HomeMy WebLinkAboutCIRCULATION IMPROVEMENT & OPEN SPACE FINAL PEIR*NEW FILE*
CIRCULATION IMPROVEMENT
& OPEN SPACE FINAL PEIR
CIRCULATION IMPROVEMENT AND OPEN SPACE AGREEMENT
NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA
FINAL PROGRAM ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS AND ADDENDUM
STATE CLEARINGHOUSE # 91041017
PREPARED FOR:
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
P.O. BOX 1768
3300 NEWPORT BOULEVARD
NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA 92659-1768
PREPARED BY:
ASB PLANNING, INC.
P.O. BOX 785
MAPLE VALLEY, WA 98038
SHERI L. PROVOST
PLANNING CONSULTANT
1679 E. MUNCIE
FRESNO, CA 93720
AUGUST, 1992
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
1. INTRODUCTION 2
II. ADDENDUM 4
Modified Project Description 4
Errata 5
Updated Traffic Analysis 8
Revised Mitigation Measures 8
111. RESPONSES TO WRITTEN COMMENTS 12
List of Commentors 13
Responses to Comments 18
IV. RESPONSES TO PUBLIC HEARING COMMENTS 189
List of Commentors 190
Public Hearing Minutes and
Responses to Hearing Comments 191
V. REPORT PREPARATION RESOURCES 220
Preparers and Contributors to the Report
Additional Persons and Organizations Consulted
Additional Sources Consulted
APPENDICES
Appendix A - Supplemental Traffic Data 221
Appendix B - Coyote Evaluation Newporter North Site 286
Appendix C - Soil -Gas Investigation Upper Castaways 312
Appendix D - Traffic Demand Management Ordinance 333
00001
1. INTRODUCTION
This document serves as the Response to Comments on the City of Newport Beach Draft
Program Environmental Impact Report (SCH#91041017) for the Circulation Improvement
and Open Space Agreement. It contains responses to all comments received on the draft
Program EIR in accordance with Section 15088 of CEQA. This document also contains an
Addendum to the Program EIR prepared to reflect minor modifications made in the Project
Description at the Planning Commission Hearing and minor technical revisions made in
Response to Comments received on the Program EIR.
The City of Newport Beach notified all responsible agencies, interest groups, and individuals
that a Draft Program EIR had been completed for the proposed project. The City also used
several methods to solicit input during the review period for the preparation of the Draft
Program EIR. The following is a list of actions taken during the preparation, distribution,
and review of the Draft Program EIR:
1. Notice of Preparation (NOP) was filed with the State Clearinghouse on March 29,
1991, and assigned Clearinghouse Number 91041017.
2. The NOP was distributed by the City of Newport Beach to all responsible and trustee
agencies, interested individuals, and organizations. Copies of the NOP comments
were included in Volume 11, Appendix A of the Draft Program EIR.
3. During the preparation of the Draft Program E1R, a scoping meeting was held on
April 10, 1991, to allow interested agencies, individuals, and organizations to
comment on the scope of the Draft Program EIR.
4. Notice of Completion (NOC) and copies of the Draft Program EIR were filed with
the State Clearinghouse on June 5, 1992.
5. A forty-five (45) day public review period for the Draft Program EIR commenced
on June 5, 1992, and closed on July 20, 1992. Three comment letters were received
by the City of Newport Beach from the U.S. Department of Fish and Wildlife, the
California Department of Fish and Game, and Dr. Jan Vandersloot after the close
of the public review period. Although received after the close of the official public
review period, the City of Newport Beach has chosen to respond to their comments
in the Responses to Comments document along with other comments received during
the 45-day public review and comment period.
6. The Planning Commission held a public hearing on June 18, 1992. A copy of the
minutes of the hearing are included in Section IV of this Final Program EIR.
This document contains five main sections. They are described as follows:
• The Addendum contains a modified Project Description, an Errata section
containing minor errors found in the Draft Program EIR through the review process,
an updated traffic analyses, and revised or new mitigation measures.
00002
• The Responses to Written Comments Section includes a list identifying each
commentor, the comment letters, and responses to each comment. Responses to
each comment immediately follow the actual letter and are identified with an
acronym code.
• The Responses to Hearing Comments Section includes a list identifying each
commentor, the public hearing minutes, and responses to each comment relevant to
the Draft Program EIR. Responses to Comments received on the EIR in the
Planning Commission hearing immediately follow the hearing minutes and are
identified with an acronym code.
• The Report Preparation Resources Section acknowledges preparers and
contributors to the Responses to Comments/Addendum document and any additional
persons, organizations or sources consulted in the preparation of this document.
00003
II. ADDENDUM
Modified Project Description
The Planning Commission reviewed the proposed project on June 18,1992, and recommend-
ed a set of actions for approval at the City Council. These actions include approving the
CIOSA Agreement and related P.C. Text with two modifications related to the project
description as contained in the draft Program EIR. The following text describes and
evaluates the modifications recommended by the Planning Commission.
Bavvjew Landing Sjte
The draft Program EIR identified the proposed uses for the lower 5.0-acre portion of the
Bayview Landing site as either a 10,000 square feet of restaurant or a 40,000-square foot
health club. The Planning Commission adopted a resolution recommending that the
proposed uses for the subject 5.0-acre include either:
• A 10,000 square foot restaurant, or
• A 40,000 square foot health club, or
• Affordable Senior Housing (at a maximum of 120 units) with a transfer of
30,000 square feet of retail commercial to Fashion Island.
The concept of allowing 120 units of affordable senior housing (with a transfer of retail
commercial development to Fashion Island) was considered as a project alternative in the
draft Program EIR (please refer to pages 398-399 and Tables W, WW, and XX on pages
365-382). No additional environmental evaluation is necessary.
Additional Open Space - Newport Village Site
The Planning Commission approved a recommendation to the City Council which would
modify the draft CIOSA Agreement to allow the Irvine Company to dedicate in fee about
2 acres on the San Diego Creek North site to the Transportation Corridor Agencies for use
as a mitigation site (the San Diego Creek North Marsh Creation project related to the San
Joaquin Transportation Corridor). This area is identified as Area 1 on the P.C. Text maps.
In exchange, The Irvine Company will dedicate in fee the remaining portions of the Newport
Village site to the City of Newport Beach for open space purposes. This will increase the
amount of vacant land to be dedicated to the City of Newport Beach from 140 acres to 150
acres with an additional 2 acres to be dedicated to the TCA.
Dedication of the 2 acres (Area 1) to the TCA for use as a mitigation site is consistent with
the uses proposed for Area 1 to the TCA for use as a mitigation site is consistent with the
uses proposed for Area 1 in the P.C. Text which were described in the draft Program EIR
as "preservation, restoration, and creation of habitat and wetland areas and ecological and
agricultural research." The Program EIR assumed that the 2.0 acres in question would be
00004
used in a manner consistent with the proposed P.C. Text. The question of which public
agency is responsible for the property does not effect the environmental analysis contained
in the Program EIR. The conclusions of the Program EIR remain the same.
ERRATA
During the course of public review and comment, several minor errors have been identified
in the text of the Draft Program EIR. The following text identifies the location and content
for each correction.
Page xu: The statement referred to on page xii of the Program EIR was incorrect. The
Program EIR did not identify that site access to any of the sites will impact
immediately adjacent streets. This statement has been revised to read:
The proposed project and past, present, and reasonably
foreseeable future projects will impact traffic and circulation as
analyzed in the years 1995, 2000, and 2010, in the City of
Newport Beach. The impact that will occur is an increase in
daily and peak hour traffic volumes. The proposed project will
have a minor impact on the circulation system in adjacent
communities. The proposed project will have a simulated
impact on adopted circulation plans and policies in the commu-
nity. Finally,,
'
Page xii: About 30 acres of upland habitat on the Newporter North site will be
destroyed by development of residential uses onsite. This area is primarily
comprised of introduced annual grassland and a small area of freshwater
marsh. Exhibit 63 contains a map which illustrates the location of the
development area in relationship to the onsite habitats. Page 260 identifies
the amount of acreage to be lost.
Page xvii:
Page xiii:
Fourth column under Transportation/Circulation should read:
Refer to Mitigation Measures 2 and 3.
The third paragraph has been revised to read (bold text is new text):
The loss of upland habitat on the Newporter North site is-m
could potentially result in
the elimination of coyotes from all or a portion of Upper
Newport Bay. This elimination could significantly disrupt key
predator -prey relationship in Upper Newport Bay. This loss of
upland habitat is considered an unavoidable adverse project
impact.
00005
Page 2: The following sentence should be added to the last paragraph:
Additional environmental documentation will be prepared as
deemed necessary per CEQA for specific development propos-
als.
Page 16: Item 4, the second to the last sentence has been revised in the Errata to read
(bold text is new text):
The p£epesed EIR for the MacArthur Boulevard iseuffently-ie
the eftvifemnefftal review /Bison Avenue Extension
project was completed and certified by the City of Newport
Beach on April 13, 1992.
Page 41: The last paragraph under the City of Irvine heading has been revised in the
Errata to read (bold text is new text):
Irvine's population is approximately 111,418
114,346 (Source: City of Irvine).
Page 41: The following sentence should be added to the end of the fifth paragraph:
The 1990 General Plan was approved by the City Council on
March 16,1992, and serves as the City's guide for development
to the year 2010 and beyond.
Page 41: The last paragraph on the page under the City of Irvine should read:
Irvine's population is approximately 11-1,418 114,346 (Source:
City of Irvine).
Page 42: The fourth paragraph, the first sentence under Planning Area 23 has been
revised in the Errata to read (bold text is new text):
Planning Area 23 consists of 986 apart-
ment units on 25 acres located near the corner of Michelson
and Carlson Drives in the City of Irvine.
Page 42: The fifth paragraph has been revised to read:
The IBC consists of numerous development of mixed uses
including office, retail, hotel and residential. Ateerding to the
The IBC will is expected to
contain approximately 48-.23 56 million gross square feet of
business and industrial uses. The business and industrial
subcategory is characterized by offices and industry with support
�O0006
commercial, mixed with a high density housing (25 to 40
dwelling units per acre). A total of 3,,474 3,896 dwelling units
Page 43: The heading for the second paragraph should read as follows:
Mllage38. Planning Area 38
Page 43: The heading for the third paragraph should read as follows:
Village 12. Planning Area 12
Page 43: The fourth paragraph should read as follows:
A The preliminary project site is located approximately 6W 400
feet north of the Ford Road/Hillside Drive intersection is
Currently the site is
zoned as Development Reserve - medium high density. The
tentative parcel map encompasses 16 acres. Ne speei€ie plans
Page 59: The fourth paragraph under subheading Other Plans should read as follows:
Ne other. plans have been idenMed whieh afe eensidered
-eleveft to this site. The site lies in the Coastal Zone as
established by the Coastal Act of 1976. The Local Coastal Plan
(LCP) of the City of Newport Beach designates the site for
Recreational and Environmental Open Space and Retail and
Service Commercial uses.
Page 270: The final paragraph, second sentence shall read as follows:
Impacts to development sites will cumulatively impact wetlands.
These impacts will be mitigated to a level of insignificance with
implementation of the above mitigation measures which will
assure no net loss of wetlands consistent with established
federal policies. and the Impacts to development sites will
cumulatively impact the amount of terrestrial habitat available
to resident wildlife species...
00007
UPDATED TRAFFIC ANALYSIS
To take into account the minor -modifications in the project description described earlier in
this chapter, the Newport Beach Circulation Improvement and Open Space Agreement
Traffic Study prepared in May 1992 was updated. The conclusions of the updated traffic
analysis are that: 1) there are no significant changes to the ICU values; 2) the locations of
intersections impacted by the project do not change; and, 3) the recommended mitigation
measures do not require modification. Appendix A contains the updated traffic analysis in
its entirety.
LIST OF REVISED OR NEW MITIGATION MEASURES
Revised Mitigation Measures.
18. Grading, earthmoving, and any related construction activities related to residential
development and associated improvements on the Upper Castaways, San Diego
Creek South, Bayview Landing, and Newporter North sites shall be restricted as
follows: Upper Castaways and Newporter North - No grading (except that necessary
for trail establishment and improvements, erosion control or bluff stabilization),
stockpiling of soil or operation of equipment shall take place within the bluff top
setback area established by the Bluff Top setback Ordinance. San Diego Creek
South - No grading, stockpiling of soils, or operation of equipment shall encroach
into the area of Bonita Creek beyond the existing 15 foot elevation contour. Newpo-
rter North - No grading, stockpiling of soils or operation of equipment shall take
place within the 40 foot property line setback area established by the Bluff Top
Setback Ordinance except that necessary for trail establishment and improvements,
erosion control, bluff stabilization, or preparation of the development area; or below
the lessor of the 60 foot elevation contour or a line 100 feet from a formally
delineated wetland in John Wayne Gulch freshwater marsh. Bayview Landing - no
grading, stockpiling of soil or operation of equipment shall encroach into the hillside
above the 25-foot contour of the lower development area.
22. Development of the San Diego Creek South site shall be designed so as to reduce
the amount of light and glare which could potentially spillover into the wetland
habitats of Bonita Creek and San Diego Creek and which could also impact the
functioning of these creeks as wildlife corridors. This can be achieved by a variety of
means including a combination of sensitive siting of lighted buildings; use of lighting
systems which conceal the light source and mininu a light spillage and glare;
screening walls/berms; and dense landscaping along the edge of the development.
Any landscaped edge screening shall include non-invasive trees and shrubs. The
plant palette for the screening vegetation shall consist of dense, evergreen species
which, when mixed, achieve canopy and understory of elements to provide as much
screening as possible. The site plan and landscape plan for this edge shall be
prepared in consultation with a City -approved, qualified biologist. The site plan and
00003
landscape plan shall be approved by the City Planning Department prior to issuance
of building permits.
43. The project geotechnical consultant and/or civil engineer shall prepare written site -
specific review of the tentative tract maps and grading plans addressing all salient
geotechnical issues, including groundwater. These reports shall provide findings,
conclusions, and recommendations regarding near -surface groundwater and the
potential for artificially induced groundwater as a result of future development, and
the effects groundwater may have on existing or future bluffs, slopes and structures.
The reports shall also address the potential for ground subsidence on the sites and
properties adjacent to the sites if dewatering is recommended. The geotechnical
consultant and/or civil engineer's reports shall be signed by a Certified Engineering
Geologist and Registered Civil Engineer and shall be completed to the satisfaction
of the City Grading Engineer prior to a issuance of a grading permit. All recommen-
dations of the reports shall be incorporated into the grading, site, and building
design to the satisfaction of the City Grading Engineer and City Engineer.
New Mitigation Measures
74. Prior to issuance of grading permits, the applicant or successor in interest shall
prepare a plan for approval by the City of Newport Beach Grading Engineer for the
control of accidental spills, litter, and solid waste disposal during grading and
construction. Existing policies and standards of the City of Newport Beach and Fire
Department shall be incorporated. The plan shall be implemented as necessary
during grading and construction activities.
75. Any recorded CC&Rs shall incorporate mandates to the Homeowner's Associations,
commercial properties management and apartment management companies
regarding:
Fertilizer/Pesticide/Herbicide management practices
Irrigation Management Practices
Street sweeping requirements: vacuum truck, fall cleaning, etc.
Signage and catch basin stencil maintenance.
Annual distribution of informational brochures (see Mitigation Measures
#77).
These mandates shall be reviewed and approved by the City of Newport Beach prior
to issuance of occupancy permits.
76. The City of Newport Beach, homeowners associations, and commercial and
apartment property management companies shall maintain legible stenciling on any
catch basin that they maintain. Stenciling shall use selected letters and/or symbols
approved by the City of Newport Beach notifying the reader that the catch basin
drains to the Newport Bay and to warn against dumping.
00009
77. Brochures (such as the 'Nonpoint Source Pollution' brochures published by the
Orange County Flood Control District) shall be distributed at the time of initial sale
or lease of residential and commercial properties. These brochures shall include a
discussion of-
- Impacts of improper solid waste practices and littering.
- Proper use and management of fertilizers, herbicides and other harmful
chemicals.
- Impacts of dumping oil, antifreeze, pesticides, paints, solvents, etc. into storm
drains.
- Effective housekeeping practices such as use of bio-degradable cleaning
compounds and adsorbents.
- Benefits of preventing excessive erosion and sedimentation.
- Benefits of proper landscaping practices
- Benefits of minimizing non-stormwater runoff or adverse impacts of over -
irrigation.
These brochures shall be reviewed and approved by the City of Newport Beach prior
to issuance of occupancy permits.
78. Prior to approval of site plans or subdivision and/or City approval of a park
development plan (whichever comes first), the City shall retain a biologist, at the
developers expense, to further assess the potential for human and pet intrusion into
the coastal sage scrub habitat supporting the California gnatcatcher population. If
the level of expected intrusion is considered to be of sufficient magnitude to
significantly impact the California gnatcatcher populations on site, mitigation
measures shall be designed and placed as conditions on the project to reduce the
impact to the extent feasible. Such design and operational measures could include
perimeter fencing, homeowner and community educational programs about the
potential impact of cats on wild birds, programs for trapping and removing problem
animals.
79. At the time specific site plans and grading plans are prepared and submitted for
review and approval by the City, the City shall review the plans in conjunction with
the environmental review process to confirm that the mitigation measures provided
will adequately control construction impacts potentially impacting the Newport
Harbor Lutheran Church, especially its pre-school operations. If necessary,
additional conditions related to construction activities may be placed on the project.
80. Prior to approval of a site plan review for the Upper Castaways site, the applicant
or successor in interest shall provide evidence that they have consulted with the
Newport Harbor Lutheran Church regarding the design of the residential develop-
ment. Design issues to be addressed include, but are not limited to: parking, access,
location and placement of structures, directional signage, and landscaping.
00010
81. The City of Newport Beach shall consult with the Transportation Corridor Agency
prior to final design and approval of any public facility or recreational facility on the
San Diego Creek North site to determine feasible design and landscaping measures
which will avoid interfering with the viability of the San Diego Creek Northern
Marsh Creation site as wildlife habitat. If the Bayview Way extension is not
extended across the site, a landscaped buffer area will be provided between any
recreational or public facility uses and the Marsh Creation project site.
82. At the time of adoption of a parcel/subdivision map for the San Diego Creek South
Site, the property line/development area boundary shall be established at a minimum
of 20 feet from the toe of the existing slope adjacent to Bonita Creek. This distance,
in combination with the required building setback of 5 feet, will create a minimum
25 foot buffer from Bonita Creek.
83. The precise details of any revegetation / replacement program will be developed in
conjunction with review and approval of design and grading plans when the exact
nature and extent of impacts are known. Any such programs will be subjected to full
environmental review pursuant to CEQA. Consultation with all interested and
affected resource agencies will occur as part of formulating and evaluating
revegetation programs. Given recent successful revegetation programs in Orange
County, such as those conducted in Crystal Cove State Park, it is fully reasonable to
expect that a properly prepared revegetation program will be successful in mitigating
impacts.
00011
III. RESPONSES TO WRITTEN COMMENTS
Copies of all comments received on the draft Program EIR are contained in this section.
The comments have been divided into two sections: 1) Public Agencies; and 2) Other
Organizations/Individuals. The List at the beginning of this section identifies the agency,
organization or individual commenting, their name, address, the letter number, and the
acronym code. The response to each comment is provided immediately following each
letter.
00012
List of Written Comments
Circulation Improvement and Open Space Agreement EIR
Letter Comments/Response
No Name/Address Codes Page
PUBLIC AGENCIES
California Coastal Commission CCC 1-3 20
Stephen Rynas, Supervisor
South Coast Area
245 W. Broadway, Suite 380
P.O. Box 1450
Long Beach, CA 90802-4416
2 Department of Transportation DOT 1-6 24
Robert F. Joseph, Chief
Advance Planning Branch
Department of Transportation
District 12
2501 Pullman Street
Santa Ana, CA 93702
3 Transportation Corridor Agencies TCA 1-3 28
Steve Letterly, Manager
Environmental Services
Transportation Corridor Agencies
345 Clinton Street
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
4 City of Costa Mesa CCM 1-5 32
Kristen Caspers Petros
Associate Planner
Development Services Department
P.O. Box 1200
Costa Mesa, CA 92628-1200
5 Southern California Assoc. of Governments SCAG 1-7 39
Arnold I. Sherwood, Ph.D.
Director, Forecasting, Analysis & Monitoring
Southern California Assoc. of Governments
818 W. Seventh Street, 12th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90017-3435
00013
Letter Comments/Response
No Name/Address Codes Page
City of Irvine COI 1-22 46
Peter Hersh
Manager of Planning Services
Community Development Department
One Civic Center Plaza
P.O. Box 19575
Irvine, CA 92713
7 County of Orange COO 1.19 56
Timothy S. Neely, Manager
Environmental Planning Division
12 Civic Center Plaza
P.O. Box 4048
Santa Ana, CA 92702-4048
8 Department of Fish & Wildlife DFW 1-26 69
Richard Zembal, Deputy Field Director
Southern California Field Station
Carlsbad Field Office
2730 Loker Avenue West
Carlsbad, CA 92008
9 Department of Fish and Game DFG 1-19 90
Fred Wortbley, Regional Manager
Region 5
330 Golden Shore, Suite 50
Long Beach, CA 90802
OTHER ORGANIZATIONS/INDIVIDUALS
10 Stop Polluting Our Newport SPON 1-48 109
P.O. Box 102
Balboa Island, Newport Beach, CA 92662
11 California Native Plant Society CNPS 1-42 137
David Bramlet, Rare Plant Coordinator
c/o Fullerton Arboretum
California State University Fullerton
Fullerton, CA 92631
2 00014
Letter Comments/Response
No Name/Address Codes Page
12 East Side Homeowners Association ESHA 1 150
Robert D. Hoffman, President
427 East 17th Street, Suite 136
Costa Mesa, CA 92627
13 Costa Mesa Citizens Transportation CTASG 1-4 152
Alternatives Study Group
Roy Pizarek, Chairman
1923 Whittier Avenue
Costa Mesa, CA 92627
14 Irvine Pacific IP 1-6 158
Tom Redwitz
Vice President, Land Development
550 Newport Center Drive, Suite 700
P.O. Box I
Newport Beach, CA 92658-2421
15 The Archaeological Conservancy AC 1 161
Lynn Dunbar
Western Regional Office
P.O. Box 165
Newcastle, CA 95658
16 Gordon Glass GG 1-4 165
2024 Avenida Chico
Newport Beach, CA 92660
17 Anita Meister -Boyd AMB 1.20 175
1848 Port Carlow Place
Newport Beach, CA 92660
18 Jan D. Vandersloot, M.D. JDV 1-9 183
8101 Newman, Suite C
Huntington Beach, CA 92647
3
00015
BLANK PAGE
00016
00017
STATE OF CAUFORNIA--THE RESOURCES AGENCY
Letter,l
PETE
CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION
SOUTH COAST AREA
215 W. BROADWAY, STE. 380
P.O. BOX 1450
LONG BEACH, CA 9080Z"16
(2)3) 5905071
Tom Loftus
California State Clearinghouse
1400 Tenth Street, Room 121
Sacramento, CA 95814
RtCt�r......:
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
r1TY OF. NEWPORT BEACH -
AM JUL 0 8 1992
PM
July 3, 1992 7181911001112111213141516
RE: Draft Program Environmental Impact Report for the City of Newport Beach
Circulation Improvement and Open Space Agreement (SCH #91041017)
Dear Mr_ Loftus
We have reviewed the draft environmental impact report of the City of Newport
Beach on their proposed Circulation Improvement & Open Space Agreement. The
proposed action involves assembling eleven sites owned by the Irvine Company
into a single development package. Under the agreement, 140 acres of the 246
acres would be transferred to the City of Newport Beach as an open space
dedication. Further, the City of Newport Beach proposes to use the EIR to
obtain the "Approval in Concept" requirement when applying for a coastal zone
development permit.
The California Coastal Commission was created by the Coastal Act as the
permanent State coastal management and regulatory agency (Section 30330).
Projects proposed by this environmental impact report that fall in the coastal
zone will require approval by the Coastal Commission before any development
can occur. From the review of the EIR nine of the eleven sites are within the
coastal zone; and would be subject to the development policies and permitting
requirements of the Coastal Act. Specifically, sites A,B,C,D,E,F,G,H, and J.
as shown in Exhibit 4.
Chapter Three of the Coastal Act contains the policies and standards to manage
development within the coastal zone. Major policies of the Coastal Act are
promoting public access and recreational opportunities while protecting the
natural environment. As written the EIR does not provide enough information on
how the proposed developments within the coastal zone would comply with the
objectives of the Coastal Act.
000.18
CCC i
CCC 2
Page: 2
For example, the discussion on the Upper Castaways site. acknowledges that the
site is within the coastal zone and that a public bikeway is designated.
Howdver, the EIR lacks a specific .follow—up analysis on how Coastal Act
objectives for enhancing public access and recreational opportunities will be CCC 2
achieved. Further, CEQA (Section 15125(b)) requires that the EIR evaluate the
proposed project's relationship to regional land use plans for the protection
of the coastal zone.
The land use component should be expanded to include an analysis of coastal
zone management issues. The Transportation/Circulation discussion should be
enhanced to evaluate the potential impacts of the proposed project on coastal
access.
The South Coast District Office of the Coastal Commission will be responsible
for reviewing the development permit applications, issuing the permits, *and
certifying the amendments to the coastal portion of the Land Use Plan. The EIR
will serve as a major source of information by staff in evaluating the CCC 3
proposed projects and plan amendment. Upon receipt of the application from the
City of Newport Beach, Coastal Commission staff will undertake a detailed
evaluation of the conformance of the proposed development with the Coastal
Act. Integrating the Coastal Act into the EIR will assist the City of Newport
Beach in achieving their objectives of amending their land use plan to conform
to coastal zone policies.
cc: Meg Vaughn
John Douglas
5117E (Original)
5223E (Revision)
Sincerely,
Stephen Rynas
Supervisor, Regulation and Planning
Orange•County
00019
CCC-1
CCC-2
TO COMMENTS MADE BY CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION
According to the City of Newport Beach Land Use Element 9 of the 11
project sites are identified as part of the Coastal Zone. The sites in the
Coastal Zone include San Diego Creek South, San Diego Creek North,
Jamboree/MacArthur, Upper Castaways, Bayview Landing, Corporate Plaza
West, Newporter North/Newporter Knoll, and the Newporter Resort.
In the Land Use Section on page 59 under "Bayview Landing - Other Plans"
the fourth paragraph has been revised in the Errata to read:
No ether plans have been identified whieh are eensider-ed
-eleyaat to this The site lies in the Coastal Zone as
established by the Coastal Act of 1976. The Local Coastal Plan
(LCP) of the City of Newport Beach designates the site for
Recreational and Environmental Open Space, and Retail and
Commercial uses.
The Program EIR contains an analysis of the project's relationship to
applicable regional land use plans in particular the Land Use Plan for the
City's Local Coastal Plan prepared pursuant to the Coastal Act. The Existing
Conditions section of the Land Use chapter of the Program EIR identified
which of the 11 project sites are within the Coastal Zone. The section also
identified the land use designation for each site on the Land Use Plan of the
City's Local Coastal Plan (LCP). As stated in the Impacts section, the
Program EIR did not identify any potential conflicts between the proposed
project and the adopted LCP for any of the sites within the coastal zone.
Beyond the discussion already contained in the Land Use section of the
Program EIR, it is not clear what coastal zone management issues need
further discussion. The land uses provided for in the CIOSA Agreement and
related P.C. Texts are consistent with the adopted General Plan. The City's
General Plan for its coastal properties has been approved as a Land Use
Plan meeting the objectives of the Coastal Act as contained in Chapter Three
of the Coastal Act. Consistency of the City's Land Use Plan with the Coastal
Act policies was addressed in conjunction with the Commission's approval of
the Land Use Plan, and in keeping with the tiering principles in CEQA, it was
not felt necessary to duplicate that discussion in the EIR.
As discussed in the Transportation/Circulation section, the proposed project
will not have a significant adverse impact on major coastal access roads such
as Coast Highway or Jamboree Road. As described in the Project Description
Goo«]o
CCC-3
chapter, the project will provide for frontage improvements on major coastal
access roads such as MacArthur Blvd. and Jamboree Road which should
enhance public access to recreational opportunities along coastal Newport
Beach.
The Project Objectives outlined on Page 33 of the Program EIR contains
several objectives related to dedicating important and meaningful open space
and maximizing public access. These include City of Newport Beach
Objectives 1, 2, 3, 4, 10, and 11. Specifically, City Objective 10 states that a
specific objective of the City of Newport Beach is: 'To maximize public access
to important public open spaces and resources so that residents and visitors
may enjoy the benefits of living in or visiting a unique coastal community
consistent with the provisions of the Coastal Act of 1976 and the City's Local
Coastal Program, Land Use Plan." Through dedication of 140 acres of open
space on 8 parcels including four adjacent to the Upper Newport Bay
Ecological Reserve and provision of circulation improvements and funding for
improvements (as described in detail in the project description), the Program
EIR concluded that the proposed project meets these objectives of the City
of Newport Beach including No. 10 quoted above.
More detailed site specific analysis of the 9 sites relationship to the objectives
of the Coastal Act is more appropriate at the time that a specific application
is made to the Coastal Commission for a coastal development permit. At the
time of application, the City and applicant will provide sufficient information
to allow the Coastal Commission to determine conformance of the project
with specific provisions of the Coastal Act.
This comment is noted and will be included in the final records of the project
for review and consideration by the appropriate decision -makers.
000(21
Letter.2 ;
DOT
STATE OF CALIFORNIA—BUSINESS AND TRANSPORTATION AGENCY PETE WILSON,' Goff o
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION `C DEPARTMENT
TMENT
=EP R
DISTRICr 12 PLANNING D
2501 FUUMAN STREET ciTY OF NEWPORT BEACH
SAWA ANA, CA 92705 '
AM PM
151992 PM
71 AIDA11]2111213141M
July 8, 1992 !
John H. Douglas File: IGR/CEQA
Principal Planner Draft Program EIR
.City of Newport Beach Open Space Agreement
P.O. Box 1768
.3300 Newport Blvd.
Newport Beach, CA 92659
Dear Mr. Douglas:
Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the
Program Environmental Impact Report. This report analyzes the
potential significant environmental impacts resulting from
implementing the Circulation Improvement and Open Space
Agreement. The project assembles eleven sites located in the
City of Newport Beach. Ten of the eleven project sites are
located east of Newport Bay generally along Jamboree Road,
MacArthur Boulevard, and Coast Highway, within Newport Center in
west -central Orange County.
Caltrans District'12 has the following comments for your
consideration.
There should be close coordination with the Transportation
Corridor Agencies to avoid future conflicts with the San Joaquin
Hills Transportation Corridor planned in that area. in addition,
to offer more transportation options there should be
coordination, with the Orange County Transit Authority (OCTA)
Commute.Management Services which is responsible ,for regional
ridesharing in Orange County.
The document notes bicycle access to multi -family,
residential, office, commercial etc. on page 194 however, there
is no mention of-routes/trails or paths. Is the city going to
provide bicycle access to these areas? Also, a Transportation
Demand Management Ordinance is mentioned in this document pg. 164
what does this ordinance entail?
DOT 1
Dot 2
DOT 3
DOT 4
Caltrans suggest other possible Transportation Demand
Management programs that may be available to assist the developer DOT 5
include Caltrans TMA Assistance Program, OCTA's Quick -Start
Vanpool Program.
G 0 0 ,.2
July 8, 1992
Mr. John Douglas
Page 2
We appreciate the opportunity to comment on this document, - DOT 6
if` -you have any questions concerning these comments please
contact Aileen Kennedy of my staff at (714) 724-2239.
Sincerely,
ROBERT F. SEPH, Chief
Advance Planning Branch
cc: Tom Loftus, OPR
Ron Helgeson, HDQTRS Planning
Dorothy Uyehara, Traffic Analysis
Mel Galer, Right of Way
David Cordova; Traffic operations
Judy Heyer, Environmental Planning
F
00023
RESPONSES TO COMMENTS BY DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DDT-1
DOT-2
DOT-3
DOT-4
This comment is noted and will be included in the final records of the project
for review and consideration by the appropriate decision -makers.
The City consulted with the TCA related to the proposed land uses in the
vicinity of the San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor. The City of
Newport Beach Transportation Demand Ordinance requires non-residential
development projects employing 100 or more persons to provide information
on transportation alternatives to all employees. Specifically, the employer is
required to provide a commuter information area(s) which may include
current maps, routes and schedules for public transit, ridesharing match lists,
available commuter incentives and ridesharing promotional material supplied
by commuter -oriented organizations like OCTA.
All sites proposed for multi -family residential, office and commercial uses are
adjacent to existing or future bikeways designated as Backbone or Secondary
bikeways on the City's Master Plan of Bikeways. Where designated bikeways
have not already been improved adjacent to a site, bikeway improvements will
be provided by the project with required frontage improvements consistent
with standard City Policy.
The Transportation Demand Management (TDM) ordinance recently adopted
by the City was based on a Model Ordinance developed for use in Orange
County. The ordinance requires new development to provide improvements
to promote alternate forms of commuting such as preferential parking for
carpools, bicycle lockers, showers and lockers, a rideshare information
program, vehicle loading areas and bus stop facilities.
The requirements for this ordinance pertain to "New Development Projects,"
meaning any non-residential project processed where some level of discretion-
ary action by a decision -making body is required.
The Transportation Demand Management program was developed to reduce
peak -period vehicle trips generated with additional development; promote and
encourage the use of alternative transportation modes; and provide those
facilities that support such alternate modes.
00024
A�
DOT-5
DOT-6
Specific requirements identified by the City pertain to all new, non-residential
development projects that are projected to employ 100 or more persons, or
the current limits set forth by the South Coast Air Quality Management
District or Regulation XV, whichever is lower at the time of project submittal
shall apply.
A copy of the actual Transportation Demand Management ordinance is
included in Appendix D of this document.
The concept of using Transportation Demand Management programs
including Caltrans TMA Assistance Program and OCTAs Quick -Start
Vanpool Program has been provided to the developer for their use. Please
also refer to Response to Comment DOT-2.
This comment is noted and will be included in the final records of the project
for review and consideration by the appropriate decision -makers.
PLANNING DtVAKlmcty,
NEWPORT BEACH Letter 3
�.
CITY OF
TCA
JUL 15 1992 mWoolleB,Jr.
AM ecuflve Dtector
Son Joaquin Hills
Foothill/Eostem
71gtgt10tllt]2111213141 K1 uhen
Corridor Agency
Corridor Agency
Deputy Director,
k Finance& Adminlstratton
Chairman:
Chairman:
Greg Henk
John Cox
Gene finer
Deputy Director,
Newport Beach
Yorba undo
TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR AGENCIES Design & Construction
July 13, 1992
Mr. John H. Douglas
Principal Planner
City of Newport Beach
330 Newport Blvd
P.O. Box 1768
Newport Beach, CA 92659-1768
SUBJECT: TCA COMMENTS ON CIRCULATION IMPROVEMENT AND OPEN SPACE
AGREEMENT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Dear Mr. Douglas:
The Transportation Corridor Agencies (TCA) appreciates the
opportunity to review and comment on the subject document. Staff
provides the following comments for your consideration:
1. The TCA is the project proponent for the San Joaquin Hills
Transportation Corridor (SJHTC). Construction of the SJHTC
will impact several acres of Waters of the U.S., regulated
by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. As mitigation for these
impacts TCA is proposing to create 2.4 acres,of open water
and brackish marsh on the San Diego Creek North site in
addition to mitigation at two other locations. TCA has
reviewed the proposal for open space and public facilities
on a portion of the site, and is concerned about the
interaction of humans and wildlife on the overall site. TCA
suggests that the public facilities be sited furthest from
the proposed natural open space area, suitable transitional
landscaping be planted in the passive open space area and
human intrusion in the natural open space area be kept to a
minimum. With these recommendations, the viability of the
San Diego Creek NorthernMarsh Creation site as wildlife
habitat can be assured.
2. The SJHTC Final EIS documents the Bonita Creek and San Diego
Creek wildlife movement corridors as being an important
corridor between the San Joaquin Hills and the Newport Back
Bay. In particular the corridor is important for the
movement of coyotes and the control of mesopredators within
the Back Bay. TCA notes that mitigation is included in the
FEIR which reduces the amount of light and glare affecting
wetland habitats within these corridors through site design
and landscaping. In addition to the reduction of light and
glare impacts to wetland habitats, an additional goal of
this mitigation should be the preservation of the wildlife
movement corridors within Bonita and San Diego Creeks.
345 Clinton Street, Costa Mesa, CA 92626 71 z. 557-3298 FAX 7141557--9104
Members: Anaheim Costa Mesa CountyofOronge DanoPoinr Irvine Lake Forest LogunaHills Laguna Niguel
Mission Viejo Orange Newport Beach Santa Ana Son Clememe son Juan Capistrano Tustin Yorbo Linda
® Recydedit
TCA 1
TCA 2
026
Mr. John H. Douglas
July 13, 1992
Page 2
Please send a copy of the Response to Comments document to my
attention at TCA, 345 Clinton Street, Costa Mesa, CA 92630.
If you have any questions regarding these comments, please
contact Laura Coley Eisenberg of my staff at (714) 557-3298.
, Manager
Services
cc: Carollyn Lobell, LSA
Greg Henk, TCA
Gene Foster, TCA
Laura Coley Eisenberg, TCA
TCA 3
00027
RESPONSES TO COMMENTS BY TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR AGENCIES
TCA-I
TCA-2
The proposed P.C. Text for the San Diego Creek North site divides the site
into two areas. Area 1 would be the natural open space area where the
TCAs San Diego Creek Northern Marsh Creation site is anticipated to be
located. Area 2 would include both public facility and passive/active
recreational uses. At this time it is anticipated that the future extension of
Bayview Way will divide Area 1(the location of the Marsh Creation Project)
from most of Area 2. It is anticipated that most if not all allowed public
facilities will be located to the north of the future extension due to the lack
of sufficient acreage to the south of the future roadway. The one exception
would be the proposed freeway on -ramp connecting northbound Jamboree
Blvd to the San Joaquin Transportation Corridor which would extend south
of future Bayview Way on the west side of Area 1. It is expected that regional
riding and biking trails will share or parallel the future extension of Bayview
Way within Area 2.
Specific details regarding the exact location of future public facilities and
recreational uses is not known at this time. At the time more specific site and
facility plans are known they will be evaluated to determine their compatibili-
ty with all surrounding uses including the proposed Marsh Creation Project.
81. The City of Newport Beach shall consult with the Transportation
Corridor Agency prior to final design and approval of any public
facility or recreational facility on the San Diego Creek North site to
determine feasible design and landscaping measures which will avoid
interfering with the viability of the San Diego Creek Northern Marsh
Creation site as wildlife habitat. If the Bayview Way extension is not
extended across the site, a landscaped buffer area will be provided
between any recreational or public facility uses and the Marsh
Creation project site.
Several measures were included in the Program EIR in recognition of the
importance of Bonita Creek and San Diego Creek as important wildlife
movement corridors. Mitigation Measure No. 22 has been modified to clarify
one intended goal of the mitigation is to avoid adverse impact to the Bonita
Creek and San Diego Creek wildlife corridors. The revised mitigation reads
as follows [bold text is the new text]:
22. Development of the San Diego Creek South site shall be designed so
as to reduce the amount of light and glare which could potentially
spillover into .the wetland habitats of Bonita Creek and San Diego
111
TCA-3
Creek and which could also impact the functioning of these creeks as
wildlife corridors. This can be achieved by a variety of means including
a combination of sensitive siting of lighted buildings; use of lighting
systems which conceal the light source and minimise light spillage and
glare; screening walls/berms; and dense landscaping along the edge of
the development. Any landscaped edge screening shall include non-
invasive trees and shrubs. The plant palette for the screening
vegetation shall consist of dense, evergreen species which, when mixed,
achieve canopy and understory of elements to provide as much
screening as possible. The site plan and landscape plan for this edge
shall be prepared in consultation with a City -approved, qualified
biologist. The site plan and landscape plan shall be approved by the
City Planning Department prior to issuance of building permits.
