City, thus increasing the need for water treatment services. As discussed above, MWD can meet 100 percent of the City's imported water needs until the year 2030. Beyond that date, improvements associated with the State Water Project supply, additional local projects, water conservation, and additional water transfers would be needed to adequately serve the City. OCWD, which provides the groundwater supply to the City and portions of IRWD, anticipates that there would be sufficient groundwater supplies to meet projected future demand requirements in Newport Beach. Further, IRWD has identified sufficient groundwater supplies to meet demands through 2030. Furthermore, any request for service resulting from new development would be subject to a site -specific evaluation of the existing water system's capacity to service the development. If improvements to the existing water system are required or additional facilities are needed, the property developer would be required to pay its fair share of the cost of all or portions of the needed improvements. Within the City, environmental impacts associated with any new infrastructure would be ascertained at a later time, prior to implementation, as impacts related to individual development projects are beyond the scope of this program -level analysis. In addition, proposed General Plan Update goals and policies, as stated below under Impact 4.14.1-2, direct the City to implement water conservation measures to limit water consumption and meet the current and projected future daily and peak water demands of Newport Beach. Proposed General Plan Update Policy LU 2.8 directs the City to accommodate land uses that can be adequately supported by infrastructure, including water treatment and conveyance facilities. As such, adequate water infrastructure would be provided for all development under the proposed General Plan Update. These impacts would be less than significant. City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 4.14-17 Chapter 4 Environmental Analysis Threshold Would the project have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? Impact 4.14.1-2 Implementation of the proposed General Plan Update could result in increased demand for water supply within the Planning Area beyond existing entitlements. Water service within Newport Beach is provided by the City, IRWD, and Mesa. Generally, Newport Beach provides water service to approximately 36 square miles of the City; IRWD serves approximately nine square miles; and Mesa serves less than one square mile. Domestic water for the Planning Area is supplied by both groundwater and imported surface water sources, as discussed above. Currently, a majority of water supplied to the Planning Area (through both the City and IRWD) is supplied by groundwater from the Basin. Specifically, approximately 75 percent of the water supplied by the City's service area is supplied by groundwater from the Basin, and the remaining 25 percent of water supply is provided by MWD. Similarly, approximately 65 percent of IRWD's water comes from local wells, while the remaining 35 percent is imported from MWD. Implementation of the proposed General Plan Update would increase the population and amount of development within the City, which in turn would increase the demand for water supplies. City of Newport Beach Service Area Analysis The futute water supply projection assumes that the City will continue to produce groundwater and purchase local water. Currently, the City purchases imported water from the MWD through MWDOC. Buildout of the proposed General Plan Update would increase water demand by approximately 428 AFY within the City service area (excluding the Banning Ranch area), above existing conditions. Buildout of the Banning Ranch area under the alternative included in the proposed General Plan Update would increase water demand by an additional 570 AFY. In total, the proposed General Plan Update would increase water demand within the City service area by approximately 998 AFY. MWDOC's 2030 projected availability is illustrated in Table 4.14-1. However, according to the MWD 2005 UWMP, the 2030 projected availability of imported water supply exceeds the 2030 projected region -wide demand for imported water supply by at least 155,000 AR Therefore, MWDOC has indicated that there is adequate existing and planned imported water supply to accommodate the increased demand associated with the proposed General Plan Update.'05 This amount of projected development within the City could place more demand on the local groundwater supply to avoid the purchase of additional imported water, even though sufficient imported water is projected to be available. However, the proposed General Plan Update has identified the minimization of water consumption as one of its goals in the Natural Resources Element. The policies to achieve this goal include enforcement of water conservation measures that limit water usage, prohibit activities that waste water or cause runoff, and require the use of water efficient landscaping and 105 Metropolitan Water District Orange County. Memorandum to City staff re: Proposed General Plan Update. April 18, 2006. , 4.14-18 City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR ' 4.14 Utilities and Service Systems irrigation in conjunction with other water conserving devices and practices in both new construction and major alterations and additions to existing buildings. Policy NR 1.3 also directs the City to explore the appropriateness of implementing tiered water rates. The proposed General Plan Update has also identified expanding the use of alternative water sources to provide adequate water supplies for present use and future growth as a goal. Policies proposed to achieve this goal include Policy NR 2.1, which aims to increase the use of recycled water in the City by continuing to provide financial incentives, staff assistance, and training opportunities for customers, and expand the recycled water infrastructure and programs, when feasible; and Policy NR 2.2, which directs using alternative water sources for the City water supply by implementing advanced water treatment processes such as brackish groundwater and seawater desalination programs, when feasible. Implementation of these policies would ensure that water conservation measures are implemented and potential impacts to groundwater supply are reduced. Because implementation of the proposed policies would reduce future water demand and MWDOC has ' indicated sufficient imported water supplies are available to serve buildout of the proposed General Plan Update, the proposed General Plan Update would not requite new or expanded water entitlements. The water supply impact associated with the City's water service boundaries within the Planning Area is less Man significant. IRWD Service Area Analysis Implementation of the proposed General Plan Update would increase the amount of development in the ' IRWD service area. IRWD estimates that the proposed General Plan Update would increase potable water demand by 270 AFY, compared to the assumptions in the current IRWD UWMP. The additional water demand generated by buildout of the proposed General Plan Update would not change the IRWD UWMP conclusions with respect to projected water supply reliability.106 As discussed previously, IRWD has identified sufficient water supplies during normal, single dry year scenarios, and multiple dry year scenarios for both imported and groundwater supplies. IRWD has also identified surplus water supplies ' under all of these scenarios. Consequently, because IRWD anticipates a sufficient water supply to cover estimated demands as well as ' future demands resulting from unanticipated changes in land use throughout its service area boundaries (such as the General Plan Update), IRWD would be able to serve the future land uses under the ' proposed project from existing entitlements and resources. The water supply impact associated with IRWD service boundaries within the Planning Area would be less than significant. ' Mesa Consolidated Water District Service Area Analysis The land use changes within the Mesa service area due to implementation of the proposed General Plan ' Update are projected to increase water demand compared to existing conditions by approximately 58.6 AFY. Mesa has indicated that they have adequate water supply sources to supply the additional demand ' 106 Diamond, Richard A. Indne Ranch Water District. Memorandum to City of Newport Beach Re: Draft EIR for the General ' Plan Update, April 11, 2111, ' City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 4.14-19 resulting from the proposed General Plan Update.j07 The water supply impact associated with Mesa service boundaries within the Planning Area would be less than significant, Cumulative Impacts The geographic contest for the analysis of cumulative impacts associated with water systems would be the water provider projections for the Planning Area. Currently, the City, IRWD, and Mesa provide water service to the Planning Area. Although all water providers are required to prepare plans to ensure that adequate water supplies exist for future growth, there is ongoing controversy surrounding the State's water supply and distribution efforts. MWDOC, the City's provider of imported water, IRWD, and Mesa have each indicated they can accommodate the additional demand from the proposed General Plan Update in addition to future growth assumed in the respective UWMPs. In addition, the implementation of conservation measures would be required on a project -specific basis and water shortage contingency plans would further reduce additional water demand. Finally, future development is required to adhere to Section 10910 of the California Water Code. Therefore, the cumulative impact to water supply would be less than significant. ® Proposed General Plan Update Policies Implementation of policies within the Land Use and Natural Resources Elements of the proposed General Plan Update would reduce impacts associated with water supplies, treatment, and conveyance systems to a less -than -significant level. The policies that are applicable to the project are included below. Policies identified below that are also contained in the Harbor and Bay Element are denoted with an " HB.° Land Use Element Goal LU 2 A living, active, and diverse environment that complements all lifestyles and enhances neighborhoods, without compromising the valued resources that make Newport Beach unique. It contains a diversity of uses that support the needs of residents, sustain and enhance the economy, provide job opportunities, serve visitors that enjoy the City's diverse recreational amenities, and protect its important environmental setting, resources, and quality of life. Policy LU 2.8 Adequate Infrastructure Accommodate the types, densities, and mix of land uses that can be adequately supported by transportation and utility infrastructure (water, sewer, storm drainage, energy, and so on) and public services (schools, parks, libraries, seniors, youth, police, fire, and so on). t07 McVicker, Rob. Mesa Consolidated Water District. Written communication via email to City staff, April 5, 20K 4.14.20 City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR , 7 4.14 Utilities and Service Systems 1 Goal LU 3 A development pattern that retains and complements the City's residential neighborhoods, commercial and industrial districts, open spaces, and natural environment. Policy LU 3.2 Water Supply Growth and Change Enhance existing neighborhoods, districts, and corridors, allowing for re -use and infill with uses that are complementary in type, form, scale, and character. Changes in use and/or density/intensity should be considered only in those areas that are economically underperforming, are necessary to accommodate Newport Beach's share of projected regional population growth, improve the relationship, and reduce commuting distance between home and jobs, or enhance the values that distinguish Newport Beach as a special place to live for its residents. The scale of growth and new development shall be coordinated with the provision of adequate infrastructure and public services, including standards for acceptable traffic level of service. Goa1NR1 Minimized water consumption through conservation methods and other techniques. Policy NR 1.1 Water Conservation in New Development Enforce water conservation measures that limit water usage, prohibit activities that waste water or cause runoff, and require the use of water —efficient landscaping and irrigation in conjunction with new construction projects. (Imp 2.1, 7.1, 13.1, 17.1, 23.1, 37.1) Policy NR 1.2 Use of Water Conserving Devices Establish and actively promote use of water conserving devices and practices in both new construction and major alterations and additions to existing buildings. This can include the use of rainwater capture, storage, and reuse facilities. (Imp 2.1,13.1, 23.1) Policy NR 1.3 Tiered Water Rates Explore the appropriateness of implementing tiered water rates. (Imp 23.2) Policy NR 1.4 Alternative Conservation Measures Explore implementation of alternative conservation measures and technology as they become available. (Imp 23.10) Policy NR 1.5 Education Establish educational programs on water conservation. (Imp 23.1, 44.1) ' City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 4.14.21 Chapter 4 Environmental Analysis Goal NR 2 Expanded use of alternative water sources to provide adequate water supplies for present uses and future growth. Policy NR 2.1 Recycled Water Use Increase the use of recycled water in the City by continuing to provide financial incentives, staff assistance, and training opportunities for customers, and expand recycled water infrastructure and programs, when feasible. (Imp 23.1) Policy NR 2.2 Advanced Water Treatment Processes Use alternative water sources for the City's water supply by implementing advanced water treatment processes such as brackish groundwater and seawater desalination programs, when feasible. Mitigation Measures No mitigation measures are necessary, as the proposed General Plan Update policies fully mitigate the impacts. Level of Significance After Policies/Mitigation Measures Impacts associated with the water supplies, treatment plants, and conveyance systems would be less than signl&cant. In addition, cumulative impacts associated with the water supplies, treatment plants, and conveyance systems would also be less than sign&cant. 4.14.2 Sewer System ■ Existing Conditions The following information summarizes as much of the information for each service provider as was available during the preparation of this document. Therefore, the type and detail of information for each service provider differs. Service Providers Wastewater service within the Planning Area is provided by the City, Irvine Ranch Water District g1lWD), and Costa Mesa Sanitation District (CMSD). Similar to the boundaries of the City's potable water system, the City provides sewer service to most of the Planning Area, for a total service area of approximately 13.5 square miles, as illustrated in Figure 4.14-2."' 108 City of Newport Beach, Master Plan of Sewers, 1996. I 4.14.22 City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR ' I 4.14 Utilities and Service Systems 1 II II II The IRWD boundaries encompass nearly 85,019 acres, or 133 square miles, in southern central Orange County. IRWD is responsible for serving the southeastern portion of the Planning Area, which includes the areas of Newport Coast and Newport Ridge. In addition, IRWD serves a contiguous portion of land that parallels SR-73 at the northern boundary of the Planning Area. IRWD's service area within the Planning Area is approximately nine square miles, accounting for approximately six percent of IRWD's total service boundaries. The CMSD boundaries encompass all of the City of Costa Mesa and portions of Newport Beach and unincorporated Orange County for a total service area of approximately 19 square miles. CMSD serves small portions of the western boundary of the Planning Area, also shown in Figure 4.14-2. CMSD serves approximately less than one-half square mile within the Planning Area, which accounts for approximately two percent of CMSD's total service boundaries.109 Treatment System City of Newport Beach Wastewater from the City's sewer system is treated by the Orange County Sanitation District (OCSD). The OCSD is responsible for safely collecting, treating, and disposing the wastewater generated by 2.3 million people living in a 470-square-mile area of central and northwest Orange County. The two sewage water treatment plants operated by the OSCD include Treatment Plant No. 2 in Huntington Beach, and Reclamation Plant No. 1 in Fountain Valley. A majority of the City's sewage flow is pumped to the OCSD Plant No. 2, while flows from the portion of the City north of the Corona del Mar (73) Freeway are pumped to Plant No. 1.110 The OCSD Reclamation Plant No. 1 currently maintains a design capacity of 174 million gallons per day (mgd) and treats an average of 90 mgd. Treatment Plant No. 2 maintains a design capacity of 276 mgd and currently treats on average a flow of 153 mgd. Currently Plant No. 1 and Plant No. 2 are operating at 52 percent and 55 percent of design capacity, respectively."' The OCSD wastewater treatment plants are divided into several operating systems that work together. The major processes are preliminary treatment, primary treatment, anaerobic digestion, secondary treatment, and solids handling."' Wastewater treated by the OCSD is discharged into the ocean through a 120-inch-diameter ocean outfall pipe that extends five miles offshore to a discharge point 180 feet below the ocean surface."' The treatment levels meet all current State and Federal requirements. OCSD also reclaims up to 10 million gallons of treated wastewater every day, which is sent for further processing and then used for landscape irrigation and for injection into the groundwater seawater intrusion barrier. 109 Costa Mesa Sanitary District, Administration, Assistant Manager, personal communication, January 27, 2004. 110 City of Newport Beach, Master Plan of Sewers,1996. "'City of Huntington Beach, Lowe's Home Improvement Warehouse/Northeast Corner of Beach and Warner Project EIR (http://wtvw.ci.huntington-beach.ca.us/files/users/planning/IV_L_3_UTILS_Sewer.pdo, 2003. 112 Orange County Sanitation District, Treating Wastewater, Webpage: http://www.ocsd.com/info/treating_wastewater/default.asp, 2004. 110 City of Newport Beach, Urban Water Management Plan, 2000. ' City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 4.14-23 Irvine Ranch Water District Flows from the IRWD wastewater system are treated at the OCSD Reclamation Plant No.1, Treatment Plant No. 2, or at the Michelson Water Reclamation Plant (AIWRP) located in Irvine. The nominal, dry weather treatment capacity of the Michelson Water Reclamation Plant is 18.0 mgd. In 2005, average effluent flow into the plant was 13.5 mgd because of denitrification of the reclaimed water, thus, the plant was operating at approximately 75 percent of design capacity."' The District is currently in the process of adding an additional clarifier to return the MWRP to its full capacity. Wastewater collected at the plant undergoes tertiary treatment, which is commonly defined as advanced cleaning that goes beyond the secondary or biological stage, removing nutrients such as phosphorus, nitrogen, and most biological oxygen demand and'suspended solids Costa Mesa Sanitary District CMSD sewer lines are tributary to the OCSD treatment plants, and thus, similar to the City, wastewater from the CMSD system is treated by the OCSD.tts See the above referenced discussion for additional information regarding the OCSD treatment system. Collection System City of Newport Beach The existing collection system for the City of Newport Beach consists of over 200 miles of gravity and force flow sewer mains, varying in size from 2 to 42 inches in diameter, also shown in Figure 4.14-2. Residential and commercial wastewater collected by the City's wastewater collection system is transported, using a system of 20 pump stations, for treatment to the OCSD.1" In addition, OCSD trunk sewers and force mains also receive sewage flows from Newport Beach sewers at many locations throughout the City.tt' The OCSD trunk sewers, which vary in size from 18 to 42 inches in diameter, substantially reduce the size and number of sewers needed to be built and operated by the City. The OCSD also operates seven pump stations in the City of Newport Beach as follows: ■ Bitter Point Pump Station (Service, Area DO) ■ Lido Pump Station (Service Area FO) ■ le Street Pump Station (Service Area FO) ■ A Street Pump Station (Service Area FO) ■ Rocky Point Pump Station (Service Area GO) ■ Bay Bridge Pump Station (Service Area LO) ■ MacArthur Pump Station (Service Area MO) 11+Irvine Ranch Water District, Water Resources Master Plan., adopted 2000, most recently updated in 2003, p, 4-4. , 'is Costa Dfesa Sanitary District, Sewer System Management Plan, July 19, 2002. 116 City ofNewporr Beach, Draft Coastal Lind Use Plan, 2003. I17 City of Newport Beach, Master Plan of Sewers,1996. ' 4.14.24 City of Newport Beach General Pion Update EIR ' CITY of NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL PLAN UPDATE EIR Figure 4.14-2 WASTEWATER INFRASTRUCTURE AND SERVICE AREAS Legend e City Boundary Wastewater Infrastructure Wastewater Provider CM of Newport Beach Costa Mesa Sanitation District Irvine Ranch Water District* iydrography Tidelands and Submerged Lands Waterway !odds State and Federal Highway Streets vote: Wastewater Infrastructure data fa rvu Ranch Water District not available. g 0 0.5 1 FIAes sa.cer CMa Henan BraU. M'oaws uer. Ane ]W9. GN eu.my. r.+w aw: rwar. F'w �. ct .rs rwv�: is ceisa 9aeou Wen CM1v BurCular, 3]00; F9b, rAW'tbod. fgavuy N>u't a�v flv Npc�we� G4 Yupvn IU�enba 2 30N. P�xt 11 IRaMN EIP Irvine Ranch Water District The existing collection system for the IRWD sewer system consists of gravity and force flow sewer mains. The wastewater collected by the IRWD collection system from the Planning Area is delivered via a system of pump stations for treatment at the MWRP in Irvine, or the OCSD's Reclamation Plant No. 1 or No. 2.118 Costa Mesa Sanitation District The existing collection system for the CMSD sewer system consists of sewer mains, manholes, laterals, pumping stations and pressurized sewer lines (force mains)."' Maintenance City of Newport Beach As part of the City's Sewer System Management Plan (SSMP), which covers the City's service area, the City's Utilities Department follows a defined Sewer Master Plan to replace or reline older wastewater lines.12' The City also uses remote cameras in sewer lines to look for pipe cracks, root intrusion, and grease buildup to assist in prioritizing the line replacement program. In addition, the City's Sewer Master Plan includes upgrades of its pump stations, including replacing pump stations with gravity systems where possible to prevent plumbing failures associated with pump stations, which can result in sanitary sewer overflows (SSOs). The upgraded pump stations also include spill -warning systems with multiple communication methods (radio, telephone, pager, and direct line to the City's Utilities yard) to inform ' Utilities staff of any malfunction. Irvine Ranch Water District IRWD routinely monitors the wastewater that flows through its sewer system, watching for any illegal substances such as chemicals or improperly pre-treated industrial waste that could cause an upset of the ' delicate biological process used at the NAVU.12t 11 u 11 11 Costa Mesa Sanitary District Currently, the CMSD cleans the sewer system once a year, which is the industry standard for agencies with comprehensive sewer maintenance programs. Areas that need more frequent cleaning, also known as hot spots, are cleaned as frequently as once a week. The CMSD has two sewer cleaning trucks, each with a two -man crew that performs daily cleaning of the gravity sewer lines. In addition, the CMSD has a pumping station maintenance program.' 118 Michael Hoolihan, Irvine Ranch Water District, personal communication, December 17, 2003. 119 Costa Mesa Sanitary District, Sewer System Management Plan, July 19, 2002. 120 City of Newport Beach, Draft Coastal Land Use Plan, 2003. 121 Irvine Ranch Water District, website: http://www.irwd.com:8090/waterquaHty/hmc.html, accessed January 27, 2004. 