This comment is noted and will be included in the final records of the project
for review and consideration by the appropriate decision -makers.
00029
Letter 4
CCM
CITY OF COSTA MESA
CALIFORNIA 92626-1200 P.O. BOX 1200
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT
July 14, 1992
Mr. John H. Douglas
City of Newport Beach
3300 Newport Boulevard
Newport Beach, CA 92659-1768
RE: CIRCULATION IMPROVEAHM
AND OPEN SPACE AGREEMENT
DRAFT EIR - .im 1. 1992
Dear W. Douglas:
PLANNING DEPARTNNIEN;
r)TY OF NEWPORT BEACIp
JUL 18 1992
A
The Draft EIR for the -Circulation Improvement and Open Space Agreement has been reviewed by the
Planning and Transportation Services Divisions of the City of Costa Mesa." The document states that
development of the 11 sites as proposed would be consistent with the General Plan of the City of Newport
Beach. As such, the Planning Division has no concerns overland use or jobs/housing issues. Other than
the first comment below, the rest are related to the traffic analysis.
PY
1. The description of the City of Costa Mesa General Plan on page 41 of the Draft EIR can
now be updated. The 1990 General Plan was approved by the City Council on Mazch
16, 1992 and serves as the City's guide for development to the year 2010 and beyond. CCM 1
As a result, the land use intensities and densities approved by the City Council are lower
in many cases than those proposed in the Draft General Plan. Since the traffic study used
in the Newport Beach Draft EIR was based on a 1991 model, future land use intensities
and daily and peak hour trips in Costa Mesa are probably somewhat higher than they
would be using the new assumptions for Costa Mesa's General Plan.
2. Exhibit 45 on page 137 has two errors. The number of 1990 midblock lanes on 16th
Street from Newport Boulevard to Irvine Avenue and on Victoria Street is two instead CCM 2
of four.
3. Exhibit 47 and Table F on pages 143 -145 refer to widening Placentia Avenue between
Wilson Street and 16th Street from four to six lanes. On the contrary, this segment is
built to its ultimate configuration and will not be widened to.six lanes. Additionally, CCM 3
none of the circulation improvements within Costa Mesa identified in Table F are likely
to occur by the year 2000. Please correct the Exhibit and Table and clarify the intent of
Table F.
00030
77 FAIR DRIVE
Building Division (714) 754.5626 • Code EnWownenUBusiness License (n4) 754-5234 • Planning Division (714) 7543245
FAX (714) 556-7506
1,
MR. JOIIN II. DOUGLAS
DRAFT EIR - JUNE 1, 1992
JULY 14, 1992
PAGE TWO
4. The traffic impacts of the 151-unit Upper Castaways development are of primary concern
to the residents of 16th Street and 19th Street. The large size of this development (spread
over 26 acres) necessitates dual access to the project site in case of emergency situations. CGM 4
With the anticipated widening of Dover Drive from four to six lanes, and the expressed
intent of Newport Beach officials to widen 17th Street/Westcliff from four to six lanes,
alternate access to the project site as identified in Figure IV-4 (Appendix B) is
recommended.
5. The "Special Circulation System Issues" section on page 171 references , • two proposed
circulation system changes in adjacent communities, but does not reference proposed
changes recommended by Costa Mesa's recently adopted General Plan. These changes
include the downgrade of East 19th Street and the deletion of the 19th Street/Banning
Avenue bridge. Since the County of Orange has approved the Santa Ana River
Cooperative Study, the Final EIR should acknowledge these proposed changes and should
analyze their potential impacts.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the project's Draft EIR. Please do not hesitate to call me
(754-5136) if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
KRISTEN CASPERS PETROS
Associate Planner
(creeoe MR)C12
cc: City Council
Allan Roeder, City Manager
Don Lamm, Deputy City Manager/Dir. Dev. Svs.
Peter Naghavi, Transportation Services Manager
V.S. Chandrashaker, Associate Engineer
Dennis Johnson, Assistant Associate Engineer
00031
CCM 6
CCM-1
CCM-2
CCM-3
CCM-4
TO COMMENTS MADE BY CITY OF COSTA MESA
On page 41 in the Program EIR the following sentence has been added to the
end of the fifth paragraph in the Errata to read:
The 1990 General Plan was approved by the City Council on
March 16,1992 and serves as the City's guide for development
to the year 2010 and beyond.
This comment is noted and will be included in the final record of the project
for review and consideration by the appropriate decision -makers. The land
use and corresponding trip generation assumed in the NBTAM was prepared
in April 1991 and reflected the uses contained at that time in Costa Mesa's
Proposed General Plan as obtained from the City of Costa Mesa. Since the
adopted General Plan actually had a reduction in uses from what was
proposed, it can be assumed that the traffic forecasts associated with the City
of Costa Mesa in the NBTAM would be somewhat lower than what is shown
in the document.
The number of 1990 midblock lanes on 16th Street from Newport Boulevard
to Irvine Avenue and on Victoria Street is two instead of four. This comment
has been noted and will not change the findings related to the impacts of the
proposed project.
Exhibit 47 and Table F on pages 143-145 refer to widening Placentia Avenue
between Wilson Street and 16th Street from four to six lanes. It has been
noted that this segment is built to its ultimate configuration and will not be
widened to six lanes and the circulation improvements within Costa Mesa on
Table F are not likely to occur. This comment has been noted. Given the
minor amount of project traffic impacting these facilities, these revisions will
not change the findings related to the impacts of the proposed project.
The Upper Castaways site however, is only projected to generate a maximum
of 1500 total trips per day, which can easily be handled with a single access.
The physical size of the project and its trip generation characteristics were
considered in the preliminary site design and traffic analysis, including the
alternative access analysis. The conclusion was that a single access would be
,1.
ft 00032
�a
CCM-S
only.
The concerns regarding downgrading of 19th Street and deletion of the 19th
Street bridge have been addressed by preparing a supplemental analysis using
a special modeling technique known as "select link" analysis. This technique
enables the geographic distribution of traffic projected to use the 19th Street
bridge throughout the circulation system in the study area. Figure 2 shows
the average daily traffic (ADT) patterns for those trips which pass over the
bridge using this technique. As shown, out of the 26,000 daily trips projected
to use the bridge, about 640 trips (2 1/2 percent of the total trips, on the
bridge) travel along 16th, 17th, and 19th Streets and eventually reach the
Dover Drive area north of PCH. Of the 640 trips that reach this area, only
about 80 trips (less than one percent) are generated by the proposed project
with the Upper Castaways site only contributing 30 trips out of the 80 total
project trips. With the downgrading of 19th Street and the deletion of the
19th Street bridge, the 80 project trips are forecast to instead use PCH,
Adams or other parallel routes to travel to and from their destinations west
of the Santa Ana River. Adequate capacity to accommodate project trips is
forecast to exist on these parallel routes should such a redistribution of traffic
take place. Therefore, the issue of downgrading 19th Street and elimination
of the bridge is not affected by the proposed project because of the nominal
amount of project traffic forecast to use these facilities.
00033
818 West Seventh Street,12th Floor * Los Angeles, California 90017-3435
EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE
President
Rep., Cities of San Bernardino
Cann
John ry Longvlliq Mayor
Rialto
First via presideut
Re
Ahep..Slmesbottppeennal County
,Supenvsor
Second Vice Pesident
Cities of Riverside County
Judy Nkburger, Cosvtcilmember
Moreno Valley
Pas[ President
Rep.. Ventura County
John VM Supervisor
Los Angeles County
orangge C000ry
IiarrieR W kder, Supervisor
Riverside County
Norton Younglovq Sup e-is or
San Bemanliro County
Jon Mi d%S;iNrvlsor
Cities of Los Angeles County
Robert Bartlett, Mayor
Monrovia
Cities of Imperial Courry
StellaMend Counnfinember
Brawiry
Cities of Orange County
Icvrinprted,Maynr
Yorba Unites
Cities of Verdun County
John Mtllalom, Caumcamember
Santa Pau
City of Los Angeles -
Mark Rtdtry-Tbomav,
Couneilmember
Hal Hermann, Councilmanber
City of Long Beach
Claremce Smitly Councibnemtxr
i"61 A(W411ga)Sr.. ram —yVIAX61I F.1
and Cruyts, Mayor Pro Tem
Lomita; Chat r Tea `au a ion
and Communi T
Diann Ring. MnyorPro Tem
Claremont Chair, Encrgy
and 19=nment
Scott Garrett, Vice Mayor
Hemet; Chair, Community,
Economic, and Human
Development '
AT -LARGE DELEGATES
Robell Leiria, Mayor
nausunionks Agutar,Mayor
IUchartl Kelly. Mayer
Palm Dcsem
ALTERNATES
July 16, 1992
Letter 5
SCAG
r d:
;rf ��, s • .��r
J•oUJREan CRLIRniR
aJrocIRnon orooveaFOnMftX
(213) 236-1800 a FAX (213) 236-1825
RECEiVcJ C J
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
AM JUL 2 0 1992 P9
70191ID1U112111213141516
Mr. John H. Douglas
City of Newport Beach
•3300 Newport Blvd. - P.O.Box •1768
Newport Beach, CA 92659-1768
RE: Circulation Improvement & Open Space Agreement Draft Program EIR
SCAG Clearinghouse # OR-55782,EDR
Dear Mr. Douglas:
Thank you for submitting the City of Newport Beach's Draft Program EIR for
the Circulation Improvement & Open Space Agreement to SCAG for review and
comment. As Areawide Clearinghouse for regionally significant projects, SCAG
assists cities, counties, and other agencies to review projects and plans for
consistency with the Regional Housing Needs Assessment• (RFINA); the Regional
Mobility Plan (RMP); the Growth Management Plan (GNP), and the Air Quality
Management Plan (AQMP), all of which are included in the State Implementation
.Plan (SIP).
SCAG comments are meant to provide guidance within the context of our regional
goals and policies. These goals and policies have been adopted in the SCAG
regional plans specified above and are based, in part, upon state and federal
mandates. While the City is not required to undertake the specific actions
recommended by SCAG-or other agencies through the Inter -Governmental Review
process, there are requirements in state and federal laws for consistency with
regional goals and plans.
SCAG recognizes the value and importance of this project to Newport Beach.
The dedication of significant public open space meets a key objective of the City.
Along with the benefits of such projects are substantial concerns the City needs
to address regarding the project's impacts on the surrounding community.
Among these issues are increased vehicle trips and vehicle miles travelled and air
quality consequences. It is SCAG's hope that the City is cognizant of its own.
Imperial County o Sam Sharp, Supervisor Los Angeles County o Ed Edelman, Supervisor and Keno
side County o Melba Dunlap, Supervisor San Bernardino County o Larry Walker, Supervisor . Vc
San<hez,Jr., Mayor Pro Tem, Westmorland a Cities of Los Angeles County o Abbe Land, CouncUmem
member. Newport Beach a Cities of Riverside County o (Vacant) Cities of San Bernardino County o
Mikels, Counci/member. Simi Valley a Ctry of Los Angeles o Richard Alabrrq Councibnember o Rita
sitionuno Douglas Drummond, Councilmember , At Large o George Nakano, Counci/member, Tot
Cacibrnmber. Claremont • Ex-0IBcio a JudlWohnsWo-Wedoo, Los Angeles; Chair, Regional Advi
00034
SCAG 1
,Supervisor . River-
edal County o Victor
fo Plummer, Co med-
mmura County o Judy
-, Long Beach 2nd pa -
tire o Judy Wright,
Page 2
responsibility to provide the appropriate incentives, policies, programs, and plans comprising
the planning foundation to allow for the support of this project as well as understanding the need 5CAG 1
for sharing the responsibility for the mitigation of potential negative impacts the project may
generate.
As the review process moves forward, SCAG may choose to offer additional comments. If you
have any questions, please contact Barbara Dove at (213) 236-1861. She will be happy to assist
you.
Sincerely,
ARNOLD I. SHERWOOD, Ph.D.
Director, Forecasting, Analysis & Monitoring
00035
818 W. Seventh Street,12lh Floor 9 Los Angeles, CA 90017-3435 13 (213) 236-1800 •
M]IiIi� '/J
FAX (213) 236-1825
Page 3
SCAG COMMENTS ON THE NEWPORT BEACH
CIRCULATION IMPROVEMENT & OPEN SPACE AGREEMENT
DRAFT PROGRAM EIR
The draft Agreement consists of three key components: Vesting of General Plan Entitlement,
Open Space Dedication, and Circulation Improvements/Funding/Traffic Phasing Ordinance
(TPO) compliance. The proposed Agreement assembles eleven sites owned by The Irvine
Company ,(TIC) into a single development application. Eight of the sites are proposed for
residential, commercial or office uses and 140 acres of open space are to be dedicated in fee.
Through the Agreement, TIC would commit to several actions related to circulation system
improvements and funding which include- fund early payment of Fair Share Fees; construct (or
post security) for frontage improvements related to the 11 sites covered; and, advance additional
funds (interest free) for circulation improvements of benefit to the City. The proposed
Agreement establishes TIC's total funding commitment at $20.6 plus million. The Agreement
includes improvements to MacArthur Blvd. within the City of Irvine between Ford Road and
the future alignment of the San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor, which TIC commits to
making best efforts to sedure permits and to construct All proposed development is consistent
with the existing General Plan and Zoning Ordinance. The proposed development is considered
to be infill development due to the location of the various sites and the existing uses adjacent to
each site. There will be less development under the proposed project than currently authorized
by the General Plan. There is more open space and recreation use proposed for dedication than
the General Plan and Park Dedication Ordinance require (140 acres proposed, 83.6 acres
required).
REGIONAL PLAN POLICIES
There are a number of policies expressed in the Growth Management Plan (GMP) which are
relevant to this project. Among them are policies which would:
o Preserve open space areas identified in local, state and federal plans and those in SCAG's
Conservation and Open Space Plan.
o Encourage growth to occur in and around:
- activity centers
- transportation node corridors
- underutilized infrastructure systems
- areas needing recycling and redevelopment
Oo
SCAG 2
.1
+S�r u�ritu
•ouhtY+:uH.a.rw•
VI%.1'giW Ny/Iyli.iny.
818 W. Seventh Street,12th Floor • Los Angeles, CA 90017-3435 a (213) 236-1800 9 FAX (213) 236-1825
Page 4
GROWTH MANAGEMENT.
Newport Beach is located in the urbanizing, jobs -rich Southeast Orange Subregion. SCAG's
Regional Growth Management Plan states the 2010 housing forecast for this subregion is
537,700 units, which is an addition of 283,800 units over the 1984 level. The employment
forecast of 777,300 represents 409,500 added jobs between 1984 and 2010. The job/housing
balance ratio of 1.45 in 1984 remains at 1.45 in the year 2010. The job/housing balance
performance ratio computed by dividing added jobs by added dwelling units from 1984 to 2010
is 1.44.
The proposed agreement calls for the addition of 956 dwelling units and the creation of 603 jobs
among the various sites. The level of proposed development appears to support the City's
objectives of achieving the dedication of significant open space and improving the jobs/housng
balance of the community.
TRANSPORTATION DEMAND MANAGEMENT (TDM)
To be adequate for the purposes intended by the SIP, the project should include a Transportation
Demand Management (TDM) program which is consistent with the RMP and which includes
commitments to specific TDM measures with clear delineation of responsibility, trip reduction
targets, financial arrangements and specific schedules for action on each specific measure. A
fully developed TDM program for a general development project will contain the following
elements:
o A precisely detailed description of TDM mitigation measures.
o Expected Vehicle Miles Traveled and Vehicle Trips (VMt'/VT) reduction targets and
other expected results from each component of the TDM program.
o Funding sources for each program component.
o Identification of the agencies or persons responsible for monitoring and administering the
TDM program.
o An implementation schedule for each TDM program component.
The EIR offers a passing reference to the City's Transportation Demand Ordinance and does not
call out any specific features applicable to this project.
SCAG 3
SCAG 4
STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLAN (SIP) CONFORMITY
A project is found to be in conformance with the State Implementation Plan (SIP) when it has
satisfied the following three criteria: SCAG.5
1) It improves the subregion's jobs/housing balance performance ratio or is contributing to
attainment of the appropriate subregional VMT target.
2) It reduces VMT/VT to the maximum extent feasible by implementing transportation
demand management strategies.
00037
aroauw. a.wnenme.nr u.-
818 W. Seventh Street,12th Floor • Los Angeles, CA 90017.3435 ❑ (213) 236.1800 • FAX (213) 236-1825
Page 5
3) Its environmental document includes an air quality analysis which demonstrates that the
project will not have a significant negative impact on air quality in the long term. SLAG 5
The EIR should address each of these criteria and demonstrate the extent to which the criteria
are being, or will be, met by the project.
All mitigation measures associated with the project should be monitored in accordance with AB� SCAG 6
3180 requirements and reported to SCAG through the Annual Reasonable Further Progress
Reports.
Findines
SCAG commends the City for moving toward an improved jobs/housing balance with at this
project. However, based on information provided in the DEIR, SCAG is unable to find ththe :SCAG 7
Circulation Improvement and Open Space Agreement meets the second criteria for conformance
to the SIP at this time. This is due to lack of data regarding reductions in vehicle trips and '
vehicle miles traveled.
Recommendations
SCAG recommends that prior to considering approval of the Agreement, the City strengthen the
transportation demand management provisions as indicated above, and then re -analyze reductions
in vehicle trips and vehicle miles traveled for this project
818 W. Seventh Street,12th Floor • Los Angeles, CA 90017-3435 13
- 1
-
(213) 236-1800 • FAX (213) 236-1825
SCAG-1
SCAG-2
SCAG-3
SCAG-4
SCAG-5
RESPONSES TO COMMENTS MADE BY SCAG
This comment is noted and will be included in the final record of the project
for review and consideration by the appropriate decision -makers.
This comment is noted and will be included in the final record of the project
for review and consideration by the appropriate decision -makers.
This comment is noted and will be included in the final record of the project
for review and consideration by the appropriate decision -makers.
Since the project is not at the implementation level with these approvals,
specific Transportation Demand Management (TDM) programs and measures
are not called out. However, as implementation of the non-residential project
sites included in this project process, they will be required to provide specific
TDM programs per the City's Transportation Demand Management
Ordinance described in Response to Comment DOT 3. It is at that time that
the site specific program will be established, including the identification of
specific measures. The Program EIR also requires that any office and
commercial development participate in the Centerride program currently
operating in Newport Center. Other TDM related measures are required in
mitigation measures 7-9.
Please refer to the City's Transportation Management Demand Ordinance
which is provided in Appendix D of this document. Also refer to Response
to Comment DOT-3.
The Program EIR provided information regarding all three criteria used by
SCAG to determine conformance with the State Implementation Plan (SIP).
Based on this information, the project is in conformance with the SIP.
The analysis regarding jobs/housing balance is found in the Housing Chapter
of the Program EIR. On pages 307 - 308 is the specific analysis of the
project's impact on jobs/housing balance in the City and region. The Program
EIR concluded that the project will improve the jobs/housing balance.
00039
SCAG-6
SCAG-7
Transportation demand management strategies will be implemented in
conformance with the adopted City Transportation Demand Management
Ordinance which is designed to reduce VMT/VT within the City. Please
refer also to Response to Comments DOT-3 and SCAG4.
An analysis of air quality is included in the Air Quality chapter of the
Program EIR. The Program EIR concluded that all project -specific impacts
of the project are mitigated to a level of insignificance and will not have a
significant effect on air quality in the long term. The Program EIR recognizes
that as long as the South Coast Basin is not in conformance with the federal
and state Clean Air Acts, any new development will technically cause adverse
air quality impacts on a cumulative basis. However, by providing housing in
close proximity to major employment centers, improving the jobs/housing
balance and implementing the citywide TDM ordinance, the City is in
compliance with specific policies of the SCAG GNP and RMP which are
integral components of the 1989 and 1991 SCAQMP.
The Mitigation Monitoring Program for this project will be prepared and
monitored in accordance with AB 3180. Reporting of monitoring status to
public agencies will be conducted in accordance with AB 3180 and Section
21081.6 of the CEQA Guidelines.
This comment is noted and will be included in the final record of the project
for review and consideration by the appropriate decision -makers. Please also
refer to Response to Comment SCAG-5 to address conformance with the SIP.
Letter 6
'COI
Community Development Department
City of Irvine, One Civic Center Plaza, P.O. Box 19575, Irvine, California 92713 (714) 724.6000
July 17, 1992
Mr. John Douglas
City of Newport Beach
3300 Newport Boulevard
Newport Bea , CA 92659-1768
Dear Mr. Oks
:
RECEIVED 07
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
AM JUL 20 1992 PM
718191101HI12111213141516
Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the
Circulation Improvement and Open Space Agreement Draft Program
Environmental Impact Report (EIR) between the City of Newport Beach
and The Irvine Company. Enclosed are the City's comments on the
document.
Again, thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Draft
-Program EIR. If you have any questions concerning these comments,
please contact Darla Charbonnet, Associate Planner, at 724-6376.
sincerely,
ETER HERSH
Manager of Planning Services
Enclosure
PH;dc:CEQA.cirosagr-deircomm
cc:
Allison Hart, Assistant City Manager
Robert C. Johnson, Director of Community
Patricia Shoemaker, Principal Planner
Kia Mortazavi, Principal Engineer
Maureen Swenson, Senior Transportation I
Darla Charbonnet, Associate Planner
Eric Rubery, Assistant Planner
PRINTED ON RECYCLED P=PER
Development
City of Irvine
Circulation Improvement and open Space Agreement
Draft Program Environmental Impact Report Comments
I. EXECUTIVE
SUMMARY
1. Page xii
Transportation/Circulation: This section states
that the impacts of the project are "insignificant,"
both within the City of Newport Beach and within
adjacent communities, and therefore "no mitigation
is necessary." However, the traffic study
COIL
identifies several intersections requiring
mitigation due to project impacts. In addition, the
"General Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures"
table (page xvii) states that there are "unavoidable
significant adverse impacts.This inconsistency
should be corrected.
In this same section, the text indicates that site
access will impact adjacent streets based on City
COI
criteria. The EIR should list the criteria.
2. Page xiii
Biology: This section states that no significant
impacts to sensitive species were identified. It
C013
should be stated if this is the case for all 11
sites or for only certain sites.
In this same section, the loss of upland habitat on]C014
the Newporter North site should be indicated in
terms of acreage.
GENERAL SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
3. Page xvii
Transportation/Circulation: The text states that
the mitigation measures for the Transportation/
Circulation impacts are in Mitigation Measures 1 and
C0I.5
2. However, in the Inventory of Mitigation Measures
on page 422 they are listed as numbers 2 and 3.
II. INTRODUCTION
4. Page 2
General Purpose: A general statement indicating
that additional environmental documentation will be
prepared as necessary per CEQA for construction of
C016
specific development proposals (i.e., residential,
fire station, office buildings) to determine if
significant impacts occur beyond those evaluated in
the Program EIR.
00042
Mr. John Douglas
July 17, 1992
Page 2
III. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
5: Page 13 Proiect Characteristics: It is unclear as to how
The Irvine Company's contribution to the MacArthur
Boulevard widening of $500,000 was calculated. The C017
total cost of the project between Ford Road and
Bison Avenue is $2.6 million in 1991 dollars.
Please clarify.
6. Page 16 Circulation Improvements/Funding/TPO• Compliance:
Circulation improvement number 4, states that the
Environmental Impact Report is being prepared for
the MacArthur Boulevard/Bison Avenue' Extension :C018
project. It should be noted that the EIR has been <<._
completed and was certified on April 13, 1992 by the
City of Newport Beach.
In addition, the second paragraph indicates that the
"City" will consider criteria for deciding which
circulation system improvements will be funded. It
is unclear as to the City of Irvine's involvement C019
in.this decision. In order to ensure that the City
of Irvine intersections impacted by new development
are mitigated, the decision process should include
the City of Irvine.
IV. REGIONAL. SUBREGIONAL, AND LOCAL SETTING
7. Page 40 Exhibit 13: Under the List of Projects category,
number 8 and 9 should be revised from "Village" to C0110
"Planning Area." .
8. Page 41 Subreaional Setting, City of Irvine: The City 'sl1col 11
1992 population should be revised to 114,346.
9. Page 42 Subreaional Setting, Planning Area 23• The proposed] COI.12
plan under review by the City for this area contains
apartments not condominiums.
10. Page 42 Subreaional Setting, Irvine Business Complex {IBC:
The IBC is expected to contain approximately 56
million gross square feet of business and industrial C0113
uses instead of the stated 48.25. In addition, a
total of 3,896 dwelling units are being proposed
versus the stated 3,571.
11. Page 43 Subreaional Setting Village 38• Revise the title CO114
"Village 38" to "Planning Area 38."
00043
Mr. John Douglas
July 17, 1992
Page 3
12. Page 43
Subregional Setting, Village 12: Revise the title
col 1s
"Village 12" to "Planning Area 12." 1
13. Page 43
Subreaional Setting, Planning Area 26: Revise the
first sentence as follows, "The preliminary project
site is located approximately 400 feet north of the
Ford Road/Hillside Drive intersection." The last
C0116
sentence of the paragraph should be deleted. Plans
are currently being reviewed for a proposed church.
V. EXISTING
ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS IMPACTS MITIGATION
MEASURES,
AND LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE
14. Page 48
Land Use, San Diego Creek South: The Draft. EIR
i
should address potential impacts to the Class 1 (off
1CO117
street) and Class 2 (on street) bicycle trails in
this area along University Avenue and the San Diego
Creek.
15. Page 170 Transportation/Circulation, 2010 Impacts on Adjacent
Cities Irvine: This section states that the
"project's contribution to the ICU values for
University Drive at California and Campus Drive C0118
would be less than one percent." Yet, neither of
these ICU calculations have been provided within the "
traffic study. Please provide these analyses for
all horizon years both with and without all project
alternative scenarios.
16. Page 171 City of Irvine - Culver Drive Deletion: The City's
General Plan Circulation Element does not show the
Culver Drive south of Bonita Canyon Road as shown
in the majority of the analyses for the DEIR. It C0119
should be noted that the City is currently
performing a cooperative study with the County to
delete this segment of Culver Drive from the Master
Plan of Arterial Highways (MPAH).
17. Page 179 Mitigation Measure #2: This mitigation states that
the circulation improvements -list should remain
flexible to "respond to actual changes in traffic
volumes." While the City of Irvine agrees with the
concept of such'flexibility, it is unclear as to how
the City of Irvine will be involved in the
determination of priorities for this list. In order
to ensure that the City of.Irvine's intersections
impacted by this project are mitigated, the
prioritization process should be clearly defined and
should include the City of Irvine.
[j111r
,COI 20
Mr. John Douglas
July 17, 1992
Page 4
18. Page 180 Table V. Initial List of Circulation Improvements -
The proposed development is projected to impact
several deficient intersections within the City of
Irvine. Yet, the list of intersections in Table V,
which will be the "initial" list from which
improvements will be prioritized ,as outlined in = 21
Mitigation Measure #2, does not contain these
intersections. The following intersections should
be added to the list:
a. MacArthur Boulevard at Campus Drive
b. MacArthur Boulevard at Bison Avenue
C. MacArthur Boulevard at Ford Road
d. MacArthur Boulevard at Jamboree Road
19. Page 181 Level of Significance. Project -Specific and]!CO122 Cumulative: See comment number 1 above.
00045
COI-1
COI-2
COI-3
COI-4
RESPONSES TO COMMENTS MADE BY CITY OF IRVINE
The statement quoted on page xih of the Program EIR refers only to impacts
on daily traffic volumes not peak hour traffic volumes (which are discussed
later on the same page). The statement is correct.
The statement referred to on page xhh of the Program EIR was incorrect. The
Program EIR did not identify that site access to any of the sites will impact
immediately adjacent streets. This statement has been deleted as stated in the
Errata to read:
The proposed project and past, present, and reasonably
foreseeable future projects will impact traffic and circulation as
analyzed in the years 1995, 2000, and 2010, in the City of
Newport Beach. The impact that will occur is an increase in
daily and peak hour traffic volumes. The proposed project will
have a minor impact on the circulation system in adjacent
communities. The proposed project will have a simulated
impact on adopted circulation plans and policies in the commu-
nity. ,
No impacts to sensitive species including those listed occurs on any site. This
is more clearly stated on Page 270 of the Program EIR where a paragraph
break makes it clear that the statement is intended to mean all sites.
About 30 acres of upland habitat on the Newporter North site will be
destroyed by development of residential uses onsite. This area is primarily
comprised of introduced annual grassland and a small area of freshwater
marsh. Exhibit 63 contains a map which illustrates the location of the
development area in relationship to the onsite habitats. Page 260 identifies
the amount of acreage to be lost.
On page xM—, the third paragraph has been revised in the Errata to read (bold
text is new text):
The loss of upland habitat on the Newporter North site is-m
could potentially result in
COI-S
COI-6
COI 7
COI-8
COI-9
the elimination of coyotes from all or a portion of Upper
Newport Bay. This elimination could significantly disrupt key
predator -prey relationship in Upper Newport Bay. This loss of
upland habitat is considered an unavoidable adverse project
impact.
Page xvii under Transportation/Circulation, the fourth column has been
revised in the Errata to read (bold text is new text):
Refer to Mitigation Measures 4 2 to 4 3.
Page 2, the following has been added to the last paragraph in the Errata to
read (bold text is new text):
Additional environmental documentation will be prepared as
deemed necessary per CEQA for specific development propos-
als.
The Irvine Company's obligation of $500,000 was calculated to cover the cost
of one additional northbound travel lane on MacArthur Blvd from Ford Road
to Bison. It is not expected to cover the cost of the entire road improvement.
It is anticipated that the remainder of the project will be completed at a
future date when development occurs on the east side of MacArthur
Boulevard within the City of Irvine.
Page 16, item 4, the second to the last sentence has been revised in the Errata
to read (bold text is new text):
The pr-epesed OR for the MacArthur Boulevard is etrffen*
/Bison Avenue Extension
project was completed and certified by the City of Newport
Beach on April 13, 1992.
Pursuant to Measure M, procedures have been established between the Cities
of Irvine and Newport Beach to provide for interagency discussion related to
growth and transportation improvements within Growth Management Area
COI-10
COZ-11
COI-12
COI-13
8. The City of Newport Beach expects that this forum would provide
sufficient opportunity for the two cities to discuss the issue of transportation
improvement priorities.
Page 40, Exhibit 13, Projects 8 and 9 have been revised in the Errata to read
( bold text is new text):
8. Village Planning Area 38
9. Village Planning Area 12
Page 41, the last paragraph under the City of Irvine heading has been revised
in the Errata to read (bold text is new text):
Irvine's population is approximately 111,418
114,346 (Source: City of Irvine).
Page 42, the fourth paragraph, the first sentence under Planning Area 23 has
been revised in the Errata to read (bold text is new text):
Planning Area 23 consists of 986 rental eendemiigiumapart-
ment units on 25 acres located near the comer of Michelson
and Carlson Drives in the City of Irvine.
Page 42, the fifth paragraph has been revised in the Errata to read (bold text
is new text):
The IBC consists of numerous development of mixed uses
including office, retail, hotel and residential. A-eeerdiag te-the
Genen4 Man of the Gity The IBC will x#i nately is expected to
contain approximately 48.23 56 million gross square feet of
business and industrial uses. The business and industrial
subcategory is characterized by offices and industry with support
commercial, mixed with a high density housing (25 to 40
dwelling units per acre). A total of 3,-574 3,896 dwelling units
are
being proposed.
COI-14
00048
COI-15
COI-16
COI-17
COI-18
COI-19
Page 43, the heading for the second paragraph has been revised in the Errata
to read (bold text is new text):
VIlage38. Planning Area 38.
Page 43, the heading for the third paragraph has been revised in the Errata
to read (bold text is new text):
3rillage-12. Planning Area 12.
Page 43, the fourth paragraph has been revised in the Errata to read (bold
text is new text):
A The preliminary project site is located approximately 600 400
feet north of the Ford Road/Hillside Drive intersection. is
Currently the site is
zoned as Development Reserve - medium high density. The
tentative parcel map encompasses 16 acres. Ne speei€ie glans
The development area does not encroach into either the Class I or Class If
trails systems adjacent to the site. No adverse impacts have been identified.
As stated in the Program EIR, the NBTAM volumes and the corresponding
increase to the individual ICUs were not more than one percent. Appendix
A in this document provides the requested calculations and scenarios. It
should be noted that post-2010 impacts are identified using the City of Irvine's
IBCTAM model, rather than Newport Beach's NBTAM which was used for
the balance of the analysis. It should be noted that the current Master Plan
of Arterial Highways (County) shows Culver Drive being extended.
This comment is noted and will be included in the final records of the project
for review and consideration by the appropriate decision -makers.
00049
COI-20
COI-21
COI-22
Please refer to Response to Comment COI-9.
Table U, Page 178 of the Program EIR contains information on these four
intersections. Under the No Project scenario, the intersection at MacArthur
Boulevard and Campus Drive will operate in excess of capacity in the year
2000 during the PM peak period. The ICU is projected to be 1.11 without
the project and 1.12 with the project. The project will add only .01 to the PM
peak ICU or less than one percent. This contribution is substantially below
the 5% threshold used by the City of Irvine to determine significance of
impacts. It is for these reasons no mitigation is added in Table V. The
primary reason for projected deficient capacity at this intersection is the
development to occur within the Irvine Business Complex (IBC) within the
City of Irvine. Further, the City of Newport Beach has not identified any
feasible improvements for this intersection.
The project will again contribute only .01 to the PM ICU at the MacArthur
Bison intersection which was projected to operate in excess of capacity with
or without the project. The applicant will be contributing $500,000 to fund
lane improvements on MacArthur from Ford Road to Bison Avenue. This is
specifically required by the language of the Development Agreement.
Consequently, it is not necessary to identify additional mitigation measures.
The list on Table V does include the MacArthur Boulevard intersection at
Ford Road.
The project contributes .02 to the overall AM ICU of .80 at the MacArthur
Boulevard and Jamboree intersection. At .80 the intersection will operate
adequately without any additional improvements. No mitigation is necessary.
Please refer to Response to Comment COI-1.
00050
FROM EMA PLANNING
T0: 7146443339
C7 F
G F.
(ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT AGENCY
PLANNING
JUL 21 1992
John Douglas, Principal Planner
City of Newport Beach
3300 Newport Blvd.
P. 0. Box 1768
JUL 21, 1992 4:27PM P.02
Letter 7
ec
MICHAEL M. RUANE
DIRECTOR, EMA
THOMAS 5. MATHEWS
DIRECTOR OF PLANNING
LOCATION
12 CIVIC CENTER PLAZA
SANTA ANA, CA
MAILING ADDRESS:
P.O. BOX 4048
SANTA ANA, CA 92702.404B
TELEPHONE:
(714) 8NA643
FAX N: DPO: 834.4772
?nd Me: 834 6132
Newport Beach, CA 92659-1768 riLE NCL 92-72
SUBJECT: Draft PEIR for Circulation Improvement and Open Space Agreement
Dear Mr. Douglas:
The above referenced item is a Draft Program Environmental Impact Report (PEIR)
for the City of Newport Beach. The proposed project will fund park land
acquisition and circulation improvements at eleven sites in the City. The
County of orange has reviewed the Draft PEIR resulting in the following
comments:
BICYCLE TRAILS
The Master Plan of Countywide Bikeways (MPCB) identifies regional bikeways in
the vicinity of the following project sites:
San Diego Creek South:
Route 40, a Class I (paved off --road) bikeway along San Diego Creek; Route 66, a
Class l bikeway along MacArthur Boulevard; Route 65, a Class I bikeway along
Jamboree Road
San Diego Creek North:
Route 40 (see above)
Jamboree/HaeArthur:
None
Upper Castaways:
Route 55, a Class I bikeway along:.the west side of the Upper Newport Bay
Channel; Route,25, a Class I bikeway along West Coast Highway
Bay View Landing:
Route 51, a Class I bikeway along Jamboree Road; Route 56, a Class III (on -toad,
signed only) bikeway along Backbay Drive; Route 25 (see above)
0011051
FROM:EMA PLANNING TO: 7146443339 JUL 21, 1992 4:28PM
..V... A MU.",5'aa
Page 2
Newporter North:
Routes 51 and 56 (see above); Route 67, a Class I bikeway along San Joaquin
Hills Roas(—
Newporter Knoll:
Routes 51 and 56 (see above)
Newporter Resort:
Routes 51 and 56 (see above)
Block 800:
None
Freeway Reservation:
Route 66 (see above) and Route 65, a Class I bikeway along Ford Road
Corporate Plaza West:
Route 25, a Class 1 bikeway along East Coast Highway
In consideration of bicycle travel as an alternative mode of transportation an
recreation, we suggest the final report explore the feasibility of implementin
a local bikeway network (in addition to the regional network) within and, where
appropriate, between the project sites.
Providing a comprehensive bikeway network is a mitigation measure to reduce
traffic congestion, vehicular noise, and air pollution, in compliance with
SCAQMD's Regulation XV, the Air Quality Management Plan, and the recent Federal
Clean Air Act,
P.03
d
g
COO 2
ASR QUALITY 1
2
E
The Air Quality Report (Appendix C) does not document well the source of the
traffic numbers used for the air,quality analysis. Section 2.2.1 .- Vehicular
Emissions, states that "traffic data was obtained from Denise Gemma at COO 3
Austin -Foust Associates." There is no description of the actual data set
itself nor the assumptions used in its development to establish its
appropriateness. a
Section 2.2.3 - Total Regional Emissions also makes the same statement for
the source of the traffic data. This section should also describe the data COO 4 !
set and the assumptions used to develop it.
There are several methodologies recommended by the SCAQMD Air Quality „••i,
Handbook for use in calculating emissions. Simply quoting that the
calculations were done according to the Handbook does not sufficiently Coo- 5 •.,
describe the type of calculations done or the type of computer model used in
the analysis.
00052 I
II
4
FROM:EMA PLANNING TO: 7146443339 JUL 21, 1992 4:28PM
Page 3
a•
Section 2.2.7 - Vehicular Emissions states that the computer air emissions
model developed by the CARE, EMPAC7C, was used to calculate emissions
(EMFA07C has been superseded by three subsequent emissions calculation
programs: EMFAC7D, EMFAC7E1 and EMPAC7EP). The most recently updated
emission factors have been released by the CARB and are involved in the
latest version of the model, EMPAC7EP. SCAQMD staff is available to provide
the latest factors in cases where the latest PC version of BMFAC is the
EMFAC7C package.
Although the Executive Summary includes a statement regarding the project's
cumulative adverse impacts on the region, the air quality section should also
contain a reference to those impacts.
Tables 1 and 2 (Air Quality Measurements at E1 Toro and Costa Mesa Air
Monitoring Stations) erroneously reported the Federal and State standards for
CO (carbon monoxide). The Federal standard is 35 ppm for 1 hour, while the
State standard is 20 ppm (the reverse of what's shown on the tables).
CIRCULATION
o The project includes a number of lane additions on the Master Plan of
Arterial Highways (MPAH) system. These should be evaluated by the City and
County to determine whether they merit additions to the MPAH. A copy of the
MPAH amendment process is attached.
The project will cause or aggravate unacceptable Level of Service (LOS)
.conditions at a number of intersections during interim and buildout
conditions. The analysis should evaluate mitigation measures to -improve
conditions at these intersections.
The project's impact on the circulation system in the Santa Ana Heights and
John Wayne Airport areas should be quantified.
WATER QUALITY
The following comments are offered:
1. The Water Quality Section, page 296 states that "The conversion of presently
vacant land to urban uses on some sites may result in minor impacts to water
quality associated with surface runoff containing oil, metals or other
substances commonly found on such surfaces as roads, pavement, sidewalks,
rooftops, or landscaped areas." This statement should be changed or deleted
as tl:e statement implies that there will not be a significant impact
resulting from development. Orange County NPDES Field Screening Data for
1991 suggests that the copper water quality objective in the Enclosed Bays
and Estuaries Plan appears to be frequently exceeded in Newport Bay. In
addition, San Diego Creek basin and three monitoring stations with one time
in -excess cadmium levels and two stations with one time in -excess silver
levels. Any additional contamination resulting from development with runoff
into Newport Bay:even if "minor" will have a negative impact on water
quality. Implementation of Best Management Practices (BMPs) for new
developments will help reduce this negative impact.
00,053
COO 6
COO 7
COO 8
COO 9
i
]COO
I COO
COO 1 �
John Douglas
Page 4
2. The Mitigation Measures/Water Quality section, pages 299-300, does a good job
of discussing the BMPs required by the City for construction activities to
control erosion and siltation. It does not adequately address structural and
non-structural BMPs to mitigate pollutant runoff.
The Draft PEIR should address the criteria for both structural and
non-structural BMPs to be used as mitigation for water quality impacts. The
discussion of BMPs proposed in the EIR does not necessarily need to be
comprehensive; describing specific BMPs to be implemented at specific
locations. The purpose of discussing BMPs within the EIR is to ensure
mitigation measures are proposed and eventually implemented to meet federal
and state water quality regulations.
RECREATION/OPEN SPACE
Master Plan of Regional Recreation Facilities
No impacts have been identified at this stage of the project.
Master Plan of Regional Riding & Hiking Trails
The site called "San Diego Creek North" includes a portion of the Regional
Irvine Coast Trail, (#19). Although the trail is in use, no easement for it
been dedicated. The project should include the following measures:
Dedicate (Recreation Easement):
Prior to or concurrent with the approval of subject project, the applicant shall
dedicate a 16-foot-wide recreation easement"to the County of Orange or its
designee over the site referred to in Exhibit 6 of the DEIR as "San Diego Creek
North" for riding and hiking trail purposes in a manner meeting the approval of
the Manager, EMA-Harbors, Beaches and Parks/Program Planning Division. Prior to
the issuance of certificates of use and occupancy, improvements shall be
installed in accordance with a plan approved by the Manager, EMA-Harbors,
Beaches and Parks/Program Planning Division and shall include necessary grading,
erosion control, signage, fencing, grade separated crossings, etc.
Master Plan of Local Parks
The method of fulfillment of the City's local park code/ordinance should be
explained.
Resources Element - Open Space Component
Sites along the scenic highway PCH, including the "Bay View Landing" site, shall
be required to implement a landscape plan as follows:
Landscape Plan
Prior to the recordation of any final map located immediately
containing lots along regionally designated scenic highways;`
for such lots should be completed subject to the approval of
Beach.
coo 11 1
coo
141
15I
00-16
00' 17�
_ . _e
adjacent to, or
a.landscape plan F
the City of Newport
00054
John Douglas
Page 5
Thank you for the opportunity to respond to the Draft PEIR. If you have ,COO 1 7
questions, please call Kari Rigoni at (714) 834-2109.
Very truly yours,
CM:sahEPL01-105
2072108085481
Attachment
Kari A. Rigorfi, SaVor Planner
FOR: Timothy S. Neely, Manager
Environmental Planning Division
r.
00053
COO-1
COO-2
COO-3
COO-4
COO-5
COO-6
RESPONSES TO COMMENTS MADE BY COUNTY OF ORANGE
This comment is noted and will be included in the final record of the project
for review and consideration by the appropriate decision -makers.
Local bikeway connections and access will be considered in conjunction with
all specific site development plans. Please refer to Response to Comment
DOT-3.
The traffic data for the air quality analysis was obtained from Denise Gemma
at Austin Foust Associates and was the same data as that used in the
"Newport Beach Circulation Improvement and Open Space Agreement Traffic
Study" prepared by Austin Foust Associates, Inc. on May 22, 1992. This
document should be referenced to obtain information about the description
and development of this traffic data. The land use traffic assumptions used
for this report can also be found in Appendix A of this document.
Please refer to Response to Comment COO-3-
All input and output data for the calculation sheets as well as calculation
methodology are represented in the MGA Air Quality Report found in
Appendix C of Volume H of the Draft Program EIR.
At the time the air quality analysis was generated CARB had released
conversion factors to convert from EMFAC7C emissions factors to EMFA-
C71) emissions factors. These conversion factors were available for TOG, CO
and NOx. The EMFAC7E and EMFAC7EP computer models had not yet
been released at the time the air quality analysis was generated. Therefore,
EMFAC7C emission factors were used for SOx and Particulates emissions
while EMFAC7D emission factors were used for TOG, CO and NOx
emissions calculations. It should be noted that EMFAC7EP emissions factors
are significantly less than EMFAC7C or EMFAC7D emission factors and
therefore the analysis in its present stage can be taken to represent a worst
case scenario.
00056
COO-7
COO-9
COO-10
COO-11
COO-12
Pages 191 and 193 of the Program EIR contain a discussion of cumulative
impacts related to air quality. Conclusions regarding the level of significance
after mitigation is found on page 195 of the Program EIR.
This comment is noted and will be included in the final records of the project
for review and consideration by the appropriate decision -makers.
The lane additions depicted are consistent with the City's latest (1989) update
of the Circulation Element which has been provided to the County and is
reflected on the MPAH. No additions or revisions to the MPAH are
depicted, requested or required by the project.
Mitigation measures to offset the impacts of the proposed project are
identified in the EIR for each phase of the project including Years-1995, 2000,
2010 and, in fact, the analysis concluded that a net benefit to the circulation
system will occur with implementation of the proposed project and these
associated mitigation measures.
The proposed project's potential impacts in the Santa Ana Heights area were
addressed in the scope of the traffic study. There was found to be only
nominal increases in the traffic volumes in this area and areas beyond (ie.
John Wayne airport area) which would not specifically cause level of service
deficiencies. It should also be noted that the project is shown to provide a net
benefit to the existing and planned circulation system in these areas through
both implementation of mitigation measures and through the overall reduction
in forecast project traffic attributable to the reduced project land use in the
proposed in the project General Plan Amendment.
The program EIR concluded that project -specific impacts resulting from an
incremental increase in urban pollutants would be minor (page 296) and
therefore would not result in a significant adverse impact. The Program EIR
did acknowledge that the project -related incremental increase in urban
pollutants in conjunction with other past, present and reasonably foreseeable
00057
COO-13
future project will result in an incremental long-term impact to water quality
in Newport Bay.
Please review also the comment received from the applicant regarding this
issue (Comment IP-2). As discussed in that comment, the projects relative
contribution to the watershed is just slightly over one tenth of one percent.
The San Diego Creek watershed is 95,296 acres and the proposed develop-
ment areas comprise only 106 acres. Furthermore, these sites are fundamen-
tally infill sites with access to established flood control and drainage systems.
In addition,, both the Irvine Company and the City of Newport Beach have
contributed significant funding for improvements to the San Diego Creek
system and Upper Newport Bay administered pursuant to the 208 plan. These
improvements have included Units 1 and 2 in -bay sediment control projects
and the San Diego Creek sediment control basins. These improvements have
significantly improved the existing water quality in the Bay. Please refer also
to Response to Comment DFW-13.
Best Management Practices will be implemented for all development. These
will include BMPs included in the draft Orange County Stormwater Control
Program and in the draft SWRCB NPDES guidance document for Stormwater
Pollution Prevention Plans which will be required of all new construction.
Further, the Program EIR contained mitigation measures related primarily to
the control of sedimentation and erosion. To the extent that some urban
pollutant can "attach" themselves to sediment particles, these measures will
also provide some mitigation for the projects incremental contribution to a
cumulative impact related to urban pollutants. As discussed in the following
Response to Comment COO-13, additional measures have been added to
further mitigate cumulative impacts related to urban pollutants to the extent
feasible. The conclusion of the Program EIR remains the same.
Please refer to Response to Comment COO-12. At the request of the County
of Orange, the City of 'Newport Beach and the applicant have further
researched the availability of feasible mitigation measures related to the
control of urban pollutants. The following measures:
74. Prior to issuance of grading permits, the applicant or successor in
interest shall submit an implementation plan to the City of Newport
Beach Grading Engineer for the control of accidental spills, litter, and
solid waste disposal during grading and construction. Existing policies
and standards of the City of Newport Beach and Fire Department shall
be incorporated. The plan shall be implemented as necessary during
grading and construction activities.
75. Any recorded CC&Rs shall incorporate mandates to the Homeowner's
Associations, commercial properties management and apartment
management companies regarding:
- Fertilizer/Pesticide/Herbicide management practices
- Irrigation Management Practices
- Street sweeping requirements: vacuum truck, fall cleaning, etc.
- Signage and catch basin stencil maintenance.
- Annual distribution of informational brochures (see Mitigation
Measures #77).
These mandates shall be reviewed and approved by the City of
Newport Beach prior to issuance of occupancy permits.
76. The City of Newport Beach, homeowners associations, and commercial
and apartment property management companies shall maintain legible
stenciling on any catch basin that they maintain. Stenciling shall use
selected letters and/or symbols approved by the City of Newport
Beach notifying the reader that the catch basin drains to the Newport
Bay and to warn against dumping.
77. Brochures consistent with City standards (such as the'Nonpoint Source
Pollution' brochures published by the Orange County Flood Control
District) shall be distributed at the time of initial sale or lease of
residential and commercial properties. These brochures shall include
a discussion of:
- Impacts of improper solid waste practices and littering.
- Proper use and management of fertilizers, herbicides and other
harmful chemicals.
- Impacts of dumping oil, antifreeze, pesticides, paints, solvents,
etc. into storm drains.
- Effective housekeeping practices such as use of bio-degradable
cleaning compounds and adsorbents.
- Benefits of preventing excessive erosion and sedimentation.
- Benefits of proper landscaping practices
Benefits of minimizing non-stormwater runoff or adverse
impacts of over -irrigation.
These brochures shall be reviewed and approved' by the City of Newport
Beach prior to issuance of occupancy permits.
00059
COO-14
COO-15
COO-16
COO-17
This comment is noted and will be included in the final record of the project
for review and consideration by the appropriate decision -makers. Please also
refer to Response to Comment DOT-2.
Permitted uses in both Area 1 and Area 2 of the San Diego Creek North site
include riding, hiking, and biking trails. It is the intention of the City of
Newport Beach to allow such facilities across the site (the majority of which
they will own in fee). As proposed the majority of the site will be dedicated
to the City of Newport Beach for public facilities and recreational and open
space uses. About 2.0 acres will be dedicated to the Transportation Corridor
Agencies for implementation of the San Diego Creek Northern Marsh
Creation project which is required mitigation for the TCA's San Joaquin
Transportation Corridor project. No privately sponsored development
projects will be allowed on site . At the time more specific information is
known about future public facilities and recreational and open space uses, it
would be appropriate for the County of Orange to work with the TCA and
City of Newport Beach regarding the future location of the Irvine Coast Trail
through the site.
The manner in which the project fulfills the local park code/ordinance is
discussed on page 252 of the Program EIR. This section identifies that the
Newport Beach General Plan and Park Dedication Ordinance would require
70.4 acres. A total of 152.00 acres is being provided, not 140 acres as
identified in the Draft Program EIR. The project is dedicating 150 acres to
the City and is expected to dedicate 2 acres to the Transportation Corridor
Agencies (TCA). (An additional 12 acres is being provided on the Newport
Village site as described in the Addendum to the Program EIR.)
The portion of Bayview Landing that is adjacent to Pacific Coast Highway is
designated for public open space and a public view park to be designed,
constructed and landscaped by the City of Newport Beach. The proposed
P.C. Text requires that a landscape plan be submitted to the City of review
and establishes standards for landscape design. No mitigation measures are
necessary.
JUL-LC'OG WCU 11-00
Ua rW5
rr.6 NU. b:y43.b024
Y. 02
Letter.8
United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
FISH AND WILDLIFE ENHANCEMENT
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA FIELD STATION
Carlsbad Field Office
2730 Loker Avenue West
Carlsbad, California 92008
July 14, 1992
Ms. Patricia Temple
Environmental Planning Division
3300 Newport Blvd.
Newport Beach, CA. 92663
Re: Response to Circulation Improvement and Open Space Agreement: Draft
Environmental Impact Report
Dear Ms. Patricia Temple:
DFW
The Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) has reviewed the Draft Program
Environmental Impact Report referenced above. In view of the extraordinary
biological significance of Upper Newport Bay and the severity of the adverse
impacts of this project to the Bay, the Service wishes its comments to be I DFW 1
addressed in the final EIR. The following comments are based on our knowledge
of the sensitive and declining habitat types and species present in the Bay
and adjacent Orange County, as well as studies by our staff and others for
over a decade.
The project involves inclusion of eleven sites clustered around Upper Newport
Bay in a Master Coastal Development Permit to allow development of these sites DFW 21
according to the City of Newport Beach General Plan and Zoning Ordinance. _ .•
As proposed, the development of several of these sites, including San Diego
Creek South, San Diego Creek North, and Newporter North, threaten the - -
functionality of the Bay, as a viable Ecological Reserve, and thwart efforts of DFW 3
the last 30 years to maintain this area. While development of the other sites
would have adverse impacts to the sensitive species and habitats of Upper
Newport Bay they would be less likely to dramatically affect the functioning
this ecosystem.
This Draft Program Environmental Impact Report (DPEIR) does not give adequate
weight to the fact that these -properties are adjacent to a wildlife reserve
which supports a number of federally listed endangered species, and
constitutes a major remnant of coastal wetlands and other sensitive habitats.
These proposed developments must be analyzed in the context of their
disposition as an integral part of a major ecological resource of regional
significance. It also does not adequately address the fact that many other
development projects are currently planned in thitd area which will affect the
Bay. As this document is a programmatic one, it is the most appropriate place
to consider these cumulative effects, rather than waiting until each of the
eleven parcels is developed separately. Major developments should be shifted
DFW 4
JUL-ee-oC WCU 11+00 U0 rwo
Ms. Patricia Temple•
rr.A Au. o1:1S3:8oG4
to parcels with less biological value. Overall, this document lacks
specificity and does not fully disclose -project -related impacts, and the
extent of mitigation necessary to offset these permanent adverse impacts to
the extremely valuable and declining biological resources of Upper Newport
Bay.
GENERAL COMMENTS
r, W
2
DFW-4
The Service has the legal responsibility for the welfare of migratory birds,
anadromous fish and endangered animals and plants in the United States. The
Service also has responsibilities under the Endangered Species Act (Act).
Section 9 of the Act prohibits the "take", defined as harm, harassment,
pursue, injure, or kill, of federally listed species. "Harm" is further
defined to include destruction of necessary habitat or disruption of essential
breeding or feeding behavior. For projects with no Federal involvement,
"take" can only be permitted pursuant to the pertinent language and provisions
of section 10a. The California least tern (Sterna antillarum browns ), Brown
Pelican (Pe1ecanU9 occidentalis), Least Bell's vireo (Vireo bellii vusillus),
peregrine falcon (Falco pare inns) and light-footed clapper rail, (Rallus
longirostris levipes) and salt marsh birds beak (Cordylanthus maritimus
maritimus), are federally listed endangered species that occur at Upper
Newport Bay. In addition, the California gnatcatcher,(Poliontila californica)
is a proposed species for listing as endangered. A decision on this proposal
is pending. Should listing occur, the coastal gaatcatcher would acquire the
full protection of this Act. _
'DFW 5
The Service is also mandated to provide comments on any public notice issued
for a Federal permit or license affecting the nations' waters, in particular,
Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) permits pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean 'DFW 6
Water Act and Section 10 of the River and Harbor Act of 1899. The goal of the
Clean Water Act is to maintain and restore the chemical, physical and
biological integrity of the nations' waters by establishing strong protection
against discharges into special aquatic sites, which include all types of
wetlands. It is the Services' regional policy to oppose any wetland loss, or
decrease In biological value as unacceptable, in view of the serious depletion
of this important national resource.
Because of the biological richness of Upper Newport Bay, the city of Newport
Beach,, as the lead agency faces a strenuous task in meeting the analytical
requirements of CEQA. According to Attorney General John K. Van de Kamp,in a
letter to the Riverside County Planning Department dated Dec. 20,1990, a key
standard regarding the adequacy of an EIR is whether it provides a "sufficient
degree of analysis to provide decision -makers with information which enables
them to make a decision which intelligently takes account of environmental
consequences." This document does not accomplish this task, as will be
discussed below. Also, the CEQA Lead Agency cannot simply defer analysis of
the feasibility of a proposal until a later time, such -as during future
federal and state permit processes. (See, e.g. Sundstrom v. Country of
Mendocino (1988) 202 Cal. App. 3d 296, 306-307). The current CEQA review of
this document is the appropriate time for informed consideration o$ the
environmental consequences of this action. This DEIR does not provide a
clear, concise picture of the severity of the environmental consequences to
00062
DFW 7
JUU'cc.-oc
wcv ic•UU
Ua rNo
rhn 'lU, oio4o.u0L4 Y, U4
Ms.
Patricia
Temple .
g
the public and decision making bodies, or even more importantly, how it will
be possible to mitigate for these impacts. Priorities must be established, and DFW 7
their consequences fully disclosed in this document.
Within Southern California, intense development and economic pressures have
resulted in the loss of 95% of our streamside woodland habitat, approximately
70% of our coastal sage scrub, and over 90% of our coastal marshes are gone or DFW g
degraded. All of these sensitive habitats are present in the Bay with the
endangered and sensitive species which they support. Consequently, the
judicious use and management of Upper Newport Bay with emphasis on its
wildlife value represents a significant step in the preservation of the
sensitive and endangered species and habitats of southern California.
Upper Newport Bay is unique as a repository of high biological value in close
proximity to a large urban population. This is its strength, as well as its
greatest point of vulnerability. It bas enormous educational potential'as an
example of an intact and functional ecological system, which will only
increase as these resources continue to disappear. The location of the Bay in
such close proximity to the University of California at Irvine increases its
value as a site for ecological research. It is considered to be one of the
premier birding sites in all of North America; nowhere is there such access to
so many sensitive biological resources as at Upper Newport Bay. With this
access comes the problem of controlling the direct, indirect, and cumulative
adverse impacts of human disturbance. Extreme caution must be used so that
additional encroachment does.not imperil the continuation of this area as a
self-sustaining systemsi with its resident populations of endangered species.
Educational, aesthetic, ecological, and economic considerations all dictate
that Upper Newport Bay be maintained as a natural and self=regulating
ecosystem. —
'DFW 9
A major factor in achieving this goal is the continued presence of the top
predator, in this case, the coyote (Canis latrans). The removal of the top
native largest predator leads to a population explosion of smaller ones that
serve as their prey such as oppossum, skunks, cats, and raccoons, leading in
turn to local extinctions of ground nesting birds (Terborgh,1980). This
phenomenon is called mesopredator release. It is also an established
principle that introduced predators, such as the red fox (Yu —es 1 es), are DFW 10
among the commonest causes of extinctions of native prey species on islands
(Diamond, 1984). A population explosion by the red fox is competitively
excluded by the presence of the coyote. Therefore, the coyote is important to
the Bay because it regulates the presence of other predators and smaller
mammals, both of which prey upon sensitive species in the Bay. As an example,
the survival of endangered species such as the California least tern, and
light-footed clapper rail was recently in doubt on'tlie Seal Beach NWR, e.g.,
because of red foxes. In Upper Newport Bay, the populations of these two
ground nesting federally listed endangered species will be at risk of
extirpation if mesopredator release is allowed to occur. Since up to 70% of
the U.S. population of the light-footed clapper rail resides in Upper Newport
Bay, this is an extremely serious issue.
The Bay is not large enough to sustain the continuous presence of the coyote, DFW 11
so that viable interconnections between the Bay and larger remaining open
00063
Hs. Patricia Temple 4
spaces must be maintained. Every effort must be made to maintain the
integrity of the existing wildlife corridors along San Diego Creek and Big
Canyon. Other species also use these corridors to move between the Bay and DFW 11
other suitable habitat. This movement fosters genetic exchange and the health
of wildlife populations. Second only to direct habitat destruction as a
threat to the survival of sensitive and endangered species is habitat
fragmentation and isolation. In addition to excluding the presence of the
coyote, this isolation leaves populations too small to survive the
fluctuations which normally occur in natural populations. The principles of
island biogeography warn us that we place species at risk of extinction.
Upper Newport Bay cannot become an isolated island.
Finally, Service policy mandates avoidance of impacts to sensitive resources.
Where some impact is justifiable, and does not do irreparable harm to
biological resources,the effectiveness of compensation to completely offset
all adverse impacts must be demonstrable. In the case of the kind of DFW '12
biological value found at Upper Newport Bay, this would mean adequate
mitigation in place and functioning prior to any predictable impact. The
Service Mitigation Policy (Federal Register,Vol 46, No. 15) states that "the
primary focus in terms of specific guidance is on the mitigation of losses of
habitatvalue- (emphasis mine). Therefore, even if habitat is untouched , but
its fitness for wildlife, particularly sensitive or endangered species, is
reduced, mitigation to offset this loss must be demonstrable.
SPECIFIC COMMENTS
The HuMorter Resort, Block 800, Corvorate Plaza West,and Freez-aX Reservation
sites appear to have reduced biological value compared to the other sites.
However, there are impacts- to the development of these sites, and effective
measures to avoid or offset these impacts need to be specifically described in
DFW 13
this document. As stated on page 293 of Vol I "all eleven sites drain into
the Newport Bay", resulting in increased levels of urban pollutants such as
heavy metals, pesticides and herbicides. It is unacceptable that this PDEIR
merely states on page 421 of Vol I that "the proposed project will have an
incremental long-term impact on water quality in Newport Bay due to increased
urban pollutants." Specific mitigation measures should be proposed to offset
this effect. This pollution degrades the habitat of several endangered
species (described previously). This may constitute "take" as described by
the Act. The loss of the small wetland on Freeway Reservation is mitigable;
this mitigation needs to be specified. Developments on Upper Castaways and
DFW 14
Bayview Iandin would have some impacts, but should be mitigable; mitigation
-•---•
measures should also be specifically described. The wetland on the
Jamboree/MacArthur site presents more serious conservation issues, in view of
~
the serious depletion of this habitat type in Southern California, but this
area is not slated for development in this document. If it were to be
tDFW"16'
developed, mitigation for the loss of wetlands would have to be in place prior
---
to the the start of any construction activities. It needs to be noted that any
wetlands which are adjacent to Upper Newport Bay possess very high biological
�"137,1-
value, as they function as an integral part of the entire system; mitigation
!DFW 16•
offsite would not be appropriate in this instance. Additionally, there are
.1..
_ � -
00064
Ms. Patricia Temple
potential impacts from increased human use of the area, which need to be
addressed.
5
1 DFW 17
Newporter North The 89.2 acres on the Newporter North site possess very
high biological value and influence the functioning of the entire Bay. These
values include raptor foraging area, freshwater marshes, gnatcatcher habitat
and nesting sites, and coyote foraging and denning area. The Service concurs
with S. Gregory Nelson "that development comes sufficiently close to the den
location so as to have a high'likelihood that it would be abandoned"(Appendix
E.,A. Newporter North, Vol II.) However the Service disagrees with the
analysis that the 30 acres to be developed on this site represents only 7% of
the foraging area of this family group. Much of the upland habitat (450
acres) is badly degraded and unsuitable for use by the coyote. Newporter
North does represent a significant proportion of foraging area for this family
of coyotes. Additionally, the Biology Report acknowledges that the coyote
utilized the corridor at San Diego Creek which is partly slated for
development in this DPEIR. The statement that although "loss of the coyote
and subsequent increases in numbers of smaller predators had led to severe
declines in clapper rail populations at Seal Beach National Wildlife Refuge
and San Francisco Bay National Wildlife Refuge, as well as a number of other
of other locations," [but it is not known) "if such a relationship existed at
Upper Newport Bay", is illogical and unscientific. These predator -prey
relationships exemplify ecological principles that are true of all natural
ecosystems, including Upper Newport Bay. The burden of proof is on the
applicant to prove that this relationship does not exist at Upper Newport Bay.
The Service therefore concludes that development at Newporter North, in
combination with development at San Diego Creek, would seriously affect the
coyote use of the Bay.,. The applicant must deal with the issue far more
seriously than what is reflected in the DPEIR. The light-footed clapper rail
and'California least tern populations must be protected.
Another important biological resource on Newporter North is the resident
coastal gnatcatcher population, which is proposed as federally endangered. As
acknowledged in the DPEIR, there are four pairs of gnatcatchers on site, and
nesting is known. The gnatcatchers on this site comprise between one third
and one fourth of the entire population in the Bay. As stated in the DPEIR
(Appendix E,VII,Vol II), there is the likelihood of loss of gnatcatcher
habitat due "to stabilization of bluff faces supporting coastal sage scrub".
Additionally, there will be a loss of habitat value due to increase human
activity. The loss of such a high proportion of the gnatcatcher population,
in combination with the loss of a corridor at San Diego Creek where Service
personnel have documented dispersion of gnatcatchers, could result in the
extirpation of the gnatcatcher from the Bay due to their isolation and reduce2
numbers. -
DFW 18
!DFW 19
Under Mitigation Measures, p.267, Vol I. it states that for "Newporter North -
No grading (except that necessary for train establishment and improvements,
erosion control or bluff stabilization), stockpiling of soil or operation 'DEW 20
shall take place within the bluff top setback area established by the Bluff
Top Setback ordinance". This ordinance establishes a setback of only 40 ft.
The DPEIR also states in the fine print of the legend to exhibit 63 that
"Grading related to development of residential uses could extend beyond the
Ms. Patricia Temple 6
development area boundary. Grading could also occur for roads, open space
uses, trails, and bluff restoration, outside of areas designated for DFW 20
development". These statements are contradictory. Grading should not occur
outside the development area unless the effects are disclosed and mitigated. '
On page 124, the PDEIR states worth regard to the development planned on
Newporter North, that "In addition, the design of the development area was
modified by the applicant to "pull back" development from Jaamboree Roadd to DFW 21
avoid blocking views of the ocean from Jamboree Road". This represents a
complete inversion of the priorities appropriate for an area such as this.
Priority was given to the transient views of passersby rather than to the high
wildlife values of the Bay.
San Diego Cree South This parcel also is extremely important to the
functioning of the entire Bay. It contains the junction of two corridors,
Bonita Creek, and San Diego creek. Bonita Creek is lined with mature native
riparian vegetation. This is a significant resource, due to the depletion of
this habitat type in Southern California. As proposed the development will
approach the edge of this habitat, greatly reducing its value as a corridor.
The Department of Planning and Land Use Guidelines for the Implementation of
the California Environmental Quality Act for the County of San Diego states or
page'91 that;
"The appropriate width of a buffer adjacent to an area
of riparian habitat varies depending upon site specific
conditions. The minimum buffer is 25 feet, but buffers
as wide as 200 feet may be required is some instances to
maintain biological viability of the habitat. For example,
if a parcel contains an intermittent drainage swale with
riparian' elements but is not part of a wildlife corridor,
is devoid of sensitive species, and lacks regional sig-
nificance, a 25 foot buffer may be adequate".
These guidlines, or similar ones, should be applied in this case.
This riparian area is of regional significance, it is a perennial stream, and
it functions as a corridor. As discussed above, both the coyote and the
gnatcatcher use this area to enter and exit from the Bay. Development should
not be allowed to disrupt this use.
DFW 22
This area is one of the most important biologically, and yet, fully 88% is
slated for development. Other areas with much less value to wildlife, will
have much less development on them. For example, only 31% of Bay View DFW 23
Landing, and 39% of Freeway Reservation is to be developed. Again, proper
priorities have not been established in view of the fact that this land
functions as an integral part of a major regional wildlife resource, and as an
important educational and aesthetic resource for the people of Southern
California.
San Diego Creek North This area also functions as part of a wildlife
corridor, and should be left maximally as open space for wildlife, as DFW 24
described in this DPEIR. ..
00066
M
JUL-LG-UG WCU 14-UU UJ rwo
Ms. Patricia Temple' -
MA M4 tl,84Ji8o'L4 P.08
The City of Newport Beach General Plan and Zoning ordinance was written before -
the scientific community understood the effects of isolating natural areas
from one another; or before mesopredator release was understood. Due
consideration was not given to the extremely -high biological value of the Bay
in this DPEIR. In combination, developments on San Diego Creek North, San
Diego Creek South, and Newporter North threaten to isolate and encroach on the
Bay in a significant manner, affecting several populations of endangered
species.
The Service suggests that a combination of the following arrangements be
considered: 1) Shift development to parcels with less impact on wildlife; 2) _
Allow purchase of these critical sites by conservation groups at a reasonable
price; 3) As a last resort, place some of the land in a mitigation bank
(Short, 1988).
If you have any questions, please contact Dr. Linda Dawes, of my staff, at
(619)431-9440.
Sincerely,
chard Zembal;
Deputy Field Director
ce:California Dept. of Fish and Game
Newport Conservancy
Frank Robinson
00067
DFW 25
DFVV 26
JUL LL uL
WLV 1L-UU
UJ L'WJ
M. .10. 01b4,11UO i
V. UU
Ms.
Patricia
Temple -
LITERATURE CITED
1. Terborgh, J. and B. Winter. (1980). Some causes of extinction. In E.
Soule and B.A. wilcox, ads., ConservationBiolo pp. 119-134. Sinauer,
Sunderland, Mass.
2. Diamond, J. M. (1984). Historic extinctions: a Rosetta Stone for
understanding prehistoric extinctions.. In P.S. Martin and R. G. Klein, ads.,
University of Arizona Press, Tucson.
3. Short, Cathleen. (1988). Mitigation Banking. Biological Report 88(41).
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
,,
RESPONSES TO COMMENTS MADE BY DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE
DFW-1
03471
DFW-3
This comment is noted and will be included in the final records of the project
for review and consideration by the appropriate decision -makers. Responses
to all specific comments provided by the U.S. Department of Fish and
Wildlife are provided in the following pages. The biological analysis
contained in the Program EIR and responses to comments related to
biological resources have been prepared in consultation with respected
biological consultants who possess extensive experience in the ecology of the
Upper Newport Bay and similar habitats. An extensive data search was
conducted and all available pertinent research material related to the Upper
Newport Bay was reviewed and considered in the biological assessment.
This statement is not entirely correct. Three of the parcels (Block 800,
Corporate Plaza West and Freeway Reservation) are physically removed from
the environs of Upper Newport Bay. Additionally, two other parcels (San
Diego Creek South, San Diego Creek North) adjoin the San Diego Creek
flood control channel rather than Upper Newport Bay itself. The Jamboree
/ MacArthur site is an isolated parcel bracketed by two major arterial roads.
Thus, only five of the parcels are adjacent to Upper Newport Bay, with two
additional parcels in close proximity along San Diego Creek.
This Draft Program EIR is intended to provide "approval in concept" for an
application for a Master Coastal Development Permit (MCDP) for the nine
sites which are within the Coastal Zone with a provision that site specific
development will require individual coastal development permits subsequent
to the approval of the Master Coastal Development Permit. This is identified
on page 32 of the Program EIR under Potential Future Discretionary Actions.
Comment noted. The biological assessment prepared for the Program EIR
addresses the potential impacts of the project on the biological resources of
the individual sites and the surrounding area where appropriate. The
Program EIR recognizes the high value of the Upper Newport Bay as it states
on page 236, '"The Upper Newport Bay Ecological Reserve is a significant
regional resource." All potential impacts have been identified in the Impacts
section of the Biological Resources chapter. The Program EIR recognizes the
potential of the project to impact resources within the Upper Newport Bay
Ecological Reserve. Where necessary, mitigation measures have been
recommended to reduce impacts to the extent feasible. Pages 269 and 270
contain a discussion of the level of significance of impacts after implementa-
tion of proposed mitigation measures.
In the content of the City of Newport Beach's extensive involvement in
planning to protect Upper Newport Bay under the California Coastal Act and
the Clean Water Act 208 Program, the City believes that the information
presented in the EIR and in prior referenced environmental protection
programs demonstrates a strong and continuing commitment to the protection
and enhancement of the functionality of Upper Newport Bay as a viable
ecological reserve and that the proposed project is compatible with past and
present protection and enhancement commitments.
As the draft EIR indicates, extensive efforts have been undertaken to plan for
and protect Upper Newport Bay. Notable steps in this process include:
1. Newport Beach LUP: After extensive public hearings, the California
Coastal Commission approved the City of Newport Beach Land Use
Plan in 1982 with the inclusion of extensive environmental protection
measures.
2. Comprehensive Sedimentation Control Plan for the Upper Newport
Bay Watershed: As the DEIR summarizes at pp. 292-293, the City of
Newport Beach and the applicant have participated extensively in a
comprehensive and costly program to control sediment impacts on
Upper Newport Bay and improve tidal flushing. As a result, the
conditions of the marine environment in the Bay have been consider-
ably enhances.
3. Deletion of University Drive: Pursuant to Coastal Commission
recommendations, the City of Newport Beach and the County of
Orange collaborated to delete the proposed extension of University
Drive parallel to the Backbay, thereby further protecting the Bay.
4. Dedication of the Westbay Parcel: Pursuant to City of Newport Beach
development conditions for Fashion Island, The Irvine Company
dedicated as open space the environmentally significant and strategical-
ly situated Westbay parcel.
5. Dedication of Riparian Corridor: Complementing the Westbay
dedication and the deletion of University Drive North, the Coastal
Commission required the dedication of the riparian corridor adjoining
the J. M. Peters' Bayview project.
6. Wetland Creation at the Mouth of Big Canyon: Pursuant to Coastal
Commission conditions on the Backbay sewer project, the Irvine
Company has created a freshwater marsh at the mouth of Big Canyon.
00070
NOMA ,
7. The San Joaquin Marsh Enhancement Project: The Irvine Company,
in conjunction with the University of California Natural Reserve
System, California DF&G and the USF&WS have signed a MOU to
enhance San Joaquin Marsh, a program currently being integrated into
the San Joaquin Marsh Master Plan under preparation by the City of
Irvine and the Coastal Conservancy.
These plans and projects are evidence of a continuing and concerted effort by
public and private interests to protect and enhance Upper Newport Bay.
Rather than impairing the functionality of Upper Newport Bay, the proposed
CIOSA Agreement increases the amount of open space to be provided by
parcels in and near Upper Newport Bay beyond the amounts of open space
required by the City's General Plan and the Coastal Commission approved
Newport Beach Land Use Plan. The fact that the proposed project will be
submitted to the Coastal Commission as a refinement rather than an
amendment to the LUP demonstrates, in the view of the City of Newport
Beach, that the proposed project is consistent with the approved Coastal Plan.
Additionally, the proposed dedication of an open space corridor along San
Diego Creek and Bonita Creek assures a critical open space/habitat link
between the Upper Bay and San Joaquin Marsh. In these ways, the proposed
project carries forward the habitat protection and enhancement programs
enumerated above.
As noted in Response to Comment DFW-3, the City of Newport Beach and
the landowner have been involved in several comprehensive planning efforts
which have treated the Upper Bay as a major ecological resource of regional
significance. One reason for addressing the proposed action in a Program
EIR rather than in discrete project level EIRs was to be able to assess the
proposed project within the context of these past and present comprehensive
planning efforts.
The biological assessment prepared for the Program EIR addresses the
potential impacts of the project on the biological resources of the individual
sites and the surrounding area where appropriate. The Program EIR
recognizes the high value of the Upper Newport Bay as it states on page 236,
'The Upper Newport Bay Ecological Reserve is a significant regional
resource." All potential impacts, both project -specific and cumulative, have
been identified in the Impacts section of the Biological Resources chapter.
The Program EIR recognizes the potential of the project to impact resources
within the Upper Newport Bay Ecological Reserve. Where necessary,
mitigation measures have been recommended to reduce impacts to the extent
feasible. Pages 269 and 270 contain a discussion of the level of significance
of project -specific and cumulative impacts after implementation of proposed
mitigation measures.
00071
DFW-S
DWF-6
/�Iim
In addition the Program EIR considers several alternatives which could result
in a reduction or elimination of development on all or some of the parcels
adjacent to the Upper Newport Bay. These alternatives include: No
Project/No Development; Reduced Development/No Agreement; Partial
Transfer of Residential Development/No Agreement; and Transfer of
Development to Newport Center. A description and analysis of these
alternatives are included in Chapter VI of the Program EIR. Please also
refer to Response to Comment SPON-6.
The Program EIR deals with the potential impacts of the project as
specifically and comprehensively as possible. At this time, the City of
Newport Beach is contemplating approving a Development Agreement and
P.C. Texts which identify permitted uses, the limits of development, and
development standards. The amount of detail in the impact analysis and
formulation of mitigation measures reflects this level of information and
discretionary approval. No site specific details related to site or facility design
is available at this time. At the time such detail is available, the Program
EIR will be used to determine whether an additional environmental document
needs to be prepared. The Program EIR can be used to focus any additional
environmental documentation on new effects on new information that could
not be considered before.
This comment is noted and will be included in the final record of the project
for review and consideration by the appropriate decision -makers.
This comment is noted and will be included in the final record of the project
for review and consideration by the appropriate decision -makers.
Sufficient detail is presented in the Program EIR regarding the significance
of potential impacts and the feasibility and effectiveness of mitigation
measures. The City, of course, is very familiar with its obligations under
CEQA, and disagrees with the commentor that this EIR fails to alert the
City's decision -makers, its City Council, concerning the potential environmen-
tal consequences of its actions, particularly with the heightened emphasis to
biological issues achieved with this and other comment letters. The City is
also very aware of the holding in the Sundstrom decision. As the commentor
knows, Sundstrom involved a negative declaration, for the final discretionary
approval of a project, where the City elected to address an admitted
significant impact outside of the context of CEQA. Sundstrom has no
application to the CIOSA, where the City has prepared an EIR; the approval
00072
i
wail r.
is not the last discretionary approval for any of these properties; all impacts
have been studied and addressed consistent with the level of available detail
given the specificity of the project approval involved; and, the City is
committed to evaluate impacts when more detail is available with subsequent
site specific applications. Please refer to Response to Comment SPON-2.
This comment is noted and will be included in the final records of the project
for review and consideration by the appropriate decision -makers.
The City of Newport Beach and the applicant recognize the importance and
sensitivity of the Upper Newport Bay (please refer to Response to Comment
DFW-3). The project as proposed will confine development on parcels
adjacent to Upper Newport Bay to areas smaller in areal extent than currently
identified on either the City's General Plan or the adopted Land Use Plan of
the Local Coastal Program. Setbacks along the bluffs for these parcels will
conform fully with the City's Bluff Setback Criteria which was prepared with
full consultation with interested resource agencies. Additionally, all office
development entitlement currently designated on the City's General Plan and
LUP will be removed from two sites near the Upper Newport Bay (San Diego
Creek North and Jamboree / Mac Arthur sites). Please refer also to
Response to Comment DFW-3, DFW4, and DFG-5.