122 Costa Mesa Sanitary District, Sewer System Management Plan, July 19, 2002. MCity of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 4.14.27 Chapter 4 Environmental Analysis Planned Improvements and Existing Deficiencies City of Newport Beach The Master Plan of Sewers, or the Plan, dated August 1996, identified pardons of the City's collection system that are in need of improvement or replacement. In accordance with the Plan, approximately 7,500 linear feet of sewers at four locations within the City were improved, consistent with the Priority "A" designation which required design and construction to commence within three years. In addition, approximately 3,100 linear feet of sewer on San Joaquin Hills Road and Marguerite were designed and constructed, consistent with their Priority `93" category in the Plan. Priority "C" projects were also identified that would be undertaken beyond seven years from the date of the Plan on an as -needed basis. The remaining sewer deficiencies within the City were further classified as Priority "D" projects, which would likely never be required despite their inability to meet strict theoretical design capacity requirements. The City's pumping system was also reviewed and was generally found to have adequate capacity. However, some pump cycling problems were identified that required operational adjustments. In addition, problems were also identified associated with aging pumping mechanical works, controls, and structures. The Master Plan of Sewers indicated that pump station upgrades would be required for a majority of the City's pump stations, and would be considered as Priority "A" projects. Presently, the City has completed 16 out of 20 sewer lift stations, and the remaining stations to be rebuilt include: Collins Island, Diamond Street, Back Bay, and the Brent Txact." The remaining sewer collection system deficiencies identified in the City by the Master Plan of Sewers are summarized below: ■ Approximately 9,500 linear feet of 8- and 10-inch-diameter unlined concrete sewers that need to be replaced ■ Approximately 6,300linear feet of welded steel sewers that need to be replaced ■ Manhole replacement at nineteen locations to enable proper maintenance procedures to be followed, and manhole replacements at an additional twenty-eight sites where gaseous conditions have corroded interior unlined manhole surfaces ■ Approximately 1,000 feet of sewer with failed pipe joints that need to be repaired ■ Approximately 10,600 linear feet of sewer in need of tree root removal The Plan further recommended the implementation of a television inspection program that would involve video inspection of five to 10 percent of the sewage system per year, followed up by any required remedies. Irvine Ranch Water District IRWD recently prepared an Environmental Impact Report to increase the capacity of the MWRP to 33 mgd. 123 Antista, Pete. 2006. Written communication via email with Utilities Director, City of Newport Beach. 20 Dlarch. I 4.14.28 City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR I 4.14 Utilities and Service Systems I I I '1 I II 1 If u 17 II II II II II Costa Mesa Sanitary District The CMSD Sewer Master Plan Update contains a list of each project identified as necessary to increase the capacity of pardons of the system. Currently in CMSD's service area within the Planning Area, no improvements are required in the near future, and long-term improvements will be planned according to development and metered sewer flows.'Z" 0 Regulatory Setting Federal Regulations National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permits The NPDES permit system was established in the Clean Water Act (CWA) to regulate both point source discharges (a municipal or industrial discharge at a specific location or pipe) and nonpoint source discharges (diffuse runoff of water from adjacent land uses) to surface waters of the United States. For point source discharges, such as sewer outfalls, each NPDES permit contains limits on allowable concentrations and mass emissions of pollutants contained in the discharge. Disposal of Biosolids Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 503, Title 23 California Code of Regulations, and standards established by the CVRWQCB regulate the disposal of biosolids. Thresholds of Significance The following thresholds of significance are based on Appendix G of the 2005 CEQA Guidelines. For purposes of this EIR, implementation of the proposed project may have a significant adverse impact on the City's wastewater system if it would result in any of the following: ■ 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 ® Project Impacts, Mitigation Measures, and Proposed Policies Effects Not Found to Be Significant The IS/NOP prepared for the proposed project did not identify any effects not found to be significant associated with wastewater service. Therefore, all thresholds are addressed in this section. 124 Costa Mesa Sanitary District, Sewer System Management Plan, July 19, 2002, page 31. City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 4.14.29 Chapter 4 Environmental Analysis Project Impacts Threshold Would the project exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? Implementation of the proposed General Plan Update would not exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the Regional Water Quality Control Board. The City of Newport Beach requires NPDES permits, as administered by the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), according to Federal regulations for both point source discharges (a municipal or industrial discharge at a specific location or pipe) and nonpoint source discharges (diffuse runoff of water from adjacent land uses) to surface waters of the United States. For point source discharges, such as sewer outfalls, each NPDES permit contains limits on allowable concentrations and mass emissions of pollutants contained in the discharge. New development under implementation of the proposed General Plan Update would continue to comply with all provisions of the NPDES program, as enforced by the RWQCB. Therefore, the proposed General Plan Update would not result in an exceedance of wastewater treatment requirements. Additionally, the NPDES Phase I and Phase II requirements would regulate discharge from construction sites. All future projects under the proposed General Plan Update would be required to comply with all applicable wastewater discharge requirements issued by the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) and RWQCB. Therefore, implementation of the proposed General Plan Update would not exceed applicable wastewater treatment requirements of the RWQCB with respect to discharges to the sewer system or stormwater system within the City. The proposed General Plan Update specifies minimal adverse effects to water quality from sanitary sewer outflows as a goal. Specifically, Policy NR 3.5 requires all development to comply with the regulations under the City's municipal separate storm sewer system pernilt under NPDES; Policy NR 3.7 directs the City to support and participate in watershed -based runoff reduction, water quality control, and other planning efforts with the RWQCB; Policy NR 3.8 directs the City to update and enforce the Newport Beach Water Quality Ordinance; Policy NR 5.1 requires implementation of the Sewer System Management Plan and the Sewer Master Plan; Policy NR 5.2 requires waste discharge permits for all food preparation facilities that produce grease; and Policy NR 5.4 requires compliance with the RWQCB's Waste Discharge Requirements associated with the operation and maintenance of the City's sewage collection system. Consequently, because future development under the proposed General Plan Update would be required to adhere to existing regulations and the proposed policies identified above, no irnpactwould result. 4.14.30 City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 11 4.14 Utilities and Service Systems I� I Threshold Would the project require the construction or expansion of wastewater treatment facilities or conveyance systems that could cause significant environmental effects? Impact 4.14.2-1 Development associated with the proposed General Plan Update could increase sewer demand but would not exceed the capacity of existing wastewater treatment facilities. Implementation of the proposed General Plan Update would generate additional demand on the existing sewer system from increased sewage flows. New residential growth would generate wastewater that would require treatment. As described in the Existing Conditions section, wastewater service within the Planning Area is provided by the City, IRWD, and CMSD. Wastewater from the City's system and CMSD is treated by the OCSD at their two treatment plants. The OCSD Treatment Plant No. 1 currently maintains a design capacity of 174 mgd and treats on average a flow of 90 mgd. Treatment Plant No. 2 maintains a design capacity of 276 mgd and currently treats on average a flow of 153 mgd. Currently Plant No. 1 and Plant No. 2 are operating at 52 percent and 55 percent of design capacity, respectively. Flows from the IRWD wastewater system are treated at the OCSD Reclamation Plant No. 1, Treatment Plant No. 2, or at the Michelson Water Reclamation Plant (MWRP) located in Irvine, which is currently in the process of adding an additional clarifier to return the MWRP to its full capacity at 18 mgd. Therefore, each of the treatment plants serving the City is operating below their design capacity. Under development of the proposed General Plan Update, the number of housing units could increase by approximately 14,215 units; commercial, visitor serving, and institutional uses would also increase, while industrial uses would decrease compared to existing conditions. Based on sewer flow generation factors provided in the Newport Beach Master Plan of Sewers, as shown below in Table 4.14-12, this increased development under the proposed General Plan Update is anticipated to generate an estimated additional wastewater flow of 4,123,173 gpd (4.12 mgd) within the City. TableProjected of Land Use Wastewater within atimatedPofenifalNew SewerGenerallon Development Factor the City Adcftnal Projected Wastewater Single -Family Residential 1,700 units 370 gpd/du 629,000 Multi -Family Residential 12,515 units 213 gpd/du 2,665,695 Commercial 1,851,122 sf 200 gpd/1,000 sf 370,224 Visitor Serving (hotel) 3,184 rooms 150 gpd/room 477,600 Industrial -405,769 sf 60 gpd/1,000 sf -24,346 Institutionala 120,343 sf n/a n/a Schools 500 students 10 gpd/student 5,000 Parksa 55.4 acres n/a n/a Total 4,123,173 SOURCE: Sewer Generation Factors based upon the City of Newport Beach, Master Plan of Sewers, August 1996. -The Master Plan of Sewers does not contain generation rates for institutional or park uses. City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 4.14.31 The additional 4.12 mgd of wastewater would be distributed between OCSD Treatment Plant No. 1 and Treatment Plant No. 2. Each of these plants has the capacity to treat the full increase in sewage from the proposed General Plan Update. To illustrate the most conservative analysis, if the entire City's sewage went to Treatment Plant No. 1, its average flow would increase to approximately 94 mgd, an increase of 4.8 percent, and the plant would still operate at approximately 54 percent of its design capacity. 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. Because increased wastewater due to implementation of the proposed General Plan Update could be accommodated within the existing treatment infrastructure, expansion would not be required. In addition, policies under the proposed General Plan Update require the renovation of all older sewer pump stations and the installation of new plumbing according to most recent standards, and implementation of the Sewer System Management Plan and Sewer Master Plan. Implementation of the proposed General Plan Update policies requires adequate wastewater facilities and conveyance systems to be available to theCity residents. Therefore, impacts to the wastewater treatment facilities associated with increased growth in the City would be less than significant Impact 4.14.2-2 Increased development could increase the demand for recycled water that could result in the construction of new or expansion of existing conveyance systems. Increased development and growth under the proposed General Plan Update is expected to increase water demands substantially in the future. As described in the Existing Conditions section, OCSD reclaims up to 10 million gallons of treated wastewater every day, which is sent for further processing and then used for landscape irrigation and for injection into the groundwater seawater intrusion barrier. As discussed in the Water Supply section above, the City annually purchases between 300 and 800 AFY, or approximately 98 to 261 MG, of recycled water from the Orange County Water District (OCWD). According to the City's 2005 Urban Management Plan, the City has investigated future sites or locations for reclaimed water, but there are limitations to the availability of reclaimed connections. The City is investigating the possibility of inter -district reclaimed water transfers to provide reclaimed water to some homeowner associations and recreation facilities. The City currently serves approximately 1,200 AFY of irrigation demand using potable water. However, inmost cases these demands are located a long distance from the existing recycled system such that it is not cost effective to construct additional connections to the system. Currently, reclaimed water makes up 20 percent of IRWD's total water supply. Reclaimed water is currently used for toilet flushing in select facilities, approximately 1,000 acres of fields and orchards, and is also used to irrigate landscapes including parks, schools, golf courses, streetscapes, and open space managed by many community associations. In addition, many Nater features such as fountains are filled with reclaimed water. The proposed General Plan Update Policy NR 2.1 encourages the use of recycled water in the City by continuing to provide financial incentives, staff assistance, and training opportunities for customers, and expanding recycled water infrastructure and programs, when feasible. If expansion or creation of new 4.14-32 City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 4.14 Utilities and Service Syste recycled water infrastructure is necessary, further environmental review would be required when specific ' details are known regarding the infrastructure. This ensures that associated environmental effects would be determined prior to implementation. Thus, impacts associated with the construction of new recycled water conveyance systems within the City would be less than significant. Cumulative Impacts ' The geographic context for the analysis of cumulative impacts associated with sewage treatment systems and recycled water conveyance systems would be the wastewater service providers' areas for the Planning Area. Currently, the City of Newport Beach, IRWD, and CMSD provide wastewater infrastructure to the Planning Area. OCSD provides regional wastewater treatment service and the providers listed above utilize OCSD facilities for the treatment of wastewater collected with their infrastructure. Development of cumulative projects within the wastewater service providers' areas, including the proposed project, would generate additional quantities of wastewater, depending on net increases in population, square footage, and intensification of uses. Cumulative projects would contribute to the overall regional demand for wastewater treatment service. The design capacities of the wastewater treatment facilities are based on the regional growth forecast adopted by SCAG, which in turn is based on cities' general plans and other forecasts of SCAG's member cities. Although the proposed project is not included within SCAG's growth forecast, the existing treatment plants operate well below their design capacity. Thus, it is anticipated that cumulative development would not exceed the capacity of the wastewater treatment system. This cumulative impact ' is considered less than sign&cant. The City would continue to implement water conservation measures that would result in a decrease in wastewater generation, and each of the wastewater treatment plants would still have excess capacity. Consequently, the proposed General Plan Update would not result in a ' cumulatively considerable contribution to an impact on wastewater treatment. The cumulative impact of the project would be less than significant. Cumulative growth in the wastewater service providers' areas could result in the need for additional wastewater conveyance infrastructure, which could result in significant cumulative impacts depending upon the nature and extent of the proposed improvements. However, any person connecting to the sewer system is required to pay connection fees in accordance with existing regulations. Existing regulations ensure that all users pay their fair share for any necessary expansion of the system, including expansion to wastewater treatment facilities and would ensure that the cumulative impact is less than significant. Therefore, the project's cumulative impact would be less than signficant. I' Proposed General Plan Update Policies Implementation of policies within the Land Use and Natural Resources Elements of the proposed General Plan Update would further reduce impacts associated with sewer services. The policies that would reduce impacts to sewer services are included below. J ' City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 4.14.33 Land Use Element Goal LU 2 A living, active, and diverse environment that complements all lifestyles and enhances neighborhoods, without compromising the valued resources that make Newport Beach unique. It contains a diversity of uses that support the needs of residents, sustain and enhance the economy, provide job opportunities, serve visitors that enjoy the City's diverse recreational amenities, and' protect its important environmental setting, resources, and quality of life. Policy LU 2.8 Adequate Infrastructure Accommodate the types, densities, and mix of land uses that can be adequately supported by transportation and utility infrastructure (water, sewer, storm drainage, energy, and so on) and public services (schools, parks, libraries, seniors, youth, police, fire, and so on). Goal LU 3 A development pattern that retains and complements the City's residential neighborhoods, commercial and industrial districts, open spaces, and natural environment. Policy LU 3.2 Growth and Change Enhance existing neighborhoods, districts, and corridors, allowing for re -use And infill with uses that are complementary in type, form, scale, and character. Changes in use and/or density/intensity should be considered only in those areas that are economically underperforming, are necessary to accommodate Newport Beach's share of projected regional population growth, improve the relationship, and reduce commuting distance between home and jobs, or enhance the values that distinguish Newport Beach as a special place to live for its residents. The scale of growth and new development shall be coordinated with the provision of adequate infrastructure and public services, including standards for acceptable traffic level of service. Natural Resources Element Water Supply Goal NR 2 Expanded use of alternative water sources to provide adequate water supplies for present uses and future growth. Policy NR 2.1 Recycled Water Use , Increase the use of recycled water in the City by continuing to provide financial incentives, staff assistance, and training opportunities for customers, and expand recycled water infrastructure and programs, when feasible. 4.14-34 City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR , 4.14 Utilities and Service Systems I , II II I Policy NR 2.2 Advanced Water Treatment Processes Use alternative water sources for the City's water supply by implementing advanced water treatment processes such as brackish groundwater and seawater desalination programs, when feasible. Wafer Quality Goal NR 3 Enhancement and protection of water quality of all natural water bodies, including coastal waters, creeks, bays, harbors, and wetlands. (Goal H138) Policy NR 3.5 Storm Sewer System Permit Require all development to comply with the regulations under the City's municipal separate storm sewer system permit under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System. (Policy HB8.5) Policy NR 3.7 Watershed Runoff Quality Control Support and participate in watershed -based runoff reduction, water quality control, and other planning efforts with the California Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), the County of Orange, and upstream cities. (Policy HB8.7) Policy NR 3.8 Newport Beach Water Quality Ordinance Update and enforce the Newport Beach Water Quality Ordinance. (Policy HB8.8) Policy NR 3.12 Site Design and Source Control Include site design and source control BMPs in all developments. When the combination of site design and source control BMPs are not sufficient to protect water quality as required by the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES), structural treatment BMPs will be implemented along with site design and source control measures. (Policy HB8.12) Policy NR 3.16 Street Drainage Systems Require all street drainage systems and other physical improvements created by the City, or developers of new subdivisions, to be designed, constructed, and maintained to minimize adverse impacts on water quality. Investigate the possibility of treating or diverting street drainage to minimize impacts to water bodies. (Policy HB8.16) City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 4.14-35 Chapter 4 Environmental Analysis Goal NR 4 Maintenance of water quality standards through compliance with the total maximum daily loads (TMDLs) standards. Policy NR 4.1 Total Maximum Daily Loads Develop and implement the TMDLs established by the RWQCB, Santa Ana Region and guided by the Newport Bay Watershed Executive Committee (WEC). Goal NR 5 Sanitary Sewer Outflows —Minimal adverse effects to water quality from sanitary sewer outflows. Policy NR 5.1 City Sewer Management and Master Plans Implement the Sewer System Management Plan and the Sewer Master Plan. Policy NR 5.2 Waste Discharge Permits Require waste discharge permits for all food preparation facilities that produce grease. Policy NR 5.3 Sewer Pump Stations Renovate all older sewer pump stations and install new plumbing according to most recent standards. Policy NR 5.4 Waste Discharge Permits Comply with the RWQCB's Waste Discharge Requirements (WDRs) associated with the operation and maintenance of the City's sewage collection system. ■ Mitigation Measures No mitigation measures are necessary, as the proposed General Plan Update policies fully mitigate the impacts. Level of Significance after Policies/Mitigation Measures Impacts associated with the sewer system and recycled water infrastructure would be less than significant. In addition, cumulative impacts associated with the sewer system and recycled water infrastructure would also be less than significant. 4.14.3 Solid Waste This section describes existing solid waste management and resource recovery systems for the Newport Beach Planning Area. In addition, a discussion of current local and regional policies regarding the collection and disposal of solid waste is provided. Information for this section is based on the City's 414-36 City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR , 4.14 Utilities and Service Systems " 1 Resource Allocation Plan, Source Reduction and Recycling Element, data from the Integrated Waste Management Board, and conversations with City staff. Existing Conditions As discussed in more detail below, the majority of residential solid waste generated in the City of Newport Beach is collected by the City's Refuse Division and the remaining solid waste is collected by waste haulers and transported to a City -owned transfer station. Refuse is then consolidated and transported to a materials recovery facility where recyclable materials are then sorted from refuse by machines and other methods. The remaining solid waste is then taken to one of three County landfills. Details regarding waste haulers, transfer stations, recycling facilities, and landfills are provided below. Solid Waste Haulers Newport Beach Municipal Code 12.63.030 states that no person shall provide commercial solid waste handling services or conduct a solid waste enterprise in the City without having been awarded an exclusive franchise and entered into an agreement with the City. As part of its franchise agreement, all solid waste haulers that serve the City are prohibited from transporting any waste, residential, commercial, or industrial, outside of County limits."' The Refuse Division of the City General Services Department collects refuse from single-family homes and some multi -family complexes within the City, with the exception of Newport Coast."' The remaining residential and all commercial refuse is collected by eight licensed and franchised commercial solid waste haulers, and include the following: ■ Federal Disposal in Santa Ana ■ Rainbow Disposal in Huntington Beach ■ CR&R in Stanton ■ Ware Disposal in Newport Beach ■ Briggeman Disposal Services in Anaheim ■ Waste Management of Orange County in Santa Ana ■ Key Disposal in Montebello ■ EZ Disposal in Fountain Valley There are a number of licensedand franchised construction and demolition debris solid waste haulers that also serve the City. These include the following: ■ American Wrecking, Inc. in South El Monte ■ Greenleaf Grading company in Huntington Beach ■ Kevin Ray Demolition in Brea ■ The Lane Company in Santa Ana ■ Tight Quarters, Inc. in Santa Ana ■ West Coast Land Clearing, Inc. in Long Beach ■ Cousyn Grading and Demolition in Costa Mesa 125 Jeremy Hammond, personal communication, September 24, 2003 126 Jeremy Hammond, personal communication, September 16, 2003 ICity of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 4.14-37 ■ Roche ENcavating in Santa.Ana ■ Tim Greenleaf Engineering in Huntington Beach ■ Southern California Environmental in Lake Forest ■ Pacific Earthworks in Dana Point ■ Trojan Portable Services in Los Angeles ■ Thomas Demolition in Lawndale (Newport Beach, General Services website, 2003,16 September) Transfer Stations Transfer stations are facilities where trash is sorted from recyclable materials, and the residue is then transported to landfills that serve the residents of the County of Orange. There are six active, large volume transfer processing facilities that serve the City. All are sorting and recycling facilities, with the exception of the City of Newport Beach Transfer Station, and include the following: ■ Stanton Transfer and Recycling Center #811232 Knott Avenue, Stanton, CA 90680 ■ Rainbow Recycling/Transfer Station17121 Nichols Street, Huntington Beach, CA 92647 ■ Consolidated Volume Transporters1131 Blue Gum Street, Anaheim, CA 92806 • Sunset Environmental Inc. Transfer Station and Resource Recycling Facility16122 Construction Circle West, Irvine, CA 92606 ■ Waste Management of Orange (Owner of the Sunset Environmental Transfer Station)2050 North Glassell, Orange, CA 92865 ■ City of Newport Beach Transfer Station592 Superior Avenue, Newport Beach, CA 92663 ■ landfills Presently, it is anticipated that the Orange County landfill system will have adequate capacity to operate until 2035. The Orange County Integrated Waste Management Department (IWMD) presently owns and operates three active landfills, including: Frank R. Bowerman Landfill in Irvine;'Olinda Alpha Landfill in Brea; and Prima Deshecha Landfill in San Juan Capistrano. All three landfills are permitted as Class III landfills and have a combined design capacity of over 20,000 tons per day. Class III landfills accept only non -hazardous municipal solid waste for disposal; no hazardous or liquid waste can be accepted (OCIWMD 2006). Table 4.14-13 shows the existing capacities of each of these landfills, as well as their anticipated closure dates and annual usage. TableCapacity Current Remaining Maximum Maximum Annual Capaciy Capacity Estimated Daly Load Usage WWII Location ons(Tons) Close Date nsPons) Frank R. 11002 Bee Canyon Access Road 44 560,000 81,600,000 2022 8,500 2,332,576 Bowerman Irvine, CA 92602 Olinda 1942 North Valencia Avenue 19 730,000 53,000,000 2013 8,000 2,069,835 Alpha Brea, CA 92823 Prime Deshecha 32250 La Pata Avenue San Juan Capistrano, CA'92675 78,600,000 89,400,000 2067 4,000 814,488 SOURCE CIWMB 2006; OC IWMD, personal communication, March 17.2006. 4.14-38 City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 4.14 Utilities and Service Systems ' Currently only the Frank R. Bowerman Sanitary Landfill, located at 11002 Bee Canyon Access Road in ' Irvine, serves the City of Newport Beach. Closure is currently estimated at year 2022; however, IWMD is preparing an EIR to expand the landfill and extend its closure date to 2053. At approximately 725 acres in size, this landfill has 341 acres that are used for waste disposal. The permitted daily tonnage limit for the Bowerman Landfill is 8,500 tons per day of refuse except for 36 days per year that a higher tonnage of 10,625 tons per day is allowed. If the expansion is approved, the landfill would accept 11,500 tons per day.127 The California Integrated Waste Management Board (CIWMB) requires that all counties have an approved Countywide Integrated Waste Management Plan (CIWMP). To be approved, the CIWMP must demonstrate sufficient solid waste disposal capacity for at least 15 years, or identify additional available capacity outside of the County's jurisdiction. To this end, the Regional Landfill Options for Orange County (RELOOC) program, a 40-year strategic plan being prepared by the IWMD, was created. ' RELOOC evaluates options for trash disposal for Orange County citizens and to ensure that waste generated by the County is safely disposed of and that the County's future disposal needs are met (OCIWMD 2006). Waste Stream Diversion In 2002, which represents the most recent data available that has been approved by the CIWMB, the City of Newport Beach maintained a 52 percent diversion rate from the Orange County landfills, which meets ' the AB939 requirement of 50 percent diversion of solid waste by the Year 2000 (CIW1V1B 2006). The City has one composting facility, five recycling programs, and six programs specializing in source reduction. II II IF I! II i I Waste Reduction Programs Recycling Programs Newport Beach recycled over 25 percent of its residential waste stream in 2002, which represents the most recent data available that has been approved by the CIWMB, as well as 100 percent of the concrete, asphalt, and green and brown wastes generated by City operations. The City recycling program is part of the waste collection process. All residential wastes are collected together. Since the early 1990's the City has partnered with CR&R to recycle the City's residential waste. Following collection, the waste is transferred by trailer truck to a materials recovery facility in Stanton where the recyclables are extracted from the waste stream manually and mechanically. This process eliminates the need for additional containers and separate collection pick-ups.'ZB The City's nonexclusive solid waste franchise program requires all commercial haulers to recycle at least 50 percent of the waste they collect from Newport Beach. The City's landscape, turf maintenance, and 127 County of Orange Integrated Waste Management, John Arnau, Planner 3, written communication, October 28, 2005. 128 City of Newport Beach website, 2006. ' City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 4.14-39 Chapter 4 Environmental Analysis tree trimming contractors are also required to recycle 100 percent of the waste generated from their operations. The City purchases compost and mulch made from these recycled materials. Beverage Container Recycling The Department of Conservation, Division of Recycling administers the California Beverage Container Recycling and Litter Reduction Act enacted in 1986. It provides a number of services to achieve those goals, including enforcement, auditing, grant finding, technical assistance, and education. Consumers pay CRV (California Refund Value) when they purchase beverages from a retailer reimbursed when they redeem the container at a recycling center. The following facilities operate CRV redemption centers: ■ Ralph's, 2555 Eastbluff Drive, Newport Beach, CA 92660 ■ Vans,185 E.17a' Street, Costa Mesa, CA 92627 ■ Ralph's, 380 E.17a' Street, Costa Mesa, CA 92627 ■ ASOCC Recycling Center, 2701 Fairview Boulevard, Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Used Oil and Oil Filters The City has obtained a used oil -recycling grant. The funds are used to provide oil -recycling options to local residents. The General Services Department Administrative Division oversees the recycling of these materials, and can direct residents to one of six local drop sites in the City listed below: ■ Superformance, 3767 Birch Street, Newport Beach, CA 92660 ■ Newport Coast Chevron,1550 Jamboree Road, Newport Beach, CA 92660 ■ Jiffy Lube,1520 W. Coast Hwy., Newport Beach, CA 92663' ■ Grahm's 76, 2690 San Miguel, Newport Beach, CA 92660 ■ Newport Landing Fuel Dock, 503 E. Edgewater, Newport Beach, CA 92661 ■ Grease Monkey, 2230 S.E. Bristol, Newport Beach, CA 92660 Household Hazardous Waste Programs There are a number of household hazardous waste collection centers (HHWCC) in Orange County where residents can safely dispose of materials such as paint, wood preservatives, batteries, auto products, motor antifreeze, household chemicals, and other hazardous substances. These include the Huntington Beach Regional HHWCC, located at 17121 Nichols in Huntington Beach, the Anaheim Regional HHWCC, located at 10710 North Blue Gum Street, the San Juan Capistrano Regional HHWCC, located at 32250 La Pata Avenue, and the Irvine Regional H14WCC at 6411 Oak Canyon in Irvine. Generation Rates According to the City's Source Reduction and Recycling Element, which analyzes all solid waste in the City, the residential waste stream composes 19.4 percent of the total waste stream while the industrial and commercial sector each account for 40.3 percent of the waste stream.129 The City uses the following generation rates for solid waste:'" 121 Jeremy Hammond, personal communication, October 8, 2003, tw John Amau, personal communication, October 28, 2005, 4.14.40 City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR I 4.14 Utilities and Service Systems ' 1. Commercial daily disposal (lbs. per employee per day)-10.53 2. Residential daily disposal (lbs. per unit per day —single-family residential)-12.23 3. Residential daily disposal (lbs. per unit per day —multiple -family residential)-6.41 ' 4. Industrial daily disposal (lbs. per square foot per day)-007 5. Office daily disposal (lbs. per 100 square foot per day)-1 6. Hotel daily disposal (lbs. per room per day)-2.5 Improvements to Solid Waste Facilities All future facilities expansion is currently dependent upon the "Regional Landfill Options for Orange County" (RELOOC) Study being undertaken by the Orange County Integrated Waste Management Department (IWMD). RELOOC is a 40-year strategic plan that will examine options for trash disposal in Orange County. The IWMD is in the process of conducting the environmental review of the RELOOC Strategic Plan as directed by the Board of Supervisors on May 21, 2002. The RELOOC program was created to ensure that the waste generated by the County is properly disposed of and that the County's future disposal needs can be adequately met. The stated goals of RELOOC are as follows:131 ' To have a feasible, balanced, and flexible 40-year strategic plan approved and ready for implementation by 2004 that addresses Orange County's solid waste disposal and capacity needs ' ■ To protect Orange County's public health, safety, and environment ■ To sustain the economic vitality of the Orange County's solid waste disposal system by ensuring consistent and reliable features and adequate revenue to maintain efficient, cost effective, and high ' quality operations ■ To provide a fair, objective, open planning process that is presented in nontechnical, easily understood terms, responsive to and involves stakeholders and the public, and results in public ' understanding ® Regulatory Context Federal With the exception of determining where disposal sites are located and operational standards, there are no applicable Federal laws, regulations, or policies that pertain to solid waste. State At the State level, the management of solid waste is governed by regulations established by the California Integrated Waste Management Board (CIW1\1B), which delegates local permitting, enforcement, and inspection responsibilities to local enforcement agencies. In 1997, some of the regulations adopted by the State Water Quality Control Board (SWQCB) pertaining to landfills (Title 23, Chapter 15) were 131 IWMB website, February 21, 2006. City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 4.14.41 incorporated with CIWMB regulations (Title 14) to form Title 27 of the California Code of Regulations (CCR). Assembly Bill 939 The State Legislature, through Assembly Bill 939, The California Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989, mandated that all cities and counties prepare, adopt, and submit a comprehensive solid waste management plan to the county. The plan must address and detail each individual community's efforts and intended policies in the areas of waste characterization, source reduction, recycling, composting, solid waste facilities, education/public information, funding, special wastes, and hazardous wastes. The law also mandates that communities meet certain specific identified targets for percentages of waste reduction and recycling over specific identified targets for percentages of waste reduction and recycling over specified time periods (25 percent by 1995 and 50 percent by the year 2000.) Public Resources Code §§ et seq.—California Integrated Waste Management Act In 1989, the Legislature adopted the Integrated Vaste Mauagement Act of 9989, which established an integrated waste management hierarchy that consists of the following in order of importance: source reduction, recycling, composting, and land disposal of solid waste. The law also required that each county prepare a new Integrated Waste Management Ilan, The Act further required each city 'to prepare a Source Reduction and Recycling Element (SRRE) by July 1, 1991. Each source reduction element includes a plan for achieving a solid waste goal of 25 percent by January 1, 1995, and 50 percent by January 1, 2000. Recently, a number of changes to the municipal solid waste diversion requirements under the Integrated Vaste ManagemestAct were adopted, including a revision to the statutory requirement for 50 percent diversion of solid waste. Under these provisions, local governments shall continue to divert 50 percent of all solid waste on and after January 1, 2000. Local Regulations City of Newport Beach Municipal Code In order to fulfill the requirements of the State mandate, the City of Newport Beach has a number of City ordinances related to solid waste management. The -City Municipal Code, Section 12.63.030, requires businesses that provide commercial solid waste handling services in City limits to obtain a franchise in order to operate. The ordinance states that because State law requires the City to substantially reduce the amount of solid waste it sends to landfills, and the City is required to report to the State the amount of materials diverted from landfills in compliance with State law, the City must be able to regulate the collection of solid waste from residential and commercial premises through the requirements of a franchise. Section 20.60.090 of the City Municipal Code contains an ordinance on recyclable materials. This section establishes a comprehensive set of regulations and guidelines regarding the requirement for specific areas for collecting and loading recyclable materials in certain developments in the City. 4.14.42 City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR r� L� ' ■ Thresholds of Significance ' The following thresholds of significance are based on Appendix G of the 2005 CEQA Guidelines. For purposes of this EIR, implementation of the proposed project may have a significant adverse impact on ' solid waste service if it would result in any of the following. ■ 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 ■ Project Impacts, Mitigation Measures, and Proposed Policies Effects Not Found to Be Significant The IS/NOP prepared for the proposed project did not identify any effects not found to be significant associated with solid waste service. Therefore, all thresholds are addressed in this section. Project Impacts Threshold Would the project be served by a landfill with insufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? Impact 4.14.3-1 Implementation of the proposed General Plan Update could result in insufficient landfill capacity to accommodate the increased demand for solid waste service provided to the Planning Area. Currently, only the Frank R. Bowerman Sanitary Landfill services the City of Newport Beach, as described in the Existing Conditions section above. IWN]D has plans to expand this landfill and extend the closure date from 2022 to approximately 2053. Should the expansion be approved, the landfill will accept 11,500 tons per day, but currently accepts 8,500 per day except for 36 days per year that a higher tonnage of 10,625 tons per day is allowed (annual acceptance of approximately 3,179,000 tons.) New residential uses under implementation of the proposed General Plan Update would increase the population in the Planning Area. In total, approximately 14,215 additional residential units could be built within the Planning Area. Commercial uses could increase by 2,145,642 sf and office uses could increase by approximately 250,673 sf. As discussed in Section 4.10 (Population and Housing) of this EIR, implementation of the General Plan Update would result in a population increase of approximately 31,131 residents. This increase would result in a total citywide population of 103,753 persons at buildout . of the proposed General Plan Update, which would represent an approximately 43 percent increase in population over the 2002 population, and an approximately 37 percent increase in population over 2005 existing conditions. In addition, this increase in growth and development as a result of the proposed General Plan Update would result in an increase of solid waste stream to the landfill, and increased demand for solid waste City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 4.14.43 services throughout the City. This analysis is based on solid waste generation rates utilized by the City of Newport Beach, as illustrated below in Table 4.14-4. Development under the proposed General Plan Update could result in an additional 21,659.10 tons per year of solid waste to be disposed of at the Frank R. Bowerman Sanitary Landfill, representing approximately 0.68 percent of the amount of solid waste the landfill is allowed to accept annually. Table 4.14-14 Land Use Estimated Increase of Solid Waste Polenfial New Solid Waste GeneraBon Develownent Rate Generation solid Waste Generaffon 4# Residential—MFR 12,515 units 6.41 Ibs/unlUday 80,221.15 Residential—SFR 1,700 units 12.23lbs/unit/day 20,791 Commercial 2,145;642 sq it 5lbs/1000sgfUday' 10,728.21 Industrial (-)405,769 sq It .007lbslsf/day (-)2,840.38 Office 70,673 sf 1 1 lb/100sflday 706.73 Visitor Serving 3,184 rooms 2.5lbs/roomlday 7,960 institutional 158,593 sf .007lbs/sf/day' 1,1.10.15 TOTAL 118,677lbslday (59.34 tons/day) 01,659A0 tonslyear) SOURCE: John Amou, personal communication, October 28, 2005. *Integrated Waste Management Board, at www.ciwmb.co.gov 1 ton (short, US) = 2 000 pound A different commercial solid waste generation rate was used (compared to the Cify's) because the proposed General Plan Update Is based on permitted square footage, not anticipated employees, With the remaining capacity of approximately 44.6 million tons, as well as a 16-year lifesp.'tn at the Frank R. Bowerman Sanitary Landfill without the proposed expansion, the increase in solid waste generated by the development under the proposed General Plan Update would not exceed capacity of the landfill. In addition, AB 939 mandates the reduction of solid waste disposal in landfills. Consequently, this analysis assumes a worst -case scenario, as it is anticipated that at least approximately 50 percent of the estimated increase in solid waste generation could be diverted (or approximately 10,830 tons/year). Therefore, as the Frank R. Bowerman Sanitary Landfill would have sufficient capacity to serve the increased development within the City under the proposed General Plan Update, impacts would be less than sigtuf[cant. Threshold Would the project fail to comply with applicable Federal, State, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? Implementation of the proposed General Plan Update would not comply with all applicable Federal, State, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste. As described above, Public Resources Code §40000 et seq. requires that local jurisdictions divert at least 50 percent of all solid waste generated by January 1, 2000. The City consistently diverts 50 percent or more of solid waste and, therefore, is in compliance with this legislation. The City* remains committed to 4.14.44 City of Newport Beach General,Plan Update EIR 4.14 Utilities and Service Systems continue its existing waste reduction and minimization efforts with the programs previously discussed in Section 4.14.3 (Existing Conditions). Thus, implementation of the proposed General Plan Update would not conflict with any Federal, State, or local statutes or regulations related to solid waste disposal. Therefore, no impactwould occur. Cumulative Impacts Despite the anticipated sufficient capacity of the Bowerman Landfill discussed above, any existing capacity that currently exists within the landfill's service boundary is finite. Thus, it is considered that, without approved specific plans for substantial expansion of the landfill facilities that serve the County, solid waste generation from approved and foreseeable cumulative projects in the project area vicinity would exacerbate regional landfill capacity issues in the future. That is, any additional solid waste incrementally added to existing facilities will decrease the amount of time until they are completely full'. The implementation of source reduction measures would be required on a project -specific basis and plans such as those for recycling would partially address landfill capacity issues by diverting additional solid waste at the source of generation. However, because of the issues discussed above, development -associated with cumulative projects within and around the City would be cumulatively considerable. Although the project itself, however, would have a less -than -significant contribution to this effect, impacts associated with cumulative development would be signiffcant and unavoidable. All cumulative development within the project area and Orange County would be required to comply with all applicable Federal, State, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste. This includes compliance with AB 939, which requires a 50 percent diversion of all solid waste from disposal in local landfills. There is no cumulative impact related to compliance with applicable regulations. Proposed General Plan Update Policies No policies related to solid waste are contained in the proposed General Plan Update. Mitigation Measures Implementation of the General Plan Update would result in less -than -significant project impacts associated with solid waste, and no mitigation measures would be necessary. However, cumulative impacts would be significant and unavoidable. Level of Significance After Policies/Mitigation Measures There are no policies associated with solid waste under the proposed General Plan Update, although existing City ordinances address solid waste collection and source reduction. No mitigation measures would be required. Project impacts associated with solid waste within the Planning Area would be less than significant. However, cumulative impacts would be significant and unavoidable. City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 4.14.45 4.14.4 Energy ■ Electricity Southern California Edison Company (SCE) is the primary distribution provider for electricity in the Planning Area." SCE is a regulated electrical utility and as such maintains electrical facilities and infrastructure within the City and surrounding areas. Those facilities and. infrastructure are expected to be used to provide service to the Planning Area under the applicable rules and tariffs approved by the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC). Currently, SCE has no immediate plans for expansion within the City of Newport Beach, as most of the City is built out. However, every year SCE expands and improves existing facilities according to demand.133 Standard electricity generation rates used by SCE currently exist under tariff schedules General Service (GS-2) and Time -of -Use (TOU) as filed with the CPUC. The primary distribution voltage levels serving the Newport Beach area are 12,000 volts OM for commercial uses and 4,000 kV for residential uses. Currently, the City is placing existing overhead facilities underground, Substations within the City of Newport Beach include McArthur, Newport, Crown, and Lafayette Substations. However, there are a number of other substations in adjacent cities, such as Hamilton substation in the City of Huntington Beach, which feed circuits in Newport Beach in order to provide reliable service within the City." SCE derives its electricity from a variety of sources, as shown in Table 4.14-15. Nearly half of its electricity comes from natural gas, with renewable resources constituting another nearly 20 percent The 2005 Integrated Energy Policy Report prepared by the California Energy Commission (CEC) summarizes the State of California's electrical and natural gas supplies. Despite improvements in power plant licensing, highly successful energy efficiency programs and continued technological advances, development of new energy supplies is not keeping pace with the State's increasing demands. A key constraint in energy is the State's electricity transmission system. Under most circumstances, the State's power grid is able to reliably delivery energy to consumers; for the majority of the days during the year adequate energy supplies are reliably provided to consumers. California's electricity demand is driven by short summer peaks, such that reducing peak demand is the essential factor in adequately planning for the State's electrical needs. These peak demands include a few hours to several days each year, such that managing demand, rather than developing supplies at new power plants for this limited time appears the most efficient method to meet State needs on peak days. The CEC has developed an action plan which includes increasing energy capacity in investor -owned utilities, incentives for combined heat and power projects (cogeneration), energy efficiency programs, expansion of renewable energy programs. 