Comment noted. This key relationship was recognized and discussed in the
Program EIR and the technical Biological Assessment contained in Volume
11, Appendix E. The possibility that development oil Newporter North could
effect the coyote population using the site is discussed on pages 262 and 263
of the Program EIR. The Program EIR notes that the loss of upland habitat
could potentially result in the elimination of coyotes from all or a portion of
Upper Newport Bay. As also noted in the Program EIR at pp. 262-263, in a
separate study, LSA has concluded that it is not possible to conclude that
development on the Newporter North site would clearly eliminate coyotes
access to the Bay. Subsequent to the circulation of the draft Program EIR,
The Irvine Company commissioned a study to review the conclusions of the
Program EIR and the LSA study, and the draft statement of significance set
forth in the draft EIR. This study was conducted by Professor Walter E.
Howard, Professor Emeritus Wildlife Biology and Vertebrate Ecology, at the
University of California at Davis, who is regarded as a recognized expert in
coyotes and their habitat needs. A copy of this report, dated June 1992, is
contained in the Appendix B. Confirming the LSA observations reviewed in
the draft Program EIR, Professor Howard concludes that: "I do not see any
00073
DFW-11
DFW-12
danger, based on the [proposed project], that adequate coyote corridors in the
Upper Newport Bay will not remain permanently" and that "The proposed
project benefits the preservation of a corridor along San Diego Creek by
proposing to remove potential development from the San Diego Creek North
site and committing the area immediately adjacent to the San Diego Creek
for open space including possible habitat enhancement." Professor Howard's
conclusion supports the conclusion of the Program EIR that the proposed
project will carry out the USF&WS recommendation to the effect that "every
effort must be made to maintain the integrity of the existing wildlife corridors
along San Diego Creek and Big Canyon" (USF&WS letter at the top of p. 4.
Please note that Big Canyon is not affected by the proposed project and the
mouth of Big Canyon is protected by the Coastal permit condition that
resulted in the freshwater wetland creation program for that area). Please
refer to Response to Comment DFG-17.
As noted in the conclusions regarding significance of impact, the draft EIR
stated that the proposed project "could" have adverse impacts on coyote
presence rather than is likely to have such impacts. Professor Howard's study
corroborates the ISA analysis presented in the draft EIR and indicates that
the statement of "could" impact coyotes in the draft EIR may be excessively
conservative and that there is no definitive basis for concluding that the
proposed project is likely to cause significant impacts on coyote use of the
environs of Upper Newport Bay.
Comment noted. The potential impact of the project on the San Diego Creek
and Bonita Creek wildlife corridors was analyzed in the Program EIR and the
technical Biological Assessment. Mitigation measures have been recommend-
ed that will preserve access corridors for the coyote along Bonita and San
Diego Creeks. The project will not result in a significant adverse impact on
the functioning or viability of the San Diego Creek and Bonita Creek wildlife
corridors. In fact use of a portion of the San Diego Creek North site
(identified on Exhibit - as Area 1) for the San Diego Creek North Marsh
Creation project related to the San Joaquin Transportation Corridor project
should enhance the viability and wildlife value of the corridors. Please refer
also to Response to Comment TCA-2.
This comment is noted and will be included in the final records of the project
for review and consideration by the appropriate decision -makers.
00074
DFW-13
The Program EIR concluded that project -specific impacts resulting from an
incremental increase in urban pollutants would be minor (page 296) and
therefore would not result in a significant adverse impact. The Program EIR
did acknowledge that the project -related incremental increase in urban
pollutants in conjunction with other past present and reasonably foreseeable
future projects will incrementally contribute to a cumulative impact to water
quality in Newport Bay. Mitigation measures have been provided to mitigate
this contribution to a cumulative impact to the extent feasible. Please refer
to Responses to Comments COO-12, COO-13, and IP-5.
The statement in the draft EIR regarding incremental long-term cumulative
water quality impacts merely recites the fact that any development occurring
within the very large watershed of Upper Newport Bay has the potential to
contribute to long-term cumulative impacts. However, as the comment letter
from The Irvine Company, dated July 20, 1992 notes, the City of Newport
Beach and The Irvine Company have participated extensively in the 208
sediment control program for Upper Newport Bay, involving a considerable
expenditure of effort and funding of specific control and enhancement
measures. Participation in the 208 program is the most effective means of
addressing and mitigating cumulative development impacts on Upper Newport
Bay. The project proponent landowner correctly notes in the above
referenced letter that it is the only private landowner which has contributed
planning and funding to the 208 program, thereby addressing cumulative long-
term water quality impacts. Further, the proposed project provides significant
opportunities for further mitigating runoff by providing open space areas for
filtering runoff (see 'Proposed Guidance Specifying Management Measures
for Sources of Nonpoint Pollution in Coastal Waters," EPA, May 1991) and
by implementing the mitigation measures contained in the Program EIR (see
also Response to Comment COO-13).
Additionally, each parcel will be subject to the short-term and long-term
runoff control requirements of the stormwater NPDES program for construc-
tion sites currently being finalized by the SWRCB. Hence, specific mitigation
measures addressing cumulative impacts of development have already been
implemented and additional site specific review requirements will provide
further opportunities for addressing runoff at the project review level. Given
these permitting requirements and the factors reviewed above including the
City of Newport Beach's extensive participation in the 208 water quality
program for Upper Newport Bay, it is recognized that cumulative adverse
impacts to the water quality of Upper Newport Bay have been and continue
to be addressed in a comprehensive manner through the extensive participa-
tion of the two project sponsors, the City of Newport Beach and The Irvine
Company, in the 208 sediment control plan for Upper Newport Bay (including
the recently adopted San Diego Creek Flood Control Master Plan), and that
00075
DFW-14
DFW-15
DFW-16
site -specific runoff control measures, as noted above, are anticipated to
substantially reduce the projects contribution to cumulative impacts to the
extent feasible. Accordingly, the City does not agree that the potential water
quality impacts of the proposed project could constitute a "take" under the
federal Endangered Species Act. We disagree that the Endangered Species
Act definition of "take" should be extended to provide the United States Fish
and Wildlife Service regulatory authority over urban runoff, beyond the
specific permitting program established under the federal Clean Water Act.
The City is unaware of any authority supporting this comment. Control of
urban pollutants in urban runoff is not within the province of the Service, but
instead is subject to specific control and review under the Clean Water Act.
No loss of wetlands on the Freeway Reservation site is anticipated from the
development of residential uses. As discussed on page 266 of the Program
EIR, if any improvements in the public open space area impact the small (.56
acres) freshwater marsh a significant adverse impact could occur. Since no
specific information is available at this time regarding the design or exact uses
within the public open space areas more specific mitigation than that already
provided in the Program EIR is not possible. The Program EIR agrees with
the conclusion that impacts to the freshwater marsh are mitigable. Please
refer to mitigation measures 15, 16, 17, and 23.
The Program EIR agrees with the conclusion that there will be potential
impacts on the Upper Castaways and Bayview Landing sites and that these
impacts are mitigable. These impacts will occur from development of
residential and commercial uses in addition to development and use of public
open space and recreational uses and other public facilities. Mitigation has
been provided to address these impacts. Please refer to mitigation measures
15, 16, 17, 18, 20, 23, 24, and 25.
Comment noted. If the Development Agreement and related P.C. Texts are
approved, all development entitlement will be removed from the site. It is
acknowledged that in the Program EIR that any use beyond passive nature
observation and study may have significant adverse effects, depending any the
level of intrusion and intensity of use. The CIOSA Agreement indicates that
potential development uses suggested in the comment is not a part of this
Agreement and such development is not expected to occur on this site.
This comment is noted and will be included in the final records of the project
DFW--17
i
DFW-19
for review and consideration by the appropriate decision -makers. No
significant use of the Jamboree/MacArthur site is proposed. The primary use
of the site is proposed as preservation, restoration, and creation of habitat and
wetlands.
Given the limited uses proposed for the Jamboree/MacArthur site, substantial
increased human intrusion is not expected. No pedestrian access is proposed.
Please see Response to Comment DFW-16.
The commentor has incorrectly quoted a summary of the ISA, Inc. study
which was prepared separately from the Program EIR. The Program EIR did
not state that the ISA study found that it is not known if such a relationship
existed at Upper Newport Bay. The Program EIR stated that the LSA study
did not make any findings in regard to this issue. Further, the Program EIR
itself recognizes that there is the potential for an important predator -prey
relationship involving the coyote in Upper Newport Bay. To the City's
knowledge, the applicant has no wish to refute this assumption. The Program
EIR does conclude that subsequent to mitigation the proposed project will not
have significant adverse impacts on the wildlife corridors used by the coyotes
in Upper Newport Bay. Please refer to Responses to Comments DFW-10 and
DFW-17 for further discussion on this issue.
The potential impacts to the coastal sage scrub habitat of the California
gnatcatcher on the Newporter North site will not occur as a result of
development of the residential entitlement to be vested by approval of the
CIOSA Agreement. All residential development must adhere to the City's
Bluff Setback Ordinance. The CIOSA Development Agreement does not
require or permit the applicant to grade within the area identified with coastal
sage scrub habitat. The potential impacts to coastal sage scrub may result
from the bluff stabilization/remediation necessary to provide for public safety
along the bluffs when these areas provide public open space in the form of
public trail systems and a view park. These stabilization activities would be
necessary regardless of whether residential development occurs on Newporter
North. Approval of the CIOSA Agreement and related P.C. Texts does not
approve any grading concept or activity for the bluffs. At the time grading
design is determined by the City of Newport Beach full review by the City
decision -makers (including environmental evaluations) will occur. Any
grading necessary for bluff stabilization will also require an individual coastal
development permit from the California Coastal Commission.
00077
VoTaffliffni
W �I.
Mitigation has been provided to reduce the potential impact on the resident
gnatcatchers population from bluff stabilization/remediation necessary to
improve public safety along the bluffs (this area will be in public open space).
The San Diego Creek and Bonita Creek wildlife corridors will not be
significantly impacted by implementation of this project (please refer to
response to comment DFW - 11).
The San Diego Creek is 239 wide between the San Diego Creek North and
San Diego Creek South sites. No intrusion into this corridor will occur as a
result of this project. In fact, dedication of at least 2 acres to the TCA on the
San Diego Creek North site is proposed for a Marsh Creation project which
will enhance the functioning of the corridor. Also recent MWD bonding
studies show that gnatcatchers can disperse up to 9 miles and studies in San
Diego show that they disperse through residential neighborhoods and across
divided highways. The San Diego Creek and Bonita Creek corridor will
remain functionally intact. With the corridor's proximity to upstream coastal
sage scrub habitat in UCI and bonita Canyon areas, it is reasonable to expect
that there will be opportunities to replenish any temporary loss of California
gnatcathers in the Upper Newport Bay as long as coastal sage habitat is
maintained. The Consequently, it is not reasonable to expect that the entire
population of gnatcatchers in Upper Newport Bay will extirpate from the Bay.
Please also refer to Response to Comment CNPS-28.
There is no contradiction. The Program EIR analyzed the project at the level
of detail available at this level of review. No specific or conceptual grading
plans were available. Certain assumptions had to be made for the purposes
of the impact analysis. The assumptions regarding grading were contained in
the footnote on the exhibits in the section. Subsequent to the impact analysis,
mitigation measures were formulated to address potential impacts as
identified in the impact analysis. Mitigation measure 18 provides restrictions
on grading activities. Please refer to Response to Comment DFW-19.
The establishment of the boundaries of the development area reflect a myriad
of opportunities and constraints. Public views across the site to the Pacific
Ocean is only one of many issues. "Pulling back" the development area to
avoid blocking public views of the ocean wasnot provided with a trade-off in
other areas of the boundaries which could effect significant biological
resources. Other concerns which effected the location of the development
area include but are not limited to the sensitivity and avoidance of the John
Wayne Gulch habitat; sensitivity and avoidance of coastal sage scrub habitat;
provision of public open space and park uses; the sensitivity of onsite
freshwater marsh habitat; onsite archaeological resources; and the sensitivity
00078
DFW-22
and stability of onsite coastal bluffs.
With regard to habitat corridor functions, the open space provided for on the
San Diego Creek South parcel has been carefully integrated with the Bonita
Creek habitat/wildlife movement corridor planned and committed to by the
TCA in conjunction with the CEQA/NEPA review of the SJHTC. As noted
in the draft EIR, the project will not significantly affect the important wildlife
corridor connection between the Upper Bay and San Joaquin Marsh for
wildlife use including gnatcatchers.
Mitigation measures 18, 22, 23, and 24 of the Program EIR address the issue
of impacts to the San Diego Creek South parcel. The project as proposed
assumes that the property line/development area boundary will be established
at the top of the existing slope, adjacent to Bonita Creek. This is a minimum
of 2Y from the toe of the existing slope adjacent to Bonita Creek. When
combined with the building setback of 5 feet, a 25 foot buffer area will be
created. The following mitigation measure has been added related to the
buffer area for the San Diego Creek South site:
82. At the time of adoption of a parcel/subdivision map for the San Diego
Creek South Site, the property line/development area boundary shall
be established at a minimum of 20 feet from the toe of the existing
slope adjacent to Bonita Creek. This distance, in combination with the
required building setback of 5 feet, will create a minimum 25 foot
buffer from Bonita Creek.
As required by mitigation measure 22, the site plan and landscape plan for
the San Diego Creek South Site will be prepared in consultation with a City -
approved, qualified biologist. In addition to providing a buffer area, other
measures can serve to mitigate impacts on the adjacent corridors, including
but not limited to sensitive siting of lighted buildings, use of lighting systems
which conceal the light source; provision of screening walls/berms; and
appropriate dense landscaping to provide cover and reduce human intrusion.
Please refer also to Response to Comment DFW-11.
Please note that the anticipated setback requirements for this site are
generally comparable to the setbacks required by the California Coastal
Commission on the J. M. Peters Bayview Project.
DFW-23
Although 88% of the site is proposed for development (consistent with the
City General Plan), the sensitive habitat within Bonita Creek has been
excluded from the development area and will be dedicated to the City of
00079
DFW-24
DFW-25
DFW-26
Newport Beach. The area which will be developed has been completely
graded and recontoured as part of the placement of artificial fill in association
with the Upper Newport Back Bay dredging operations during the 1980s.
This portion of the site supports only ruderal vegetation. The Program EIR
concludes that all potential impacts from development on San Diego Creek
South can be mitigated to a level of insignificance. In addition, the alterna-
tives chapter of the Program EIR analyzes other Alternatives which assume
the reduction or elimination of development on San Diego Creek South.
Comment noted. The portion of the site which is closest to the San Diego
Creek (Area 1) will be designated for preservation, restoration, and creation
of habitat and wetlands areas and ecological research. It is expected that the
approximate 2-acre will be the site of the San Diego Creek North Marsh
Creation project related to the San Joaquin Transportation Corridor project.
The marsh creation project is expected to enhance the viability and wildlife
value of the corridors. Areas located closer to existing or future major
transportation facilities (e.g. Jamboree Road and the future San Joaquin
Transportation Corridor are expected to contain a mixture of open space and
public facilities (e.g. fire stations, park and ride, and roadways).
The biological assessment did give due consideration to the "extremely high
biological value of the Bay". Mitigation measures have been provided where
necessary to reduce impacts to the extent feasible. Please refer also to
Responses to Comments DFW-3 and DFW-4.
Given the extraordinary and extensive participation of the parties to be
signatory to the proposed agreements in regional and sub -regional habitat
protection programs for Upper Newport Bay as referenced in Response to
Comment DFW-3, and the extensive open space areas to be assured by the
proposed project, the City disagrees with the USF&WS assertion regarding a
lack of understanding regarding islolation of natural areas. Likewise, the draft
Program EIR contains an extensive analysis of mesopredator relationships and
issues, a discussion whose conclusions have been corroborated by one of the
leading experts in the field of coyote behavior. (Please refer to Response to
Comment DFW-10.
This comment is noted and will be included in the final records of the project
for review and consideration by the appropriate decision -makers.
00080
Given the recent decision in the Lucas case, it would be helpful to the City
if the USF&WS could indicate whether the United States government is
Letter 9
DFG
STATE OF CALIFORNIA—THE RESOURCES AGENCY PETE WILSON Goxmor
rDEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME PLANNING DEPARTMENT
330 Golden Shore,, Suite 50 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH +
Long Beach, California 90802
(310) 590-5113
. AM AUG G 1992 PM
71819110Ill 112111213141516
August 4, 1992 4
Ms. Patricia Temple
Environmental Planning Division
3300 Newport Blvd.
Newport Beach, California 92663
Circulation Improvement and Open Space Agreement:
Draft Program Environmental Impact Report - SCH 91041017
Dear Ms. Temple:
The Department of Fish and Game (Department) welcomes the
opportunity to comment on the Draft Program Environmental Impact
Report (DDEIR) for the Circulation Improvement and Open Space
Agreement for the, City of Newport Beach. Due to the unique and 1DFG-1
sensitive nature of"the Newport Bay Ecological Reserve (UMBER) and
the potential for'permanent and irrevocable damages to this area
from the proposed project, the Department offers the following
advice to guide your planning efforts.
The proposed Circulation Improvement and Open Space Agreement
will assemble eleven sites owned by The Irvine Company (TIC) into
a single development application around the Upper Newport Bay. The
Agreement also includes improvements to MacArthur Boulevard between 'DFG-2
Ford Road and the future alignment of the San Joaquin Hills .
Transportation Corridor within the City of Irvine. The Agreement,
if approved, would vest entitlement for the 11 sites.
The development of these sites, specifically, San Diego Creek
North and South, Jamboree/MacArthur, and Newporter North is
minatory to the Bay in that this action will adversely affect its
ability to function as a viable Ecological Reserve. Development of DFG-3
the remaining sites have significantly fewer adverse impacts to the
sensitive species and habitats of the UNBER and consequently would '
not severely threaten the integrity of the Ecological Reserve.
The certification of the Program DEIR is listed as a priority
in this document. The acceptance of this environmental document as
having been prepared in compliance with, the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines, and IDFG-4
certification that the biological data will be considered in final
decisions on the project, should assure that the PDEIR is adequate
and complete. 0682
Ms. Patricia Temple
August 4, 1992
Page Two
This DPEIR does not adequately consider the proximity' of
several of these parcels to the UNBER and the consequent adverse
affects that development of these areas would have on the sensitive
wildlife and habitat resources as well as several state and
federally -listed endangered species. A specific objective listed
in the DPEIR, p.33, states that the City of Newport Beach desires
to achieve dedication for preservation of environmentally sensitive
areas. If this objective is to be met, it is imperative that the
determination of the those areas deemed as, "environmentally
sensitive", should be based on sound biological fact and should be
consistent with the standards set forth by the Department and the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife service. This would represent a good faith
effort on behalf of the City of Newport Beach in its attempt to
balance the competing needs of protecting the areas sensitive
biological resources and the development objectives set forth in
this DPEIR. The protection of environmentally sensitive areas via
dedication, would enable the City of Newport Beach to meet its
objectives and to ensure that the DPEIR is adequate and complete
based on State CEQA Guidelines.
General Comments
The Department has the legal responsibility for protecting and
conserving the States' fish and wildlife resources pursuant to
Section 1600 of the Fish and Game Code. The code states that:
"The protection and conservation of the fish and wildlife
resources of this state are hereby declared to be of utmost
public interest. Fish and wildlife are the property of the
people and provide a major contribution to the economy of the
state as well as providing a significant part of the peoples"
food supply and therefore their conservation is a proper
responsibility of the state. This chapter is enacted to
provide such conservation for these resources."
The Upper Newport Bay is considered to be one of the premier
birding sites in North America; the City of Newport Beach realizes
direct economic benefits from this tourist based trade.
Additionally, the Bay functions as a nursery for numerous fish
species which are eventually harvested by local anglers; thereby
contributing to the areas' economic health.
Due to the economic contributions generated by the Upper
Newport Bay to the City of Newport Beach, it would be reasonable to
assume that the City would not want to encourage any development
that could adversely affect these resources. 'Furthermore, based on
these contributions, the Department finds that this is an extremely
valuable resource which deserves to be protected for future use.
Any development which threatens the integrity of this area to
function in these capacities is not supported by the Department.
DFG-5
Ms. Patricia Temple
August 4: 1992
Page Three
The Upper Newport Bay is designated by the Department as a
"Significant Natural Area" pursuant to the Fish and Game Code,
Sections 1930-1933 and the passage of Significant Natural Areas
legislation (Assembly Bill 1039). This legislation requires the
Department to meet five significant goals relating to biological
diversity. These include:
Identification of the most significant natural areas of the
state;
Ensure the recognition of these areas;
Seek the long-term protection of these areas, and
Provide coordinating services for other public and private
conservation organizations interested in protecting natural
areas.
The resources present at the Upper Newport Bay which in part
are responsible for its designated status are the following:
. Element
Light -Footed Clapper Rail
Rallus lonairostris levipes
California Least Tern
Sterna antillarum browni
Status
Federal/State Endangered
Federal/State Endangered
Belding's Savannah Sparrow Federal Cat 2/State Endangered
Passerculus sandwichensis beldingi
California Gnatcatcher
Polioptila californica
Mimic ,Tryonia
Tryonia imitator
Aphanisma
Aphanisma blitoides
Federal Cat 2
Federal Cat 2
Federal Cat 2
Salt Marsh Bird's Beak Federal/State Endangered
Cordylanthus maritimus.s_sp maritimus
Southern Coastal Salt Marsh
7
In an effort to assist the4Department in reaching its goals to
protect this Significant Natural Area, it is imperative that the 1
City of Newport Beach limit the amount of disturbance to this area DFG-8
by restricting development to those areas possessing fewer
biologically sensitive resources.
as 84
Ms. Patricia Temple
August 4, 1992
Page Four
If serious consideration is given to these recommendations,
the DPEIR may more adequately and completely address impacts to
biological resources and therefore would be more consistent with
State CEQA Guidelines and would meet the City's objectives.
The Upper Newport Bay is an area of diverse biological
resources represented by sensitive and unique wildlife and habitat DFG-8
types which provide invaluable economic, aesthetic, and educational
to the area. However, its close proximity to a highly urbanized
area poses a great threat to its continued existence. Because this
area is highly accessible the adverse impacts of human disturbance
are serious. Therefore, caution must be exercised so that
additional development in this area does not jeopardize its
continued existence.
A primary factor in ensuring the preservation of sensitive and
endangered species and maintaining biodiversity at the Upper
Newport Bay lies in the retention and enhancement of wildlife
corridors. While direct habitat destruction is the most
significant threat to the survival of sensitive and endangered
species, the fragmentation and isolation of habitat remains a
significant menace to the continued existence of these species.
The enhancement of existing wildlife corridors would help to
preserve the ecological bond between wetland and associated
uplands. Wetlands generally exist as biologically valuable
components of larger aggregations of biological communities
including a variety of upland communities. Wetlands and associated
uplands complement one another. Numerous animals found in wetland
areas generally are partially dependent upon associated uplands.
Elimination of the ecological bond between wetlands and associated
uplands often reduces the value of wetlands to fish and wildlife
resources. Failure to retain this ecological bond between wetland
and associated uplands will result in the creation of isolated
wetland enclaves scattered throughout a highly urbanized area, and
will result in indirect loss of wetland habitat values.
The acreage present in the Upper Newport Bay is not large
enough to sustain the continuous presence of predators such as the
coyote.(Canis latrans). The successful retention of this species
would require the retention and enhancement of the existing
wildlife corridors. The coyote influences the presence of meso-
predators such as the red fox (Vulpes vulbes), feral cats and
raccoons. In the absence of the coyote, ,populations of these
animals could escalate. The survival of the California least tern,
the light-footed clapper rail, the Belding's savannah sparrow, all
of which are endangered species, are at great risk when the
populations of these meso-predators are not regulated by a top
predator such as coyotes.
DFG-9
Ms. Patricia Temple
August 4, 1992
Page Five
Every effort should be made to maintain the integrity of the
existing wildlife corridors along the San Diego Creek and Big
Canyon. Not only have coyotes been documented to use these
corridors, other species, such as the California gnatcatcher also
utilize these areas as movement corridors. This has been DFG-9
documented by U.S. Fish and Wildlife Enhancement biologists. This
movement fosters genetic exchange which ensures the health and
hence survival of wildlife populations. Management decisions need
to be made in the context of a comprehensive regional management
plan which maintains wildlife corridors between the Upper Newport
Bay and adjacent natural areas, including, but not limited to the
San Joaquin Marsh, UCI Ecological Reserve and Mason Regional Park.
Specific Comments
This project as proposed will have significant adverse effects
on the sensitive wildlife and habitat resources in several on the
proposed sites. In - accordance with CEQA Guidelines, Appendix G,
the following significant effects have a high probability of
occurring as a result of implementation of the proposed actions
specified in the DPEIR:
Substantially affect a rare or endangered species of animal DFG-10
or plant or the habitat of the species; 11
Interfere substantially with the movement of any resident or
migratory fish or wildlife species, and
Substantially diminish habitat for fish, wildlife or plants.
San Diego Creek North and South
The proposed development for San Diego Creek North and South
will produce significant level of disturbance to the wildlife
corridor which links the•Upper Newport Bay with the San Joaquin
Marsh and other significant upland habitats. Maintenance of the
integrity of this corridor, as previously discussed, is of
paramount importance to the Department. San Diego Creek South
contains the junction of two corridors, Bonita Creek and San Diego
Creek. Bonita Creek is lined with mature native riparian
vegetation. This is a significant resource due to the depletion of.
this habitat type in Southern California. As proposed, development
in this area will approach the edge of this habitat, thus greatly
reducing its value as a wildlife corridor. The preservation of the
wildlife corridor on the San Diego Creek must be assured. Adequate
mitigation measures must be undertaken prior to construction
activities so that the continued use by coyotes and other sensitive
wildlife can be guaranteed.
DFG-11
1
Ms. Patricia Temple
August 4, 1992
Page Six
The mitigation measures proposed for this site in the DPEIR on
pp. 268-9 are not adequate in that no specific plans or proposals
exist in this document. Any mitigation plans should be included in DFG 12
the DPEIR so that an adequate review and assessment of the level of.
significance of the project related impacts may be rendered by the
Department.
Consideration of the following recommendations should be
incorporated into any mitigation planning efforts in an attempt to
reduce the level of significance of project related impacts to fish
and wildlife resources. The Department concurs with the statement
that development on the San Diego reek South site shall be designed
so as to reduce the amount of light and glare which will affect the
wetland habitats of Bonita and San Diego Creeks. Landscaping the
edge of the habitats should be accomplished only with native
vegetation indigenous to that area. The use of evergreen species
is not acceptable for this area. Protection of the edge of this
habitat is absolutely critical in an effort to maintain 'the
integrity of the corridor. Therefore, adequate buffers adjacent to
all areas containing riparian habitat are essential. The minimum
buffer acceptable in this application is 25 feet, however a buffer
as wide as 200' feet may be required in some areas to maintain
biological viability of the habitat. -
DFG-la,
Because this area supports an essential wildlife corridor, the
Department considers this to be more biologically significant than f,'.
other areas proposed in the DPEIR. Approximately 88% of this area DFG-14
is scheduled for development, whereas, areas with significantly
lower wildlife values are not to be as extensively developed. For
example, only 31% of Bay View Landing and 39% of the Freeway
Reservation is to be developed.
Newoorter North
The Newporter North site consists of 89.2 acres of area which
still retain significant biological value and contributes to the
overall biological integrity of the Bay. These values include, but
are not limited to, raptor foraging areas, freshwater marshes,
-•
gnatcatcher habitat and nesting sites, and coyote foraging and
denning areas. A biologist with the Department made a site visit
DFG-15
to this area on July 3, 1992 with biologist S. Gregory Nelson and
---°
observed several pairs of gnatcatchers with fledglings,
regurgitated pellets from raptors foraging in the area, a
tremendous amount of coyote scat and a coyote denning site.
The Department concurs with S. .Gregory Nelson, 11... that
development comes sufficiently close to the den location so as to
I�
have a high likelihood that it would be abandoned..." (Vol. II;
OFG -16;
Appendix E). The Department disagrees with the analysis that the
30 acres to be developed represents only 7. of the foraging area of
this family group. ON1Q
8 7
I
Ms. Patricia Temple
August 4, 1992
Page Seven
Further detriment to the coyotes, continued presence at the
Bay is evidenced in the Biology Report which acknowledges that the DFG-16
coyote utilizes'the corridor at the San Diego Creek which is partly
scheduled for development in this DPEIR.
With the potential extirpation of the coyote from the Bay due
to this development, the light-footed clapper rail population will
be exposed to additional threat from meso-predators, as previously
mentioned. Based on this worse case scenario, it is reasonable to DFG-17
assume that the cumulative effects of the development along the San -""--
Diego Creek channel the Newporter North site will have a
significant negative effect on the wildlife values present at the
Bay.
Newporter Resort, Block 800, Corporate Plaza West and Freeway
Reservation
These sites have considerable reduced biological values as
compared to the other sites. However, there are impacts associated
with the development of these sites which deserve serious
consideration with respect to adequate mitigation measures. On
page 293, Vol. I, it is stated, "...all eleven sites drain into the
Newport Bay..."; resulting in increased levels of urban pollutants DFG-18
such as heavy metals, pesticides and herbicides. It is not
acceptable -that this DPEIR states on page 421, Vol. I, that,
" ..the proposed project will have an incremental long-term impact
on water quality in Newport Bay due to increased urban pollutants."
Specific mitigation measures should be proposed to offset this
effect. This pollution degrades the habitat of two endangered
species, the least tern and the light-footed clapper rail whose
survival at the Bay is dependent upon the quality of the water. __
The Upper Newport Bay is one of the few remaining coastal
wetlands in Southern California, and it plays a significant role in
the preservation of'marine fisheries and provides critical habitat
for migratory waterfowl and shorebirds as well as endangered plant
species. A primary goal of the Department as the trustee agency DFG-19
for the State's wildlife resources is the maintenance of ecological .
diversity. Furthermore, it is the Department's policy to oppose
the authorization of projects which would result in a net loss of
either wetland acreage or wetland habitat values. Due to the small
size of Orange County and its heavily urbanized nature, biological
resources in the County are of utmost concern to the Department.
The Department requests a copy of your response to comments
and/or the final environmental document immediately upon approval.
I 1l
Ms. Pat Temple
August 4, 1992
Page Eight
Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on this
project. If you have any questions, please contact Ms. Cheryl
Heffley of the Wildlife Management staff at (310) 694-3578.
Sincerely,
cc: State Clear
Dick Zembal
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS MADE BY DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME
DFG-1
DFG-2
DFG-3
DFG-4
DFG-S
Please refer to Response to Comment DFW-1.
Please refer to Response to Comment DFW-2.
Please refer to Response to Comment DFW-3.
Please refer to Response to Comment DFW-4.
The Program EIR does adequately consider the proximity of several of the
project sites to the Upper Newport Bay Ecological Reserve (please refer to
Responses to Comments DFW41, DFW-3, and DFW-9). The biological
analysis was based on "sound biological fact." As discussed in Response to
Comment DFW-1, the biological analysis was prepared in consultation with
respected biological consultants who possess extensive experience in the
ecology of the Upper Newport Bay and similar habitats. An extensive data
search was conducted and all available, pertinent research material related to
the Upper Newport Bay was reviewed and considered. Both the Department
of Fish and Game and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service was contacted
during the Notice of Preparation phase of the environmental process. Neither
agency has provided biological research data which questions the conclusions
of the Program EIR.
Both the project applicant and the City of Newport Beach are well aware of
the sensitivity and importance of the biological resources in the Upper
Newport Bay. This recognition has shaped both the City's project objectives
as stated in the Program EIR as well as the ultimate configuration of the
'development areas defined in the CIOSA Agreement and the related P.C.
Text. It appears that the commentor may not be fully aware of the extensive
dedication of vacant land for open space purposes that will result from
approval of the CIOSA Agreement. As discussed in the project description,
over 140 acres of vacant land will be dedicated in fee to the City of Newport
Beach for open space purposes. Within this open space dedication area, are
the significant environmentally sensitive areas contained in the project sites.
These include: John Wayne gulch wetlands and upland habitat on Newporter
00090
DFG-6
DFG-7
DFG-8
North and Newporter Knoll; the coastal buffs along Newporter North and
Upper Castaways; all onsite coastal sage scrub habitat including all areas
supporting the California gnatcatcher; major wetlands including on the
Jamboree/MacArthur, San Diego Creek North, and San Diego Creek South
sites (in addition to the forementioned John Wayne Gulch); the wildlife
corridors along San Diego Creek and Bonita Creeks. The project will result
in the removal of office entitlement from the San Diego Creek North and
Jamboree/MacArthur sites which is currently allowed by the City's General
Plan and adopted Land Use Plan of the Local Coastal Program.
Further, as discussed in Response to Comment DFW-9, the proposed P.C.
Texts require that all development be setback on the Upper Castaways and
Newporter North sites to a distance consistent with the City's Bluff Setback
Criteria which was prepared with full consultation with interested resource
agencies.
These features of the CIOSA Agreement and related P.C. Text demonstrate
that the City of Newport Beach and the applicant have made a good faith
effort to balance the competing needs of protecting the sensitive biological
resources of the Upper Newport Bay with the development objectives setforth
in the Program EIR. Please also refer to Response to Comment DFW-3
which discusses the plans, programs and projects that have involved both the
City of Newport Beach and the applicant which demonstrate a strong and
continuing commitment to the protection and enhancement of the functional-
ity of Upper Newport Bay as a viable ecological reserve.
Comment noted. Please refer to Response to
Program EIR does not find that the proposed
significant integrity of the Upper Newport Bay.
Comment DFG-5. The
project will threaten the
This comment is noted and will be included in the final records of the project
for review and consideration by the appropriate decision -makers.
No southern coastal salt marsh is within the development areas identified by
the CIOSA Agreement and related P.C. Texts. The salt marsh is contained
within the area proposed for dedication in fee as open space. No direct or
indirect impacts to coastal salt marsh is anticipated. Please refer to Response
to Comment DFG-5 regarding the project's avoidance of environmentally
sensitive areas.
00091
DFG-9
DFG-10
DFG-11
DFG-12
DFG-13
DFG-14
DFG-15
Please refer to Responses to Comments DFW-11, 22, and 24.
This comment serves as an introductory summary of the site by site comments
that follow. Please refer to Responses to Comments DFG-11-19 for specific
responses to the issues raised. In general, this introductory statement does
not accurately reflect the findings of the Program EIR regarding the
significance of potential impacts subsequent to implementation of mitigation
measures. In particular, there is not basis in the Program EIR to assert that
the project will substantially interfere with the movement of any resident or
migratory fish or wildlife species. Potential impacts to populations of
California Gnatcatchers may occur only as a result of possible bluff stabiliza-
tion necessary to provide safe public access to public open space areas. These
impacts are not a result of the location or development of residential land
uses. Mitigation has been provided to substantially reduce these impacts.
Please refer to Response to Comments SPON-38. No other rare or
endangered species of animal is anticipated to significantly be impacted by
development within the identified development areas. With preservation of
over 140 acres of vacant land for open space containing all environmentally
sensitive areas, the project is not considered to substantially diminish habitat
for fish, wildlife or plants. Please refer to Response to Comment DFG-5.
Please refer to Responses to Comments DFW-11, 22, and 24.
Please refer to Responses to Comments DFW-22 and SPON-2, 5, and 40.
Please refer to Response to Comment DFW-22.
Please refer to Responses to Comments DFW-11 and 23.
This comment is noted and will be included in the final records of the project
for review and consideration by the appropriate decision -makers.
DFG-16
DFG-17
DFG-18
DFG-19
The Department of Fish and Game may disagree with the statement made in
the Program EIR but it has not provided any supporting data to support this
assertion or to provide a basis for any other estimate. Please note that the
Program EIR states that the 30 acres in question represent 7% of the more
than 450 acres of undeveloped upland habitat around the Bay which serves as
a significant foraging area. It does not assert that this is the entire foraging
area for the coyote. As demonstrated in radio -telemetry data collected on an
adult male captured in the Upper Newport Bay (Zembal, 1990), the coyote
population is known to also forage up Big Canyon into the San Joaquin Hills.
Consequently, the 30 acres of upland habitat on the Newporter North
probably represents less than 7% of the total foraging habitat.
The Program EIR does acknowledge that the coyote population is assumed
to use the San Diego Creek wildlife corridor. The Program EIR does not
acknowledge a significant adverse impact on the functioning of the wildlife
corridors in San diego or bonita Creeks. "Further detriment to the coyotes'
continued presence at the Bay" is not evidenced in the Program EIR. Please
refer Responses to Comments DFW-3, DFW-22, and DFW-22.
The Program EIR recognizes the possibility that the coyote population may
stop using the denning site on the Newporter North site which may cause the
coyote population to abandon the Upper Newport Bay area. The Program
EIR does not state that development adjacent to the San Diego Creek and
Bonita Creek wildlife corridors (there will be no development within the
corridors) will effect the desirability of the Upper Newport Bay for use by
coyote populations. No evidence has been provided to contradict this
conclusion. Please refer to Response to Comment DFG-16. Consequently,
the Program EIR does not assume that "cumulative effects of the development
along the San Diego Creek channel [and] the Newporter North site will have
a significant negative effect on the wildlife values present at the Bay." NO
evidence has been provided to support this assertion of cumulative impacts.
Please refer also to Response to Comment DFW-10 regarding the potential
significance of impacts related to coyotes.
Please refer to Response to Comment DFW-13.
This comment is noted and will be included in the final records of the project
for review and consideration by the appropriate decision -makers.
00093
Letter 10 RECtl._,
SPON PLANNING DEPARTMENT
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
AM . JUL 1'.' 1992
COMMENTS SUBMITTED BY 7�8�9�10�ll�12�1�213�4�5PM
STOP POLLUTING OUR NEWPORT
ON THE t
DRAFT EIR FOR
THE PROPOSED
N IMPROVEMENT & OPEN SPACE AGREEMENT
July 15, 1992
The following comments on the Draft Environmental Impact
Report ("DEIR") on the proposed Circulation Improvement & Open
Space Agreement ("Project") are submitted by Stop Polluting Our
Newport ("SPON"). SPON's general comments are set forth in the
introduction followed by specific comments regarding questions and
concerns about the DEIR.
I. INTRODUCTION
It would not be possible to overstate the importance of
these last remaining open space lands to the residents of Newport
Beach; both for their visual and useable (in the case of
Castaways) open space qualities,' as well as for their regional
habitat values. On the other hand, development of these sites
will virtually be forever. The consideration of "vesting" rights SP.ON 1
to develop these properties must be given the greatest thought and
attention to details. It is for these reasons that the DEIR is
terribly disappointing. EIR's are, first and foremost, for the
basic purpose of providing information to the decision -makers and
the public regarding their choices for alternative development
scenarios.
Specifically, the DEIR fails to provide adequate details
about the project and as a result leaves decision -makers and the
public in the dark about the true nature of likely impacts., For
example, uniquely, this DEIR does not contain any visual graphics
of the proposed development on the respective Sites. See attached
examples where detailed development plans were lacking, but
building envelopes known, Attachment A. The visual quality of
many of these sites to the community of is paramount concern.
Yet, conclusions are reached about the disposition of potential
impacts without documentation. Worse than the absence of evidence
to support conclusions about visual impacts, is the lack of any
tools in the DEIR to address potential alternatives to the siting
and design of development.