132 SCE website 2003, 30 September 133 Leanne Swanson, personal communication, 2003,30 September 134 lien Eatherton, personal communication, 2003, 30 September 4.14.46 City of NeWport Beach General Plan Update EIR , 4.14 Utilities and Service Systems 171 I �I II II II Energy Resources SCE Power Mix(ProJectecO Eligible Renewable 19% Biomass & Waste 2% Geothermal 11 % Small hydroelectric 1 % Solar 1% Wind 4% Coal 11 % Large Hydroelectric 4% Natural Gas 49% Nuclear 17% Other <1% Total 100% SOURCE: Tron 2004 Percentages are estimated annually by the California Energy Commission based on electricity sold to California consumers during the previous year. ■ Natural Gas This section defines the existing natural gas service provided to the City of Newport Beach. Information was obtained from communication with service providers and online resources. Southern California Gas Company (SCGC) provides natural gas service for the Planning Area. Natural gas is a "fossil fuel," indicating that it comes from the ground, similar to other hydrocarbons such as coal or oil. SCGC purchases natural gas from several bordering states. Most of the major natural gas transmission pipelines within the Planning Area are owned and operated by SCGC. However, if a customer within Newport Beach meets the requirements to purchase gas from a contracted marketer or agent they may do so.15 SCGC customers have the option of purchasing their natural gas from a list of natural gas suppliers. The list of approved natural gas suppliers is available on the Southern California Gas web site, which is updated periodically.11G The Public Utilities Commission (PUC) regulates SCGC, who is the default provider required by State law, for natural gas delivery to the Planning Area. SCGC has the capacity and resources to deliver gas except in certain situations that are noted in State law. As development occurs, SCGC will continue to extend its service to accommodate development and supply the necessary gas lines. SCGC does not base its service levels on the demands of the Planning Area, rather it makes periodic upgrades to provide service for particular projects and new development. Approximately two months before construction 135 Ella Abidere, personal communication, 2003 136 SCE website 2003, 3 November ' City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 4.14.47 Chapter 4 Environmental Analysis commences on a project, SCGC requests that the developer contact them with detailed information about the projeces natural gas requirements. If necessary, SCGC customizes pipelines and mains to better serve newly constructed facilities. The cost for such service differs from project to project 137 SCGC is continuously expanding its network of gas pipelines to meet the needs of new commercial and residential developments in Southern California. California has not experienced a -svidespread natural gas shortage in many years. Current supplies are adequate to meet demands, although natural gas storage could be expanded to improve reliability. The State imports 87 percent of its statewide natural gas supply. ■ Thresholds of Significance The following thresholds of significance are based on Appendix G of the 2005 CEQA Guidelines. For purposes of this EIR, implementation of the proposed project may have a significant adverse impact with respect to energy if it would result in the following: 0 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 ■ Project Impacts, Mitigation Measures, and Proposed Policies Effects Not Found to Be Significant The IS/NOP prepared for the proposed project did not identify any effects not found to be significant associated with Energy. Therefore, all thresholds are addressed in this section. Project Impacts Threshold Would the project require or result in the construction of new energy production or transmission facilities, the construction of which could cause a significant environmental impact;? Implementation of the General Plan Update would not require or result in the construction of new energy production or transmission facilities. The State is currently experiencing constraints related to energy supply and delivery. These constraints are generally limited to peak demand days during the summer months, such that for the majority of the days during the year adequate energy supplies are reliably provided to consumers. Implementation of the proposed General Plan Update would increase use of electricity in the project area, in particular, the demand for electricity to light, heat, and air condition the residential, commercial, and business development 131 Ella Abidere, personal communication, 2003 4.14.48 City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR L 4.14 Utilities and Service Systems On peak days, the increase in demand from implementation of future development under the proposed General Plan Update would contribute to electricity supply and delivery constraints. However, all future development would be constructed in compliance with Title 24 energy efficiency standards. Policy 24.1 of the Natural Resource Element requires the City to develop incentives that encourage the use of energy conservation strategies by both private and public development. Compliance with this policy would ensure that no impacts related to electricity supply occur. In addition, the electrical distribution system is continually being upgraded as growth occurs. By the time future development would be constructed under the proposed General Plan Update, it is expected that some steps outlined in the CEC action plan will have been implemented to alleviate energy constraints. If these constraints do remain, they could be addressed through "rolling blackouts," which are limited to specific geographic areas for a period of hours. Further, if energy constraints remain, they are a reflection of the broad energy supply issues experienced by California as a whole, and not unique to the demands of the development in the City. Further, the California Energy Commission licensed two additional power plants in 2001 that were anticipated to provide California with electrical energy supply capacity and the ability to meet peak load demand in excess of forecasts of regional energy supplies. Consequently, although the proposed General Plan Update would result in an increased electricity demand in the City, additional energy demands resulting from the proposed project would be adequately met by current and planned infrastructure during most of the year. Further, development under the proposed General Plan Update would be required to comply with the energy conservation measures contained in Tide 24, which would reduce the amount of energy needed for the operation of any buildings constructed as a part of the proposed General Plan Update. Additionally, the current electrical demand of the Planning Area is within the capacity limitations of the electrical facilities serving the City. Excluding any unforeseen problems, existing distribution resources have the ability to serve all existing customer loads in accordance with its rules and tariffs. The projected electrical demand of the Planning Area and for buildout under the proposed General Plan Update is expected to be within SCE's current 10-year load forecasts. Though SCE's total system demand is expected to continue to increase annually, excluding any unforeseen problems, SCE's plans for new distribution resources would be adequate to serve all existing and new customer loads throughout the next decade. SCE does not expect that utilities deregulation will affect service to the Planning Area. However, to reduce any potential impacts associated with buildout of the proposed General Plan Update, SCE recommends the use of energy efficient and high-performance design for nonresidential and residential building design and construction. Therefore, no impact would result. 1 City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 4.14.49 Chapter 4 Environmental Analysis Threshold 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? Implementation of the General Plan Update would not require or result in the construction of new natural gas production or transmission facilities. 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. Because the natural gas demand projected for the proposed General Plan Update would not exceed available or planned supply, new infrastructure would not be required to serve the proposed project. Therefore, no impactwould result. Cumulative Impacts Development under the proposed General Plan Update, in combination with all other development within the SCE and SCGC service areas, would result in the permanent and continued use of electricity and natural gas resources. However, as both SCE and SCGC are reactive providers, which supply electricity and natural gas services to customers at their request, it is assumed that they would be able to service future developments under the proposed General Plan Update buildout in combination with all projected future developments within their service boundaries. Therefore, the project's contribution to these impacts would not be cumulatively considerable and cumulative impacts to energy demand within SCE and SCGC service boundaries would be less than significant. Proposed General Plan Update Policies The proposed General Plan Update contains policies within its Natural Resources Element to reduce or minimize the effects of the additional demand and consumption of energy resources (electricity and natural gas) associated with the prospective growth within the project area. The following proposed General Plan Update policies will directly or indirectly address energy resources. Implementation of the following policies would help reduce the effects of the additional demand and consumption of natural gas and.electricity. I I 4.14.50 City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 7 L 4.14 Utilities and Service Systems Natural Resources Element Goal NR 24 Increased energy efficiency in City facilities and operations and in private developments. Policy NR 24.1 Incentives for Energy Conservation Develop incentives that encourage the use of energy conservation strategies by private and public developments. Policy NR 24.2 Energy -Efficient Design Features Promote energy -efficient design features. Policy NR 24.3 Incentives for Green Building Program Implementation Promote or provide incentives for "Green Building" programs that go beyond the requirements of Title 24 of the California Administrative Code and encourage energy efficient design elements as appropriate to achieve "green building" status. Policy NR 24.4 Incentives for Provision of LEED Certified Buildings Provide incentives for implementing Leadership in Environmental and Energy Design (LEED) certified building such as fee waivers, bonus densities, and/or awards recognition programs. Policy NR 24.5 New Methane Extraction Activities Allow new methane extraction activities to reduce reliance on fossil fuels. Impacts and Mitigation Measures Implementation of the General Plan Update not result in any impacts associated with electricity or natural gas resources and no mitigation would be required. Level of Significance After Policies/Mitigation Measures Existing regulations and policies outlined in the proposed General Plan Update would ensure that no impact associated with energy resources would occur. 4.14.5 References Antista, Pete. 2006. Written communication via email with Utilities Director, City of Newport Beach. 20 March. EIP Associates. 2004. Nenport Beach General Plan Update Technical Background Report. Irvine Ranch Water District, 2005. Urban WlaterManagement Plan, November. City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 4.14.51 Irvine Ranch Water District. 2003. Ir/ater-&sourzes Management Pldir. Adopted 2000, most recently updated in 2003. Newport Beach, City o£ August 1996. Master Plan of Sewers. 1999. VaterMaster Plea. 2003. Personal communication with Jeremy Hammond, General Services Division,16 September. 2003, Personal communication with Jeremy Hammond, General Services Division, 24 September 2003. Licensed and Franchised Commercial Solid Waste Haulers. Website: http://,,v%vw.city.nexvport-beach.ca.us/GSV/Frachised%20Haulers,htm,16 September. 2005. Urban Water Management Plan. Prepared by Brown and Caldwell. December. . 2006. Newport Beach CA Municipal Code. Website: http://ordfnk.com/codes/newportb/indechtm, 23 September. Orange, County of. Integrated Waste Management Department. 2003. Landfill Tonnage Reports, 2002- 2003. Provided by Christine Knapp . 2003. Personal communication with Susan Amirhosseini, Assistant Public Information Officer, Integrated Waste Management Department, State of California,16 September. October 28, 2005. Personal communication with John Arnau, Planner. 2006. Landfill Information. Website: http://www.oclandfiDs.com/landfilljnformadon.htrn,16 September. Trask, Willy. 2004. Personal communication with Metropolitan Water District, Water Quality Division, 9 January, 4,14.52 City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR I u �l 5.1 INTRODUCTION CEQA requires that an EIR describe a range of reasonable alternatives to the project or to the location of the project that could feasibly avoid or lessen any significant environmental impacts while substantially attaining the basic objectives of the project. An EIR should also evaluate the comparative merits of the alternatives. This chapter sets forth potential alternatives to the proposed project and evaluates them, as required by CEQA. Key provisions of the CEQA Guidelines (Section 15126.6) pertaining to the alternatives analysis are summarized below: ■ The discussion of alternatives shall focus on alternatives to the project or its location that are capable of avoiding or substantially lessening any significant effects of the project, even if these alternatives would impede to some degree the attainment of the project objectives, which are identified in Chapter 3 (Project Description, Statement of Objectives) of this EIR, or would be more costly. ■ The No Project alternative shall be evaluated along with its impact. The No Project analysis shall discuss the existing conditions at the time the notice of -preparation is published. ■ The range of alternatives required in an EIR is governed by a "rule of reason"; therefore, the E'IR must evaluate only those alternatives necessary to permit a reasoned choice. The alternatives shall be limited to ones that would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project. ■ For alternative locations, only locations that would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project need to be considered for inclusion in the EIR. ■ An 'EIR need not consider an alternative whose effects cannot be reasonably ascertained and whose implementation is remote and speculative. The range of feasible alternatives is selected and discussed in a manner to foster meaningful public participation and informed decision -making. Among the factors that may be taken into account when addressing the feasibility of alternatives (as described in CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6[f][1]) are environmental impacts, site suitability, economic viability, availability of infrastructure, general plan consistency, regulatory limitations, jurisdictional boundaries, and whether the proponent could reasonably acquire, control, or otherwise have access to the alternative site. An EIR need not consider an alternative whose effects could not be reasonably identified, whose implementation is remote or speculative, or one that would not achieve the basic project objectives. The alternatives analysis meets the requirements of CEQA Section 15126.6, which requires that a reasonable range of alternatives is identified in the EIR. The analysis includes sufficient information about each alternative to provide meaningful evaluation, analysis and comparison with the proposed project. City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 5-1 Chapter 5 Alternatives 5.2 POTENTIAL FEASIBLE ALTERNATIVES The alternatives identified below were selected for analysis. ■ Alternative 1: No Project/No Development —With this alternative, development under the proposed General Plan Update would not occur. The Planning Area would remain developed with existing land uses and intensities. ■ Alternative 2: No Project/No Action (Existing General Plan) —With this alternative, development under the proposed General Plan Update would not occur. Development would be guided by the existing General Plan. ■ Alternative 3: GPAC Recommendations —With this alternative, development would be guided by a General Plan consisting of the land use recommendations formulated by the General Plan Advisory Committee (GPAC), which would generally result in less development. ■ Alternative 4: Subarea Only Minimum —With this alternative, development would be guided by a General Plan consisting of land uses resulting in the lowest density of all the alternatives (except the existing General Plan) studied during the preparation of the General Plan Update. This alternative would result in the least amount of new development, when considered against the other action alternatives. 5.3 ALTERNATIVE 1: NO PROJECT/NO DEVELOPMENT ALTERNATIVE 5.3.1 Description The No Project/No Development Alternative would prohibit all new development, restricting urban growth to its current extent. This alternative assumes that no additional development and growth within the Planning Area would occur. The population would remain at existing levels of approximately 83,120 residents, and no construction of additional dwelling units or non-residential building area would occur. No alterations to the City would occur (with the exception of previously -approved development) and all existing facilities including residential development and commercial and industrial uses would generally remain in their current condition. Some minor population growth could occur within the City, to the extent that existing residential units or units that have already been approved could accommodate additional residents. None of the impacts of the proposed General Plan Update would result. Future conditions within the City, except for the impacts of regional growth, would generally be the same as existing conditions, which were described in the environmental setting section for each environmental topic. 5.3.2 Impact Evaluation No new physical environmental effects would directly result from implementation of this alternative. Since no ground disturbance or demolition activities would be required, impacts associated with biological resources, cultural resources, hazards, or hydrology would not occur. With no new development, the potential impacts from changes to visual character, land use compatibility issues, or loss of open space would not exist. There would also be less demand on utilities and public services with 5-2 City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR Chapter 5 Alternatives C, LJ I I less additional development in the City. Additionally, with less residents and development, traffic, air quality, and noise impacts, as well as exposure to geological hazards would be reduced. However, implementation of this alternative would not provide adequate housing supply required to meet the City's obligations to provide its fair share of affordable housing. In addition, development under this alternative would not expand mixed use development that would place residential units in proximity to employers and potentially reduce the number of commuters. Further, this alternative would not result in the construction of transportation improvements identified in the proposed project. However, regional traffic growth would still occur, resulting in the potential for traffic impacts that would otherwise be mitigated by the proposed project. Notwithstanding this effect, this alternative would result in less severe impacts than under the proposed project. 5.4 ALTERNATIVE 2: NO PROJECTMO ACTION ALTERNATIVE (EXISTING GENERAL PLAN) 5.4.1 Description Implementation of the No Project/No Action Alternative (Alternative 2) would result in development within the Planning Area that would not meet all of the project objectives established for the proposed General Plan Update for the City of Newport Beach. The No Project/No Action Alternative represents the continuation of the City's existing General Plan to guide future growth and development within the City. For this alternative, impacts would be analyzed under a maximum buildout scenario within the City with the allowed land uses and approved transportation improvements that are designated in the City's existing General Plan. Compared with the proposed project, the overall development potential in the City under this alternative would generally be reduced for some land use types, but would be increased for other types. Table 5-1 compares the buildout of each land use designation between the existing and the proposed General Plan Update for the City. The existing General Plan allows more square feet of office space, industrial and institutional land uses than the proposed General Plan Update, while the proposed General Plan Update would allow more residential, commercial, visitor -serving commercial (hotel/motel), and park land uses than the existing General Plan. Table 5-1 Citywide Existing and Proposed General ExlstingGeneral Plan Land Use Land Use De nallons Plan Update Designations Proposed General Plan Update Land Use Designations Residential (du) Multi -Family 30,159 33,992 Single -Family 19,570 20,402 Office (sf) 14,576, 930 12,867,500 Commercial (so 7,412,132 7,685,030 Visitor Serving (hotel -motel rooms) 5,676 6,549 Industrial (sf) 2,234,242 1,163,460 Institutional (sf) 893,213 853,413 Parks (acres) 978.8 254.7 City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 5.3 Chapter 5 Alternatives 5.4.2 Impact Evaluation ' ■ Aesthetics 1 The types of impacts associated with degradation of scenic vistas, decreased visual quality, ' obstruction/ -alteration of scenic resources within a State- or locally -designated scenic highway, and increased light and glare would be similar to the proposed project under this alternative, as the overall , character of General Plan buildout would be similar. Similar to the proposed General Plan Update, this alternative could result in obstruction of views of a scenic vista from places of public interest. Policies outlined in the proposed General Plan Update would still protect scenic vistas in the City, and this , impact would be less than significant Similar to the proposed project, because no scenic highways are currently designated within the City, implementation of this alternative would have no impact on scenic resources within a designated scenic highway. Development under the existing General Plan could result ' in changes to the visual character of the area, and the existing General Plan does not include the community character and neighborhood protection policies contained in the proposed General Plan Update. Impacts would remain less than signifcan4 but would be greater than the proposed project. ' Development under the existing General Plan would be more likely to convert open space areas to urban uses on Banning Ranch. In addition, light and glare would also be expected to increase with full buildout ' of the existing General Plan, as described for the proposed project. Future projects would be subject to further environmental and design review, and impacts associated with these resources would be addressed, similar with the proposed project. Banning Ranch could be more intensely developed under ' this alternative, and the impact of nighttime lighting would be significant and unavoidable, similar to the proposed project. ■ Air Quality ' The existing General Plan was considered in the preparation of the 2003 Air Quality Management Plan, , and implementation of this alternative would be consistent with the Plan. This impact would be less than significant The total emissions including objectionable odors, generated by construction of , individual projects, which may have overlapping schedules, would be expected to remain in exceedance of SCAQMD thresholds. Construction impacts on air quality would remain significant and unavoidable. Although total air emissions may be less than the proposed project, operation of projects ' under the existing General Plan would be significant and unavoidable. The growth envisioned under this alternative would not generate CO concentrations exceeding national and State ambient air quality standards. Similar to the proposed project, the resulting air quality impacts would be less than ' significant. ■ Biological' Resources ' The existing General Plan does not include updated objectives and policies for protection of biological ' resources which reflect the current regulatory environment and sensitivity of habitats within the City. The existing General Plan permits more development on Banning Ranch than the General Plan Update, 5.4 City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 1 Chapter ' with no priority for open space preservation. It does not impose the same restrictions on development and preservation of open space as the proposed General Plan Update. There is potential for disturbance of sensitive species under the No Project/No Action Alternative, as new developments could destroy or disrupt important habitat. While the existing General Plan allows development in areas where sensitive species might occur, projects would be required to obtain approvals from regulatory agencies on a case -by -case basis in these areas. This would ensure that sufficient ' mitigation measures are built into each development plan in order to protect sensitive species, if they were present on -site, such that impacts would be less than sign&cant. ' Indirect impacts to riparian habitat could result from development of the Banning Ranch subarea as allowed under the existing General Plan. The placement of development next to riparian habitats would disturb wildlife that relies on these areas. Federal regulations do not address protection of riparian ' vegetation under the Section 404 permitting process, and in light of the fact that the CDFG Section 1600 SAA is a negotiated agreement, some unmitigated loss of riparian resources may occur. Therefore these regulations would not serve to fully protect and manage riparian habitat under future development. ' Similarly, the existing General Plan has no policies to reduce impacts on the movement of native, resident, or migratory wildlife species or corridors in Banning Ranch. Therefore, the impacts associated ' with riparian habitats within the Planning Area would be significant. The California Wetlands Conservation Policy is intended to ensure that no net loss of wetlands would occur within the State. The existing General Plan does not contain policies providing protection to riparian areas and sensitive communities. However, the City would require strict adherence to the identified State and Federal laws and regulations and the "no net wetland loss" policy currently in place. This would ensure that impacts -on jurisdictional waters and wetlands would be less than significant. There are a number of policies and ordinances beyond the General Plan that regulate impacts to ' biological resources. The Orange County Central and Coastal NCCP is the applicable habitat conservation plan for the Planning Area, of which the City is a signatory agency. As development projects are implemented, they would be required to comply with the most stringent adopted policies, ' and there would be no impact. t■ Cultural Resources Under this alternative, the overall development potential under the existing General Plan would be reduced for some land use types, but would be increased for other types. While the development potential for land use categories would differ from the proposed project under continuation of the existing General Plan, impacts to cultural resources would be expected to be substantially similar to those ' of the proposed project. Because development could still occur within the City (regardless of the type), the potential demolition of historic structures could still occur and would remain significant and unavoidable. In addition, ground -disturbing activities associated with buildout of the existing General Plan would continue to occur in order to accommodate new development. Consequently, the potential of encountering fossil -bearing soils and rock formations, destroying below -ground paleontological resources, affecting archaeological sites and sites of cultural significance to Native Americans would still ' City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 5.5 Chapter 5 Alternatives occur, similar to the proposed project. However, cultural resources are governed on a site -by -site basis and the probability of uncovering new resources or of disturbing known resources is considered in project -level environmental review. Mitigation measures are created for projects that have the potential to disturb cultural resources, to lessen or negate impacts. Therefore, implementation of the No Project/No Action Alternative would result in impacts similar to buildout of the proposed General Plan Update, which are considered to be less than signi&eant. In Geology and Soils/Mineral Resources Geologic hazards associated with seismic ground shaking would be of similar magnitude under the No Project/No Action Alternative, as compared to the proposed project -because future development would still occur throughout the City. Other site -specific geological hazards associated with erosion, loss of topsoil, liquefaction, subsidence, landslides, and expansive soils would also be similar for this alternative relative to the proposed project. New developments under both projects would be expected to conform to the most recent California Building Codes, which include strict building specifications to ensure structural and foundational stability. In terms of geologic hazards, this alternative would have a less- than-sfgnfilcant impact. Under this alternative, existing oil and gas wells would continue to operate in the West Newport and Newport production areas. However, the existing General Plan permits development on Banning Ranch but does not impose the same restrictions on development (as compared to the proposed project). Unlike the proposed project, the existing General Plan does not have any policies that would ensure that development would not lead to a loss of availability of these resources. Consequently, future development on Banning Ranch under the existing General Plan could lead to a greater impact on mineral resources, as compared to the proposed project. As the General Plan Update policies would not be adopted to ensure that impacts on the availability of mineral resources remain less than significant, future analysis and mitigation would be required at the time specific development is set forth. In the absence of policies protecting access to mineral resources, impacts would be signi6eant. M Hazards and Hazardous Materials This impact would be similar to the proposed project because, while the existing General Plan allows more industrial land uses, the proposed General Plan Update allows more commercial uses; both of these land uses have the potential to introduce hazardous materials into the environment. Consequently, impacts related to the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials, as well as those related to reasonably foreseeable upset conditions would all be substantially similar, and less than significant. In addition, development under the existing General Plan could expose people to hazardous substances that may be present in soil or groundwater, and demolition activities could expose workers and the environment to asbestos -containing materials and/or lead 'based paint and residues. However, development under both the proposed project and this alternative would be held to Federal, State and local policies protecting humans and the environment from exposure to hazards. Compliance with the provisions of hazardous material policies in the City's Municipal Code and implementation of the existing regulations related to hazardous materials would reduce this impact to a less -than -significant 5.6 City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR I Chapter 5 Alternatives level. For future developments located on a hazardous materials site, appropriate remediation activities would be required before construction activities would be permitted. Similar to the proposed project, impacts would be less than signiEcant. In addition, impacts associated with the release of hazardous emissions within one -quarter mile of a school may also be similar to the proposed project as some school uses could be located in close proximity to areas that are designated for commercial and industrial uses. Impacts would remain less than significant. Under the existing General Plan, residential uses would not be permitted in the Airport Area, and as such, impacts related to a potential safety hazard of people residing within two miles of an airport would be less than the proposed project. No impact would result. Similar to the proposed project, implementation of this alternative would not significantly interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. This impact would remain less than significant. Development under the existing General Plan could lead to an increase in residential or commercial development in areas that are susceptible to wildland fires. This impact would be similar to the proposed project, as similar numbers of uses are generally proposed in wildland areas under the existing General Plan. This impact would be less than significant. ■ Hydrology and Water Quality Implementation of the No Project/No Action Alternative would have similar hydrology and water quality impacts to the proposed project. Although the total amount of development could differ from the proposed project under this alternative, similar alterations to drainage patterns and alterations to hydrological patterns would occur. However, under the existing General Plan, industrial uses would be allowed on Banning Ranch whereas no industrial uses are proposed for this subarea under the proposed General Plan Update. Thus, the discharge of pollutants could be greater than under the proposed General Plan Update. Similar to the proposed project, runoff would be subject to NPDES permit standards and provisions stipulated in the DAMP. If necessary, treatment would be employed to remove excess pollutants from runoff during the construction and operational phases of development. General Plan policies that offer additional protection from water quality impairment (such as protection of sensitive areas on Banning Ranch) would not be adopted, although runoff would be expected to be treated to the maximum extent practicable. In terms of water quality, this alternative would have a less - than -significant impact, similar to the proposed project. As the City does not include any significant recharge areas, depletion of groundwater and percolation of pollutants into groundwater aquifers would be less than significant, similar to the proposed project. This alternative would increase the impervious surface groundcover over existing conditions, and increase the quantity of runoff discharged into the City storm drain system, similar to the proposed project. General Plan policies adopted to minimize total site runoff would not be implemented. Projects would be subject to additional review in order to ensure that they do not exceed the capacity of the storm drain system. It is therefore expected that the net effect would be similar, and individual projects would not exceed the capacity of the storm drain system. These impacts would be less than signifcant, similar to the proposed project. Although fewer residences would be constructed under the existing General Plan, similar numbers of homes could be developed in low-lying areas that could be exposed to flooding in the event of a 100-year flood. Structures constructed in the floodplain would be required to adhere to floodproofing requirements contained in the City Municipal Code. This would ensure that impacts from flooding under this alternative would be less than significant, and impacts would be similar to the proposed project. This alternative would have less - City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 5-7 than-significantimpacts resulting from exposure to flooding as a result of a levee or dam, or effects of seiche, tsunami, or mudflow, similar to the proposed project. ® Land Use and Planning The existing pattern of land uses would be retained under the General Plan. The improvements from aggregating similar uses in proximity to each other, particularly in West Newport Mesa would also not occur. While significant impacts would not result, this benefit of the project would not occur. Land use changes in the Airport Area would not occur under this alternative, and it would remain developed by commercial and light industrial uses. The preservation of existing patterns of use would not result in land use conflicts. Further, no land use development would occur that would physically divide an established community, and no conflicts with adopted plans and policies would occur. Impacts, would be less than the proposed General Plan Update, and would be less than significant. Continued use of the existing General Plan under the No Project/No Action Alternative would be consistent with existing land use policies with the exception of the Local Coastal Plan (LCP). The existing General Plan is the umbrella document guiding most local land use policies; local land use plans and regulations were built using the General Plan as a framework. However the LCP, a California Coastal Commission mandated document, was shaped under State rather than local regulations, and as such, does not follow the same set of objectives as the General Plan. The most recent LCP incorporates new State laws and agency precedents governing coastal resources and is not consistent with the General Plan. For example, the existing General Plan allows a greater amount of industrial uses throughout the City, which the LCP no longer allows in certain areas. Industrial developers trying to obtain land use permits would not be allowed to build in areas where the existing General Plan allows industrial uses but where the LCP does not. The existing General Plan is constrained by the development restrictions laid out in the LCP. Although existing General Plan land use policies may permit certain uses, all new development occurring in the City under the existing General Plan would be also required to meet LCP standards. Although the LCP and the existing General Plan have areas of incompatibility, development under this alternative would be required to be consistent with all applicable policies. No development allowed under the existing General Plan but prohibited under the LCP would occur. In terms of implementation, therefore, impacts from policy inconsistencies are considered to be less than significant. However, implementation of this alternative would result in a decrease in certain types of development within thq City when compared with the proposed project because of the incompatibility between the existing General Plan and the more recently revised LCP. ■ Noise Under the No Project/No Action Alternative, continuation of the existing General Plan would not expose sensitive receptors in proximity to the John Wayne Airport to excessive noise levels because the land use pattern in the general vicinity would not change from current conditions. Consequently, the noise impacts to land uses in the vicinity of the airport would be less than the proposed project, and would remain less than significant. Similar to the proposed General Plan Update, construction activities under the No Project/No Action Alternative would be subject to the City's Municipal Code 11 I I 5.8 City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR I I Chapter 5 Alternatives 1 standards, and unreasonably loud construction noise would be prohibited during specified hours. This impact would be less than significant, similar to the proposed project. Future development under the existing General Plan could expose persons to vibration levels generated during construction activities that would exceed the standards adopted by the City. There are no mitigation measures available that would ensure that the threshold would not be exceeded in all cases. Consequently, this would be a significant and unavoidable impact, similar to the proposed project. Future development under the No Project/No Action Alternative could generate or expose persons to noise levels in excess of City standards. Although developments would be required to comply with existing noise standards, noise effects on exiting noise -sensitive uses could remain. Consequently, this impact would be similar to the proposed project, and would be significant and unavoidable. Similar to the proposed General Plan Update, the No Project/No Action Alternative would result in substantial permanent increases in traffic - related ambient noise levels. Development would still increase, which would result in additional motor vehicles traveling throughout the City and other sources of ambient noise. Although the development pattern throughout the City would be different under the existing General Plan, it is anticipated that the increased traffic on local roads would still result in a significant and unavoidable impact, similar to the proposed project. ■ Population and Housing Full buildout of the existing General Plan would allow an increase of approximately 9,550 additional residential units over 2002 conditions. At buildout, the City would have approximately 49,729 units. According to the Department of Finance, the 2002 population was approximately 72,622 residents. Using the City's existing persons per household (pph) rate of 2.19, the net increase of 9,550 residential units would result in a population increase of approximately 20,915 residents. Consequently, this increase would result in a total population of 93,537 persons at buildout of the existing General Plan. This would represent a 29 percent increase in population over 2002 conditions, which is considered to be less substantial than that projected under the proposed project (43 percent increase). Although the housing increases anticipated under the existing General Plan at buildout would exceed SCAG 2030 projections by approximately 15 percent, the existing General Plan would not exceed SCAG 2030 population projections. Growth under the existing General Plan was already accounted for in SCAG's projections, and the anticipated future growth would result in less than under the proposed General Plan Update. Consequently, because buildout of the existing General Plan would not exceed SCAG 2030 population projections, it is assumed that this impact would be less than the proposed project, and would constitute a less -than -significant impact. Similar to the proposed General Plan Update, the existing General Plan also does not propose uses that would displace substantial numbers of existing housing or people, and there would be no impact. ■ Public Services Under the No Project/No Action Alternative, development would occur throughout the City as permitted by the existing General Plan. Under this alternative, impacts associated with fire protection, law enforcement, and library services could be slightly less compared to the proposed project, since there would be less residential development at full buildout. Demands for fire, police, and library services City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 5.9 Chapter 5 Alternatives would be updated as part of the City's annual budget process. Law enforcement needs can be measured by population increase, and the potential population increase of 20,915 under the existing General Plan would require 36 additional officers and 21 additional non -sworn employees to maintain the existing ratio of 1.7 officers per 1,000 population. As with the proposed project, the existing police facility cannot accommodate this increase in staff, and any future project to expand police facilities would require environmental review. Therefore, this alternative is considered to have a less-than-sign&cant impact in terms of the provision of fire, police and library services, and its impacts would be similar to implementation of the proposed project. Additional students would be generated that would impact school facilities within the Planning Area. There would be 832 fewer single family residences and 3,833 fewer multifamily residences, resulting in fewer new students when compared to the General Plan Update. In addition, as no residential units would be developed in the Airport Area under the existing General Plan, there would be no impact to the SAUSD. Impacts to school services would be less than signWcant, and since fewer students would be generated, impacts would be less than under the proposed project. ■ Recreation and Open Space The overall amount of land designated for parks and active open space under the No Project/No Action Alternative would be less than the proposed project. The existing General Plan includes 178.8 acres of parks, while the proposed General Plan Update would include 254.7 acres, or more, if the acquisition of the Banning Ranch property for public open space was determined to be feasible. There would be less population increase under this alternative when compared to the proposed project, such that increased demands for parkland would be less. In particular, as no new residential uses would be developed in the Airport Area, there would be no demands for parldand in that area. However, population would continue to rise, placing increased pressure on open spaces within the City, which could potentially cause degradation of those recreational areas. The increase in need for part: land (at the existing standard of five acres per 1,000 population) would be 105 acres versus 156 additional acres under the proposed General Plan Update. This impact would be less than significant under the proposed project, and, as even less parkland would be developed under this alternative, increased usage of parks and their subsequent degradation would also be greater than the proposed project, It is anticipated, however, that this impact would be less than significant. This impact would be greater than the proposed project. Some physical development in parks or recreational facilities could occur, for instance in Banning Ranch or Sunset Ridge. The provision of these facilities would not result in substantial adverse physical impacts, This impact would be similar to the proposed project, and would remain less than signigeant. ® Transportation and Circulation Growth under the existing General Plan would increase vehicle trips citywide by 26.9 percent over 2002 existing conditions (20.1 percent over 2005 existing conditions), compared to an increase of 30.9 percent in vehicle trips over 2002 existing conditions (23.9 percent over 2005 existing conditions) with implementation of the proposed project. In general, daily traffic volumes on most roadways in the Planning Area would