The lack of adequate detail in the project description
and analysis of impacts pervades the DEIR. Other-- topical areas
where sufficient detail is lacking to warrant granting a vested
right for development include but are not limited to geotechnical
issues, grading, light and glare. These defects make reasoned
1
00094
decision -making •and public participation impossible. SPON's overall recommendation therefore, is that this DEIR be completely SPON1
revised, based on the specific comments below.
II. SUMMARY OF DEIR DEFICIENCIES
Inadequate Project Detail. The level of detail and information
in the DEIR and the project description do not correspond to the
level of approvals proposed to be based on the DEIR.
Specifically, the applicant is requesting that in reliance on this
"program EIR" development entitlements be vested for the
properties. SPON does not believe that a program EIR level of
environmental review is appropriate for granting a vested right.
Moreover, SPON believes that the "Circulation Improvement and Open
Space Agreement" document requires "project -level" environmental
review. The result of this action would be a permanent
foreclosure of future agency discretion or public review, based
on the vesting approvals. For these reasons, SPON believes a
project -level EIR must be prepared. If SPON's opinion in this
respect is disregarded, please identify specific reasons in the
response to these comments regarding why the program EIR is
appropriate.
Lack of Evidence/Analysis to Support Conclusions. Many of the
DEIR's conclusions that impacts are --or more precisely will be --
insignificant are unsupported and contrary to the evidence. For
example, it is illogical that mitigation measures can eliminate
significant impacts associated with faulting and seismicity.
While modern seismic design criteria and construction methods
should reduce potential impacts of seismic'shaking to levels short
of structure collapse, significant damage to structures and damage
and disruption of infrastructure and services will occur as a
result of a major earthquake in the area. Furthermore, it is
difficult to understand this conclusion in light of the unknown
nature of the geology and soils characteristics of the sites.
Among other "insignificant impacts after mitigation," SPON
believes the City must change this impact, as well as the
cumulative impact related to seismicity, to significant and
unavoidable to avoid liability in the future. -
SPON 2
SPON 3
No Analysis of Cumulative Impacts. The DEIR contains virtually
no analysis of cumulative impacts including the cumulative impacts
of this project in connection with other projects on loss of SPON 4
wetlands, fragmentation of the regional ecosystem, loss of open
space, water quality, seismic impacts and availability of public
services (e.g. water). These are among the most significant
impacts of the project.
Unjustified Reliance on Mitigation Measures..A key aspect of the t
project is the protection of wildlife areas and the vegetation and 'SPOWS
wildlife mitigation measures. Yet the DEIR contains none of the
information necessary to analyze whether the proposed replacement
2 00095
and revegetation programs have any chance of being successful. ISPON 5
Lack of Adequate Analysis of Alternatives. In formulating a
"reasonable range of alternatives," the City does not seem to have
focused on options that could substantially lessen or avoid the
significant environmental effects of the project. In addition,
alternatives appear to have been formulated in a manner that
provided an avenue for justifying their infeasibility. Also, the SPON 6
DEIR fails to identify the environmentally superior alternative
as required by CEQA. (e.g. the DEIR suggests that the reduced
development alternative is superior to the project, but does not
identify the environmentally superior alternative.)
III. A REVISED DEIR MUST BE PREPARED AND CIRCULATED
If the City intends to pursue approval of a vested entitlement as
part of this project, a project -level EIR must be prepared. In
any case, a revised DEIR will be required in order to remedy the
deficiencies of the DEIR. In summary, the following major
categories of defects compel revision and recirculation:
The level of detail contained in the DEIR is
l
insufficient to permit action on the vesting approvals SPON 7
requested by the developer;
Numerous major project impacts, including the impacts
of then: proposed circulation improvements, are not
disclosed;
Cumulative impacts are not adequately analyzed. Nor are
mitigation measures for significant cumulative impacts
included in the DEIR; and
The disposition of a number of impacts should be changed
to significant and unavoidable, such a impacts resulting
from a major earthquake.
Finally, as discussed in more detail below, the DEIR has
failed to satisfy the major purpose of the alternatives analysis
requirement. In addition, it has failed to articulate an
environmentally superior alternative based upon significant
project impacts.
IV. THE DEIR IS INADEQUATE
The central purpose of an EIR is to provide public
agencies and the public with detailed information about the
effects which the proposed project may have on the environment; SPON 8
to list ways in which the significant effects ofwthe project might
be reduced or eliminated and to indicate alternatives to the "
project. This DEIR fails to accomplish these basic purposes for
the reasons described herein.
3 00096
A. The DEIR Contains An Inadequate Project Description
The project description in the DEIR omits information
that is key to an adequate project description where vested rights
and planned community texts/amendments are part of the proposed
actions. Specific information missing from the DEIR includes, but
is not limited to the following:
Sufficiently detailed information about project grading.SPON 8
The areas of the sites to be developed and the proposed
intensity of development is identified in sufficient
detail to have provided information about the extent of
grading, cut and fill for purposes of evaluation in the
DEIR. Yet, the DEIR states: "Location of future
artificial cut or fill slopes, if any, is unknown at
this time for any of the eleven (11) project sites."
DEIR at, page 281. The DEIR further states: "Due to the
general information provided at this time, the areas of
the bluffs which could change in character cannot be
identified." DEIR at 117. The impacts of cut and fill
to stabilize bluff -side development could be extensive
and include impacts to water quality, habitat areas,
traffic trips due to importation of cut and fill, air
quality impacts and visual impacts. This is the last
opportunity for the decision -makers and the public to
comment on these impacts. why is this information
omitted,%from the DEIR? When, if not at this time, will
this information be available for public comment and in
what form? What future opportunities will decision -
makers have to modify site plans in response to this new
information, if warranted? In sum, SPON believes that
this information must be included in a revised DEIR.
Detailed information about project design. There is
information about the areas of the sites targeted for
development, setback lines, building heights (although
this information is omitted from the DEIR) and
development density. Therefore, it is possible to
develop montages or computer graphics that overlay the
general building area bulk on the respective sites for SPON 9
purposes of determining visual impacts and the like.
Why does the DEIR lack a visual analysis based on the
proposed siting and density of development? When will
this information be presented to the public and
decision -makers? At that time, can further
modifications be made to siting and bulk? SPON believes
there is no justification for omitting this information
from the DEIR and requests that visual graphics similar
to those illustrated by Attachment A. be included that
illustrate impacts of site development. Alternatively,
vested rights should be withheld until project -level
environment review is completed.
4
- Information about the economics of the project. This SPON 70
information is critical to an assessment of the
feasibility of alternatives and mitigation measures.
Information about.construction phasing and construction
activities. The DEIR assumes buildout of these
properties by 1995. This leads SPON to assume that a
description of construction phasing (as well as more
details about project design) are available. Why is this .
information omitted from the DEIR? When, if not at this SPON 11
time, will this information be available for public
comment and in what form? What future opportunities
will decision -makers have to modify site plans in
response to this new information, if warranted? In sum,
SPON believes that this, information must be included in
a revised DEIR. Impacts of construction activities
include increased traffic, air quality impacts, as well
as noise and the possibility of cumulative construction
activity impacts. None of this information is contained
in the DEIR.
In summary, the level of detail of the project
description must be sufficient to permit identification of project SPON12
impacts prior to the city's decision to vest project entitlements.
Clearly, much more detailed information must be required before
such irreversible,,decisions are made.
SPON is unaware of any reason to rush these requested `
approvals. In response to these comments about the lack of detail
about the project, why -would the City entertain the granting of SPON 13
vested rights -in the absence of detailed information about the
project and project impacts?
B.
Critical to the adequacy of an EIR is a complete and
accurate description of the project's environmental setting
including the setting in the vicinity of the project as well as
the regional setting. If impact analyses are based on an
incomplete, out -dated or inaccurate project setting, the results
of those analyses cannot be accurate or complete.
The omissions in the project setting include but are
not limited to the following:
Basic as well as detailed geotechnical information.
What is the justification for not providing details
about the respective site's geological
characteristics? This information is critical to
site design. -
SPON 14
5 00098
Information about proposed grading, bluff
stabilization and other engineering proposals which
may result in adverse impacts to landform, habitat
and coastal resources.
SPON .i& I
- A description of regional biological resources
including but not limited to coastal sage scrub
habitat and wetlands. How can an adequate analysis
SPON 16
of cumulative biological impacts be performed if
there is inadequate regional setting information
about these resources?
- A description of the activities, existing and
foreseeable, at John Wayne Airport. Specifically,
what are the potential impacts of the likely
SPON 17
lifting of present noise abatement practices at the
.
Airport? What are the future noise impacts on
residential and open space uses of the Airport?
- The availability of water and other services as
well as present and foreseeable demands on such
services. Specifically, the DEIR calls out the 20
percent cutback restriction of water on the City.
.
.What are the ramifications of additional
SPON 18
development to existing water users in the City?
Higher costs of water? Further cutbacks? What is
the state and regional picture for long-term water
problems? At what point should water cut -backs be
a determinant for denying additional development?
- Setting information for most if not all cumulative
impacts analyses including but not limited to water
quality of the Bay, air quality and housing.
SPON 19
This setting information must be developed in order to
properly and thoroughly analyze project and cumulative impacts.
C. The DEIR Fails to Analyze Project Impacts
Analysis to support conclusions regarding the
significance of impacts is a basic requirement of CEQA. Specific
examples of where. such analysis is missing or defective include,
but are not limited to the following:
The conclusion that after mitigation, impacts in
all categories of "earth .resources" would be
reduced to a level of insignificance; this
notwithstanding the defective project description
and setting information. Please describe how
mitigation measures reduce impacts identified as
significant to a level of insignificance in this
0
D.
section of the DEIR.
ISPON 20
The conclusion that there are no cumulatively
significant impacts related to water supply;
notwithstanding the 20 percent cutback at the SPON 21
present time. Please describe why cumulative water
supply impacts are not significant.
Similarly, the conclusions that cumulative impacts
to other services will not be significant. Please SPON 22
point to the evidence in each case (wastewater,
waste disposal, schools) that cumulative impacts
will not be significant.
The conclusion that impacts to wetlands will be
insignificant after mitigation. How do the
mitigation measures proposed guarantee significant SPON 23
impacts will be rendered insignificant? What are
the specific impacts of grading on these areas, as
well as other environmentally sensitive areas?
The conclusion that impacts to archaeological
resources will be reduced to a level of
insignificance after mitigation. Again, please SPON'24
describe how mitigation measures reduce impacts to
resources that are in some cases only 3 feet
beneath the ground.
The conclusion that growth inducing impacts are .
insignificant. Please explain the analysis SPON 25
underlying this conclusion. Specifically, why
don't proposed circulation improvements lead to
additional development?-
The conclusion that groundwater impacts are
insignificant. Yet the mitigation measures imply SPON 26
that not much is known about groundwater on these
sites. How is this conclusion possible? See for
example, mitigation measure 43.
Addressed in the DEIR
SPON requests that the following likely impacts of the
project be analyzed in a revised DEIR:
Impacts of the loss of upland habitat to the long-
term viability of the Upper Newport Bay ecosystem.
While the DEIR touches on the potential impacts of
the loss of coyotes, SPON believes that a complete
discussion of the dependence of the Upper Bay on
these upland site and connections to regional open
SPON 27
7 00100
space areas is necessary for an adequate biological �SPON, 27
section.
Impacts of John Wayne Airport operations. SPON-28
Impacts of the construction activities related toI SPON 29
the project including roadway improvements.
Impacts of proposed mitigation measures including
but not limited to mitigation measures related to
earth resources -and water quality (e.g. the impacts
of buttresses, retaining walls, drainage
facilities, etc.). The impacts of these and other SPON 30
mitigation measures could be significant in many
instances. The DEIR must evaluate the potential
impacts of these and other measures including the
potential for visual impacts and disruption of
habitat areas.
Impacts to the California Gnatcatcher as a result
of "bluff stabilization" efforts. The EIR is
grossly inadequate in simply issuing a statement .
that this impact is unknown. studies must be SPOft 3i
performed prior to certification of this EIR as
,adequate to determine to what extent grading and
bluff stabilization will impact this species. If
direct or indirect impacts will occur, a detailed
mitigation plan or alternative to avoid impacts is
essential.
Impacts to water quality in the Bay as a result of t
the addition of roadways and urban development SPON 32
adjacent to' the Bay.
E. The DEIR Fails to Adequately Analyze Cumulative
Impacts
The DEIRIs "analysis" of cumulative impacts is
practically nonexistent. Specific defects include but are not
limited to the following:
SPON 33
The analysis of cumulative impacts are based on
inadequate geographic study areas. Each cumulative
section should be revised to state the study area,
the rationale for the study area, the projects or
plans relied upon to calculate impacts and an
analysis of impacts. For example, the discussion
of cumulative impacts to the water supply
(apparently omitted altogether) should be based on
the service and source areas. What is the total
existing supply? What are the total demands?
Foreseeable demands? Remaining supply to serve the
project? Ramifications on further cutbacks, etc.?' SPON 33
These are the types of questions that should be
answered in a "program EIR" and are not.
There is no quantification or analysis of impacts.
:Indeed, most impact sections read as though the SPON_34
authors were merely guessing as the level of
impacts (e.g. water quality discussion).
Mitigation measures are omitted for most
significant cumulative impacts. CEQA requires that SPON 35
mitigation measures be included for significant
cumulative impacts.
Moreover, the cumulative analysis is inadequate in that
it only focuses on the cumulative effect of the specific actions
involved and fails to consider impacts in combination with other.
existing, approved, proposed and 'reasonably foreseeable SPON 36
development projects in the area. The overall cumulative analysis
lacks specificity as to the type and magnitude of impacts and does
not estimate the contribution of the proposed project on the
overall cumulative impact. specific questions we have regarding
the cumulative analysis include the following:
1. What is the overall cumulative loss of upland
habitat to the Upper Newport Bay sanctuary and the
degree of disturbance to that system due to the
loss of predators and other upland dependent SPON 37
species? We believe the loss of uplands may put
into jeopardy the long-term health of the Bay
ecosystem. The DEIR lacks evidence to the
contrary.
2. What is the overall cumulative effect of both
indirect and likely direct loss of California
gnatcatcher habitat? A detailed analysis must be
conducted to document this loss. in addition,
cumulative impacts must be quantified. This
request is particularly reasonable given the SPON 38
massive body of studies available to the City, the
EIR consultant and the applicant, including but not
limited to the San Joaquin Hills Transportation
Corridor (SJHTC) EIR/EIS and the NCCP studies,
among other information on this species.
3. The EIR projects a cumulative water quality impact
to Newport Bay. However, it fails to assess the
contribution of cumulative projects to overall SI�ON 39
water quality impacts -in Upper Newport Bay or the
Lower Bay. Studies were done for the SJHTC that L,
should be referred to in this •EIR's cumulative
discussion.
IP
9 0010Z
In short, the cumulative impacts sections must be] SPON 39
revised to meet basic CEQA standards for such discussions.
F. The DEIR Fails to Identify Feasible Mitigation
Measures
Agencies cannot defer the obligation to formulate and
adopt mitigation until a proposal reaches its final forum. Nor "SPON
can agencies refuse to consider specific mitigation measures V
simply because a responsible agency with subsequent permitting
responsibility may also have the power to address certain
significant impacts. With these parameters in mind, the DEIR
fails to identify adequate mitigation measures. Examples are as
follows:
m
There are no mitigation measures for identified
significant cumulative impacts.
A number of measures merely call for future studies
or plans (not subject to decision -maker or public .
review) and are not mitigation. Yet many of these SPON 41
same measures are relied upon to reduce significant
impacts to a level of insignificant. Examples
include but are not limited to mitigation measures
numbers 36, 37, 38, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 50,
511v 54, 55, 56, 57 etc., and 15 and 16. Please
describe how these measures actually result in.
reducing or eliminating significant impacts where
relevant. Also, what is the justification for not
resolving these specific issues prior to vesting
the project entitlements?
Mitigation measures that could eliminate
significant impacts are omitted including but not
limited to further setbacks on bluffs (e.g. further
setback on Castaways and Newporter.North to avoid
grading, buttresses, retaining walls and habitat
impacts), prohibiting development over SPON 42
archaeological resources and wetlands, and
additional setbacks to protect significant views.
For example, alternative building heights should
have been explored to further reduce the area -of
development where there are views and sensitive
resources areas.
Many of these measures also raise serious questions
about monitoring. Who will be responsible? How will the public
know whether measures are being implemented successfully.? Who
,SPON 43
will deal with unsuccessful mitigation or impacts of mitigation
measures and through what process? In the absence of more
specific measures, fully identified and worked out in advance, it
10 00103
is not possible -to determine how many conclusions were reached SPON 43
about the significance of impacts. Nor can the public have any
degree of confidence in those conclusions.
G. The DEIR Fails to Adequately Analyze Alternatives
To the Project
The alternatives analysis is among the most crucial
sections of the DEIR because it permits the public and decision -
makers to determine what constitutes an environmentally superior,
feasible project.alternative. In formulating a reasonable range
of alternatives, the City and EIR consultant do not seem to have
focused on options that could substantially lessen or avoid the
significant environmental impacts (that are disclosed) associated
with the project.
The DEIR identifies significant unavoidable impacts to
biological resources, alteration of natural coastal bluffs, loss
of open space areas providing visual relief, and increased
cumulative water quality impacts. It does not appear that an
alternative was developed to address these specific impacts. Such
an alternative could include all or a combination of some of the
following: 1) reducing density on Newporter North and Castaways,
with transfers to other sites, or increased heights and
clustering, 2) ,additional setbacks on Newporter North and
Castaways, 3) setbacks or design modifications to protect on -site
habitat and wetlands and archaeological resources, and 4)
setbacks/height increases/reduced density or unit sizes to protect
views across Newporter North. SPON requests that the DEIR more
specifically determine whether a feasible alternative could be
developed focusing on reducing or eliminating these significant
impacts of the project.
SPON further believes that the DEIR fails to provide
sufficient analysis to support rejection of the following
alternatives:
Purchase of selected development sites including
Newporter North, Castaways, San Diego Creek South.
Transfer of all development from Newporter North
and Castaways to other Company owned sites in
Newport Beach and the region.
Additional analysis is requested in particular to support
contentions that such transfers are not economically feasible.
In addition, the importance of the decisions before the City with
respect to these properties warrants review of alternatives for
individual parcels. By analyzing alternatives only to the whole
project, the analysis appears to set up straw men alternatives
rather than address significant impacts.
11 001
SPON 441
SPON 45 1
I
SPON 46
i
5. CONCLUSION
In summary, the DEIR has many deficiencies which render
the document inadequate. Among the most glaring inadequacies are
the documents' failure to analyze cumulative impacts and to
adequately analyze alternatives capable of reducing significant
project impacts. Furthermore, the biological resources impact
analysis, among others, is much too vague and fails to fully
describe the potential project impacts.
Overall, the environmental document lacks specificity
and does not deal with detailed project plans. Although the City
claims that this is a programmatic document in that other
approvals will be given, the agreements addressed within this EIR
will lock in specific developments. The lack of design details
such as the absence of specifics of bluff stabilization on
Newporter North, preclude decision -makers from making an informed
decision on the project.
For all of the foregoing'reasons, SPON urges the City
to:
Instruct the project sponsor to further define the
project to permit meaningful and complete environmental
review prior to vesting the entitlements; and
Instruct the EIR preparer to revise the DEIR based on
a more complete and detailed project description,
including the specific 'revisions described herein.
Following completion of. a revised DEIR, it should be
recirculated for at least a 45-day public review period.
Again, SPON cannot imagine any reason for the urgency
to process this project by the end of August. These reasons, if
they exist, should be articulated to the public.
We appreciate this opportunity to comment on the DEIR.
The following persons can be contacted care of SPON regarding any
questions about these comments:
Karl Hufbauer Don Harvey
Stop Polluting Our
P.O. Box 102
Balboa Island, Newport
12
Allan Beek
Newport
Beach 92662
F.
MA
FY90I►[':
00105
`
a
%C N _p. ..
�,
�j �
..
i'�� ,, , ,:_
:; ._<
r
�;: (F (�
I
i
ry
Y b [yT�+��
�,
F .
yJ�,,;�.,,Ty...
� y`l�i 4'v�
't. �::rx
\ �
_�:,. ,�c .�,.�
SPON-1
SPON-2
SPON-3
RESPONSES TO COMMENTS MADE BY SPON
Comment noted. This content of this comment is elaborated in greater detail
in the main body of the comment letter. Responses are provided for these
comments in subsequent responses to comments.
It appears that the commentor misunderstands the level of vesting to be
achieved with approval of the Circulation Improvement and Open Space
Agreement and related P:C. Texts. Approval of the Development Agreement
will vest entitlement for eleven sites identifying permissible uses consistent
with the existing General Plan. Approval of P.C. Text will establish zoning
for these parcels. The Circulation Improvement and Open Space Agreement
and related P.C. Texts do not address specific project designs and improve-
ment details. This level of review is more appropriate for the subdivision —
process. There is not 'permanent foreclosure of future agency discretion or
public review". In fact, Pages 32 and 33 of the Program EIR contain a list of
potential future discretionary actions. For these reasons, the City decided to
utilize a Program EIR in this environmental review process. It is anticipated
that the Program EIR will used at subsequent levels of discretionary actions
to determine whether additional environmental documentation is required.
The Program EIR will be used to focus any additional environmental
documentation on new effects or new information that could not be
considered before.
The City of Newport Beach believes that there is sufficient evidence provided
in the Program EIR and its supporting technical documentation to support the
conclusions reached regarding significance of impacts. In regard to the only
specific example provided in this comment, it is the belief of the City based
on the professional and educational experience of the preparers of the
Program EIR that modem engineering standards and practices reflected in
the mitigation required by the Program EIR do mitigate the seismic risks for
new residential and commercial structures to an acceptable level by
substantially reducing the risk of loss of life, injury, and property damage
resulting from a seismic event on a regional fault. Further, development of
these sites in conjunction with other past, present and reasonably foreseeable
future project will not create a significant cumulative impact because
development in conjunction with other projects will not increase the likelihood
of a seismic event nor will it increase the seismic risks on other properties or
areas.
00109
SPON-4
The Program EIR contains a cumulative analysis which addresses the
potential contribution of the project to cumulative impacts. As discussed in
Response to Comment SPON-33, the general assumptions regarding study
areas are contained in Chapter IV Regional, Subregional, and Local Setting.
(Please refer to Response to Comment SPON-33 for additional discussion
regarding study areas). The cumulative impact analyses are contained at the
end of each environmental issue section just before the list of Standard City
Policies and Mitigation Measures.
As discussed in SPON-34, the criteria for determining both project -specific
and cumulative impacts was quantified where necessary and when they could
be meaningfully quantified given accepted methodologies and the availability
of information regarding the project. All environmental issues listed in this
comment were considered in the Program EIR. The following paragraphs
discusses each issue raised and/or provides references to other Responses to
Comments which respond to similar concerns.
Loss of Wetlands: Please refer to DFW-4, SPON-16, SPON-42, and CNPS-35.
Please note that the vast majority of wetlands on the project sites will not be
impacted by the development or proposed uses on the sites The major
wetlands on Newporter North (John Wayne Gulch), Jamboree MacArthur,
San Diego Creek North, and San Diego Creek South are outside of the
development areas and will not be impacted by development. Impacts to the
smaller wetland habitat area on Dover Drive (impacted by the widening of
Dover Drive not the proposed residential development) and portions of the
small wetland on Newporter North can be mitigated to a level of insignifi-
cance with implementation of mitigation measures provided in the Program
EIR. Implementation of these mitigation measures will result in no loss
consistent with current established federal policies related to wetlands. Please
also note that direct and indirect impacts of the project have been determined
to be relatively contained in areal extent with no direct or indirect impacts
outside of the Upper Newport Bay ecosystem )please refer to Response to
Comment SPON-16). The conclusions of the cumulative analysis contained
on page 270 of the Program EIR has been modified in the Errata to recognize
that implementation of mitigation measures will mitigate potential cumulative
impacts to wetlands to a level of insignificance. The revised wording will read
as follows:
Page 270, final paragraph, second sentence:
Impacts to development sites will cumulatively impact wetlands. These
impacts will be mitigated to a level of insignificance with implementa-
tion of the above mitigation measures which will assure no net loss of
wetlands consistent with established federal policies. and the 00110
SPON-S
Impacts to development sites will cumulatively impact the amount of
terrestrial habitat available to resident wildlife species...
Fragmentation of regional ecosystem: In the cumulative analysis, the Program
EIR acknowledges that the project will incrementally contribute to a
fragmentation of habitats. As discussed in response to comments SPON-16,
direct and indirect impacts have been determined to be relatively contained
in areal extent with not direct or indirect impacts outside of the Upper
Newport Bay ecosystem (please refer to Response to Comment SPON-16).
Consequently, an analysis of projects outside of the Upper Newport Bay
Ecosystem is not necessary. Further, as described in Response to Comment
DFW-3, both the City and the applicant have been involved in ongoing plans,
program, and projects which have provided for protection and enhancement
of habitat within the Upper Newport Bay. Please refer to Response to
Comment DFW-3 for a detailed discussion of this issue. Also, please refer to
Responses to Comments DFW-3, DFW-4, DFW-11, DFW-22, and SPON-16.
Loss of Open Space: A cumulative analysis of the potential change in
visual/aesthetic character related to the loss of vacant land was conducted on
pages 132 and 133 of the Program EIR. The analysis was logically divided up
into non -Bay and Bay sites. Please refer also to DFW-3 which described the
City's and applicant's ongoing participation in plan, programs, and projects,
which have provided for protection and enhancement of vacant/open space
lands around the Upper Newport Bay.
Water Quality: A cumulative water quality analysis was provided in the
Water Resources chapter of the Program EIR. Please refer also to Responses
to Comments COO-12, COO-13, DFW-13, and SPON-34 for additional
clarification of this analysis.
Seismic Impacts: Please refer to Response to Comment SPON-3.
Availability of public services (e.g. water): Please refer to Response to
Comment SPON-18, SPON-21, and SPON-22.
As required by AB 3180 and Section 21081.6 of the CEQA Guidelines, the
City of Newport Beach will adopt a Mitigation Monitoring Program which will
assure that all mitigations are implemented. Mitigation measures have been
formulated as specifically and comprehensively as possible given the level of
detail available at this time. It is the belief of the preparers of the Program
EIR including the biologist that all proposed mitigation is feasible and can
achieve the goals of reducing impacts to important biological resources. The
precise details of any revegetation/replacement program will be developed in
00111
SPON-6
SPON-7
conjunction with review and approval of design and grading plans when the
exact nature and extent of impacts are known. Any such programs will be
subjected to full environmental review pursuant to CEQA. Consultation with
all interested and effected resource agencies will occur as part of formulating
and evaluating revegetation programs. Given recent successful revegetation
programs in Orange County, such as those conducted in Crystal Cove State
Park, it is fully reasonable to expect that a properly prepared revegetation
program will be successful in mitigating impacts.
The Program EIR will be used at these subsequent levels of discretionary
actions to determine what additional environmental documentation is
required. The Program EIR will be used to focus any additional environmen-
tal documentation on new effects or new information that could not be
considered before. If necessary, mitigation measures can be further refined
or added based on site -specific information. Full public review as required
by CEQA will be provided for all environmental review.
To assist in formulating a reasonable range of alternatives, the City actively
sought public input into the process of identifying alternatives to be analyzed
in the Program EIR. A Notice of Preparation was widely circulated in March
1991 which specifically requested that respondents suggest alternatives to the
proposed project. Further, a scoping meeting was held in April, 1991 to
provide an additional opportunity for the public to provide input into the
scope of the Program EIR (including which alternatives it considered). All
suggested alternatives to the project received from the public were considered
in the Program EIR. This analysis evaluated 14 alternatives including several
alternatives which were based on all suggested alternatives contained in
SPON's letter in response to the Notice of Preparation. A number of these
alternatives were based on reduced development or transferred development
scenarios. Please refer to Table W, page 365 which contains a summary of
alternatives. Table XX provides a comparison of environmental impacts
between the alternatives and the proposed project. Table W (and supporting
text) identifies Alternative 5a as the environmentally superior alternative.
The Reduced Development/No Agreement Alternative is not considered
environmentally superior to the proposed project for reasons supported in the
text.
Please refer to Response to Comment SPON-2.
00112
SPON-8
SPON-9
This is not the last opportunity for
comment on potential impact of the
Comment SPON-2.
he decision -makers and the public to
project. Please refer to Response to
Approval of the CIOSA Agreement does not in any way approve grading for
stabilization on the bluffs of Newporter North, Upper Castaways or Bayview
Landing. The CIOSA Agreement will provide for the City of Newport Beach
to take title to open space on all three sites which include the bluffs. The
existing bluffs are undergoing continuous natural erosion which is creating
deep erosional gullies and unstable areas which can pose a hazard to public
safety.
As stated on page 117 of the Program EIR, the potential impacts to coastal
sage scrub may result from the bluff stabilization/remediation necessary to
provide for public safety along the bluffs when these areas provide public
open space in the form of public trail systems and a view park. These
stabilzation activities would be necessary regardless of whether residential
development occurs on Newporter North. The potential impacts to the
coastal sage scrub habitat of the California gnatcatcher on the Newporter
North site will not occur as a result of development of the residential
entitlement to be vested by approval of the CIOSA Agreement. All
residential development must adhere to the City's Bluff Setback Ordinance.
The CIOSA Development Agreement does not require or permit the
applicant to grade within the area identified with coastal'sage scrub habitat.
Approval of the CIOSA Agreement and related P.C. Texts does not approve
any grading concept or activity for the bluffs. At the time grading design for
bluff stabilization is determined by the City of Newport Beach, full review by
the City decision -makers (including environmental evaluations) will occur.
Any grading necessary for bluff stabilization will also require an individual
coastal development permit from the California Coastal Commission.
This is not the last opportunity for the decision -makers and the public to
comment on potential impact of the project. The City decision makers will
have the ability to modify "siting and bulk" with future discretionary actions
(e.g site plan review, subdivision). Please refer to Responses to Comment
SPON-2.
The proposed P.C. Texts were included in Volume 11, Appendix H of the
Program EIR. These P.C. Texts include all proposed development standards.
The Impacts section of the Land Use Chapter includes a summary of the most
pertinent development standards including setbacks and building heights. 0 0113
SPON-10
SPON-11
SPON-12
A visual analysis appropriate for this level of discretionary review was
prepared for the Program EIR and is provided in the Aesthetics Section pages
88-135. Specifically, this analysis was based on the impact criteria identified
on page 110. The analysis for each site was based on the identified visual
resources and criteria and development standards contained in the proposed
P.C. Text. Based on the P.C. Text it was determined in the Program EIR that
further analysis may be required and more appropriate at the subdivision
level. At that time impacts related to specific visual impacts (i.e., materials
used, architectural and landscape design, etc.) will be addressed.
According to CEQA Section 15131(a) "Economic or social effects of a project
shall not be treated as significant effects on the environment. An EIR may
trace a chain of cause and effects from a proposed decision on a project
through anticipated economic or social changes resulting from the project to
physical changes caused in turn by the economic or social changes. The
intermediate economic or social changes need not be analyzed in any detail
greater than necessary to trace the chain of cause and effect. The focus of the
analysis shall be on the physical changes." The Program EIR provides
sufficient information regarding economic factors in its discussion of
alternatives. No mitigation measures have been rejected on the basis of
economic factors. Consequently, no such information is necessary or
provided. Please refer to Section VI, Alternatives to the Proposed Project in
the Program EIR. Please also refer to Response to Comment SPON-6.
No available information was withheld from the Program EIR. A conserva-
tive projection for buildout was used with the majority of development
assumed to occur by 1995 (the Newporter Resort Hotel expansion and the
restaurant or health club/view park were assumed to occur after 1995).
Impacts of construction activities were analyzed in the Program EIR assuming
the buildout of most of the development within the same general time frame.
Mitigation measures have been provided to mitigate construction impacts
related to air quality, noise, traffic, and erosion. At subsequent more detailed
levels of review and discretionary actions, more detailed information regarding
construction schedules will be available. Please refer to pages 32 and 33 in
the Program EIR for a list of subsequent discretionary actions. Please also
review to Response to Comment SPON-2.
Please refer to Responses to Comments SPON-2 and 13. 00114
SPON-13
SPON-14
The City of Newport Beach is not "rushing" approval of the CIOSA Agree-
ment and related P.C. Text. The project is consistent with the General Plan
which has been in place for many years. Most recently (1988), the City of
Newport Beach undertook a comprehensive update of the General Plan Land
Use Element for the City. The update process included extensive public
participation including the General Plan Outreach Program. The land uses
proposed as part of the project are consistent with the General Plan Land
Use Element as adopted in 1988.
Discussion between the City and The Irvine Company about an Agreement
(which also involved SPON) have been ongoing for over two years. The
Program EIR has been in preparation since the spring of 1991 when a Notice
of Preparation was circulated (March, 1991) and a public scoping meeting was
held (April, 1991). In addition, the City also held three (3) Community
Outreach meetings during the spring of 1992 to allow input from the
community on the project. The project has proceeded through the City's
review and hearing process at Planning Commission and City Council in the
standard manner. All CEQA time requirements for review and comment
have been met.
Approval of the CIOSA Agreement will vest entitlement for eleven (11) sites
identifying permissible uses consistent with the existing General Plan.
Approval of P.C. Texts will establish zoning for these parcels. The CIOSA
Agreement and related P.C. Texts do not address specific project designs and
improvement details. This level of review is more appropriate for the
subdivision process. Future discretionary actions that are anticipated to occur
are identified on pages 32 and 33 of the Program EIR. For these reasons, the
City decided to utilize a Program EIR in this environmental review process.
It is anticipated that the Program EIR will be used at subsequent levels of
discretionary actions to determine whether additional environmental
documentation is required. The Program EIR will be used to focus any
additional environmental documentation on new effects or new information
that could not be considered before.
The level of detail of the project description and potential impacts is sufficient
for the discretionary actions before the decision -makers at this time. Please
refer to Responses to Comments SPON-8, 9, 10, and 11.
The Earth Resources section starting on page 271 of the Draft Program EIR
discusses existing geologic conditions on a regional and site specific basis.
This discussion is also documented with Table H (on page 274) which
identifies existing geological constraints for -each site. The project is not yet
00115
SPON-15
SPON-16
SPON-17
at the site design phase of discretionary review. The level of detail appropri-
ate for a Program EIR addressing the designation of land uses was conducted.
Please see Response to Comment SPON-2.
This information is included in the Earth Resources section under the heading
of Impacts beginning on page 278 of the Draft Program EIR. Please also
refer to Responses to Comments SPON-2 and 8.
The consulting biologist who prepared the biological assessment used the level
of detail he felt appropriate and necessary to conduct an evaluation of project
and cumulative impacts. Direct and indirect impacts of the project have been
determined to be relatively contained in areal extent with no direct or indirect
impacts outside of the Upper Newport Bay ecosystem. Consequently, the
analysis of both project -specific as well as cumulative impacts concentrated on
the sub -regional area around the Upper Newport Bay. Exhibit 13 of the
Program EIR illustrates the location of reasonably foreseeable future projects
in the area. A narrative description of these projects is included in Section
IV, Regional, Subregional, and Local setting. The technical analysis contains
a sufficient description of the major plant communities and sensitive biological
resources in the area to provide the basis for a cumulative discussion of
impacts. Information regarding the sensitivity and limited distribution of
sensitive resources (habitat, plant species, and wildlife species) was included
in the analysis. Please refer to the summary on pages 241 - 253. The
cumulative analysis resulted in the conclusion that development of the sites
will result in cumulative biological impacts including wetlands. These impacts
will be mitigated to the extent feasible by mitigation provided on pages 266-
270.
John Wayne Orange County Airport is an existing, operating airport facility.
Operations at the airport are governed by an agreement between the County
of Orange, the City of Newport Beach, the Airport Working Group, and Stop
Polluting Our Newport (SPON). Currently, studies are being conducted
regarding take -off procedures at the airport. It is premature to assume that
the present noise abatement practices will be lifted, and it also would be
speculative to estimate changes to the noise environment which may result if
take -off procedures are altered. Additionally, if an alteration to take -off
procedures result from current studies, and result in a substantial adverse
change in the noise environment, a full EIS will be required. In any event,
residential development will be required to meet City noise standards of 65
db CNEL exterior and 45 dB CNEL interior. 00116
SPON-18
SPON-19
SPON-20
The issue of water is discussed in the Public Services and Utilities Section on
pages 335 and 347-350 in the Program EIR. At the time this section was
prepared for the Program EIR the City was under a mandatory 20 percent
cutback water restriction. Currently, the City is under a voluntary 10 percent
cutback.
Development of the project sites will result in increased water demand and
will create a need for the expansion of facilities and extension of waterlines
as stated in the Program EIR. The Program EIR stated that Mr. Dick
Hoffstadt, City Subdivision Engineer does not anticipate the proposed project
to adversely impact the level of service provided to the areas of the project
sites. The preparers of the Program EIR had further discussions with the City
regarding the issue of water during the preparation of the Final EIR. The
City's Utilities Director, Jeff Staneart does not anticipate the proposed iniill
development will result in higher water costs or require further water
restriction cutbacks. All proposed uses on the eleven (11) sties are consistent
with or less than the adopted Land Use Element of the Newport Beach
General Plan which is used as the basis for the City's master water plan which
projects future water use in the City.
It should be noted that the Agreement identifies that the project will comply
with all existing policies, rules, and regulations in accordance with the City of
Newport Beach. This would include citywide water moratoriums or cutbacks
as they apply to all or portions of the City.
The Program EIR contains the level of detail felt appropriate and necessary
to conduct an evaluation of project and cumulative impacts. Please refer to
page 292 for water quality, pages 182 - 185 for air quality, and 302/302 for
housing.
There is sufficient, adequate evidence provided in the Program EIR and its
supporting technical documentation regarding project description, setting,
impacts, and mitigation to support the conclusions reached regarding
significance of impacts. It is the belief of the City based on the professional
and educational experience of the geotechnical consultant and preparers of
the Program EIR that modem engineering standards and practices reflected
in the mitigation required by the Program EIR do mitigate the potential
impacts related to earth resources. Please refer also to Response to
00117
SPON-21
SPON-22
SPON-23
Comment SPON-2, 3 and 5.
Please refer to Response to Comment SPON-18.
Please refer to pages 352 through 359 in the Program EIR which discusses
these cumulative impacts. Specific mitigation measures and City Policies and
Requirements for each of these issues are identified on pages 359 through 362
in the Program EIR.
The Program EIR analyzed the project at the level of detail available at this
level of review (please refer to Response to Comment SPON-2). No specific
or conceptual grading plans were developed and are typically not developed
until further detailed levels of site design are prepared. Certain assumptions
were made for the purposes of the impact analysis. The general assumptions
regarding grading were contained in the footnote on the exhibits in the
Biological Resources section. Based on these assumptions, the impact analysis
was conducted. Mitigation measures have been formulated to address
potential impacts from grading. These include Mitigation measures 15,16,19,
and 20 which address wetlands which will be encroached upon by develop-
ment or public improvements. These also include Mitigation measures 17,18,
and 23 which restrict grading in certain areas.
As required by AB 3180 and Section 21081.6 of the CEQA Guidelines, the
City of Newport Beach will adopt a Mitigation Monitoring Program which will
assure that all mitigations are implemented. Mitigation measures have been
formulated as specifically and comprehensively as possible given the level of
detail available at this time. It is the belief of the preparers of the Program
EIR including the biologist that all proposed mitigation is feasible and can
achieve the goals of reducing impacts to important biological resources and
implementation will result in a "no net loss" of wetlands consistent with
federal policies related to wetlands.