be approximately 1,000 fewer vehicles per day under the existing General Plan than 5-10 City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR Chapter 5 Alternatives I I , I under the proposed project. However, under the existing General Plan, more intersections would experience an unacceptable level of service than under the proposed project. Specifically, 18 intersections (13.16 percent of study intersections) would experience LOS E or F under the existing General Plan, while under the proposed project, five intersections (8.33 percent of study intersections) would experience LOS E or F. Excluding regional growth, only three intersections would experience LOS E or F under the proposed project. The existing General Plan does not contain a clear policy that the City's intersection LOS standard is D, but refers to that standard as a "goal" and describes circumstances when the goal may not be met. The proposed General Plan Update includes a more specific policy on intersection LOS, stating clearly that the City's standard is LOS D, but for a limited number of specifically -identified "exception intersections". Because the existing General Plan would adversely affect more intersections than the proposed project, this impact would be greater than the proposed project, and would be significant. Under this Alternative, increases in deficient freeway segments and ramps would be less than under the proposed project. The volumes on the SR-73 would still increase to the extent that all the studied segments would be failing upon implementation of this alternative. Even with the improvements identified by the County, several segments would continue to operate at a deficient level of service. Since development under this alternative is slightly lower than the proposed project, this impact would be less, but would remain significant and unavoidable. Fewer residential uses would occur under this Alternative, particularly in the Airport Area, where no residential development and fewer trips would occur. As a result, operations at JWA would not be significantly affected by implementation of this Alternative. Impacts related to air traffic would be less than under the proposed project, and would remain less than signifcant. Although development under this impact would be less than that of the proposed project, impacts related to the adequacy of emergency access would be similar, as all development is required to adhere to specific provisions in the City's Municipal Code. This impact would, therefore, remain less than significant. Since development under this Alternative would be less than the proposed project, impacts to parking would be less than the proposed project, and would remain less than significant. Impacts associated with consistency of applicable regional transportation plans would be similar for this alternative when compared to the project, and less -than -significant impacts would occur. ® Utilities and Service Systems Implementation of the No Project/No Action Alternative would result in more office space, and industrial and institutional land uses and less residential, commercial, visitor -serving commercial (hotel/motel), and park land uses than the proposed project in the City. Impacts related to the construction of infrastructure associated with water, sewer, storm drains, and power lines would be similar compared to the proposed General Plan Update. If new or expanded infrastructure is required, the infrastructure project would undergo the City's environmental review process, such that significant environmental effects from infrastructure improvements would be mitigated. Construction impacts related to infrastructure would be less than significant, similar to the proposed project. Increases in population and additional high -water -use land uses under this alternative would put increased pressure on the water supply. However, the water service providers have indicated that City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 5-11 Chapter 5 Alternatives adequate water service would be provided to accommodate the increased population. This would result in a less-than-signi6cantimpact, similar to the proposed project. As development occurs under the existing General Plan, increases in electricity, natural gas, wastewater flows, solid waste facilities and electricity demand would be expected to occur. Demands associated with these utilities are associated with population and total development. The population increase resulting from residential development would be less than the proposed project, however, and more square footage of commercial, office, and retail development would occur under this alternative. Thus, on balance, a similar level of demand would occur on utilities. Increased demands would be met by available infrastructure, similar to the proposed project. Current service projections for local utilities agencies are sufficient to cover new demand for services, and therefore, a less-than-signi6cantimpact would result, similar to the proposed project. 5.5 ALTERNATIVE 3: GPAC RECOMMENDATIONS 5.5.1 Description Implementation of the GPAC Recommendations Alternative (Alternative 3) would result in development within the Planning Area that would generally meet the project objectives established for the proposed General Plan Update for the City of Newport Beach. This alternative would result in less development than the proposed General Plan Update, As shown in Table 5-2 below, there would be less development in the Airport Area and Banning Ranch subareas, including approximately 1,936 fewer residential units. In addition, mixed use along Old Newport Boulevard and Balboa Peninsula would be less than under the proposed General Plan Update, and there would also be a somewhat different mix of uses in Balboa Village. Outside the subareas, potential residential density would be reduced in Lido Isle, Balboa Island and West Newport, As compared to the proposed project, themix of development permitted under this alternative would result in a reduction in average daily traffic (ADT) by approximately four percent. This alternative would still increase development citywide, when compared to existing conditions. Policies within the proposed General Plan Update would still be adopted, except those related to residential development in the Airport Area. The amount of development that would be allowed citywide relative to allowable development under the proposed General Plan Update is specified according to land use type in Table 5-2, below. 5.5.2 Impact Evaluation ■ Aesthetics The types of impacts associated with degradation of scenic vistas, decreased visual quality, obstruction/alteration of scenic resources within a State- or locally -designated scenic highway, and increased light and glare would be similar to the proposed project under this alternative, as the overall character of General Plan buildout would be similar. This alternative could result in obstruction of views 5-12 City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR I Chapter 5 Alternatives I 1 I I I i I Newport West Center/ West Old Newport Mariners' fashion Airport Banning Balboa Balboa Newport Newport Mesa Mk Island Area Ranch Vilta a Peninsula Mghwcn, Boulevard Office (sf) Proposed GPU 1,025,865 294,725 3,675,670 4,911,197 12,000 80,656 185,696 Alternative 3 1025 866 294,725 675 670 4 753 613 98,000 j 167,310 Rnetdnnfint (did Prop ..... I—, MFR 3,542 625 845 4,300 687 512 823 361 244 GPU SFR(A) 98 837 688 1,196 291 579 MFR 3,492 625 845 3,300 439 400 643 361 153 Alt SFR(A) 98 837 436 1,188 291 564 Commercial (st) Proposed GPU 50,910 853,208 1,986,980 880,620 75,000 192,503 745,320 57,935 92,848 Alternative 3 50,910 853,208 1,986,980 768,395 35,000 203,624 809,154 57,935 68,370 Visitor Serving (hotel -motel rooms) Proposed GPU 204 1,175 1,213 75 265 240 53 Alternative 3 204 1,175 984 75 265 328 j 53 Industrial (sl) Proposed 837,270 Alternative 3 837,270 551,930 Inefth,ftnnnl refl Proposed GPU 1,235,797 105,260 105,000 96,996 96,710 Alternative 3 1235 797 105,260 1 105,000 13,470 16,650 Parks of a scenic vista from places of public interest, although this would occur in isolated instances and to a more limited extent than the proposed project. Policies outlined in the proposed General Plan Update would still protect scenic vistas in the City, and this impact would be less than significant. Similar to the proposed project, because no scenic highways are currently designated within the City, implementation of this alternative would have no impact on scenic resources within a designated scenic highway. Development intensification could result in changes to the visual character of the area, but the change would be less pronounced in the Airport Area and Banning Ranch, where no or fewer residential units would be built. While there would be fewer mixed use developments, General Plan policies would remain that would minimize impacts among incompatible uses in new development. Projects would be required to comply with design criteria that would ensure new development is consistent with the visual character of the area. Impacts to changes in the visual character would be less than sign frcant, and City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 5.13 Chapter 5 Alternatives would be substantially similar to the proposed project. This alternative could also convert open space areas to urban uses on Banning Ranch if it is not acquired for open space, although there would be less development in the subarea. In addition, light andglare would also be expected to increase with full buildout of this alternative. Future projects would be subject to further environmental and design review, and impacts associated with these resources would be addressed, similar with the proposed project. Banning Ranch could be developed under this alternative, and the impact of nighttime lighting would be significant and unavoidable, similar to the proposed project. ■ Air Quality Implementation of the GPAC Recommendations Alternative would result in less overall development than the proposed project in the City. However, future population levels would continue to exceed SCAG projections, such that the General Plan as a whole would not be consistent with the 2003 AQMP. Similar to the proposed project, this impact would be considered significant and unavoidable. The total amount of emissions generated, including criteria pollutants and objectionable odors, under this alternative would be less than that of the proposed project, as ties alternative would result in a lesser amount of construction. However, the total emissions generated by construction of individual projects, which may have overlapping schedules would be expected to remain in exceedance of SCAQMD thresholds. Construction impacts on air quality would remain significant and unavoidable, although they would be less in magnitude than compared to the proposed project. Although total air emissions may be less than the proposed project, operation of projects under this alternative would remain significant and unavoidable. The growth envisioned under this alternative would not generate CO concentrations exceeding national and State ambient air quality standards if mitigation measures were implemented, and relative to the proposed project, this impact would be of a lesser magnitude due to the slight reduction in development envisioned under this alternative. The resulting air quality impacts would be less than signiOcantwith mitigation, and would be less than the proposed project. ■ Biological Resources The types of impacts to biological resources from the GPAC Recommendations Alternative would be similar to the proposed project. The reduction in residential development in urbanized areas would not have a substantial effect on the magnitude of impacts to biological .resources citywide. The reduction in potential development on Banning Ranch would reduce biological impacts in this area. The effects of implementation of the proposed General Plan Update under this alternative would be minimized through General Plan .policies and existing regulations governing protection of biological resources. Project effects, including disturbance to sensitive species, impacts on sensitive plant and wildlife species, direct and indirect impacts to riparian habitat, loss of wetlands, impacts to wildlife movement, and compliance with other policies and ordinances protecting would be less than significant. As less development would occur in the sensitive areas on and adjacent to Banning Ranch, impacts would be less than under the proposed project. 5-14 City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR Chapter 5 Alternatives '1 Cultural Resources Under the GPAC Recommendations Alternative, construction activities would be reduced within the Planning Area. While the development potential for land use categories would differ from the proposed project under the GPAC recommendations, impacts to cultural resources would be expected to be substantially similar to those of the proposed project. Because development could still occur within the City (regardless of the type or extent), the potential demolition of historic structures could still occur and would remain significant and unavoidable. Under this alternative, less disturbance of land that could potentially contain cultural resources, on or below the ground surface, would occur. Since the overall amount of development would be reduced, implementation of this alternative would have less potential than the proposed project to disturb archaeological sites or sites of cultural significance to Native Americans. The reduced intensity of development uses would also result in less ground -disturbing activities associated with buildout of this Alternative for potential fossil -bearing soils and rock formations. Thus, with the reduction in overall development, the potential impacts to paleontological resources would be less in magnitude than the proposed project. Therefore, impacts to archaeological and paleontological resources would also be less than significant. ■ Geology and Soils Slightly less development is proposed under the GPAC Recommendations Alternative, and thus, geologic hazards associated with seismic ground shaking would be of a lesser magnitude than the proposed project because less overall development would lessen the risk of exposure of structures to damage during ground shaking. Site -specific hazards associated with erosion, loss of topsoil, liquefaction, subsidence, landslides, and expansive soils would also be of a slightly lesser magnitude than the proposed project because less development would occur in the City under this alternative. As all future development under the GPAC Recommendations Alternative would be required to adhere to the most recent California Building Codes, which include strict building specifications to ensure structural and foundational stability, this alternative would have a less -than -significant impact. Under this alternative, policies associated with consolidating oil and gas activities on Banning Ranch would still apply, as would policies that would ensure that a loss of availability would not occur by encouraging consolidation of oil operations. Consequently, future development on Banning Ranch under this alternative would have a similar impact on mineral resources, as compared to the proposed project. Impacts on the availability of mineral resources would be less than significant. Hazards and Hazardous Materials Impacts associated with hazards and hazardous materials would be substantially similar to the proposed project. This alternative would result in more industrial and less commercial uses compared to the proposed General Plan Update. Consequently, impacts related to the routine transport, use, or disposal, as well as those related to reasonably foreseeable upset conditions would all be slightly greater than the proposed project, due to the more frequent use of hazardous substances. Impacts would, however, remain less than significant. Although slightly less in magnitude than the proposed project (due to less City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 5.15 Chapter 5 Alternatives development),' development under the GPAC Recommendations Alternative could expose people to hazardous substances that maybe present in soil or groundwater, and demolition activities could expose workers and the environment to asbestos -containing materials and/or lead based paint and residues. Compliance with existing Federal, State, and local regulations, along with compliance with proposed General Plan Update policies, would reduce impacts to a less -than -significant level. For future developments located on a hazardous materials site, appropriate remediation activities would be required before construction activities would be permitted. Similar to the proposed project, impacts would be less than significant. In addition, impacts associated with the release of hazardous emissions within one - quarter mile of a school would also be similar to the proposed project. Impacts would remain less than significant. Fewer residential uses would be permitted in the Airport Area, and as such, impacts related to a potential safety hazard of people residing within two miles of an airport would be slightly reduced. However, compliance with existing regulations and proposed General Plan Update policies would minimize impacts associated with operation of the JWA on surrounding land uses. Nonetheless, this impact -would remain significant and unavoidable. 'Implementation of this alternative would not significantly interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan, and this would occur to a slightly lesser extent than the proposed project because there would be less overall development, which would result in less congested traffic conditions in the Planning Area. This impact would remain less than significant. Similar to the proposed project, implementation of the GPAC Recommendations Alternative could lead to an increase in development in areas that are susceptible to wildland fires. However, General Plan policies would be implemented, and similar to the proposed project, impacts would be less than significant. ■ Hydrology and Water Quality Implementation of the GPAC Recommendations Alternative would not result in significant impacts to hydrology or water quality. Less development on Banning Ranch would occur, thereby reducing hydrology and water quality impacts to this subarea. Although the total amount of development could differ from the proposed project under this alternative, similar alterations to drainage patterns, discharge of pollutants and alterations to hydrological patterns would occur. Runoff would be subject to NPDES permit standards and provisions stipulated in the DAMP. If necessary, treatment would be employed to remove excess pollutants from runoff during the construction and operational phases of development. General Plan policies would offer additional protection from water quality impairment. In terms of water quality, this alternative would have a less -than -significant impact, and, due to reduction of potential development on Banning Ranch, impacts would be less than the proposed project. As the City does not include any significant recharge areas, depletion of groundwater and percolation of pollutants into groundwater aquifers would be less -than -significant, similar to the proposed project This alternative would increase the impervious surface groundcover over existing conditions, and increase the quantity of runoff discharged into the City storm drain system, although this would occur to a lesser extent than the proposed project. General Plan policies adopted to minimize total site runoff would be implemented. These impacts would be less than significan; and would be less than the proposed project Fewer residences would be constructed under this alternative and fewer numbers of homes could be developed in low-lying areas that could be exposed to flooding in the event of a 100-year flood. Structures constructed in the floodplain would be required to adhere to floodproofing requirements contained in 5.16 City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR i`l ' the City Municipal Code. This would ensure that impacts from flooding under this alternative would be ' less than significant, and impacts would be similar to the proposed project. This alternative would have less than significant impacts resulting from exposure to flooding as a result of a levee or dam, or effects of seiche, tsunami, or mudflow, similar to the proposed project. Land Use I' Land Use changes would occur similar to the General Plan Update, although the allowed intensity of development would vary in several areas. In the Airport Area, 1,000 fewer residential units could be built. The overall use and land use character of this subarea would still change, although the magnitude of land I ' use changes would be less. Development within the 65 dBA CNEL contour could still occur if City Council makes the necessary findings to override this restriction. While fewer residential units could be developed in this area, significant and unavoidable land use conflicts could still occur, similar to the proposed project. These changes would reduce the potential for conflicts of use to occur, when compared to the proposed project. Policies that establish distinct districts and neighborhood would be ' implemented as outlined in the General Plan Update. This alternative would not result in land use changes that would physically divide an established community. Further, conflicts could still occur with the AELUP. Therefore, impacts on land use would be significant and unavoidable, and would be ' similar to the proposed project. 