At subsequent levels of discretionary actions, the Program EIR will used at
subsequent levels of discretionary actions to determine whether additional
environmental documentation is required. The Program EIR will be used to
focus any additional environmental documentation on new effects or new
information that could not be considered before. If necessary, mitigation
measures can be further refined at that time (or new measures added) based
on site -specific information. Full public review as required by CEQA will be
provided for all environmental review. 00119
SPON-24
SPON-25
SPON-26
Mitigation measures proposed in the Program EIR were formulated in
consultation with the archaeological consultants retained to assess the impacts
of the project on cultural resources. Implementation of the City Policies and
Requirements and mitigation measures contained on pages 320 - 323 will
ensure all significant archaeological sites will be properly investigated (and
salvaged where required) in conformance with accepted industry standards
and procedures.
The proposed circulation improvements are not considered growth -inducing
for several reasons. First, many of the improvements are needed now (e.g.
MacArthur Blvd. widening improvements) to provide capacity for existing
levels of traffic. Second, frontage improvements provided for by the
development are frontage improvements for infill sites within Newport Beach.
The improvements will not provide new or improved access to any adjacent
parcels. Third, the improvements are intended to provide adequate capacity
for development which is either existing, approved or otherwise already
committed. The improvements are not intended (or expected) to provide for
capacity for growth other than what is already anticipated from committed
projects. Fourth, all circulation improvements proposed are consistent with
the City's Circulation Element.
The Program EIR acknowledges (page 282) that perched or shallow
groundwater occurs or is expected to occur on several of the sites. This type
of groundwater is not a source of water for human use. Rather it is
considered a constraint that the proposed development needs to address.
According to the geotechnical consultants report, sufficient information is
available regarding groundwater on the sites to determine that implementa-
tion of standard, accepted engineering and geotechnical practices will assure
that any constraints to development posed by groundwater will be adequately
dealt with. Mitigation measure #43 has been revised to ensure implementa-
tion as follows:
43. The project geotechnical consultant and/or civil engineer shall prepare
written site -specific review of the tentative tract maps and grading
plans addressing all salient geotechnical issues, including groundwater.
These reports shall provide findings, conclusions, and recommendations
regarding near -surface groundwater and the potential for artificially
induced groundwater as a result of future development, and the effects
groundwater may have on existing or future bluffs, slopes and
00119
SPON-27
SPON-28
SPON-29
SPON-30
structures. The reports shall also address the potential for ground
subsidence on the sites and properties adjacent to the sites if dewa-
tering is recommended. The geotechnical consultant and/or civil
engineer's reports shall be signed by a Certified Engineering Geologist
and Registered Civil Engineer and shall be completed to the satisfac-
tion of the City Grading Engineer prior to a issuance of a grading
permit. All recommendations of the reports shall be incorporated into
the grading, site, and building design to the satisfaction of the City
Grading Engineer and City Engineer.
In addition, please note that mitigation measure number 35 requires that
drainage of surface and subsurface water over or toward the bluffs on the
Upper Castaways and Newporter North sites shall be mini,nized. Please refer
to the mitigation measure on page 286-287 for the complete text.
The loss of 30 acres of upland habitat comprised of introduced annual
grassland is considered a significant adverse impact because it could
potentially result in the elimination of coyotes from a portion or all of Upper
Newport Bay. The loss in and of itself of only 30 acres of introduced annual
grassland (which comprises only about 7 percent of upland habitat around the
Bay) is not anticipated to impact the long-term viability of the Upper Newport
Bay ecosystem. This issue has been clarified in a number of other Responses
to Comments provided by other commentors. Please refer to Responses to
Comments COI-4, DFW-3, DPW-4, DFW-9, DFW-10, DFW-11, and DFW-25.
Please refer to Response to Comment SPON-17.
Construction activities were analyzed in the Program EIR to the extent
known. Impacts related to construction activities are identified if applicable
in each section. (e.g. Air Quality, Noise, Biological Resources, Earth
Resources, etc.).
To the extent information regarding the detail of mitigation measures was
possible to obtain, the Program EIR assessed the impacts of implementing the
measure. For instance, the aesthetics and biological resources sections
contain general evaluations of the potential impacts from bluff stabilization
and remediation required for public safety along proposed trail systems and
park uses. Please also refer to Responses to Comments SPON-2 and 5. 00120
SPON-31
SPON-32
SPON-33
As stated on page 117, stabilization of bluffs on Upper Castaways will be
required as a safety requirement for the trail system and view park areas.
The bluffs at Upper Castaways will not be stabilized in order to allow
residential development. The City of Newport Beach has not yet conducted
the analysis and prepared the design plans to determine the exact extent and
location of any remedial grading required. Such detailed analysis and design
work will occur at the time adjacent uses including trail systems and park uses
are designed. Discretionary actions to be decided upon at this time do not
include approval of grading for bluff stabilization. This will occur at
subsequent level of review and will be subject to the environmental review
process. At that time, if impacts to the California Gnatcatcher are identified
more detailed mitigation measures will be formulated and all appropriate
resources agencies will be consulted.
Please refer to Response to Comments COO-12 and 13, DFW-13, and IP-2.
The assumptions regarding study areas is contained in Chapter IV. Regional,
Subregional, and Local Setting. This information was provided in one central
location and not repeated in each cumulative impact section.
As stated on page 39 of the Program EIR, "In general, the cumulative impact
analyses area includes all of Newport Beach and portions of Irvine, Costa
Meas, Huntington Beach, and some unincorporated County areas. The traffic
study prepared for this Program EIR and other directly related technical
studies (e.g. air quality and noise) were based on traffic forecast data
produced by the Newport Beach Traffic Analysis Model (NBTAM). This is
a sub -area model derived from the Orange County Traffic Analysis Model
(OCTAM)." The Program EIR referenced the model description and
validation report available at the City of Newport Beach for the detailed land
use assumptions broken down into traffic analyses zones.
For the purpose of providing more general information on the assumptions
regarding future development used in the cumulative impact analyses, Pages
39 - 47 contains a description of the ongoing long range planning programs
being conducted by the jurisdictions in the study area and a description of
more specific approved and proposed projects within these jurisdictions. The
general location of these projects are depicted on Exhibit 13, Page 40 of the
Program EIR. 00121
SPON-34
SPON-35
Please refer to Response to Comment SPON-18 regarding the analysis of
water availability.
The analyses contained in the Program EIR were prepared by educated
professionals respected in their fields. The criteria for determining impacts
were quantified to the extent that they could be meaningfully quantified given
accepted methodologies and the availability of information regarding the
project (e.g. traffic/circulation, noise, air quality, etc.). At this time and at
this level of project design, the City is not aware of any appropriate methodol-
ogies for quantifying the incremental contribution of urban pollutants
potentially generated by the proposed project which will reach the Upper
Newport Bay. In 1983, the Water Planning Division of the U.S. Environ-
mental Protection Agency prepared and published the final results of its
Nationwide Urban Runoff Program (NURP), which was a five-year study of
urban pollutants in runoff. The NURP final report concluded, among other
things, that "land use category does not provide a useful basis for predicting"
pollutant levels of runoff (p. 6-28), and that while "[faactors such as slope,
population density, soil type, seasonal bias in [rainfall], and precipitation
characteristics ... all have a potential influence," "such factors do not appear to
have any real consistent significance in explaining observed similarities or
differences among individual sites" in terms of the pollutant loads for runoff
(p. 6-4 - 6-43 ). The NURP study concluded that "[t]he effects of urban runoff
on receiving water quality are highly site -specific." depending in large part
upon specific site improvements of the type that are typically designed in
conjunction with final development and grading plans (p. 9-6). And,
concerning mitigation methods available to deal with runoff pollutants, the
NURP study concluded that project design features such as wet and dry
detention basins and grass swales -- features to be addressed in specific
planning rather than general planning -- offer the most effective protections.
(p. 9-12 - 9-14) In short, this comprehensive federal study of urban pollutants
in runoff waters supports the conclusions and approach used for the CIOSA
EIR: quantified predictions are not feasible except in the context of precise
development plans, and then they are only rough estimations at that.
Mitigation measures are not omitted for "most significant cumulative impacts".
The Program EIR contains mitigation measures for project -specific impacts
which by their nature also provide mitigation for the project's contribution to
cumulative impacts. Please refer to the General Summary of Impact and
Mitigation Measures in the Executive Summary which identifies mitigation
measures for each significant cumulative impact.
00122
SPON-36
SPON-37
The cumulative impact analysis did consider project impacts in conjunction
with other existing, approved and proposed projects. Please refer to Chapter
IV of the Program EIR regarding assumptions used in the analyses. See also
Responses to Comments SPON-33 and 34.
In total, an estimated 120.6 acres is proposed for residential, commercial, or
active park uses. Approximately, 94.2 of the 120.6 acres are on sites adjacent
to the Upper Newport Bay and represent upland habitat which potentially
interacts with the Ecological Reserve. Of this 94.2 acres, about 30 acres
slated for development on the Newporter North site support introduced
annual grasslands which are believed to be functional foraging habitat for
wide-ranging predators of the preserve. The Newporter North site appears
to be the largest and most highly used upland habitat area effected by the
project.
Evidence, pro and con, is presented in the Program EIR and technical
biological assessment as to the potential significance of upland habitat loss,
particularly at the Newporter North site. It is the opinion of the consulting
biologist, reflected in the conclusions of the Program EIR, that using the
coyote-mesopredator-bird populations relationships as an indicator, the loss
of 30 acres of upland habitat from the Newporter North site is a potentially
significant loss of upland habitat. This is considered a project -specific
significant adverse impact in the Program EIR. It was also determined to be
a potentially significant cumulative impact.
The reader should note that subsequent to the preparation of the technical
Biological Assessment and Program EIR, an evaluation was prepared by Dr.
Walter E. Howard titled, " Coyote Evaluation - Newporter North Site". This
study is included in Appendix B of the Responses to Comments document and
was submitted as part of the Irvine Company's comments on the Draft
Program EIR. In his findings, Dr. Howard strongly disagrees with the findings
of the Draft Program EIR and concludes that the loss of the 30 acres of
upland habitat on Newporter North represents only about 7 percent of the
total upland habitat around the Bay and concludes that the loss of this 30
acres will have minimal impact on wildlife in the Upper Newport Bay and
Ecological Reserve.
Until grading plans are known for the limited bluff stabilization that is
expected to be necessary in order to provide safe public access to the public
00f 23
SPON-39
SPON-40
open space areas, a more detailed analysis of impacts (including quantifying
the potential loss of California gnatcatcher) cannot be made. At this time it
is accurate (and conservative) to say that the potential for loss exists and that
any loss of California gnatcatcher habitat is potentially significant. Please not
that the potential for this loss is not the result of future residential develop-
ment entitled by the CIOSA agreement. Regarding cumulative impacts, there
are no other properties adjacent to the Upper Newport Bay containing coastal
sage scrub that will be adversely impacted by the reasonably foreseeable
future projects identified in Exhibit 13 of the Program EIR. Other parcels
around or near the Bay either: are vacant and no coastal sage scrub habitat;
are already developed; or, are in permanent open space (e.g. the Upper
Newport Bay Regional Park contains California gnatcatcher habitat with at
least one known pair). Consequently, cumulative impacts to the California
gnatcatcher population in the Upper Newport Bay is not anticipated. Please
see also Response to Comment DFW-3, DFW-19, and DFW-22.
Please note that it is also expected that by the time detailed grading plans are
available and under review, that resolution regarding the status of the
California Gnatcatcher should have been further clarified by the resources
agencies involved. This will also provide additional information which is not
now available to further define the extent and significance of impacts.
The scope of the water quality analysis contained in the SJHTC EIR/EIS was
necessarily considerably larger than that conducted for the proposed CIOSA
project. The SJHTC is a major transportation corridor of over 24 miles in
length traversing often pristine watershed areas with limited to nonexistent
drainage facilities. The study area for the EIR/EIS comprised a vast area
undergoing substantial growth converting vast acres of vacant land to urban
uses. This is contrasted with the CIOSA project which proposes infill
development on only 106 acres out of 95,296 acres in the San Diego Creek
watershed (just slightly over one tenth of one percent of the total). An
analysis as extensive and comprehensive as that undertaken by the SJHTC
EIR/EIS is not warranted. Please also refer to Responses to Comments
COO-12 and 13, and DFW-13 for additional clarification regarding the scope
and conclusions of the water quality analysis.
Adequate mitigation measures are identified in the Program EIR. As
required by AB 3180 and Section 21081.6 of the CEQA Guidelines, the City
of Newport Beach will adopt a Mitigation Monitoring Program which will
assure that all mitigations are implemented. Mitigation measures have been
formulated as specifically and comprehensively as possible given the level of
detail available at this time. Future studies are appropriate where a
00124
SPON 41
SPON-42
performance standard is being used or where the level of project detail is not
sufficient to permit precise identification of impact and precise mitigation
approaches [Please refer to Sacramento Old City Association Sac. Old City
Assoc. vs City of Sac., 229 Cai.AP.31) 1011 (1991)] and CEQA Guidelines
Sections 15145 and 15146.
At subsequent levels of discretionary actions, the Program EIR will used at
subsequent levels of discretionary actions to determine whether additional
environmental documentation is required. The Program EIR will be used to
focus any additional environmental documentation on new effects or new
information that could not be considered before. If necessary, mitigation
measures can be further refined at that time based on site -specific informa-
tion. Full public review as required by CEQA will be provided for all
environmental review.
Please refer to Response to Comment SPON-40.
Increased setbacks for residential uses on the Upper Castaways and
Newporter North sites will not eliminate or reduce the need for bluff
stabilization/remediation. Bluff stabilization will be needed for public safety
when public trails system and open space/park areas are established on these
sites. These bluffs are undergoing continuous erosion from natural processes
which have created hazardous gullies and similar features along the bluff face.
Consequently, increased setbacks will not substantially change the extent of
impacts related to biological or aesthetic resources related to bluff stabiliza-
tion activities.
Impacts to archaeological resources have been mitigated to a level of
insignificance with the mitigation measures listed in the Program EIR. The
reduction or elimination of development on some of the sites with major
archaeological sites (e.g Newporter North) was considered in the Alternatives
Chapter of the Program EIR.
Less than one percent of the wetlands in the study area will be impacted by
residential or commercial development. The major wetlands on Newporter
North (John Wayne Gulch), Jamboree MacArthur, San Diego Creek North,
and San Diego Creek South are outside of the development areas and will not
be impacted by development. Impacts to the smaller wetland habitat area on
Dover Drive (impacted by the widening of Dover Drive not the proposed
residential development) and portions of the small wetland on Newporter
North can be mitigated to a level of insignificance with implementation of
mitigation measures provided in the Program EIR. Implementation will result
00125
SPON-43
SPON-44
SPON-45
in a "no net loss" of wetlands consistent with federal policies related to
wetlands.
Given the general plan land use designations for the two sites for which there
are visual impacts related to development proposed by the project (Newporter
North and Upper Castaways), any feasible increase in building height and
resulting increased density would provide very little change in the extent of
the development area. Such a change would not substantially lessen the
impacts of the project related to views and sensitive resources. Additionally,
an increase in building height above 32 feet would be inconsistent with the
maximum allowed height defined by the Newport Beach Zoning Code. Please
refer also to Response to Comment SPON-8.
Please refer to Response to Comment SPON-5.
The City of Newport Beach made every reasonable effort to formulate and
analyze a reasonable range of alternatives including alternatives which could
substantially lessen or avoid the significant environmental impacts of the
project. To assist in formulating a reasonable range of alternatives, the City
actively sought public input into the process of identifying alternatives to be
analyzed in the Program EIR. A Notice of Preparation was widely circulated
in March 1991 which specifically requested that respondents provide
alternatives to the proposed project. Further, a scoping meeting was held in
April, 1991, to provide an additional opportunity for the public to provide
input into the scope of the Program EIR (including which alternatives it
considered). All suggested alternatives to the project received from the public
were considered in the Program EIR. This analysis included several
alternatives which were based on all suggested alternatives contained in
SPON's letter in response to the Notice of Preparation. Please refer to Table
VV, Page 365 which contains a summary of alternatives. No other feasible
alternatives have been identified which could further reduce or avoid
significant adverse impacts of the project.
The Reduced Development Alternative - No Agreement is discussed and
evaluated in Chapter VI. Alternatives to the Proposed Project. As stated on
Page 391, "the concept for this alternative originated from comments received
from SPON and Dr. Jan Vandersloot in response to the Notice of Preparation
for this EHV. This alternative considers a significant reduction of develop-
ment and development area on Bayview Landing, Newporter North, San
00126
SPON-46
SPON-47
M -.5
Diego Creek South and Upper Castaways. Another alternative, Partial
Transfer of Development from Newporter North to Newport Center (No
Agreement), is analyzed on pages 395 - 396. The transfer of all development
from Upper Castaways, Newporter North , San Diego Creek South and Bay
View Landing to Newport Center was considered in Alternative 7b. However,
as discussed in the Program EIR, this alternative is considered technically
infeasible and did not remain under consideration. Please refer also to
Response to Comment SPON-42.
The City of Newport Beach does not have (nor expects to have) sufficient
funds to purchase the development sites on Newporter North, Castaways, and
San Diego Creek South. The estimated cost of purchase for just the
Newporter North and Castaways sites is 80 million dollars. Consequently, the
purchase of the sites with City funds was not considered a feasible alternative.
At this writing, the Newport Conservancy is just beginning the fund raising
effort to raise the necessary monies to purchase 2 of the 3 sites mentioned.
As of this date, sufficient funds have not been raised. At this time, the
possibility for success and timing of the group's ability to raise sufficient funds
is unknown. Please note that approval of the CIOSA Agreement does not
preclude the sale of the three sites to any entity willing to pay an agreed upon
fair market value for the sites. Further, purchase of the three sites is
essentially the no development alternative for the three sites. A no develop-
ment alternative analysis is contained in the Program EIR.
The Program EIR considered an alternative which transferred development
to Newport Center. This alternative was based on comments received from
SPON in response to the Notice of Preparation. Considering transfer of
development to company -owned land outside of the City of Newport Beach
is not required by CEQA or feasible given the inability of the City of Newport
Beach to force such land use decisions on other jurisdictions.
The City does not believe that substantial revisions to the Program EIR are
necessary. A recirculation of a revised Program EIR is not warranted. Please
refer to the Responses to Comments prepared for all the foregoing SPON
comments.
Please refer to Response to Comment SPON-13.
00127
'Letter 11
CNPSi
Orange County Chapter
California Native Plant Society (CNPS)
c/o Fullerton Arboretum
California State University
Fullerton CA 92631
July 13, 1992
Sandy Genis
Principal Planner
City of Newport Beach
P.O. Box 1768
Newport Beach CA 92659
Dear Ms. Genis:
RtCEIbeD CY
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
AM JUL 151992 PM
71%91ID0041A3) A6
4
The Orange County Chapter of CNPS appreciates the receipt of the DEIR for the
Circulation Improvement and Open Space Agreement (SCH No. 91041017) for existing '
open space parcels in Newport Beach. We have serious concerns about the adequacy CNPS
of the descriptions of existing biological resources, the analysis of potentially
significant impacts and the lack of any mitigation measures. The following
letter will detail our concerns on some of the parcels discussed within the DEIR
and the Biological Resources section of this document.
General Comments
The Biological Resources Section fails to provide an adequate overview of the
existing resources at each of the proposed locations. The community
descriptions, especially in the case of ESH areas, need to be more complete and
the potential significance of these areas should be described. All of the plant
and wildlife species of concern to both state, federal and local agencies,
potentially occurring at each site should be determined. Finally, the importance
of the sites near and around the Back bay as animal movement corridors and
foraging habitat needs to described in greater detail.
The analysis of potential impacts to biological resources, fails to describe all
of the potentially significance consequences of the proposed plan. The analysis
is overly general and often fails to note potential indirect effects on sensitive
species that could have significant impacts. The section also fails to fully
address the potential loss of animal movement corridors and its resulting impact
on the Back bay environment.
Since, the California gnatcatcher may be listed as federally endangered by
September of this year, it is surprising that a more detail analysis for this
species was not considered in this report. A monitoring study in San Diego has
found that gnatcatchers'abandoned their territories, during grading of an
adjacent project (EREC 1990). The DEIR should have evaluated all of the
potential indirect impacts, including noise, and the potential significance to
existing populations of this species.
iCNPS 2
00128
The mitigation measures proposed are totally inadequate, to compensate for the
potentially significant impacts of the proposed project. Many of the mitigations
refer to required to requirements by various agencies, such as 1601 agreements,
which is not providing mitigation for the loss of biological resources. Other CNPS 2
proposed mitigations, such as revegetation, are not presented in any
implementable form. At a minimum the type of information that would be presented
in any revegetation plan should be noted and it should be required that the plan
be reviewed and approved by a biologist hired by the City of Newport.
CEQA requires that a monitoring program be developed that would determine the
implementation and success of the proposed mitigation measures. The biological
resources section provides no measures to insure the accidental loss of sensitive
biological resources during the construction period. In addition no measures are
provided to evaluate the implementation or success of any of the compensation,
such as revegetation, measures proposed.
It would appear that an important planning opportunity is being overlooked in
this DEIR. Since, the study is the only one that will examine all of the
parcels, it would seem that the potential for mitigation banking on some of the
parcels to be dedicated as open space should have been examined. The protection
or enhancement of existing animal movement corridors should have also been
evaluated for the DEIR.
Specific Comments
General Summary of Vapabts and Mitigation Measures, Page x
Biology, Page xviii
CNPS 3
The section should provide a brief summary of the proposed mitigation, rather
than forcing the reader to find the section cited in the text. It is our concern
that "mitigations" proposed for many the impacts are not mitigations but
regulatory requirements, such as 404 permits. Other mitigations are not
developed to the point where is can be determined if the mitigation is feasible
nor can its potential for compensating the impact be evaluated.
SECTION V EXISTING CONDITIONS, IMPACTS, MITIGATION MEASURES AND LEVEL OF
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES, Page 236
EXISTING CONDITIONS, Page 236
CNPS 41
Plant Communities, Page 236
It is our opinion that the description of plant communities provided in this
section and for the specific sites is too general --to make a complete analysis of
the significance of these communities. At a minimum the classification system,
developed by the CDFG (Holland 1986) should be used, while for some habitats,i
00129
especially the sage scrub areas, the Habitat Classification System developed for CNPS 4
the County of Orange (Gray and Bramlet 1992) should have been used to determine
the plant communities within the study area.
Wildlife, Page 239
This section provides a generic "textbook -like" regional setting, which is of
questionable value. The should provide regional information, based on the large
number of studies which have been conducted in the Back Bay area. Another CNPS 5
approach would be to use this section to discuss more regional information, such
as wildlife movement corridors and important upland areas for raptor foraging in
the general area. The importance of these upland areas to maintain both resident
and migratory wildlife, using the Newport Bay area, should also be described.
Sensitive Resources, Page 241
As previously mentioned, a more detailed classification system should have been
used to describe these significant plant communities. Some sensitive plant
communities appear to have been mis-identified and these habitats should be re- CNPS 6,
checked in the field, to determine their composition. For example the study a
freshwater marsh community at the Newporter north site, is actually a riparian
scrub. Finally, the habitats meeting the criteria as Environmentally Sensitive
Habitat Areas (ESHA), under the Local Coastal Plan, should have been identified
in this study.
It is unclear how the boundaries of the wetland areas were determined for this
study. We believe that'wetland delineations, per U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
should have been conducted and those figures compared with methodologies CNPS 7
recommended by the California Dept. of Fish and Game (CDFG), as part of its
wetland resources policy and potential requirements under the 1601-1603 stream
alteration agreements.
Plant Communities, Page 242
This section title should be corrected to read Sensitive Plant Species. CNPS'S
This section is incomplete, as other sensitive plant species are known to occur
in the project area. The federally endangered salt marsh bird's beak '
(CordYlanthus maritimus) is known to occur in the salt marshes of Newport back CNP84
bay. Two other species: the spiny rush (Juncos acutus var. sphaerocarpus) and
estuary suaeda (Suaeda esteroa) should have been considered for this study.
Sensitive Wildlife Species, Page 243
The list of sensitive wildlife species appears incomplete, since a number of r
species proposed as federal candidate status (USFWS 1991a) were not included ' CNPS •40
within this study. This section should be revised to include all potentially c
sensitive wildlife species known to occur in the study area.
The section is incorrect noting that the California gnatcatcher is a federal 'CNPS 19'
candidate species, the gnatcatcher was proposed for federal listing in September - '
3 030 .
of 1991 (USFWS 1991b). The document should treat this species as if it were CNPS 11
federally listed, according to CEQA section 15380.
Specific Sites, Page 243
The information provided on the specific localities lacks the detail necessary
CNPS 12
to provide the reader with an overview of the biological resources on each of the
sites under consideration. This information is necessary to determine the
potential significance of the resources at each of these locations.'
San Diego South, Page 243
The descriptions for the site need to revised to a more detailed description of
CNPS 13
the plant species found at this locality. The wildlife noted on this particular
site should be described, as well as the importance of these open, disturbed
habitats to wildlife in the area.
The significance of this and the San Diego North parcel in forming a significant
animal movement corridor into the Back bay area should be described. This or
CNPS 14
another section of the'report should describe the potential width and cover
requirements to maintain this area as a viable corridor for wildlife.
Figure 58 San Diego South, Page 244
The vegetation map is incorrect, as the site has small but potentially important
stands of coastal sage scrub. The existing sage scrub stands need to be mapped
CNPS•'15
and a detailed description of these areas provided in the discussion of this
locality.
San Diego Creek North, Page 245
A more detailed description of the existing habitat and wildlife species should
CNP$ 16
be provided in this section. This or the impact section should note the portions
of this site where any public facilities might be located.
Upper Castaways, 2nd Paragraph, Page 245
A more detailed summary should be provided on the composition of the plant CNPS 17
communities found at this location. The potential significance of the entire
site to wildlife populations in the Back bay area should also be evaluated.
This or the appendix should note the period when the field surveys were conducte
for the southern tarplant. This species is very difficult to detect during thCNPS 18
usual spring survey season. Surveys for this species should have been conducted],;J -
in the late spring or summer to detect the presence of this species.
4 00131
Newporter North, 1st Paragraph, Last sentence, page 251.
It is unlikely that sugarbush occurs in this area, however, lemonade berry (Rhus
integrifolia) is a characteristic species on the bluffs above the Back.bay area. CNPS 19
Since this appears to be a characteristic species used to describe the coastal
bluff scrub in these areas, a field check should be conducted to verify the
identification of this species.
2nd Paragraph
It would appear that the section has overlooked a significant community in the
riparian scrub vegetation (mapped as freshwater marsh) on the upper bluff area,
near Jamboree. According to the aerial photograph presented in Figure 19, the
extent of this riparian area is not correctly mapped on the exhibit of vegetation CNPS 20
communities (Fig. 63). The text and map should be revised to indicate the areal
extent of this vegetation and describe the characteristic species in the text.
The section should describe the importance of these bluff top grasslands, asI; CNPS 21
foraging areas for a number of species found within the Back bay area.
IMPACTS, Page 253
The Orange Co. Chapter of CNPS feels that merely using the criteria outlined in
Appendix G of the CEQA guidelines is inadequate to fully assess the significance
of the potential impacts to biological resources. As noted in the Guide to CEQA CNPS 22
(Remy and Thomas 1992),, Appendix G provides only the mandatory criteria for
significance, it does not provide significance levels for all impacts. We
recommend that the policies of the CDFG (1987) and of, the Coastal Commission
(1981) be added to this criteria. In addition issues of concern to the USFWS and
CDFG, including significance, of foraging habitat, animal movement corridors and
coastal sage scrub should be included within this criteria.
The overview of impacts should be modified to better reflect the issues for this
study. The section fails to mention potential water quality degradation impacts CNPS 23
to the Back Bay from the development of the residential communities in this area.
Non -point source discharge is a continual problem within the Back bay area and
should be discussed in this section.
The section fails to describe potential indirect impacts to preserve areas from
the development of the proposed projects. The potential. significance of CNPS 24
degradation of these habitats, due to the nearby residences needs to be
determined.
This chapter fails to address the potential problems from cumulative or related
public facility development on the proposed parcels. This section should CNPS 26
describe the overall type of potential impacts that could to biological
resources, if the proposed development in the region is completed.
00132
Specific Sites, Page 258
San Diego South and North, Page 258
The section fails to fully analyze the potential impacts to the wildlife movement
corridor entering Newport back bay. Information from the USFWS or other sources
should have been used to estimate the necessary width for this corridor and how CNPS 26I
all projects on these sites will affect this corridor. It should also determine
the potential indirect impacts to endangered species within the Back bay, if such
a corridor were lost.
Upper Castaways, Page 259
This discussion fails to determine the potential significance of the loss of MPS 27
grassland habitat to raptors and other species which use this area for foraging.
The potential indirect impacts of the development on the proposed reserve area
should also be evaluated.
Bay View Landing, Page 259
The section needs to evaluate the potential indirect impacts to the California
gnatcatcher. Previous studies (EREC 1990) have found gnatcatchers abandoning CNPS 28
their territories, due to construction related noise.. Other potential impacts
such as night-time lighting and continued habitat degradation should also be
addressed. ,
Newporter North, 4th Paragraph Page 262
Since all of the upland parcels may be used by coyotes, it wodld appear that this
discussion should be moved the introductory impact discussion and an analysis of CNPS 29
the significance to coyotes and their movement patterns should be made for each
of the proposed parcels. In addition a map of the known movement patterns of
this species should be included in the DEIR.
A more detailed analysis of potential impacts to the California gnatcatchers
should be prepared for this study. If necessary some preliminary grading Plans]CNPS 30
should be prepared and evaluated before the EIR is approved.
The potential impacts to riparian scrub habitats, mapped as freshwater marsh, CNPS 31'
should be evaluated in this discussion.
CUMULATIVE IMPACTS, Page 266
This section is totally inadequate in evaluating the potential impacts from all
of the proposed projects, noted in Figure 13. The section should at least make
a general analysis of how the viability of federally endangered species, CNPS 32�
including the proposed California gnatcatcher, in the Back bay area could be
affect by development of all the proposed projects. Further, the section should
determine the significance of the proposed project to cause some of these
potential declines in population viability.
00133
MITIGATION MEASURES, Page 266
In general the mitigation section fails to provide measures to compensate for the
potentially significant impacts of the proposed project. It should be noted that
conducting studies or meeting the obligations of a permit or agreement are not CNPS 33
mitigation. The study should initially analyze measures that could avoid
potentially significant impacts, including additional buffering of wildlife
movement corridors or further alteration of the proposed "footprint" to avoid
grading impacts.
No 15 and 16, Page 266 and 167
These are not a mitigations but a regulatory requirement of the proposed project
and should be discussed in a regulatory section. Wetland delineations should
be performed,for this study to determine the total acreage of wetlands or waters
I
of the U.S., under jurisdiction to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. It should
'`CNPSIU
also be determined if additional acreage in these wetland/riparian areas would
be under CDFG jurisdiction. This section should note all of the impacts to
wetlands and riparian areas and all of the proposed mitigations that would be
required under such an agreement.
Feasible and implementable mitigations need to be proposed for the potential loss
of wetland areas. This should include the proposed locations of mitigation banks
and the requirements for developing a restoration/enhancement plan for these
mitigation areas. There should be a permit requirement noting the required
CNPS 35
information for this plan and that grading permits will not be issued until the
plan is reviewed and approved by both the City and agencies in jurisdiction.
A mitigation monitoring plan should be proposed to insure that the mitigation
_
measures are successfully completed. This would require the monitoring of the
implementation of any enhancement/restoration project, to insure that it meets
CNPS 36
the specifications within the plan. Long term monitoring (5 years) would also
be required to evaluate the success of any enhancement/restoration effort.
No. 17, Page 267
This potential mitigation fails to provide sufficient detail on how it could be
CNPS 37
implemented. This measure should be modified to require the submittal of a plan
of measures to reduce human intrusion and procedures to monitor these measures,
as implemented.
No. 18, Page 267
These measures need to be developed in the form of a permit condition and it
should require that these provisions will be included on the grading plans for
iCNPS 38
any of the proposed projects in this area. It should also require that a
biological monitor be present during the grading period, to insure compliance
with all required conditions.
No. 19, 20 and 21 Page 268
I
'CNPS 39
00I34
As in previous comments for mitigation 15 & 16, these measures does not provide CNPS 39
sufficient information for an implementable mitigation to compensate for
potential wetland impacts.
No. 22, Page 268
It would seem that the reduction of night-time lighting will be an important CNPS 40
factor at several other sites. Additional detail should be provided on the
measures to reduce lighting at any site which may affect native habitats.
No. 23, Page 269
A permit condition should be developed which will require the presence of a CNPS 41
biological monitor to insure that all sensitive habitats are fenced with a highly
visible, Norplex type fencing.
No. 24, Page 269
This mitigation needs to provide much greater detail on how it can be developed
into a implementable revegetation plan. We feel that the mitigation should be
conducted in 3:1 ratios, i.e. three acres revegetated for every acre lost. A
permit condition should be developed that notes the required information in any CNPS 42
revegetation plan and that the plan will be submitted and approved by the City
before commencement 6f any grading. The plant shall call for monitoring during
the installation phase,; of this project, to insure that plan is properly.
implemented. The condition will also require long term monitoring, to determine
the success of the proposed revegetation project.
The Orange County Chapter of the California Native Plant Society appreciates the
opportunity to provide our comments on the proposed Circulation Improvement and
Open Space Agreement for the City of Newport Beach.
Si cer ly,
David Bramlet
Rare Plant Coordinator
00135
0
References
California Coastal Commission. 1981. Statewide interpretive guidelines:
geologic stability; view protection; public trust lands; wetlands; and
archeological guidelines. San Francisco, California.
California Department of Fish and Game. 1984. Guidelines for assessing effects
of proposed developments on rare and endangered plants and plant communities.
California Native Plant Society (CNPS). 1991. Mitigation guidelines: Regarding
impacts to rare, threatened and endangered plants. CNPS rare plant scientific
advisory committee, Sacramento, California.
California Department of Fish and Game
California Department of Fish and Game.
1987. Wetlands resources policy.
1990. Wetland protection position.
California Department of Fish and Game. 1991. Guidelines for project review and
evaluation.
EREC. 1990. Phase II Report: Amber ridge California gnatcatcher study.
Prepared for Wiengarten, Siegel, Fletcher Group, Inc.
Gray, J. and D.E. Bramlet. 1991. Species of special interest.' Orange County
Natural Resources GIS Project. Prepared for County of Orange EMA.
Gray, J. and D.E. Bramlet. 1992. Habitat classification system. Orange County
Natural Resources GIS Project. Prepared for County of Orange EMA.
Remy, M.H., T.A. Thomas and J.G. Moose. 1992. Guide to the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Solano Press, Point Arena, California.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1991d. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and
Plants: Animal candidate review for listing as endangered and threatened species,
proposed rule. Federal Register 56(225): 58804-59836. (November 21).
00136
91
RESPONSES TO COMMENTS MADE BY CALIFORNIA, NATIVE PLANT SOCIETY
CLAPS-1
CNPS-2
This comment is noted and will be included in the final records of the project
for review and consideration by the appropriate decision -makers.
The comment is essentially a summary of subsequent remarks made in greater
detail earlier in the comment letter. Responses are provided for comments
contained in the first three paragraphs of Comment CNPS-2 in subsequent
more specific Response to Comments. The final three paragraphs of the
Comment CNPS-2 are addressed as follows:
Adequate mitigation measures are identified in the Program EIR. As
required by AB 3180 and Section 21081.6 of the CEQA Guidelines, the City
of Newport Beach will adopt a Mitigation Monitoring Program which will
assure that all mitigations are implemented. Mitigation measures have been
formulated as specifically and comprehensively as possible given the level of
detail available at this time. Future studies are appropriate where a
performance standard is being used or where the level of project detail is not
sufficient to permit precise identification of impact and precise mitigation
approaches. It is the belief of the preparers of the Program EIR including the
biologist that all proposed mitigation is feasible and can achieve the goals of
reducing impacts to important biological resources. A qualified, City
appointed biologist shall be present during pregrade meetings to inform the
project sponsor and grading contractor of the results of any previous biological
studies and to identify which sensitive biological resources (e.g. wetlands,
coastal sage scrub) will require fencing, flagging, and/or signage. The
biologist shall also be present periodically during grading to determine if
grading is being conducted in conformance with required measures to avoid
sensitive biological resources. Upon completion of grading operations, the
biologist shall submit a written report to the City of Newport Beach reporting
on the grading activities. The report shall be submitted within 30 days of
grading completion and reviewed and approved by the City Building
Department prior to issuance of a occupancy permit. If the biologist identifies
any unauthorized intrusions into sensitive habitat areas, the biologist shall
notify the City within 24 hours. The developer shall be required to revegetate
/ restore any sensitive habitat accidentally destroyed or damaged by grading
activities. Any revegetation / restoration plan shall be implemented or
bonded for implementation prior to issuance of an occupancy permit.
The Program EIR will used at subsequent levels of discretionary actions to
determine whether additional environmental documentation is required. The
Program EIR will be used to focus any additional environmental documenta-
00137
tion on new effects or new information that could not be considered before.
If necessary, mitigation measures can be further refined at that time based on
site -specific information. Full public review as required by CEQA will be
provided for all environmental review.
Measures have been provided to avoid accidental loss of sensitive resources
during construction. Mitigation measure 23 provides for protection of wetland
habitats during construction from accidental intrusion. An additional measure
has been added to further address the issue. It reads as follows:
83. The precise details of any revegetation / replacement program
will be developed in conjunction with review and approval of
design and grading plans when the exact nature and extent of
impacts are known. Any such programs will be subjected to full
environmental review pursuant to CEQA. Consultation with all
interested and effected resource agencies will occur as part of
formulating and evaluating revegetation programs. Given
recent successful revegetation programs in Orange County, such
as those conducted in Crystal Cove State Park, it is fully
reasonable to expect that a properly prepared revegetation
program will be successful in mitigating impacts.
No planning opportunity is being overlooked. (Please also see Response to
Comment DFW-3.) The City of Newport Beach will own in fee virtually all
of the open space designated by the project (except for about 2.0 acres on San
Diego Creek North which is expected to be dedicated to the Transportation
Corridors Agencies for a mitigation site). So the opportunity to consider
these sites for mitigation banking if the need was ever identified has not be
lost.
Further, in relation to development and use of the 11 parcels comprising this
project, limited offsite mitigation is expected to be necessary. Any limited
impact to coastal sage scrub habitat is expected to be mitigated on the site
where the impacts will occur. The vast majority of wetlands in the study area
are not impacted by the development proposed by the project. The major
wetlands on Newporter North (John Wayne Gulch), Jamboree MacArthur,
San Diego Creek North, and San Diego Creek South are outside of the
development areas and will not be impacted by development. The portion
of the small wetland on Newporter North which will be impacted is expected
to be mitigated onsite. The smaller wetland habitat area on Upper Castaways
along Dover Drive (impacted by the widening of Dover Drive not the
proposed residential development) is the only wetland that is expected to
require mitigation off site, primarily because of topographic constraints. It is
required by mitigation measure 20, that such offsite mitigation occur within
or near the Upper Newport Bay Ecological Reserve. The City of Newport
Beach does not expect to have difficulty finding a suitable site available to
00138
CNPS-3
CNPS-4
CNPS-5
them.
The potential impact of the project on the San Diego Creek and Bonita Creek
wildlife corridors was analyzed in the program EIR and the technical
Biological Assessment. Mitigation measures have been recommended that
mitigate any potential impacts to a level of insignificance. The project will
not result in a significant adverse impact on the functioning or viability of the
San Diego Creek and Bonita Creek wildlife corridors. In fact use of a portion
of the San Diego Creek North site (identified on Exhibit - as Area 1) for the
San Diego Creek North Marsh Creation project related to the San Joaquin
Transportation Corridor project should enhance the viability and wildlife
value of the corridors. Please refer also to Response to Comment TCA 2.
In its current format, the general summary is already 7 pages in length.
Providing even brief summaries of the over 70 mitigation measures provided
in the Program EIR would have substantially lengthened the summary. This
would have reduced its effectiveness as a summary for the document.
However, the reader does not have to find the section cited in the text to find
each mitigation measure. Section M Environmental Summaries contains an
"Inventory of Recommended Mitigation Measures" which lists them all in one
place to assist the reader.
Please refer to response to comment CNPS-2 for a response to the remainder
of this comment.
For a detailed description of the plant communities within the study area, the
reader is referred to the Biological Assessment in Appendix E of the Program
EIR.
With regard to habitat classifications, the biological consultant (and the
Program EIR ) used terminology which is commonly known and understood
by biologists and layman alike. Use of any other system over another would
not in anyway effect the findings of the study. Also, the commentor is
referred to the first paragraph of the description of coastal sage scrub in the
Biological Assessment where the existence of alternative classification
systems is recognized.
The description of wildlife habitats are intended to be summaries of the large
number of previous studies as they relate to the project site and the wildlife
habitat they provide. The sources from which these descriptions were
compiles are cited in the References section of the Biological Assessment in
00139
CNPS-6
CNPS-7
Volume II, Appendix E, in the Program EIR.
The importance of upland habitats and wildlife movement corridors is
described and discussed under the appropriate project sites in the Impacts
portion of the Program EIR and technical Biological Assessment in Volume
II, Appendix E.
Please refer to Response to Comment CNPS-4 for a response to the comment
regarding the classification system used.
With reference to the alleged mis-identification of the wetland habitat at
Newporter North, it is agreed that the habitat could be called riparian scrub.
These are stands of willow, as well as cattail, at this location. Whether this
habitat is a freshwater marsh or a riparian scrub depends on the viewpoint of
the reviewing biologist. The reviewing biologist for this Program EIR prefers
to classify the habitat as freshwater marsh. Regardless of terminology,
however, the habitat was identified as being sensitive and significant.
The City's adopted Land Use Plan for the LCP considers the following type
of habitats as environmentally sensitive:
Areas supporting species which are
distribution or otherwise sensitive;
Natural riparian
Freshwater marshes
Saltwater marshes
Intertidal areas
Other wetlands
Unique or unusually diverse vegetative
rare, endangered, or limited
communities
The LUP states that those portions of Castaways and Newporter North which
contain any of the above resources (e.g. John Wayne Gulch wetlands and
coastal sage scrub vegetation) are considered environmentally sensitive areas.
The LUP also identifies the adjacent Upper Newport Bay Ecological Reserve
and the San Diego Creek as ESHAs.
Wetlands were identified by in field observations, review of aerial photogra-
phy and topographic mapping. Wetland delineation studies were not
appropriate or cost effective at this level of discretionary review. No site
specific project design is available at this time regarding development areas
or open space uses. However, based on the location of wetlands in relation-
00140
CNPS-8
CNPS-9
CNPS-10
CNPS-11
CNPS-12
ship to proposed development areas very few wetlands are potentially
impacted by development areas established by the CIOSA Agreement.
(Please refer to response to comment CNPS-2). As stated in CNPS-2
additional environmental review will occur at subsequent levels of discretion-
ary approvals (e.g. subdivision, site plan review). That stage of review is the
more appropriate time to prepare the detailed wetland delineation studies. It
is expected that the wetland delineation studies will be used to further refine
necessary mitigation measures but will not substantially alter the expected
significance of potential impacts as outlined in the Program EIR.
The subheading of Plant Communities on page 242 is correct. It falls under
the heading of Sensitive Resources on page 241.
When listing sensitive plant species, the consulting biologist considered those
which were likely to occur on the project sites themselves. The fact that salt
marsh birds' beak, spiny rush, and estuary suaeda occur in the slat marshes of
Upper Newport Bay, adjacent or near the project sites, is so noted.
A number of other sensitive wildlife species are included in the technical
Biological Assessment in Volume A Appendix E, in the Program EIR. For
the purpose of summarizing the study for the Program EIR, only those species
which were observed or expected on the project sites were included.
The Program EIR and the technical Biological Assessment treat the
California Gnatcatcher as a highly significant and sensitive species. Mitigation
is provided making these assumptions. The reader is referred to the impacts
discussion for each of the sites on which this species was found. Further,
Volume II, Appendix E contains the California Gnatcatcher Survey conducted
for the Draft Program EIR. Page 5 of this survey describes in detail the
current status of the California Gnatcatcher with both state and federal
agencies. The survey states, "In September of 1990... it was petitioned for
Federal endangered species status. A decision as to whether or not it will be
listed by the federal government is expected in September 1992."
A more detailed and quantitative description of resources and the proposed
project is provided in Volume II, Appendix E of the Draft Program EIR. The
00141
CLAPS-13
CNPS-14
CNPS-IS
CNPS-16
CNPS-17
Program EIR includes a summary of this information.
The format of the technical Biological Assessment was intended to avoid
confusion and repetitive discussion. The wildlife expected and observed on
this almost totally man -altered site, as well as the vegetation present, are
adequately described in the existing conditions and impacts sections of the
Program EIR and the technical Biological Assessment.
Please refer to Response to Comment DFW-11.
There is no coastal sage scrub vegetation on the San Diego Creek South site.
A more detailed and quantitative description of resources and the proposed
project is provided in Volume 11, Appendix E of the Draft Program EIR. The
Program EIR includes a summary of this information. The consulting biologist
believes this to be a sufficient level of detail to accurately assess impacts and
necessary mitigation measures.
Exhibit 6, page 21 of the Program EIR provides the proposed PC Text Map
for the parcel. All public facilities will be located in Area 2 along with public
open space. Area 1 will be restricted to preservation, restoration, and
creation of habitat and wetland areas (please see page 19 of the Program EIR
or the P.C. Text included in Volume 11, Appendix H). Further detail
regarding siting of public facilities is not known at this time. Please also refer
to Response to Comment TCA-1.
A more detailed and quantitative description of resources and the proposed
project is provided in Volume H, Appendix E of the Draft Program EIR. The
Program EIR includes a summary of this information. The consulting
biologist believes this to be a sufficient level of detail to accurately assess
impacts and necessary mitigation measures. The site does not posess great
significance for wildlife populations in the Back Bay area. Long-term use of
the site by humans has degraded the biological integrity of the site. Please
see Response to Comment CNPS-27.
00142
CNPS-18
CNPS-19
CNPS-20
CNPS-21
Surveys for southern tarplant were made as part of field investigations
conducted on July 10 and 12, 1991. There were no southern tarplant
populations detected at the time of the July 1991 field surveys. A subsequent
survey was conducted on July 3, 1992 with a representative of the California
Department of Fish and Game and David Bramlet of the Orange County
Chapter of the California Native Plant Society. The July 1992 survey
identified populations of southern tarplant on the San Diego Creek north site
(near the center of the site) and on the Upper Castaways site (along the bluff
edge). Neither location is within a development area identified by the CIOSA
Agreement. No other localities were found. Please note that the Program
EIR noted that a 1988 survey of the Upper Castaways site by Michael
Brandman Associates had detected the presence of southern tarplant near the
eastern bluff. The southern tarplant is a CNPS List 3 species. This
classification indicates that more information on this status is necessary to
support its listing as rare by CNPS standards. The species has no official
status with the CDFG and USFWS.
Comment noted. A field verification to verify the identification of the subject
plants is not warranted for the purposes of the Program EIR. It is clear that
the area in question is coastal sage scrub by evidence of the dominant plant
species including California sagebrush, California encelia, and California
buckwheat. Clarification of lemonadeberry vs. sugarbush would not change
the conclusions of significance or the requirement for and content of
mitigation measures proposed.
Concerning the terminology used to describe this vegetation in the Program
EIR please refer to Response to Comment CNPS-6. To the best knowledge
of the consulting biologist, the areal extent of this vegetation is accurate as
shown on the map. Please refer also to Response to Comment CNPS-7.
Please refer to the technical Biological Assessment, particularly the discussion
of impacts expected to occur as the result of development on the Newporter
North site. Please also refer to discussion on pages 252 and 260-263 of the
Program EIR.
00I43
CNPS-22
CNPS-23
CLAPS-24
CNPS-25
CNPS-26
The first paragraph on page 253 identifies only the minimum considerations
regarding significance as identified in Appendix G. As evidenced by the
impacts analysis and resulting determinations of significance of impacts, the
significance of foraging habitat, animal movement corridors, and coastal sage
scrub habitat was considered. The consulting biologist for the Program EIR
does not believe that using criteria in another format (e.g. CDFG or Coastal
Commission) will result in any substantial difference in determining the
significance of resources or the extent and significant of impacts on the
project sites.
As discussed in the water quality section of the Program EIR, with implemen-
tation of identified mitigation measures, the project is not expected to cause
any project -specific impacts to water quality. Please refer also to Response
to Comments COO-12, 13, and IP-4, 5, and SPON-4, 19, 32, 39, and 45.
The potential effects of development on the reserve are discussed in the form
of "downstream" erosion siltation hazards, harassment, and interruption of
wildlife movement corridors. These discussions are found throughout the
impacts section of the Program EIR and the technical Biological Assessment.
These discussion do recognize the sensitivity of the adjacent reserve to
development of the project. Adequate mitigation measures are recommend-
ed.
Cumulative impacts are addressed on page 266 of the Program EIR as well
as, in the technical Biological Assessment.
The potential impact of the project on the San Diego Creek and Bonita Creek
wildlife corridors was analyzed in the Program EIR and the technical
Biological Assessment at the level of detail possible at this level of discretion-
ary approval. This assessment took into consideration development on all the
subject parcels. Mitigation measures have been recommended that mitigate
any potential impacts to a level of insignificance. The project will not result
in a significant adverse impact on the functioning or viability of the San Diego
Creek and Bonita Creek wildlife corridors. In fact use of a portion of the San
Diego Creek North site (identified on Exhibit 6 as Area 1) for the San Diego
Creek North Marsh Creation project related to the San Joaquin Transporta-
0014 k
CNPS-27
CNPS-28
don Corridor project should enhance the viability and wildlife value of the
corridors.
As required by mitigation measure 22, the site plan and landscape plan for
the San Diego Creek South site will be prepared in consultation with a City -
approved, qualified biologist. The proposed project assumes that the property
line/development area boundary will be established at the top of the existing
slope, adjacent to Bonita Creek. This is a minimum of 20 feet from the toe
of the existing slope adjacent to Bonita Creek. When combined with the
building setback of 5 feet, a 25 foot buffer area will be created. The following
mitigation measure has been added related to the buffer area for the San
Diego Creek South site:
82. At the time of adoption of a parcel/subdivision map for the San Diego
Creek South site, the property line/development area boundary shall
be established at a minimum of 20 feet for the toe of the existing slope
adjacent to Bonita Creek. This distance, in combination with the
required building setback of 5 feet, will create a minimum 25 foot
buffer from Bonita Creek.
In addition, to providing a buffer area other measures can serve to mitigate
impacts on the adjacent corridors, including but not limited to sensitive siting
of lighted buildings, use, of lighting systems which conceal the light source;
provision of screening walls/berms; and appropriate dense landscaping to
provide cover and reduce human intrusion.
It is the opinion of the biological consultant and the preparers of the Program
EIR, that the upland habitat on the Upper Castaways site does not possess
the level of significance eluded to by the comment. In comparison to the
Newporter North site, Upper Castaways received substantially more human
use over the entire site which is believed to preclude its use as an importan
bird of prey foraging area.
It is noted that the study referenced may indicate a sensitivity to construction
noise of a particular population of California gnatcatchers in another
geographic area. The applicability of the study referenced in the comment to
this particular site may be limited. Evidence from the field on this subject is
inconclusive. Studies conducted by L3A, Inc. have found California
gnatcatchers nesting within 30 feet of a 6 lane highway. Other studies have
found California gnatcatchers nesting adjacent to lighted major roadways
which indicate a tolerance to lighting as well as noise. Although none of
00145
CNPS-29
CNPS-30
CNPS-31
CNPS-32
these studies are conclusive in and of themselves, they do lend support to the
theory that California gnatcatchers may be much more tolerant of indirect
development impacts (e.g. construction noise, lighting, etc.) than was
previously anticipated. As a case in point, the California gnatcatcher in
question has chosen a habitat that is heavily impacted by high traffic noise
from both Jamboree Boulevard and Pacific Coast Highway; night lighting
from the adjacent hotel and parking lot; intermittent heavy intrusion by
humans and vehicles in the adjacent vacant lot when it is used for overflow
event parking; noise from past stockpiling operations on the upper portions
of the site in conjunction with road improvements to Coast Highway and
Jamboree Road; noise from groundwater cleanup activities on the upper
portions of the site; and aircraft overflights from John Wayne Airport.
Based on Zembal (1990), the Newporter North site is the only project site
documented to be used by coyotes. Consequently, it appears appropriate to
discuss the issue in the section discussing Newporter North. A map of coyote
movement patterns is available in the Zembal Report in Appendix B of this
document.
Grading plans in any form are not available for this level of analysis and
discretionary review. At the time such plans are available (e.g. site plan
review, subdivision) a more detailed assessment will be conducted as
necessary. Please refer to Response to Comment SPON 2.
Regardless of what this habitat is called (refer to Response to Comment
CNPS-6), the associated impacts and significance of impacts are assessed in
the Program EIR.
The reader is referred to the technical Biological Assessment where these
issues are presented and evaluated under the headings of Indirect Project
Impacts and Cumulative Impacts. The potential loss of California gnatcatcher
habitat, is listed as a potentially significant impact and unavoidable impact of
the project in both the Program EIR and the technical Biological Assessment.
Please refer also to Response to Comment DFW-19.
00146
CNPS-33
CNPS-35
CNPS-36
CNPS-37
CNPS-38
Adequate mitigation measures are identified in the Program EIR. As
required by AB 3180 and Section 21081.6 of the CEQA Guidelines, the City
of Newport Beach will adopt a Mitigation Monitoring Program which will
assure that all mitigations are implemented. Mitigation measures have been
formulated as specifically and comprehensively as possible given the level of
detail available at this time. Future studies are appropriate where a
performance standard is being used or where the level of project detail is not
sufficient to permit precise identification of impact and precise mitigation
approaches. It is the belief of the preparers of the Program EIR including the
biologist that all proposed mitigation is feasible and can achieve the goals of
reducing impacts to important biological resources.
At subsequent levels of discretionary actions, the Program EIR will used at
subsequent levels of discretionary actions to determine whether additional
environmental documentation is required. The Program EIR will be used to
focus any additional environmental documentation on new effects or new
information that could not be considered before. If necessary, mitigation
measures can be further refined at that time based on site -specific informa-
tion. Full public review as required by CEQA will be provided for all
environmental review.
The vast majority of wetlands in the study are will not be impacted by the
development proposed by the project. The major wetlands on Newporter
North (John Wayne Gulch), Jamboree MacArthur, San Diego Creek North,
and San Diego Creek South are outside of the development areas and will not
be impacted by development.
The level of detail provided in the mitigation measures is appropriate for the
level of detail of available and the level of discretionary review. Please refer
to Response to Comments CNPS-7, CNPS-32, and SPON-2.
Please refer to Response to Comment CNPS-2.
Please refer to Responses to Comments CNPS-2 and 33.
Please refer to Responses to Comments CNPS-2. Q0 f 4 7'
CNPS-39
CNPS-40
CNPS-4I
CNPS-42
Please refer to Response to Comment CNPS-2, 7, and 33.
Existing City Policies and Requirement F listed on Page 134 of the Program
EIR (Aesthetics Chapter) requires lighting systems shall be designed in such
a manner as to conceal the light source and minimize light spillage and glare
on adjacent properties. Exterior lighting plans must be approved by the
planning department and public works department.
Please refer to Response to Comment CNPS-2.
Please refer to Responses to Comments CNPS-2 and 33.
EAST SIDE HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION
427 East 17th Street Suite 136
Costa Mesa, CA 92627
June 18, 1992
City of Newport Beach
Planning Commission
3300 Newport Beach Boulevard
Newport Beach, CA 92663
Subject: Irvine Company's proposed Castaways Project
Dear Planning Commissioners:
Letter' 12
ESHA
The East Side Homeowners Association wishes to file comments to the
City of Newport Beach Planning Commission regarding the Irvine
Company's proposed Castaways Project in Newport Beach. We request
that our comments be addressed in the Environmental Impact Report
associated with this project.
We are an organization of homeowners from the East Side
neighborhood of Costa Mesa. our neighborhood borders the City of
Newport Beach from Del Mar Avenue along°Irvine Boulevard to 15th
Street. We view our relationship to Dover Shores and Newport
Heights neighborhoods as a single community with the objective of
preserving the, quality of life in our neighborhoods. our children
attend Mariners Elementary school, Mariners Park and Mariners
Library off Dove2!1Drive. We shop at the Westcliff Plaza shopping
center.
We are concerned about increased traffic through our community
resulting from the proposed Castaways development and associated
street widenings. We fear for the safety of our children as they
walk to school and the quality of life that will be aggravated by
increased traffic with associated noise and pollution.
We believe that the Costa Mesa/Newport Beach interface is already
saturated. with development with limited means to relieve already
over -burdened streets and transportation corridors. Given the
choice of the elimination of residential homes to widen streets (as
planned for East'19th Street) or the elimination of development for
open space, we would strongly endorse the' latter.
We urge the Newport Beach Planning Commission and City Council to
consider the future quality of life of the residents of this
Newport Beach/Costa Mesa community and recommend alternative to
this proposed Castaways project.
Sincerely,
Robert D. Hoffman
President
001.49
ESHA
RESPONSES TO COMMENTS MADE BY EAST SIDE HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION
ESHA-1
This comment is noted and will be included in the final records of the project
for review and consideration by the appropriate decision -makers.
00150
Letter 13
_ .CTASG
COSTA MESA CITIZENS TRANSPORTATION ALTERNATIVES STUDY GROUP
Roy Pizarek, Chairman ' 1923 Whittier Avenue, Costa Mesa, CA. 92627
June 18, 1992
City of Newport Beach
Planning Commission
3300 Newport Boulevard
Newport Beach, CA 92663
Subject: Irvine Company's proposed Castaways Project
Dear Planning Commissioners:
The Costa Mesa Citizens Transportation Alternatives Study Group
wishes to file comments with respect to the Irvine Company's
proposed Castaways project in Newport Beach. We request that our CTASG
comments be addressed in the Environmental -Impact Report associated
with this project.
Our group's objective is to preserve the quality of life of
residential neighborhoods. Specifically, we advocate the deletion
of the 19th Street and Gisler Street crossings of the Santa Ana
River and the, deletion/downgrading of East 19th Street as a CTASG
secondary highway.on Orange County's Maser Plan of Highways. It
is our understanding that the proposed Castaways project in Newport
Beach could result in significant traffic impacts in residential
neighborhoods in the East Side of Costa i¢esa as well as the Dover
Shores neighborhood of Newport Beach.
We are opposed to the proposed Castaways project if such project
results in adverse traffic impacts on residential neighborhoods. CTASG 3
We believe that the proposed Castaways Project and planned widening
of Dover Drive will adversely impact residential neighborhoods in
Costa Mesa as well°-&nd Newport Beach.
We urge the Newport Beach Planning Commission to consider
alternatives for the proposed Castaways :project that compliment CTASG 4
rather than degrade the existing residential neighborhoods.
00151
CTASG-1
CTASG-2
TO COMMENTS MADE BY COSTA MESA CITIZENS TRANSPORTATION
ALTERNATIVES STUDY GROUP
This comment is noted and will be included in the final record of the project
for review and consideration by the appropriate decision -makers.
The 2010 daily traffic volumes presented in the traffic study indicated that
traffic increases due to the proposed project on the street system in the City
of Costa Mesa would be nominal. The largest increases associated with the
project occur on 17th Street west of Irvine Avenue, and on Irvine Avenue
north of 17th Street. Traffic volumes on both roadways would increase due
primarily to development of the Upper Castaways site (which generates a total
of 1,500 trips per day). However, the actual increase to these roadways is
forecast to be less than 1,000 vehicles per day (VPD) with the project
contribution to the daily volume on these roadways less than five percent.
The amount of volume increase expected to occur on 16th Street and other
roadways within the City of Costa Mesa is forecast to be nominal and will be
well within the functional capacities of these facilities.
Peak hour project impacts would be similar to the daily impacts, with
corresponding peak hour increases to 17th Street and Irvine Avenue. The
Upper Castaways project, as the largest project contributor to traffic volumes
in this area, generates approximately 130 AM peak hour trips and 160 PM
peak hour trips. The only measurable impact affecting an intersection
projected to be at capacity would be at the intersection or Orange and 17th
where the project contribution to the ICU would be approximately one
percent. Traffic volumes on 16th Street associated with the project would be
less than 40 vehicles per hour during peak hours which is not significant given
the current and forecast volumes, and availability of capacity on the roadway.
It should be noted that the project trips addressed in the traffic study interact
with locations within the City of Costa Mesa, or areas beyond. Project trips
have been accounted for in the General Plan traffic volumes forecast by the
City of Costa Mesa. Since the Castaways development is in the City of
Newport Beach General Plan, the trips are already accounted for in all long-
range traffic studies carried out by the two cities. In addition, the project
represents a 20 percent reduction in trip generation when compared with the
existing General Plan and the data utilized in the City of Costa Mesa's traffic
model. Therefore, the City of Costa Mesa's Circulation Element is based on
more intense land uses for the project area and as such is benefitted by the
proposed General Plan Amendment.
00I52
CTASG-3
CTASG-4
This comment is does not related to the adequacy of the Draft Program EIR
and will be considered by the appropriate decision -makers.
This comment is noted and will be included in the final record of the project
for review and consideration by the appropriate decision -makers.
00153
Letter 14
ly
IRVINE PACIFIC
Ms Patricia Temple
Advance Planning Manager
City of Newport Beach
3300 Newport Boulevard
P. O. Box 1768
Newport Beach, CA 92658-8915
P%EGEwG.i . ,
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
CITY OF NEWORT BEACH
JUL 201992
AM 56
7l$igll0lllll2l l l 11234l l
4
Subject: Circulation Improvement and Open Space Agreement
Comments on Draft Program Environmental Impact Report
Dear Patty:
July 20, 1992
The following are our comments on the Draft Program Environmental Impact Report for the Circulation
Improvement and Open Space Agreement:
1. Transportation/Circulation - Page 181
We understand that it is the City's policy that any project that contributes measurable traffic to
an intersection which may tend to exceed the City's ICU criteria is to be considered a "significant
cumulative adverse impact" as the last paragraph on page 181 suggests. We still question how
significant the impact is. It should be noted that the project contribution to the intersections in
question is quite small, being found to utilize more than 3 % of the intersection's capacity at only
one location, and more than 1 % at only three other locations. Also, the projects contribution to
those intersections is quite small compared to the traffic growth assumed to occur. regardless of
whether this project proceeds. And finally, this project contributes a net benefit to the circulation
system as determined through the TPO net benefit analysis ( page 179) and therefore provides
overall mitigation to bring any project related impacts to a level of insignificance.
a
IP 1
2. Biological Resources — Page 260
It should be noted that any potential impact to coastal sage scrub on the Bayview Landing site
and Newporter North site is associated with possible improvements of proposed public open P 2
space areas and not the proposed building projects on these sites. Further, it should be
recognized that if impacts to coastal sage scrub were to occur from open space improvements,
mitigation measures such as the replanting of coastal sage scrub habitat could reduce the impact
to a level of insignificance.
3. Biological Resources — Page 263
It should be noted that the statement in the first full paragraph on p.263 with regard to potential
impacts on coyote presence in the Upper Newport Bay area likely overstates the project's
potential impacts. The ISA analysis on pp. 262-263 presents a broader scale analysis of the total 3
amount of undeveloped open space around the Bay and notes that "it is not possible to conclude
that this loss would clearly eliminate coyotes from the bay or that it would disrupt movement
corridors necessary to allow coyotes access to the bay" (DEIR, at p.263). Subsequent to the
00154
550 Newport Center Drive, Suite 700, P.O. Box I, Newport Beach, California 92658-8904
Phone: (714) 720-2400 FAX: (714) 720-2421
publication of the draft EIR, The Irvine Company requested Professor Walter Howard of the
Wildlife and Fisheries Biology Department at the University of California, Davis, to review the
draft EIR analysis of coyote concerns and to conduct a site visit to make his own observations.
We have attached Professor Howard's summary of his observations and conclusions to this letter.
As a recognized coyote expert, Professor Howard brings considerable experience to his
assessment. The information in the attached report corroborates the conclusions from the ISA
analysis quoted in the draft EIR.
We have also attached a copy of a sub -regional habitat movement corridor map from a TCA
response document to Judge Gray's order in the SJHTC EIR litigation and a summary of major ip 3
environmental enhancement programs undertaken to protect and enhance both terrestrial and
marine life/wetlands habitat in the immediate vicinity of Upper Newport Bay. The sub -regional
habitat map shows an extensive network of major wildlife movement corridors, all of which will
be capable of being used by coyotes moving to and from the Upper Newport Bay area. The
second document summarizes major habitat protection and enhancement programs in and around
the Upper Bay. A review of Figure 7 immediately following page 22 shows a significant open
space area adjoining San Diego Creek, which the EIR indicates on p. 258 "is proposed for
habitat preservation, restoration and enhancement." A portion of this open space corridor is
already proposed for habitat enhancement as a component of the SJHTC habitat mitigation
program. We believe the open space dedications that are an integral component of the proposed
project - in conjunction with past Irvine Company open space dedications around the Upper Bay,
proposed SJHTC mitigation measures, Irvine Company open space dedication programs on the
Irvine Coast, and Irvine Company open space dedication programs required by the City of Irvine
GPA 16 - will protect habitat beneficial to coyote use and will enhance coyote movement around
the Upper Bay and San Joaquin Marsh.
4. Water Resources — Page 301
We understand that it is the City's policy to find that any project, irregardless of size, that
contributes water to the Upper Bay watershed area, will have a significant cumulative impact.
However, what the EIR fails to characterize is the projects relative contribution to the watershed
and the resulting cumulative water quality impact. The San Diego Creek watershed extends
roughly from the Lomas de Santiago on the north, the State Route 55 Freeway on the southwest,
to the El Toro/Lake Forest area on the southeast. According to the San Diego Creek Master
Plan Environmental Impact Report (LSA, 12/19/88), the total watershed for San Diego Creek
is 148.9 square miles, or 95,296 acres. The portions of the proposed project which lie within
this watershed encompass only 106 acres, or slightly over one tenth of one percent of the total
watershed. Therefore, given the relatively minute size of the project when compared to the
watershed, plus the fact that implementation of the project will be conducted using state of the
art Best Management Practices for control of both pre and post -construction water quality
impacts, the statement that the project's impact is significant seems questionable. We also
believe, however, that the statement on p.301 to the effect that the minor incremental impact of
the project on water quality (see DEIR at p.296) "can be partially mitigated -but remains a
significant adverse and unavoidable impact" does not adequately take into account the significant
investment of funds and effort which The Irvine Company has previously committed to improve
water quality in the Upper Bay, both in the form of Best Management Practices (BMPs) for
00155
L !
agricultural lands and development sites and in the form of over $1.9 million for Units 1.and 2
in -bay sediment control projects and San Diego Creek sediment control basins. No other private
landowner in the San Diego Creek watershed of the Upper Bay has contributed to the Upper Bay
Sediment Control Program. In conjunction with other actions, the sediment control and other P 4
measures from the 208 plan summarized briefly on pp. 292-293 of -the DEIR have significantly
improved water quality in the Bay both through the control of the in -flow of sediment and the
increased tidal prism. Accordingly, we believe The Irvine Company and the City of Newport
Beach have addressed and mitigated cumulative water quality impacts associated with the Upper
Bay.
5. Water Quality Impacts — Page 301
"The EIR notes under project specific impacts that with implementation of construction related
Best Management Practices for sedimentation control, that sediment related impacts to the bay
will be mitigated to a "level of insignificance". Under cumulative impacts, the EIR further goes 5
on to say that the project will have a "short term impact on water quality in Newport Bay as a
result of an increase in sediment runoff". Given the fact that the required mitigation measures
will actually alleviate sedimentation and mitigate to a "level of insignificance", we question the
finding that there will be a cumulative impact.
6. Public Services and Utilities — Page 347
It should be noted that a significant area of the city in the vicinity of the San Diego Creek South
and Freeway Reservation sites are currently outside of the desired 5 minute response time for
emergency fire service. And, the City currently wishes to construct a fire station to correct this P 6
deficiency. The proposed project will not only provide the City with land (at no cost) to
construct a new fire facility but may also improve response time throughout the city by making
available financial funding for circulation improvements, thus reducing congestion. Rather than
causing a significant adverse impact as the EIR states, we believe the proposed project provides
significant benefits for fire service in the city.
Thank you for your attention on these issues.
Sincerely,
Tom Redwitz
Vice President
Land Development
00156
F.WKWHAIAMN
Coyote Evaluation
(This attachment is included in Appendix B)
IP-1
IP-2
IP-3
IP-4
IP-5
IP-6
TO COMMENTS MADE BY IRVINE PACIFIC
The comment regarding the City's standard policy of determining the
significance of cumulative impacts is noted. The Program EIR recognizes that
project -specific impacts of the project are mitigated to a level of insignifi-
cance. The comment will be included in the final records of the project for
review and consideration by the appropriate decision makers.
Comment noted. The Program EIR recognizes that impacts to coastal sage
scrub on the Bay View Landing site would occur from either bluff stabilization
/ remediation related to public safety or from grading related to establishing
a view park on the upper levels of the site. Any impact to coastal sage scrub
habitat would be unrelated to development of the commercial or residential
uses on the lower portion of the overall site. Revegetation of habitat area is
called for in Mitigation measure No. 24. However, it is not clear at this time
(given the general level of information regarding the project) whether such
mitigation would completely mitigate potential impacts to the California
gnatcatcber which resides in the subject habitat. Consequently, the Program
EIR has determined that impacts to the California gnatcatcher on the Bay
View site are only partially mitigated. Impacts are expected to be significant.
This comment is noted and will be included in the final records of the project
for review and consideration by the appropriate decision -makers.
This comment is noted and will be included in the final records of the project
for review and consideration by the appropriate decision -makers.
This comment is noted and will be included in the final records of the project
for review and consideration by the appropriate decision -makers. Please refer
to Responses to Comments COO-12 and 13, and DFW-13.
At that time the fire station and roadway improvements are constructed,
response times will definitely improve in the City and all sites will experience
adequate response times. The Program EIR did not identify a long-term
00156
significant adverse impact related to fire protection service. As stated in the
Program EIR, 'Due to the dedication of land for a fire station, it is anticipat-
ed that no impacts to the fire department will result from the proposed
project once the station is constructed and operational." However, the
Program EIR goes on to say that "Until it is operational, a significant impact
could occur from development of uses on Freeway Reservation and San Diego
Creek South Sites". The reason for this determination is that the Fire
Department considers any increase in workload and equipment demand for
Fire Station #3 to be unacceptable given present staffing and workload. The
Department that the two sites will experience problems in obtaining service
from Fire Station 3# for emergencies until a new fire station is constructed.
a a,� ct� L.i.lc iCI•.+� rM1�'I Cn UI w� rmw-I V_I IrG
IU
Western Regional Office
P.O. Box 165
Newcastle CA 95658
(916) 663-4770
Me. Pat Tgnple
Plasman DePartment
City of Newport Reach
FAX TD: 714-b44-32O0
Dear Ms� Temple:
Letter 15
Qm
Jdly 20, . -1992
We have recently become aware of the proposed Newporter North
Develop t and would like to co-..nent on the Cultuzal Resources
provisi me in..the BIR.
C= sa de =W Viii-igation for .1maets t o am arcbaeol-1-1 site mith tue'
sCikenti is • significance.- and .the unitiveness of CA o :4 64, •on..t»e - ... • -
Newport North pr'dpea:ty, The Archae0IG51aa1,Conser3rancy:„hopeo t-=t
the t i of �
Newport Beach and the Irvine cc-sy ws 3 l sake• 1 10 . .
Couside ti= the value of preserving s=e portion•o» the ••site •for.-
future 2nerattons.
C=Vlet exavation does not fully address the loss of the site. New
arrahaacr ogioal techniques. and technologies will *now =wh 'grannter
8C3p]3 ` i Jnfo=mati= to be ext=cted in the future, aaxd•total.
oxccavat on stow' preeludeR.-thq cq.1-1 adtion of such additi l• cat=.' • • - .
Azrl=eo ,ogicatl sites -are a non-•reravr33e ►-#sou: p, and, the.pct ent al
iim.whdch may be lost at t»e•NoWo tier North Site =y mgu pe
recaast cted once artifacts are rw*ved €roar context# and may not -
with •Ce ty.be preserved elsewhere.
The I a-Caaq�any has demoUstrated its concern and sensitivity.
regal g cultural resaurCos in other development efforts, ax�d•wo-
ho�• t ':kt. D3 possible• tlsat awry. :developcueaL whi ixb'urs:.:here shay,
also •be glaxas ad so 88 to preserve- a P.artiOn of th sig ficant.
arrhaeo•ogy on this site. We would be yleaasad to wvrk wit the Citrp
of N rt Beacb and the Irvine Cory toward this end.
Thank y�m.for your time and consideration.
Preserving the.past
00160
AC 1
for the future.
TOTAL P.01
RESPONSES TO COMMENTS MADE BY THE ARCHAEOLOGICAL CONSERVANCY
AC-1
This comment is noted and will be included in the final record of the project
for review and consideration by the appropriate decision -makers.
00161
Letter 16 RECr1'V_J 2l
GG PLANNING DEPARTMENT
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
Ms. Patricia Temple AM JUL 2 0 1992 PM
Advance Planning Manager, City of Newport Beach 700011111211121314IN6
3300 Newport Boulevard
Newport Beach, California 92663
Subject: EIR for the Circulation Improvement and Open Space Agreement
Dear Ms. Temple:
I would like to comment on one of the sites in the proposed agreement:
Newporter North. My concern regards the loss of an -existing up blic
view from motorists southbound on Jamboree Road, a view downward
over the subject parcel and out over -Newport Dunes, through the gap
between Promontory Point and Castaways, across Newport Bay and
the Peninsula, over the Pacific Ocean with the profile of
Catalina Island as a noble backdrop.
Unfortunately, this EIR fails to objectively deal with the public's
interests in that view. I refer you to the following pages:
Executive Summary, page xi, Aesthetics, first paragraph: "Proposed
uses on all sites are not expected to obstruct public views of a
unique natural feature or unique vistas.". I disagree. Second
paragraph: "On the"Upper Castaways and Newporter North -sites,.
bluff top visual'_impacts are considered significant.".
I agree, but noti{ing is said about mitigation. Why not? -
GG 1
Executive Summary, page xvii, General Summary of Impacts and
Mitigation Measures, Asthetics/Light and Glare, Description of
Impact, second item: "The proposed project will result in the lossrGG 2
of significant vacant/open space areas providing visual reiief.on
the Upper Castaways and Newporter North sites.". Agreed.
"Mitigation Measures: Cannot be mitigated:". How absurd! Of cour e
it can be mitigated, in any number of ways. Such cavalier dismissa
of the public interest only enforces the public's perception of
EIRs as developer -controlled smokescreens intended to lull the publ c
into believing that everything possible is being done to preserve
their interest. "Level of significance: Significant impact that
cannot be mitigated and remains an unavoidable significant adverse
impact.". Again I disagree, per the comment above. It can be
mitigated by applying the condition proposed in this letter.
Same page, third item, in discussing cumulative impacts: "The loss
is a significant impact.". Agreed. "Mitigation Measures: None GG 3 ,
proposed.". Why -not? Because it would cost the landowner more
money for grading and lose him some housing units, which again
enforces my comment above? "Level of significance": same text
as previous item. Same disagreement on my part.
Executive Summary, page xxiii, Summary of Alternatives: This list
appears to be selective, incomprehensive, and incomplete. Many GG 4
adverse impacts are not addressed, including the view loss across
Newporter North.
Ms. Patricia Temple
EIR - page 2
Main body of EIR, page 124, first paragraph: "The sites are also
visible to motorists, pedestrians, and bikers on Jamboree Road.".
Agreed. "Views across the sites to the Pacific Ocean only occur
along the lower half of the sites.". What is meant by "lower hal,
The text doesn't elaborate. But the accompanying Site Photos 26,
27, 28, and 29 do show the subject view very clearly. "Views of
these distant features are limited by the topography and the
speed of motorists on Jamboree Road.". See comment below regardi:
"pull -back". "These sites provide one of the few open visual
opportunities along the predominantly developed Jamboree Road.".
Agreed, with emphasis.
Same page, end of third paragraph: "In addition, the design of
the development area was modified by the applicant to "pull -back"
development from Jamboree Road to avoid blocking•views of the
ocean from Jamboree Road,". Big deal: the view at that point
is of the back of Newporter Knoll, unless a motorist turns his
head ninety degrees to the right to catch a glimpse of the Upper
Bay thru narrow John Wayne Gulch. And that contradicts the
previous text about "speed of -motorists". It appears the main
reason for the pull -back is topography: the proposed building pa
are so far above the downhill Jamboree Road at that point as to
require extensive and unbuildable slopes. I am dismayed that
the planning staff did not question that flimsy premise.
Page 125, end of first paragraph: "Because of the visual
prominance of these sites, this impact is considered a significan
adverse impact.". Agreed. Same page, third paragraph: "Based
on this evaluation, it is determined that implementing the projec
will result in a significant adverse impact on the Newporter Nort'
site.". Again agreed, but why didn't the planning staff and the
Planning Commission insist upon reasonable mitigation? That is
their role and their duty.
The late Carroll Beek was a vigorous champion of "windows to the bay
and previous development projects have been conditioned to preserve
these windows. For example, while serving as Chairman of the Planni
Commission I helped insist on two windows from Coast Highway thru
Promontory Point, though tree growth - which I also agree with _ has
somewhat filled those windows.
Jamboree Road is one of the major entrances into our city, heavily
traveled by visitors, commuters, and residents. The view in
question is, especially during the seven or eight colder months of
clear air and crisp views, both refreshing and inspiring. It is the
only comprehensive overview of our harbor, peninsula, and ocean from
a major thoroughfare within the city - streets such as Ocean Bouleval
in Corona del Mar being off the beaten path.
OOI63
GG 41
Ms. Patricia Temple - EIR - page 3
In order to preserve and enhance that view, I propose the following
conditions be placed in the Planned Community District Regulations
for Newporter North by the City Council prior to the Council's
acceptance of this EIR, and become a non-negotionable part of the
Site Plan Review procedure:
1. Establish a public view corridor over Newporter North from
Santa Barbara Drive approximately 1200 feet south. The sides
of the corridor would encompass the gap between the Promontor,
Point bluff on the left and the Castaways bluff on the right.
2. Establish a public sight plane within said corridor from 4'
above the street pavement (southbound motorists' eye height)
downward to Coast Highway either side of the bay bridge.
3. City control. of placement, species, growth, and trimming of
any trees above said plane (tall thin palm trees would be
allowed, for example).