1 ■ Noise Under the GPAC Recommendations Alternative, future development would expose sensitive receptors ' in proximity to the John Wayne Airport to excessive noise levels because residential uses could still be developed in the area. Consequently, the noise impacts to land uses in the vicinity of the airport would be similar to the proposed project, and would remain significant and unavoidable. Similar to the proposed General Plan Update, construction activities under the GPAC Recommendations Alternative would be subject to the City's Municipal Code standards, and unreasonably loud construction noise would be controlled. This impact would be less than significant, similar to the proposed project. Future ' development under this alternative could expose persons to vibration levels generated during construction activities. There are no mitigation measures available that would ensure that the threshold would not be exceeded in all cases. Consequently, this would be a significant and unavoidable impact, similar to the proposed project. Future development under the GPAC Recommendations Alternative could generate or expose persons to noise levels in excess of City standards. Although developments ' would be required to comply with existing noise standards, noise effects on exiting noise -sensitive uses could remain. Consequently, this impact would be similar to the proposed project, and would be significant and unavoidable. Similar to the proposed General Plan Update, the GPAC ' Recommendations Alternative would result in substantial permanent increases in traffic -related ambient noise levels. Development would increase, although slightly less than the proposed project, which would result in additional motor vehicles traveling throughout the City and other sources of ambient noise. ' Because slightly less development would occur under this alternative, it is anticipated that the increased traffic on local roads would also be slightly less than the proposed project, but would still result in a significant and unavoidable impact. ' City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 5-17 Chapter 5 Alternatives M Population and Housing Pull buildout of the GPAC Recommendations Alternative would result in similar impacts to population and housing. Reduced development potential would include approximately 1,936 fewer residential units, among other changes. The reduction in residential uses would also reduce the anticipated population by approximately 4,240 residents, for a total increase of approximately 26,891 persons and a buildout population of approximately 99,513 persons. While the estimated growth in population and housing is slightly less when compared to the proposed General Plan Update, the anticipated growth under the GPAC Recommendations Alternative would still represent a 37 percent increase in population over 2002 conditions, which is considered to be substantial. Similarly, future growth under this Alternative would continue to substantially exceed SCAG projections for population and housing. Therefore, while this impact would be less than the proposed project, this Alternative would still result in a signf6cantimpact to population and housing increases. Similar to the proposed General Plan Update, the GPAC Recommendations Alternative also does not propose uses that would displace substantial numbers of existing housing or people, and there would be no hnpact. ■ Public Services Under the GPAC Recommendations Alternative, somewhat less development would occur throughout the City. Under this alternative, impacts associated with fire protection, law enforcement, and library services could be slightly less compared to the proposed project, since there would be less residential development at full buildout Demands for fire, police, and library services would be updated as part of the City's annual budget process. Law enforcement needs can be measured by population increase, and the potential population increase of approximately 26,891 residents under the GPAC Recommendations Alternative would require 46 additional officers and 28 additional non -sworn employees to maintain the existing ratios of 1.7 officers per 1,000 residents. As with the proposed project, the existing police facility cannot accommodate this increase in staff, and any future project to expand police facilities would require environmental review. Therefore, this alternative is considered to have a less -than -sign ffcant impact in terms of the provision of fire, police, and library services and its impacts would be similar to implementation of the proposed project. Additional students would be generated that would impact school facilities within the Planning Area. There would be approximately 1,936 fewer residential units, resulting in fewer new students when compared to the proposed General Plan Update. Impacts to school services would be less than signi6can; and since fewer students would be generated, impacts would be less than under the proposed project. In addition, impacts related to development of SAUSD facilities would be similar to proposed project, but slightly less under this Alternative due to the development of fewer residential units in Airport Area. ■ Recreation The overall amount of land designated for parks and active open space under the GPAC Recommendations Alternative would be the same as under the proposed project As the population rises, 5-18 City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR Chapter 5 Alternatives increased pressure would be placed on parkland and open space areas within the City, which could potentially cause degradation of those recreational areas. Because this alternative would result in a slightly lower population increase than the proposed project, the increase in need for park land (at the existing standard of five acres per 1,000 population) would be 134 acres versus 156 additional acres under the proposed General Plan Update. Therefore, this impact would be slightly less in magnitude comparatively. As a result, this Alternative could result in more designated open space than under the proposed,project. The increased usage of existing parks and their subsequent degradation would remain less than significant. Similar to the proposed project, this alternative would provide additional parkland and open space, but the provision of these facilities would not result in substantial adverse physical impacts. This impact would be similar to the proposed project, and would remain less than significant. ■ Transportation and Circulation Implementation of the GPAC Recommendations Alternative would result in a reduction in development potential. In turn, a reduction in traffic volume would occur, which would result in improved traffic conditions in the Planning Area when compared to the proposed project. Specifically, the GPAC Recommendations Alternative would allow a mix of development that would result in four percent fewer trips citywide than would occur under the proposed project. The policy regarding the City's intersection level of service standard included in the General Plan Update would be adopted, and the traffic improvement measures that would be implemented under the proposed project would also be implemented under this Alterative. As such, impacts related to this alternative could also be reduced, and traffic impacts to intersections would be less than the proposed project. Impacts would be less than significant. Under this alternative, impacts to substantial increases in deficient freeway segments and ramps would be less than under the proposed project as development is slightly lower. The volumes on the SR-73 would still increase to the extent that all the studied segments would be failing upon implementation of this alternative. Even with the improvements identified by the County, several of the freeway segments and ramps would continue to operate at a deficient level of service. Since development under this alternative is slightly lower than the proposed project, this impact would be less, but would remain signi&cant and unavoidable. Fewer residential uses would occur under this Alternative, including in the Airport Area, where less residential development and fewer trips would occur. As such, operations at JWA would not be significantly affected by implementation of this Alternative. Impacts related to air traffic would be less than under the proposed project, and would remain less than significant. Although development under this impact would be less than that of the proposed project, impacts related to the adequacy of emergency access would be similar as all development is required to adhere to specific provisions in the City's Municipal Code. This impact would, therefore, remain less than significant. Since development under this Alternative would be less than the proposed project, impacts to parking would be less than the proposed project demands on parking in the Planning Area would be less. However, new development is required to adhere to the City's Municipal Code with regard to parking requirements. As such, impacts under this Alternative would be similar t that of the proposed project, but would remain less than significant. Impacts associated with consistency of applicable regional transportation plans would be City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 5-19 similar for this alternative when compared to the project, and less -than -significant impacts would occur. ■ Utilities and Service Systems Implementation of the GPAC Recommendations Alternative would reduce the number of new residential units. Construction of infrastructure associated with water, sewer, storm drains, and power lines could still be necessary. These impacts would be similar to those described for the proposed General Plan Update. If new or expanded infrastructure is requited, the infrastructure project would undergo the City's environmental review process, such that significant environmental effects from infrastructure improvements would be mitigated. Construction impacts related to infrastructure would be less than significant similar to the proposed project. While population would be less than under the proposed project, it would still be greater than that which is currently projected for the City. Implementation of the proposed General Plan Update policies would reduce future water demand; this alternative would still require new or expanded water entitlements and would not be in compliance with the Urban Water Management Plan. As such, increases in population under this alternative would put increased pressure on the water supply. Water -service providers have indicated that adequate water supply would be available to accommodate the increased population. This would result in a less -than -significant impact, although this would be less in magnitude than the proposed project. As development occurs under this alternative, increases in electricity, natural gas, wastewater flows, solid waste facilities, and electricity demand would be expected to occur. As demands associated with these utilities are linked to City population, and the population increase would be less than the proposed project under this alternative, somewhat less demand would occur on these utilities. Increased demands would be met by available infrastructure, similar to the proposed project. Current service projections for all local utilities agencies are sufficient to cover new demand for services, and therefore, a less than significant impact would result, and these impacts would be less in magnitude when compared to the proposed project. 5.6 ALTERNATIVE 4: SUBAREA ONLY MINIMUM 5.6.1 Description Under the Subarea Only Minimum Alternative, new development would be less than the proposed General Plan Update. In addition, the amount of new development would be reduced when compared to development allowed under the existing General Plan and under Alternative 3, the GPAC Recommendations. Table 5-3 illustrates the land use under this Alternative compared to the proposed General Plan Update. Specifically, under this alternative, residential land uses would be less than the proposed project in the Airport Area, Balboa Peninsula, West Newport Mesa, Balboa Village, and Old Newport Boulevard. No residential development would occur in Banning Ranch. Development potential outside of the subareas would remain the same as under the proposed General Plan Update. Office uses 5-20 City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR Chapter 5 Alternatives would be less in West Newport Mesa, Newport Center/Fashion Island, and Old Newport Boulevard (where no office uses are proposed). Commercial uses would be less in Newport Center/Fashion Island, Airport Area, Balboa Peninsula, West Newport Highway, Old Newport Boulevard, and Banning Ranch (where no commercial uses are proposed). Industrial uses are proposed in West Newport Mesa, but at a level significantly below the proposed project, while industrial uses in the Airport Area would be greater than under the proposed project. Finally, institutional uses would be the same or less under this alternative for all areas where such uses are proposed under the proposed project. The mix of development under this alternative would result in a trip generation that is approximately eight percent less than under the proposed General Plan Update. Policies within the proposed General Plan Update would still be adopted. Newport West Center/ WestOld Newport Mariners' Fashion Airport Banning Balboa Balboa Newport Newport Mesa We Island Area Ranch Wage Peninsula Highway Boulevard Office Prnnncari r;P1 i 1 1.n25.R65 1 994.725 1 3.675.670 14.911.197 I I 12.000 1 80.656 I I 185,696 Alternative 4 850,950 1 363,557 1 3,635,570 16,001,692 1 60,000 1 103,185 1 I CneiAenfiol ld,d Prop MFR 3,542 625 845 4,300 687 512 823 361 244 GPU 98 837 688 1,196 291 579 !SFR(A) 3,172 817 1,226 1,950 14 242 638 273 250 AIt4FR SFR(A) 98 837 419 1,190 254 462 659 Commercial (sf) Proposed GPU 50,910 853,208 1,986,980 880,620 75,000 192,503 745,320 57,935 92,848 Alternative 4 72170 916110 1,936,820 854,167 217,340 336,714 18,105 66,380 Visitor Serving (hotel -motel rooms) Proposed GPU 1204 1,175 1,213 75 265 240 53 Alternative 4 204 1,036 1431 34 186 145 53 Industrial (sf) Pr000sed 837.270 Alternative 4 1 499,457 1 1 1 5U6 37U I I I I I Institutional (sf) Proposed GPU 1,235,797 105,260 105,000 96,996 96,710 Alternative 4 1,235,797 95,360 105,000 10,900 13,470 6,000 Parks (acres) Proposed GPU 1 30 Alternative 4 0.4 ( 20 ' City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 6.21 Chapter 5 Alternatives 5.6.2 Impact Evaluation ■ Aesthetics The types of impacts associated with degradation of scenic vistas, decreased visual quality, obstruction/alteration of scenic resources within a state- or locally designated scenic highway, and increased light and glare would be similar to the proposed project under this alternative, as the overall character of General Plan buildout would be similar. This alternative could result in obstruction of views of a scenic vista from places of public interest, although this would occur in isolated instances and to a more limited extent than the proposed project. Policies outlined in the proposed General Plan Update would still protect scenic vistas in the City, and this impact would be less than significant. Similar to the proposed project, because no scenic highways are currently designated within the City, implementation of this alternative would have no impact on scenic resources within a designated scenic highway. Development intensification could result in changes to the visual character of the area, and the change would be less pronounced citywide, as less development than under the proposed project would occur. Banning Ranch, in particular, would not undergo visual changes, as development would be limited to an active park and the remainder of the area would remain as oil operations and open space. Projects would be required to comply with design criteria that would ensure new development is consistent with the visual character of the area. Impacts to changes in the visual character would be less than significant, and would be substantially similar to the proposed project. In addition, light and glare would also be expected to increase with full buildout of the existing General Plan. Future projects would be subject to further environmental and design review, and impacts associated with these resources would be addressed, similar with the proposed project. No residential development would occur on Banning Ranch under this Alternative; however, an active park site could be developed with nighttime lighting, wlticb could impact adjacent land uses. Therefore, although the impact of residential nighttime lighting that would occur under the proposed project would be avoided, the impact of nighttime lighting of an active park could have the same effect. This impact would remain significant and unavoidable. ■ Air Quality Implementation of the Subarea Minimum Alternative would result in less overall development than the proposed project in the City. However, future population levels would continue to exceed SCAG projections, such that the General Plan as a whole would not be consistent with the 2003 AQMP. Similar to the proposed project, this impact would be considered significant and unavoidable. The total amount of emissions generated under this alternative, including criteria pollutants and objectionable odors, would be less than that of the proposed project, as this alternative would result in a lesser amount of construction. However, the total emissions generated by construction of individual projects, which may have overlapping schedules, would be expected to remain in exceedance of SCAQMD thresholds. Construction impacts on air quality would remain significant and unavoidable, although they would be less in magnitude than compared to the proposed project. Although total air emissions may be less than the proposed project, operation of projects under this alternative would be significant and unavoidable. The growth envisioned under this alternative would not generate' CO concentrations exceeding national and State ambient air quality standards if mitigation measures were implemented, and 5-22 City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR Chapter 5 Alternatives ' relative to the proposed project, this impact would be of a lesser magnitude due to the reduction in development envisioned under this alternative. The resulting air quality impacts would be less than signi6cantwith mitigation, and would be less than the proposed project. ' ■ Biological Resources Impacts to biological resources from the Subarea Minimum Alternative would be similar to, but less ' than, the proposed project. The elimination of development on the Banning Ranch property would eliminate biological impacts in this area, which includes a large proportion of the biological resources in the Planning Area. The reduction in development in largely urbanized areas would not have a substantial ' effect on the magnitude of impacts to biological resources. ' The effects of implementation of this alternative would be minimized through General Plan policies and existing regulations governing protection of biological resources. Project effects on areas outside of Banning Ranch, including disturbance to sensitive species, impacts on sensitive plant and wildlife species, direct and indirect impacts to riparian habitat, loss of wetlands, impacts to wildlife movement, and compliance with other policies and ordinances protecting biological resources would occur and would be less than significant. As less park development would occur in the sensitive areas on and adjacent to ' Banning Ranch, impacts would be less than under the proposed project. ■ Cultural Resources Under the Subarea Minimum Alternative, because less development would occur, construction activities ' would be reduced within the Planning Area. While the development potential for land use categories would differ from the proposed project under this alternative, impacts to cultural resources would be expected to be substantially similar as those of the proposed project. Because development could still occur within the City (regardless of the type or intensity), the potential demolition of historic structures could still occur and would remain significant and unavoidable. Under this alternative, less disturbance of land that could potentially contain cultural resources, on or below the ground surface, would occur. Since the overall amount of development would be reduced, implementation of this alternative would have less potential than the proposed project to disturb archaeological sites or sites of cultural significance to Native Americans. The reduced intensity of development would also result in less ground - disturbing activities associated with buildout of this Alternative for potential fossil -bearing soils and rock formations. Thus, with the reduction in overall development, the potential impacts to paleontological resources would be less in magnitude than the proposed project because the exposure of potential fossil - bearing soils and rock formations would be reduced. Therefore, impacts to archaeological and paleontological resources would also be less than signWcant. N Geology and Soils ' Less overall development is proposed under the Subarea Minimum Alternative, and thus, geologic hazards associated with seismic ground shaking would be of a lesser magnitude than the proposed I' project because less overall development would lessen the risk of exposure of structures to damage ' City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 5.23 Chapter 5 Alternatives during ground shaking. Site -specific hazards associated with erosion, loss of topsoil, liquefaction, subsidence, landslides, and expansive soils would also be of a lesser magnitude than the proposed project because less development would occur in the'City under this alternative. As all future development under the Subarea Minimum Alternative would be required to adhere to the most recent California Building Codes, which include strict building specifications to ensure structural and foundational stability, this alternative would have a less-than-signiffcantimpact. Under the Subarea Minimum Alternative, existing oil and gas operations and open space would remain on Banning Ranch. Therefore, the availability of mineral resources would not be impacted, similar to the proposed project. No impactwould occur. ® Hazards and Hazardous Materials Impact associated with hazards and hazardous materials would be less than the proposed project because the permitted amount of industrial and commercial uses would be less under this alternative. Consequently, impacts related to the routine transport, use, or disposal, as well as those related to reasonably foreseeable upset conditions would be less than the proposed project, and impacts would be less than signi5cant Although less in magnitude than the proposed project (due to less development), development under the Subarea Minimum Alternative could expose people to hazardous substances that may be present in soil or ,groundwater, and demolition activities could expose workers and the environment to asbestos -containing materials and/or lead -based paint and residues. Compliance with existing Federal, State, and local regulations, along with compliance of proposed General Plan Update policies, would reduce impacts to a less -than -significant level. For future developments located on a hazardous materials site, appropriate remediation activities would be required before construction activities would be permitted. Similar to the proposed project, impacts would be less than significant. In addition, impacts associated with the release of hazardous emissions within one -quarter mile of a school would also be less than the proposed project. Impacts would remain less than signXcant. Fewer residential uses would be permitted in the Airport Area, and as such, impacts related to a potential safety hazard of people residing within two miles of an airport would be reduced. However, compliance with existing regulations and proposed General Plan Update policies would minimize impacts associated with operation of the JWA on surrounding land uses. Nonetheless, this impact would remain signiffcant and unavoidable. Implementation of this alternative would not significantly interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan, and this would occur to a lesser extent than the proposed project because the decrease in overall development would result in less congested traffic conditions in the Planning Area. This impact would remain less than signXcant. Similar to the proposed project, implementation of the Subarea Minimum Alternative could lead to an increase in residential or commercial development in areas that are susceptible to wildland fires. However, General Plan policies would be implemented and impacts would be less than significant; but would be lesser in magnitude than the proposed project. 5-24 City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR Chapter 5 Alternatives Hydrology and Water Quality Implementation of the Subarea Minimum Alternative would not result in significant impacts to hydrology or water quality. The only development on Banning Ranch would be for park uses, which would substantially lessen hydrology and water quality impacts to this subarea. Although the total amount of development could differ from the proposed project under this alternative, similar alterations to drainage patterns, discharge of pollutants and alterations to hydrological patterns would occur. Runoff would be subject to NPDES permit standards and provisions stipulated in the DAMP. If necessary, treatment would be employed to remove excess pollutants from runoff during the construction and operational phases of development. Proposed General Plan Update policies would offer additional protection from water quality impairment. In terms of water quality, this alternative would have a less - than -significant impact, and this impact would be less than the proposed project. As the City does not include any significant recharge areas, depletion of groundwater and percolation of pollutants into groundwater aquifers would be less than significant, similar to the proposed project. This alternative would increase the impervious surface groundcover over existing conditions, and increase the quantity of runoff discharged into the City storm drain system, similar to the proposed project. General Plan policies adopted to minimize total site runoff would be implemented. These impacts would be less than significant, similar to the proposed project. Although fewer residences would be constructed under this alternative, similar numbers of homes could be developed in low-lying areas that could be exposed to flooding in the event of a 100-year flood. Structures constructed in the floodplain would be required to adhere to floodproofing requirements contained in the City Municipal Code. This would ensure that impacts from flooding under this alternative would be less than significant, and impacts would be similar to the proposed project. This alternative would have less —than -significant impacts resulting from exposure to flooding as a result of a levee or dam, or effects of seiche, tsunami, or mudflow, similar to the proposed project. ■ Land Use Land Use changes would occur throughout the City, although they would differ in magnitude when compared to the proposed project. Development throughout the City would result in fewer land use changes than proposed under the General Plan Update. The overall use and land use character of the Airport Area would still change, although the magnitude of land use changes would be less. Development within the 65 dBA CNEL contour could still occur if City Council makes the necessary findings to override airport area land use regulations/limitations. While fewer residential units could be developed in this area, significant and unavoidable land use conflicts could still occur, similar to the proposed project. In addition, no land use changes would occur on Banning Ranch. These changes would lessen the potential for conflicts of use to occur, compared to the proposed project. Policies that establish distinct districts and neighborhoods would be implemented as outlined in the General Plan Update. This alternative would not result in land use changes that would physically divide an established community. Further, conflicts could still occur with the AELUP. Therefore, impacts on land use would be significant and unavoidable, similar to the proposed project. ' City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 5-25 Chapter 5 Alternatives ■ Noise Under the Subarea Minimum Alternative, future development would expose sensitive receptors in proximity to the John Wayne Airport to excessive noise levels because residential uses could still be developed in the area. Fewer residential units could be developed in the area, although impacts would remain significant and unavoidable. Similar to the proposed General Plan Update, construction activities under Alternative 4 would be subject to the City's Municipal Code standards, and unreasonably loud construction noise would be controlled. This impact would be less than significant, similar to the proposed project. Future development under this alternative could still expose persons to vibration levels generated during construction activities. There are no mitigation measures available that would ensure that the threshold would not be exceeded in all cases. Consequently, this would be a significant and unavoidable impact, similar to the proposed project. Future development under this alternative could generate or expose persons to noise levels in excess of City standards. Although developments would be required to comply with existing noise standards, noise effects on exiting noise -sensitive uses could remain. Consequently, this impact would be similar to the proposed project, and would be significant and unavoidable. Similar to the proposed General Plan Update, this alternative would result in substantial permanent increases in traffic -related ambient noise levels. Development would increase, although less than the proposed project, which would result in additional motor vehicles traveling throughout the City and other sources of ambient noise. Because less development would occur under this alternative, it is anticipated that the increased traffic on local roads would also be less than the proposed project, but would still result in a significant and unavoidable impact. ■ Population and Housing Full buildout of the Subarea Minimum Alternative would result in similar impacts to population and housing as the proposed project. Reduced development potential would include approximately 3,127 fewer residential units, among other changes. The reduction in residential uses would also reduce the anticipated population by approximately 6,848 residents, for a total increase of approximately 24,283 persons and a buildout population of approximately 96,905 persons over 2002 conditions. While the estimated growth in population and housing is less when compared to the proposed General Plan Update, the anticipated growth under the Subarea Minimum Alternative would still represent a 33 percent increase in population over 2002 conditions, which is considered to be substantial. Similarly, future growth under this Alternative would continue to exceed SCAG projections for population and housing. Therefore, while this impact would be less than the proposed project, this Alternative would still result in a significant impact to population and housing increases. Similar to the proposed General Plan Update, the Subarea Minimum Alternative also does not propose uses that would displace substantial numbers of existing housing or people, and there would be no impact. ■ Public Services Under the Subarea Minimum Alternative, less development would occur throughout the City. Under this alternative, impacts associated with fire protection, law enforcement, and library services could be slightly less compared to the proposed project, since there would be less residential development at full buildout. 5.26 City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR �I Demands for fire, police, and library services would be updated as part of the City's annual budget ' process.. Law enforcement needs can be measured by population increase, and the potential population increase of 24,283 under the Subarea Minimum Alternative would require 41 additional officers and 25 additional non -sworn employees to maintain the existing ratio of 1.7 officers per 1,000 residents. As with ' the proposed project, the existing police facility cannot accommodate this increase in staff, and any future project to expand police facilities would require environmental review. Therefore, this alternative is considered to have a less -than -significant impact in terms of the provision of fire, police and library ' services and its impacts would be similar to implementation of the proposed project. Additional students would be generated that would impact school facilities within the Planning Area. ' There would be fewer new residences, resulting in fewer new students when compared to the General Plan Update. Impacts to school services would be less than significant, and since fewer students would be generated, impacts would be less than under the proposed project. In addition, impacts related to development of SAUSD facilities would be less than the proposed project due to the development of fewer residential units in Airport Area. ' ® Recreation and Open Space The overall amount of land designated for parks and active open space under the Subarea Minimum Alternative would be the same as or more than under the proposed project because Banning Ranch would be kept as open space. As described for the proposed project, as the population rises, increased pressure would be placed on parkland and open space areas within the City, which could potentially cause degradation of those recreational areas. Because this alternative would result in a lower population ' increase than the proposed project, the increase in need for park land (at the existing standard of 5 acres per 1,000 residents) would be 121 acres versus 156 additional acres under the proposed General Plan Update. As a result, this Alternative could result in greater designated open space areas than under the ' proposed project. Therefore, this impact would be less in magnitude comparatively. The increased usage of existing parks and their subsequent degradation would remain less than significant. Similar to the proposed project, this alternative would provide additional parkland and open space, but the provision of these facilities would not result in substantial adverse physical impacts. This impact would be similar to the proposed project, and would remain less than significant. ' ■ Transportation and Circulation ' Under the Subarea Only Minimum Alternative, residential, office, and industrial land uses would in most areas be lower than with the proposed project. In turn, a lower increase in traffic volume would occur, which would result in improved traffic conditions in the Planning Area when compared to the proposed ' project. Specifically, the Subarea Only Minimum Alternative would result in a mix of development that would lead to approximately eight percent fewer trips citywide than would occur under the proposed project. The policy regarding the City's intersection level of service standard included in the General Plan ' Update would be adopted, and the transportation improvement measures that would be implemented under the proposed project would also be implemented under this Alterative. As such, impacts to intersections that would occur under this alternative would also be reduced, and traffic impacts to ' City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 5.27 Chapter 5 Alternatives intersections would be less than the proposed project, but would remain less than significant. Under this alternative, increases in deficient freeway segments and ramps would be less than under the proposed project as development would be lower than under the proposed project The volumes on the SR-73 would still increase to the extent that all the studied segments would be failing upon implementation of this alternative. Even with the improvements identified by the County, several of the freeway segments and ramps would continue to operate at a deficient level of service. Since development under this alternative is lower than the proposed project, this impact would be less, but would remain significant and unavoidable. Less intense land uses would occur under this Alternative, including in the Airport Area, where less residential development and fewer trips would occur. As such, operations at JWA would not be significantly affected by implementation of this Alternative. Impacts related to air traffic would be less than under the proposed project, and would remain less than significant. Although development under this impact would be less intense than that of the proposed project, impacts related to the adequacy of emergency access would be similar as all, development is required to adhere to specific provisions in the City's Municipal Code. This impact would, therefore, remain less than significant Since development under this Alternative would be less than the proposed project, impacts to parking would be less than the proposed project demands on parking in the Planning Area would be less. However, new development is required to adhere to the City's Municipal Code with regard to parking requirements. As such, impacts under this Alternative would be similar to that of the proposed project, but would remain less than significant. Impacts associated, with consistency of applicable regional transportation plans would be similar for this alternative when compared to the project, and less-than- sigrtfficantimpacts would occur. ■ Utilities and Service Systems Implementation of the Subarea Only Minimum Alternative would reduce the number of new residential units. Construction of infrastructure associated with water, sewer, storm drains, and power lines could still be necessary. These impacts would be similar to those described for the proposed General Plan Update. If new or expanded infrastructure is required, the infrastructure project would undergo the City's environmental review process, such that significant environmental effects from infrastructure improvements would be mitigated. Construction impacts related to infrastructure would be less than significant, similar to the proposed project. While population would be less than under the proposed project, it would still be greater than that currently projected for the City. Implementation of the General Plan Update policies would reduce future water demand; this alternative would still require new or expanded water entitlements and would not be in compliance with the Urban Water Management Plan. As such, increases in population under this alternative would put increased pressure on the water supply. Water -service providers have indicated that adequate water supply would be available to accommodate the increased population. This would result in a less -than -significant impact, although this would be less in magnitude than the proposed project. As development occurs under this alternative, increases in electricity, natural gas, wastewater flows, solid waste facilities and electricity demand would be expected to occur. As demands associated with these utilities are linked to City population, and the population increase would be less than the proposed 5-28 City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR I Chapter 5 Alternatives project under this alternative, somewhat less demand would occur on these utilities. Increased demands would be met by available infrastructure, similar to the proposed project. Current service projections for all local utilities agencies are sufficient to cover new demand for services, and therefore, a less than significant impact would result, and these impacts would be less in magnitude when compared to the proposed project. 5.7 SUMMARY COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES Table 5-4 below summarizes the relative magnitude of impacts from each alternative, when compared to the proposed project. Table 5-4 Comparison of Alternatives NoProJecf/No EnvfronmentalfssueArea Development to the No Project/No Action Proposed Project GPAC Recommendations Subarea Minimum Aesthetics — + Air Quality — Biological Resources — + — — Cultural Resources — _ — — Geology — + — — Hazards and Hazardous Materials — _ + — Hydrology — Land Use — Noise — Population — Public Services Recreation and Open Space — + — — Transportation — + Utilities and Service Systems H = Impacts considered to be less when compared with the proposed project. (+I = Impacts considered to be greater when compared with the proposed project. (_) = Impacts considered to be eaual or similar to the proposed project. 5.8 ENVIRONMENTALLY SUPERIOR ALTERNATIVE An EIR is required to identify the environmentally superior alternative from among the range of reasonable alternatives that are evaluated. This would ideally be the alternative that results in fewer (or no) significant and unavoidable impacts. CEQA Guidelines Section 15126(d)(2) states that if the environmentally superior alternative is the no project alternative, the EIR shall also identify an environmentally superior alternative from among the other alternatives. 1 City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 5-29 Chapter 5 Alternatives The No Project/No Development Alternative would be environmentally superior to the proposed project on the basis of the minimization or avoidance of physical environmental impacts. Among the remaining alternatives, the Subarea Minimum Alternative would be environmentally superior to the proposed project because environmental impacts to aesthetics, air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, geology, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, noise, population and housing, public services, transportation, and utilities would be lesser in magnitude, since this alternative proposes the least amount of fixture development. Significant and unavoidable impacts tb air quality, cultural resources, land use, noise, population and housing, recreation and open space, transportation and circulation, and utilities (water supply) would remain, although they would be reduced in magnitude. This alternative would reduce significant and unavoidable impacts related to aesthetics to less than significant levels. As such, the Subarea Only Minimum Alternative would represent the environmentally superior alternative. 5.30 City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR J 1 II 1 Section 15126 of the State CEQA Guidelines requires that an EIR include a discussion of significant environmental effects of the proposed project; significant environmental effects which cannot be avoided if the proposed project is implemented; significant irreversible changes that would be involved in the proposed project should it be implemented; and growth -inducing impacts of the proposed project. Cumulative impacts are discussed under each environmental issue section in Chapter 3 (Environmental Analysis). 6.1 SIGNIFICANT, IRREVERSIBLE ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGES The implementation of the proposed General Plan Update could result in new developments in the Planning Area that would entail the commitment of energy and human resources. Manpower and resources will also be committed for the development of residential and non-residential uses, particularly in areas not currently urbanized such as Banning Ranch and Newport Coast. Long-term impacts would also result from an increase in vehicular traffic, and the associated air pollution and noise emissions. New industrial and commercial development could also contribute to the degradation of the groundwater supply serving the Planning Area. Furthermore, additional development that would occur under this project could result in loss of significant historical resources. This commitment of resources would be a long-term obligation because, practically speaking, it is impossible to return the land to its original condition after development. 6.2 SIGNIFICANT, UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS Significant, unavoidable adverse impacts that would result from the proposed project include the following: ■ Aesthetics Impact 4.1-3 If development ultimately occurs in Banning Ranch, the proposed project would result in increased light effects caused by new development. Cumulative Cumulative development, in conjunction with the proposed project, could result in new sources of nighttime lighting within the Banning Ranch Area. ■ Air Quality Impact 4.2-1 Implementation of the proposed General Plan Update would conflict with or obstruct implementation of the Air Quality Management Plan. City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 6-1 Chapter 6 Other CEQA Considerations Impact 4.2-2 Implementation of the proposed General Plan Update would result in construction emissions that would contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation. Impact 4.2-3 Implementation of the proposed General Plan Update would result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of criteria pollutants for which the region is in nonattainment under an applicable national or State ambient air quality standard. Cumulative Cumulatively, the proposed project would also have significant and unavoidable impacts with regards to the above -mentioned impacts. ■ Cultural Impact 4.4-1 Development under the proposed General Plan Update would result in the demolition of historic structures, Cumulative Cumulatively, the proposed project would also have a significant and unavoidable impact with regards to the above -mentioned impact. ■ Noise Impact 4.9-1 Implementation of the proposed General Plan Update would generate or expose persons to ambient noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies. Impact 4.9-2 Implementation of the proposed General Plan Update would expose persons to vibration levels generated during construction activities that would exceed 72 VdB. Impact 4.9-3 Implementation of the proposed General Plan Update would result in ' substantial permanent increases in traffic -related ambient noise levels. Impact 4.9-5 Implementation of the proposed General' Plan Update would expose ' sensitive receptors in proximity to the John Wayne Airport to excessive noise levels. Cumulative Cumulatively, the proposed project would also have significant and , unavoidable impacts with regards to the above -mentioned impacts. ■ Population and Housing ' Impact 4.10-1 Implementation of the proposed General Plan Update would induce substantial growth in an area, either directly or indirectly. 6.2 City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR I i7 Chapter 6 Other CEQA Considerations ' 0 Transportation Impact 4.13-2 Implementation of the proposed General Plan Update would contribute to a substantial increase in deficient freeway segments and ramps. Cumulative Cumulatively, the proposed project would also have a significant and unavoidable impact with regards to the above -mentioned impact. 6.3 GROWTH -INDUCING IMPACTS This section discusses the ways in which the proposed General Plan Update could foster economic or population growth, or the construction of additional housing, either directly or indirectly, in the surrounding environment. Growth -inducing impacts are caused by those characteristics of a project that tend to foster or encourage population and/or economic growth. Inducements to growth include the generation of construction and permanent employment opportunities in the support sector of the economy. A project could also induce growth by lowering or removing barriers to growth or by creating an amenity that attracts new population or economic activity. The proposed project could result in the following types of growth -inducement: (1) extension of public facilities, such as roads, electrical lines, gas lines, sewers, and water; (2) the creation of short- and long-term employment opportunities; and (3) increased population. 6.3.1 Extension of Public Facilities Implementation of the proposed General Plan Update would include development that would ultimately require extension of roadways, sewer, water, gas, and electrical lines, which would be developed to serve the project area. Though the City currently maintains extensive infrastructure, improvements would be completed in accordance with infrastructure master plans/goals identified in the proposed General Plan Update to serve ultimate buildout of the area. All roadways and utility lines already serving the project area would also serve future development in the project area where possible. However, because development associated with the proposed General Plan Update could result in extension of public facilities into areas not currently served by such facilities, such as Banning Ranch and would facilitate subsequent development in the area, the project would be considered growth inducing. 6.3.2 Population Growth In 2002, there were approximately 40,179 residential units in the City. According to Table 3-3 in the Project Description, buildout of the proposed General Plan Update would increase the number of dwelling units by 14,215 units (approximately 12,515 multi -family units and approximately 1,700 single- family units), for a total of 54,394 units, representing a 35 percent increase in the number of dwelling units over 2002 conditions. According to the Department of Finance (DOF), the 2002 population was approximately 72,622 residents. Using the City's existing pph rate of 2.19, the net increase of 14,215 residential units would City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 6.3 Chapter 6 Other CEQA Considerations 1 result in a population increase of approximately 31,131 residents. Consequently, this increase would result in a total population of 103,753 persons at buildout of the proposed General Plan Update, which would represent an approximate 43 percentinerease in population over the 2002 population. The number of households in the City is projected by SCAG at 43,100 by 2030, while the number of dwelling units under the proposed General Plan Update would be 26 percent higher, with 54,394 units. The SCAG-projected population is 94,167 by 2030, and the population resulting from proposed General Plan Update buildout would be approximately 10 percent higher, or 103,753 residents. Therefore, the proposed project would also be growth -inducing with regards to an increase in population. 6.4 EFFECTS NOT FOUND TO BE SIGNIFICANT The Initial Study, included as Appendix A to this EII3 determined that there were no significant impacts within the issue area of Agriculture and no impacts with regards to locating development in proximity to a private airstrip. Please refer to Appendix A (Notice of Preparation/Initial Study) for a detailed explanation of the reasons these effects that were not found to be significant. !_ I �I 1 LJ 6-4 City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR i II i! Name I Issue Area/Role LEAD AGENCY City of Newport Beach Gregg Ramirez Senior Planner Patricia Temple Planning Director Sharon Wood Assistant City Manager EIR CONSULTANT TEAM EIP Associates Kim Avila Project Director Erin Efner Project Manager Marianne Tanzer Project Management Team T.J. Weule Project Management Team Marissa Staples Deputy Project Manager Randi Adair Technical Analysis Melissa Duncan Technical Analysis Damian Ebert Technical Analysis Erik Hansen Technical Analysis Geoffrey Hornek Technical Analysis Natalie Irwin Technical Analysis Shai Moms Technical Analysis Christopher Mundhenk Technical Analysis Shraddha Navalli Technical Analysis Ron Arzaga Word Processing Jackie Ha Word Processing Joel Miller Word Processing James Songco Graphics Kevin Tran Word Processing Urban Crossroads Marlie Whiteman, P.E. Senior Engineer Carleton Waters, P.E. Principal City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 7-1