The cost of this to the developer would not be prohibitive.
Additional grading would be required, but if Newport Coast Road
can be built, some earth can be scooped out of Newporter North.
A few units might be lost in recontouring that end of the property.
(After my testimony at the June 18 Planning Commission hearing,
you stated that, within the provisions of the Development Agreement
action could not be taken to reduce the number of units. Of course
it can: that is mitigation, and is within the City's power prior
to ratifying the agreement and approving the PCDRs).
Precedents for my proposal exist - ironically - in this same EIR
and PCDRs: Corporate Plaza West contains a sight plane, and Bayvie
Landing contains grading to improve the view from,a public road.
The Planning Commission failed to discuss or act upon my public -
view proposal at it's June 18 hearing, while acceding to a private
property owner's concerns. That is, I feel, a serious mistake on
their part, if they - and the public hearing process - are in truth
and not just a city/developer charade with a prepared script
and pre -agreed conclusion.
Let me close by inviting you to drive or walk Jamboree with me to
see for yourself what an inspiring view will be lost to thousands,
if this proposal is not put into effect.
S' e
Gor ss
2024 Avenida Chico
Newport Beach, California 92660
714-646-5430
July 17, 1992
cc: Members of the City Council, with cover letter
Mr. Gary DiSano, Chairman, Planning Commission
GG 4
00164
GG-1
RESPONSES TO COMMENTS MADE BY GORDON GLASS
The potential impact of development on unique public views of unique
natural features or unique vistas was analyzed in the Impact section of the
Aesthetics chapter (Pages 110 - 133). The conclusion summarized on page xi
of the Executive Summary accurately reflects the contents of the impact
analysis. It isn't clear whether the commentor disagrees with the statement
for all sites or strictly for the Newporter North site as elaborated in
subsequent comments. Assuming that the disagreement is over conclusions
reached on the Newporter North, please refer to Response to Comment GG-
4.
The results of the analysis impacts related to the Upper Castaways and
Newporter North is influenced by two major factors. First, bluff stabilization
will be required as a safety requirement for the trail system and open
space/park uses. This stabilization will be required regardless of whether
residential development occurs on the bluff top or not. Even if the City (or
any other public or non -profits organization) were to obtain the sites in their
entirety as open space, bluff stabilization would be required. In fact,
stabilization would be even more urgent on certain portions of the sites,
because drainage improvements required of the proposed residential
development would not occur allowing current drainage -related erosion to
continue. Mitigation in the biological resource chapter requires revegetation
following bluff stabilization which will partially mitigate the visual impacts
resulting from stabilization activities.
The second major factor related to aesthetic impacts is the visibility of the
residential development from public viewpoints primarily along major
roadways (e.g. Pacific Coast Highway, Jamboree Road). The change on the
two sites will be less visible to recreational users in Upper Newport Bay
because their viewpoint is substantially lower in elevation. Residential
development is proposed to be clustered on both sites away from the
prominent bluff edge. The location of the development in conjunction with
proposed development standards contained in the proposed P.C. Text reduces
the impact that the proposed residential uses will have on the visual character
of the site.
Short of eliminating residential units from the sites resulting in a reduced
development area, no other mitigation is available to substantially reduce
impacts related to the "bluff top visual impacts". The Alternatives Chapter
analyzed several alternatives that considered the reduction or elimination of
residential development from the two sites.
00165,
GG-2
GG-3
GG-4
Please refer to the detailed analysis of the impacts of the project related to
the loss of significant vacant/open space areas providing visual relief on
Upper Castaways and Newport North sites. With the exception of further
reducing the development area (and consequently the number of dwelling
units proposed for the site) no additional mitigation measures have been
identified which will eliminate the loss of vacant/open space area. None has
been provided in this comment. The suggested mitigation proposed in
Comment GG - 4 addresses the issue of blocking public views not the issue
of the loss of vacant/open space which provides visual relief. Although related
these are not identical issues. Please refer also to response to comment GG1
and GG4.
Please refer to Response to Comments GG-1, GG-2, and GG-4.
The summary on page xxiii is an accurate, if brief, summary of the analysis
contained in the main body of the Program EIR. There is not a significant
loss of public views across the Newporter North site. As stated on page 124
of the Program EIR, the design of the development area avoids blocking
views of the ocean from Jamboree Road.
The "lower half' of the site was meant to indicate the western half of the site.
The view at the point indicated is not just of the back of Newporter Knoll and
a motorists does not have to "turn their head ninety degrees to the right to
catch a glimpse of the Upper Newport Bay". Views from the point indicated
occur where the small slope along Jamboree Road on Newporter North
begins to taper down to and below the grade on Jamboree Road opening up
views to motorists across the western portion of the site (including John
Wayne Gulch and Newporter Knoll) to the Upper Newport Bay, Balboa
Peninsula area, and the Pacific Ocean. On a clear day Catalina is also visible
from this location. The main reason for the 'pull back" was entirely to
preserve a view corridor to the ocean from Jamboree Road. The Irvine
Company conducted extensive site studies including photographic surveys in
order to determine a development boundary that would avoid blocking views
of the ocean from Jamboree Road. The boundary of the development area
at this location was not determined by topographic constraints related to
grading. City staff believes that the development area as currently configured
meets the objective preserving a public view corridor.
00166
The suggested conditions as outlined in the comment letter, appear to be a
proposal for enhancine public views, essentially creating views that do not now
exist. As discussed above, the location of the proposed development area will
not block significant public views from Jamboree Road. The Program EIR
does not identify the need for mitigation. Consequently, this proposal is not
evaluated as mitigation. However, from the standpoint of the land use
planning process, the City decision -makers obviously can consider the
proposal. However, while slightly enhancing existing views for motorists,
bicyclists and pedestrians of Newport Bay and the Pacific Ocean, the proposal
could have significant impacts. The comment mentions "recontouring that end
of the property." If the proposed concept entails significant grading to
recontour or terrace the western edge of the development area, additional
significant impacts to biological, cultural, and visual resources could occur.
00167
July 17, 1992
RECEI'vED 137
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
City Council JUL 2 01992
City of Newport Beach AM PM
Newport Beach, CA 718191101U112!11213!4150
Re: Circulation Improvement & Open Space Agreement,
Draft Program Environmental Impact Report
City of Newport Beach
Dear Sirs,
I would like to address the following issues regarding the
proposed development of 12 single-family detached units on the
southernmost parcel of Freeway Reservation East.
Letter'17�
AMB
I. The Newport Hills Community,Association (NHCA) has had
serious reservations regarding the proposed 12-unit development on
Freeway Reservation East. Although an &dhoc committee comprised of
past NHCA board members, interested homeowners and The Irvine Company
have addressed these concerns and a letter of understanding will be
forthcoming, this letter of understanding should in no way imply that
the homeowners of the Newport Hills Community Association are in favor
of the proposed development. Specifically, the majority of homeowners
would prefer to see the land remain in its present state as an
extension of the Nature Park. The letter of understanding is really
only an admission'that the homeowners of the Newport Hills Community
Association have neither the financial nor political clout to match
the resources of The'Irvine Company. —
II. In conjunction with the General Plan Amendment of 1988, the
Newport Beach Planning Commission voted a building entitlement of 0
to Freeway Reservation East. I presume that the Planning Commission
reached this decision after significant research and discussion. For ,AMB 2
whatever political reason, the City Council overturned the Planning
Commission's recommendation. I am formally requesting the City
Council to review the 1988 Planning Commission discussions and
methodology used to reach the conclusion that Freeway Reservation East
be given a 0 entitlement. If the reasons for declining this
entitlelment in 1988 are still valid,'I would expect the entitlement
to be reduced to the 1988 level, i.e., 0.
III. As I understand the EIR, it will be used to plan the_
remaining open space for Newport Beach. In 1991, the City of Newport
Beach conducted a citywide random survey to determine which open
spaces the citizens of Newport Beach considered most important to
preserve. At the request of the NHCA homeowners, Freeway Reservation
East was reluctantly included in the survey. I say reluctantly
because it was referred to as "Freeway Reservation East" in the survey
and who would ever want to preserve land designated for a freeway?
However, the survey had some surprising results! Freeway Reservation
East enjoyed more or the same citywide support as the other two
parcels in the survey. Thus, the EIR appears to be deficient in that
City Residents have indicated that Freeway Reservation East is either
as or more desireable as open space than the alternatives in the EIR
and yet no consideration is given to Freeway Reservation East as an
alternative open space site. An unbiased EIR would include the Free-
way Reservation East parcel as an open space alternative.
0010
:IT4fflm
Our City Council is elected to serve the residents of Newport
Beach as a whole. Thus, I would expect the City Council to include at
a minimum the southernmost portion of Freeway Reservation East as an
open space alternative in the EIR.
IV. The following is a list of serious shortcomings and
inconsistencies that I have found in my review of the tIR with respect
to the discussion of Freeway Reservation East.
A. Page 33
- Item #2 states that a specific objective of the City
is to achieve "important and meaningful public open
space
The EIR is inconsistent with the above stated objec-
tive of the City because a Citywide survey indicated
that the Freeway Reservation East site was as or more
desireable to preserve as open space than the other
two alternatives and yet the EIR fails to include the
Freeway Reservation East site as an alternative in
the EIR.
Some of the parcels of open space being "gifted" to
the City do not meet the above criteria as "important
and meaningful public open space" due to the very
location of the parcels. One example is the
Jamboree/MacArthur parcel at the confluence of the
Corona del Mar Freeway, MacArthur and Jamboree. This
parcel would be unreasonably dangerous if used for
active or passive recreational use (as discussed in
City objective #3). Acceptance of this parcel as
open space for passive or active recreational use is
tantamount to acceptance of a major financial liabil-
ity by the City and therefore the citizens/taxpayers
of Newport Beach and this issue is not addressed in
the EIR.
Item #3 states that a specific objective of the City
is to "identify and achieve dedication of all or
a portion of one or more sites appropriate for pas-
sive and active' recreational purposes."
The EIR is inconsistent with the above stated objec-
tive of the City as Freeway Reservation East has been
used actively and passively since the inception of
Harbor View Homes and yet it was not identified in
the EIR as such. Active uses include nature walks,
bicycling, children's make believe games, dog
walking, bird watching 'and photography. Passive
activities include watching the sun set over Newport
Center, and the general views offered to nearby
residents, joggers, and passerbys, both pedestrians
and motorists.
It should also be noted that for all intents and
purposes, the 17.3 acres of land in the Freeway
Reservation East parcel that the Irvine Company has
so "generously" allocated to open space is unsuitable
for meaningful active or passive use with the excep-
tion of a small proposed park. 00169
AMB;
AMB d
51
- Item #4 states that a specific objective of the City
is to "achieve dedication for preservation of envi-
ronmentally sensitive areas."
The Nature Park is immediately adjacent to the strip
of land known as Freeway Reservation East. Freeway
Reservation East is used for foraging by many birds
AMB'6
and animals which inhabit the Nature Park. The EIR
is inadequate in that it really doesn't address the
impact of development of Freeway Reservation East on
the flora and fauna of the Nature Park.
- Item #10 states that a specific objective of the City
is to "maximize public access to important public
open spaces and resources..."
Again, the EIR fails to address Freeway Reservation
AMB 7
East as an important public open space even though
the Citywide survey indicated that Freeway Reserva-
tion East enjoyed as much or more Citywide support as
the two open space alternatives in the EIR.
B. Page 129
- The EIR states "The proposed development on this site
will not obstruct public views of a unique natural
feature or unique vistas. No unique features or
vistas were identified. No public views exist across
this site...The site does not have distant views of
the ocean or horizon areas..."
Freeway Reservation East is an extension of the Nature
Park and thus the views it provides are unique.
AMB 8:
Vistas include manmade features such'as a major
landscaped berm, crested with mature eucalyptus
trees, constructed by the original developer
of Harbor View Homes, and the natural contours of the
land which offer homeowners adjacent to Freeway
Reservation East, as well as recreational users of
the land, views of the Big Canyon Golf Course, and
day and City night -light views of Newport Center and
evening sunsets.
The landscaped berm imparts a sense of nature that
attracted most original and subsequent homeowners
to purchase homes adjacent to this area. The 12-unit
development of Freeway Reservation East will require
removal of the landscaped berm.
In addition, a majority of citizens do take offense
to the idea of a 12-unit project on the open space.
C. Page 132
- The EIR states "The site [Freeway Reservation East] is
not adjacent to a major public recreational
facility ... There,is little to no customary use of the
site by the general public for recreational or open
space uses."
The EIR is inaccurate. The proposed 12-unit develop-
AMB 9
ment is immediately adjacent to the Nature Park and
in reality is an extension -of that Park.' The area
planned for a 12-unit development is used on a fre-
quent basis by the present homeowners of the Newport
Hills Community Association•as noted under the dis-
cussion item Page 33,'Item #3. doife
D. Page 135
- The EIR states "The loss of significant vacant/open
space areas providing visual relief will not occur
on the ...Freeway Reservation... sites."
The EIR is inaccurate. The 12-unit development AMD1C
proposed for Freeway Reservation East will indeed
eliminate visual relief for both the passive users
of this parcel (motorists, homeowners with views)
and active users of this area.
E. Page 194
- Item 11 - The EIR states "Residential, commercial and
office development shall be landscaped with an
emphasis on drought resistant plant species which
will shade buildings and reduce water and energy
consumption durng the summer."
- This statement is potentially in conflict with AMB
representations made by the Irvine Company to the
residents of the Newport Hills Community Association
regarding the adoption of a landscape plan which is
to be in harmony with the landscape materials and
design of the pre-existing neighborhood of Newport
Hills.
F. Page 201
- The EIR states "At Site 2 line -of -site to MacArthur
was broken for almost the entire length by the inter-
vening berm. The measurement results include the
noise shielding from this berm..."
The 12-unit project planned for Freeway Reservation AMB
East includes the removal of this "shielding berm".
Homeowners, many of whom are original, purchased
their homes due to this shielding and home values
will be adversely affected. Also see comments listed
under page 209.
G. Page 209
- The EIR indicates that traffic studies for the
proposed Freeway Reservation East development were
performed for Site 1 at 8:35am to 8:45am and for Site
2 at 9:05am to 9:15am.
MacArthur Boulevard and especially the segment between
Ford Road and San Joaquin Hills Road is a major
commuting arterial for the South County as well as MB
for local residents and school age students. Common
sense dictates that the traffic peak between the•
hours of 7:00am to 8:30am and 5:00pm to 6:30pm. To
perform a traffic study at other than peak traffic
hours renders the results meaningless and certainly
should not be relied upon in an EIR.
Furthermore, had the noise studies for the Freeway
Reservation East area been performed at peak traffic
periods, it is possible that building in that area
would be denied as noise levels would exceed City
limits.
00171
11
12
13
H
Page 221
- The EIR states that "Existing homes facing the pro-
posed site [12 units in the 3.5 southernmost acres of
Freeway Reservation East] currently experience noise
reduction provided by the berm in Lot 1. However, two
story units constructed in Lot 1 could provide up to
3 dB of noise reduction for some existing homes near
the southern and northern end of Lot 1."
- Homeowners purchased their homes with full disclosure
of the noise from MacArthur Boulevard. The berm has
affected property values not only because of its
unique visual character but also becaue of its noise
shielding capabilities. Noise level directly correl-
ates to property value. Does the City have the
right to diminish one homeowner's property value
simply in order to enhance another landowner's value?
Should this be addressed in the EIR?
- In addition, how can an EIR justify a project based on
comments that ..there could be noise reduction for
some existing homes"? The key words being "could
be" and "some."
I. Page 201
- The EIR states "...building orientation and pad eleva-
tion can result in significant noise reductions ...
J
K.
1,d
- This comment is potentially in conflict with represen-
tations that the Irvine Company made to the residents AMB 1E
of the Newport Hills Community Association to the
effect that the proposed 12 units would be
constructed at present street grade and that the pads
would not be elevated.
Page 253
- The EIR biological ,resources discussion of the Freeway
Reservation East parcel is inadequate in that it
fails to discuss the relationship of the Freeway
Reservation East parcel as an extension of the Nature
Park whose birds and animals forage on the Freeway
Reservation East parcel. AMB 16
- To the extent that foraging area on Freeway
Reservation East is reduced, the carrying capacity
of the Nature Park for wildlife, birds and animals,
is reduced.
- If the City cannot support its present Nature Park
system, why is the City looking to increase its
open space?
Page 265
- For Freeway Reservation East, the EIR states "
Due to the low biological sensitivity, no significant
adverse impacts are anticipated as a result of loss
of ruderal habitat." AMB 17
- This comment is inconsistent with the fact that the
Freeway Reservation East parcel is an extension of
the Nature Park as more fully discussed in J. above.
00172
L
M.
Page 347 `
- Regarding water, the EIR states, "Implementation of
the proposed project will result in increased water
demand and will create a need for the expansion of
facilities and the extension of waterlines."
- Discussion in the EIR is inadequate. The citizens of
Newport Beach, as well as all of Southern California,
have been under mandatory water rationing for most
of the past year and are presently still under a
water rationing program, albeit less restrictive.
The EIR does not state how a finite amount of water
will be allocated to existing and new residents nor
does it state the ultimate adverse impact to already
existing homeowners. _
Page 354
- Regarding Andersen Elementary School, the EIR states
that an increase of 63 elementary -aged students can
be expected from the proposed build -out of San Diego
Creek South and Freeway Reservation sites and that
because Andersen is "below capacity" this is not
considered a significant impact. The EIR is at best
misleading in this respect, since the "capacity"
referred to can only be a theoretical capacity
which does not take into account budget constraints
and the actual number of teachers available to
Anderson.
- According to NMDSD, the state mandates a class size
of no more than 28 although class sizes can be
averaged for the school district as a whole. Per th
Andersen School Directory 1991-1992, class sizes wer
as follows:
First Grade -
Second Grade —
Third Grade -
Fourth Grade -
Fifth Grade -
Sixth Grade -
29,31,29
32,33
30,31
24(combo),30,30
31,32
29,28,29
As you can see, all grades except the combo and one
sixth grade class are above the state mandated.
average. The school district's response to the
state budget cuts is to increase class size and per
a recent discussion with an elected member of the
Newport/Mesa School Board, enrollment at Andersen is
tight and will get worse.
- The EIR is also inadequate in its assessment that an
addition of 63 students is insignificant in that eve
if the additions are evenly distributed among the
grades, the addition could potentially result in
an increase of 4.2 children per class thus raising
the median class size to 34+ children.
00173
rLr1-.11
19
It should also be noted that one important reason
families move to the "Port" streets is for the
Andersen educational experience. However, new
families in the "Port" streets are accepted to AMB1&
Andersen only if there is deemed to be adequate
space in the particular classroom. The EIR does not
address the decline in property values in the "Port"
streets relating to a competition for spaces at
Andersen due to the new development, nor does it
address the busing situation with respect to
increased traffic and air and noise pollution.
The purpose of my letter was primarily to address some of the
shortcomings that I saw in the EIR, especially with respect to the
proposed 12 units in the southernmost 3.5 acres of Freeway Reservation
East. The homeowners really do not want this area developed. I MB`2C
believe the negative impacts of this development as stated in the EIR
are unreasonably downplayed. And finally, I wish that our City
leaders would act positively, with vision and in accordance with the
will of its constituency, which is to preserve one of the City's last
treasures, Freeway Reservation East, as an open space - a grand
entrance to a grand city.
Yours very/ truly,
Anita Meister -Boyd
1848 Port Carlow Place
Newport Beach,CA 92660
Qo174
AMB-1
.►I- i�l:3d
,IfTAM,
RESPONSES TO COMMENTS MADE BY ANITA MEISTER-BOYD
This comment does not relate to the adequacy of the Program EIR and will
be considered by the appropriate decision -makers.
This comment does not relate to the adequacy of the Program EIR and will
be considered by the appropriate decision -makers.
The Program EIR addresses the potential impacts resulting from implementa-
tion of the proposed Circulation Improvement and Open Space Agreement
involving 11 sites within Newport Beach. It will be used by City staff and
decision makers in the review process.
To assist in formulating a reasonable range of alternatives for the Program
EIR, the City actively sought public input into the process of identifying
alternatives to be analyzed in the Program EIR. A Notice of Preparation was
widely circulated in March 1991 which specifically requested that respondents
provide alternatives to the proposed project. Further, a scoping meeting was
held in April 1991 to provide an additional opportunity for the public to
provide input into the scope of the Program EIR (including which alternatives
it considered). All suggested alternatives to the project received from the
public were considered in the Program EIR. The No Project/No Develop-
ment alternative considers retention of the entire Freeway Reservation site
as vacant land. Other alternatives consider the site similarly to the proposed
project which identifies 17.3 acres of the 28.3 acres parcel as public open
space.
This is primarily a comment on the appropriateness of the City of Newport
Beach project objectives as listed in the Program EIR and the degree to which
the project meets the stated objectives. It is not a specific comment on the
adequacy of the environmental analysis contained in the Program EIR.
Please refer also to Response to Comment AMB-3.
Please note that important and meaningful open space is not just narrowly
defined as open space for use (passive or active) by human populations. The
Jamboree/MacArthur site mentioned in the comment contains a significant
wetland habitat of importance to the overall ecology of the Upper Newport
Bay. As such it is considered important and meaningful open space.
00175
AMB-5
This is primarily a comment on the appropriateness of the City of Newport
Beach project objectives as listed in the Program EIR and the degree to which
the project meets the stated objectives. It is not a specific comment on the
adequacy of the environmental analysis contained in the Program EIR.
Please refer also to Response to Comment AMB 3.
Support has been expressed for the complete retention of open space uses on
the Freeway Reservation East. However, the site does not provide open
space of regional or citywide significance. Its significance is restricted
primarily to the residential areas to the east. It is anticipated that the 17.3
acres of open space to be dedicated to the City is viable for passive and
limited active uses and as a landscape buffer between MacArthur Boulevard
and the neighboring residential areas.
Development of the site will not significantly impact the flora and fauna of
the Nature Park. With the exception of a small area of freshwater marsh (to
remain undisturbed by development on the site [.56 acres]), the remainder of
the site is ruderal vegetation (27.74 acres). The loss of 11.0 acres of ruderal
vegetation is not considered significant.
This is primarily a comment on the appropriateness of the City of Newport
Beach project objectives as listed in the Program EIR and the degree to which
the project meets the stated objectives. It is not a specific comment on the
adequacy of the environmental analysis contained in the Program EIR.
Please refer also to Responses to Comments AMB-3 and 4.
The Freeway Reservation site is currently in private ownership. It is not an
extension of the Nature Park. Limited use of the site by the general public
of the site may occur by residents of the neighboring residential area.
However, this use does not occur on public property or with the permission
of the property owner. Consequently, the Program EIR did not consider
there to be existing public views from the site.
Views from public right-of-way to the east of the site (Newport Hills Drive
West) do not include views of unique natural features or unique vistas as
defined by the Program EIR. On page 110 of the Program EIR, examples are
provided for unique natural features which include Upper and Lower Newport
Bay, Saddleback Mountain, and the Pacific Ocean. An example of a unique
vista created by the combination of manmade and natural features is listed as
00176
I, c
AMB-11
AMB-12
the Lower Newport Bay and the Pavilion. Views from Newport Hills Drive
West of the adjacent landscaped berm, although certainly pleasing to the eye,
are not considered in the same category as the examples provided above.
Views of Newport Center are limited as depicted in Exhibit 43. Conse-
quently, a significant adverse impact is not identified.
The Freeway Reservation site is currently in private ownership. It is not an
extension of the Nature Park. Limited use of the site by the general public
of the site may occur by residents of the neighboring residential area.
However, this use does not occur on public property or with the permission
of the property owner. Although a small portion of the project site boundary
is near the Nature Park, views from the Nature Park of the site are limited
to nonexistent given the topographic variation between the two areas.
Please refer to Response to Comments AMB-8 and AMB-9. Please note that
only 11 of 28.3 acres will be developed for residential uses. The remainder
will be dedicated to the City for public open space uses which could include
a trail system, view park, and other passive amenities.
The mitigation measures is not intended to conflict with any promises made
by the Irvine Company regarding landscaping palettes and design. The
measure requires only that landscaping emphasize drought resistant plant
species. The entire plant palette need not be drought resistant. Further,
many plant species commonly planted in the area are often considered
drought resistant. Both the City and The Irvine Company believe that the
intent of this measure can be met while still providing landscaping which will
be harmonious with the surrounding residential community.
Although the berm will be removed, the 12 homes and related fencing will
provide at least equal noise attenuation (if not greater). Please refer also to
response to comment AMB 14. When these original owners purchased their
homes, MacArthur Boulevard was planned to be a freeway.
These tables referenced do not show traffic data but rather noise measure-
ment results for the existing homes along MacArthur Boulevard. This noise
measurement data was not used to determine existing and future traffic CNEL
00177
"B-IS
noise levels presented by tabular format in the EIR, but was used to
determine typical day -time ambient noise levels. Noise measurement times
were chosen during the off-peak hours to represent the typical day -time
ambient noise levels experienced by the existing homes along MacArthur
Boulevard. It should be noted that existing and future CNEL noise levels
presented in this Program EIR were generated based on input parameters
such as speed, vehicle distribution and roadway traffic volume. In addition,
the City requires exterior mitigation measures, such as the use of sound walls,
to bring exterior traffic noise down to below the City standard.
This comment addresses the noise reduction provided by the existing berm for
existing homes adjacent to the Freeway Reservation site along Newport Hills
Drive. The Program EIR document text indicates that the existing homes
along will not experience significant noise impacts due development of the
CIOSA project which includes removal of the existing berm A condition has
been included in the P.C. Text for the Freeway Reservation site and reads as
follows:
Concurrent with submittal of plans for site plan review for the
southern portion of the Freeway Reservation site, the project
applicant shall submit to the City an acoustical barrier analysis
(prepared by a City -approved Acoustical Engineer) which
demonstrates that the proposed building designs result in
optimal sound attenuation for the existing homes along New-
port Hills Drive taking into consideration the anticipated layout
of the site plan.
The Draft Program EIR mentioned pad elevation as a possible design
technique which would reduce traffic noise levels at the existing homes along
Newport Hills Drive. The existing homes along Newport Hills Drive will not
experience significant noise impacts due to the project, regardless of the
design techniques used for the Freeway Reservation homes. Design
techniques for these homes, in terms of building orientation or grad elevation,
are mentioned in the Draft Program EIR only for the purposes of describing
general techniques for site design, and do not necessarily reflect any site
design techniques chose by the developer. Therefore, the Draft Program EIR
does not conflict with statements made by The Irvine Company regarding pad
elevation of the Freeway Reservation homes. Please refer to Response to
Comment AMB-14.
00178
KrUFAM
AMB-19
9
Please refer to Response to Comment AMB 6.
Ruderal vegetation regardless of its location is of limited biological value and
diversity. Further, only 11 of the 28.6 acres on the Freeway Reservation site
will be designated for residential development. The loss of 11 acres of
vegetation of limited value will not significantly effect the ecology of the
Nature Park.
Please refer to Response to Comment SPON-18.
The analysis of project -specific and cumulative impacts related to schools was
based entirely on information provided to the preparers of the Program EIR
from the Newport Mesa Unified School District. It was the opinion of the
school district itself that development of the project including the Freeway
Reservation site would not significantly effect the ability of the school district
to provide adequate educational services. One significant reason for this
determination is a School Facilities Agreement which has been entered into
by the Irvine Company and Newport Mesa School District. The Agreement
is briefly described on pages 353 - 354. The Agreement will require the Irvine
Company to contribute 1 million dollars upon implementing the CIOSA
Agreement to the school district which will develop a Community Facilities
District. The Newport -Mesa School District has stated that they expect to
have sufficient funds to enlarge facilities or to reopen schools as needed in
order to provide educational services to the students generated by the project.
This comment is noted and will be included in the final record of the project
for review and consideration by the appropriate decision -makers.
00179
JAN D. VANDERSLOOT, M.D. Letter_,18
DIPLOMATE AMERICAN BOARD OF DERMATOLOGY JDV � • 1
B101 NEWMAN, SUITE C
HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA 92647
Patricia Temple
Planning Department
City of Newport Beach
P.O. Box 1768
3300 Newport Blvd.
Newport Beach, CA 92663
2221 East 16th Street
Newport Beach, CA 92663 (714)84H770
July 14, 1992 'RFCt""' ...
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
AM JUL 2 21992 PM
71819110IBIL111213141516
Re: Draft EIR
Circulation Improvement and Open Space Agreement
Dear Ms. Temple,
Enclosed are my comments on the above referenced Draft•EIR,
with suggestions on further studies which should be done prior
to approval of the EIR.
1. The Draft EIR makes faulty traffic analyses relative to B16
Street, the street on which I live. The traffic volumes are not
6000 cars a day and the number of traffic lanes is 2, not 4, with
no indication on the master plan that E16 Street will be widened.
Traffic volumes on E16 Street are closer to 3000 cars a day. This
has relevance to,the above project, because the Castaways develops
will have over'1000 car trips a day located at the end of 16th St:
with the 55 Freeway access at the other end of-16th Street, E16
Street being in the.middle. Cars can logically be expected to
reach the freeway via E16 Street. A better, more accurate trip
distribution out of the Castaways must be made in the.EIR, and
its impact on E16 Street be more thoroughly addressed. `
JDV 1
2. The Draft EIR makes no mention of a sound study on E16 Street,
a major omission since the traffic volumes from the Castaways JDV 2
could account for a 33% increase in traffic on E16 Street (1000
over 3000)car trips a day. A sound study should be conducted on
E16 Street.
3. There is no mention of a methane gas study on the Castaways
property and no mitigations proposed for methane or hydrogen
sulfide gas below or on the property. This should be done, as the
nearby neighborhood has "recently had potential problems with
methane gas. See the attached letter from the Fire Department
dated May 5, 1992. Methane+gas was discovered on Lenwood in Costa JDV 3
Mesa, on several properties on E16 Street, and the intersections
of E16 Street and Irvine Ave. A full report on this situation
should be in the EIR, consulting Southern California Gas Company
as well as the Fire Department, and gas mitigations such as vapor
barriers, vent pipes, etc. should be required on the Castaways
similar to the Hoag Hospital mitigations._
4. The traffic study fails to accurately analyze impacts to E19 JDV 4
Street. Although 1000 car trips a day are said to go up Dover,
0018
JAN D. VANDERSLOOT, M.D.
DIPLOMATE AMERICAN BOARD OF DERMATOLOGY
8101 NEWMAN, SUITE C
HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA 92647
Pat Temple
Draft EIR, Circ.
July 14, 1992
and Open Space
(714) 848-0770
page 2
no increase:in traffic on E19 Street is projected. This is
ludicrous, because the access to the 55 Freeway is also on.:::::
JDV 4
E19 Street, a logical path for freeway bound traffic. The impacts
to both E16 and E19 Street are not adequately considered in the
Draft EIR, and a more accurate study should be done.
5. The Draft EIR does not address how the open space benefits
will remain open space over time and with different property
JDV 5
owners when the land is sold. Deed restrictions or dedications
in perpetuity should be required so that the open space and
wetlands remain so. Otherwise, the open space part of the
agreement could ultimately be negated.
6. Development on Newporter North could jeopardize the gnatcatche
population on this site because of the proximity of people, cats,
nd
dogs which come with development. How the coyote would continue
to visit this site and potential interactions with coyote and
pets and children is deficient in the EIR. How the development
JDV 6
would square with the City's involvement with the Natural
Communities Conservation Program should be analyzed in the EIR
(NCCP). Restrictions such as not permitting cats within the
development (such• as proposed in the Bolsa Chica mesa development)
and/or fencing the developed area from the gnatcatcher area shoul
be explored in 'the EIR.
7. No mention is made in the EIR of the recent reductions in the
densities and intensities of the Costa Mesa General Plan, which JDV 7
would affect the traffic study, and possibly remove the perceptio
that Dover should be widened at the Castaways site. The alternate e
of not requiring land dedication for grading and wetlands removal
at the Castaways for widening Dover is not contained in the Draft
EIR, but should,be.
8. Alternative access points for the Castaways development at JDV $
Blue Gum and Grove Lane is not contained in the EIR. These access
points should be considered so that the burden of traffic from this
development is shared equally, and not all traffic is dumped on
16th Street or Dover.
9. The alternative of using monies from the agreement to purchase
property at Newporter North, Castaways, San Diego Creek South, et .
for open space instead of circulation improvements should be
analyzed in the EIR. The benefit to the taxpayer over time could JDV 9
be significant, as property tax revenues from residential tracts
ultimately do not pay for the services required for the tracts.
Thus, less development on these parcels will mean less taxes over
time. Less development also means less need for expensive circula ion
improvements. 0 181
Attached: Fire Dept. letter Sincerely,
May 5, 1992�,
Jan D. Vandersloot MD
NEWPORT BEACH FIRE DEPARTMENT TimorhyRiky
t�EW�?p FIRE PREVENTION DIVISION Fire Chief
P.O: BOX 1768, NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92658-8915
(714)644-3106
C7</F00.N`I•
May 5, 1992
TO: Jan D. Vandersloot
2221 16th Street
Newport Beach, CA 92663
SUBJECT: NOTICE OF POTENTIAL HAZARD
On April 30, 1992F the Southern California Gas Company turned
off your gas due to the presence of Methane gas in and around
your home. On May 1, 1992, the Newport Beach Fire Department
was asked to evaluate the situation in the area and conduct
field tests.to determine if a potential Methane problem
existed. Methane gas was discovered in and around your
property. The field test did not reveal a consistent level
of Methane gas above ground, but an accumulation'in test
holes reached or exceeded explosive levels. The test did not
indicate that any hazardous concentrations were occurring
above the ground, however it'is possible for this gas to
collect and seep into the walls of a structure with a
potential for causing a fire.
Methane gas, commonly known as field gas, is colorless and in
sufficient quantity can be toxic.and flammable. Field gas
occurs naturally in the earth in.some places.. The gas may be
hazardous - if it is allowed to accumulate in a confined space,
such as a building.
It is recommended that you take precautionary measures to
prevent the occurrence of a problem. These measures include,
but are not limited to,:
1. The retention of professional services to evaluate the
presence of field gas and make recommendation for
corrective action.
2. Follow these recommendations.
3. Vacate the premises if necessary.
This letter is intended to be a "NOTICE OF POTENTIAL HAZARD"
only. -If you have any questions•, you may contact the -Newport
Reach Fire Department at 644-3106.
Respectfully,.}
C7 6fi�1
RAY BROWN
Fire Marshal
00182
3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach
JDV-1
JDV-2
RESPONSES TO COMMENTS MADE BY JAN D. VANDERSLOOT, M.D.
The number of traffic lanes has been revised in the traffic study to show two
travel lanes. The 6,000 vehicle per day (VPD) volume on 16th Street was
taken from the 1991 Traffic Flow Map produced by the County of Orange.
This volume ca nbe verified from a midblock machine count taken by the City
of Newport Beach in March 1992 on 16th Street between Irvine Avenue and
Dover Drive. This count indicated a one-way volume of traffic would travel
in the reverse direction within a 24-hour period at this location and hence, the
6,000 VPD figure is appropriate.
Existing and future noise levels were modeled along this roadway as shown
in Table 1. The future with project increase in traffic noise over existing is
shown in the first column of Table 2. The future increase in traffic noise due
to the CIOSA project along is shown in the second column of Table 1.
Table 1
DISTANCE TO FUTURE AND EXISTING NOISE CONTOURS
DISTANCE TO CNEL CONTOUR (FT)
ROADWAY SEGMENT -70- -65- -60-
EXISTING CONDITIONS
16th Street
-From Dover Drive to Irvine Boulevard 14 31 67
FUTURE CONDITIONS WITHOUT PROJECT
16th Street
-From Dover Drive to Irvine Boulevard 14 31 67
FUTURE CONDITIONS ETHER
16th Street
-From Dover Drive to Irvine Boulevard 15 32 70
00,183
JDV-3
JDV-4
JDV-5
Table 2
FUTURE INCREASE IN TRAFFIC NOISE (dB)
Future Increase Future Increase
ROADWAY SEGMENT Over Existing (dB) Due to the Project (db)
16th Street
-From Dover Drive to Irvine Boulevard .29 .29
The existing residential areas adjacent to 16th Street currently experience
noise levels just less than 65 CNEL at roadway -right-of-way. The above Table
1 also indicates that homes along 16th Street between Dover Drive and Irvine
Boulevard will not experience noise levels above 65 CNEL. Therefore the
existing residences along 16th Street between Dover Drive and Irvine
Boulevard will not experience significant noise impacts due to the CIOSA
project.
A methane gas study was conducted for the Upper Castaways site on August
7, 1992, by GeoResearch of Long Beach. The results from the study
concluded that concentrations of methane and hydrogen sulfide were not
detected. Please refer to Appendix C in this document which contains this
study.
The distribution of project trips between 16th, 17th, and 19th Streets is
reasonable based on existing and anticipated traffic patterns for this area.
The entire Upper Castaways site on Dover Drive will generate only 1,500
trips. Most of these trips will use 17th and 19th Streets for travel to local
destinations (ie. commercial/retail centers) or other destinations such as the
freeway.
All open space identified by the CIOSA Agreement will be dedicated in fee
to public agencies. The majority of the property is expected to be dedicated
to the City of Newport Beach. A small portion (about 2 acres on the San
Diego Creek North site) is expected to be dedicated to the Transportation
Corridor Agencies for use as a biological mitigation site. No areas identified
for open space will remain in private ownership.
f � Y
JDV-6
At the time more specific information is available (e.g. site plan review and
subdivision) regarding the specific site design of the proposed residential
development would be the more appropriate time to more fully assess
potential impacts to the adjacent gnatcatcher population. At this time the
Program EIR does not identify a substantial potential for significant impacts
to the gnatcatcher population resulting from the development of residential
uses on the Newporter North site. A mitigation measure has been added to
assure that this finding is reasessed at that time more specific information is
available. The mitigation reads as follows:
78. Prior to approval of site plans or subdivision and/or City approval of
a park, development plan (whichever comes first), the City shall retain
a biologist, at the developers expense, to further assess the potential
for human and pet intrusion into the coastal sage scrub habitat
supporting the California gnatcatcher population. If the level of
expected intrusion is considered to be of sufficient magnitude to
significantly impact the California gnatcatcher populations on site,
mitigation measures shall be designed and placed as conditions on the
project to reduce the impact to the extent feasible. Such design and
operational measures could include perimeter fencing, homeowner and
community educational programs about the potential impact of cats on
wild birds, programs for trapping and removing problem animals.
The suggested list of design and operational measures are based on a review
of the Bolsa Chica DEIS/DEIR which contained measures to control the
intrusion of domestic pets into the sensitive Bolsa Chica wetlands. Those
most applicable were included in the list above. The Bolsa Chica EIR does
not contain provisions which prohibit cats from within,the adjacent develop-
ment.
The potential effects on the coyote population from the development on
Newporter North site is addressed on pages 260-262 of the Program EIR. It
is recognized that in any highly urban area conflicts between coyotes and pet
owners, and unfortunately sometimes human populations directly, can exist.
It is difficult to speculate to what degree this conflict may occur at the site.
It would be unreasonable to expect that conflicts at Newporter North would
be any greater than conditions up Big Canyon, along Upper Newport Bay, and
adjacent to the San Joaquin Hills. The possibility of this type of conflict is not
considered a significant adverse impact on the existing environment. It is a
planning and operational issue that, if it occurs, will need to be addressed by
the residential community in conjunction with the City.
00185
JDV-7
JDV-8
The land use and corresponding trip generation assumed in the NBTAM was
prepared in April 1991 and reflected the uses in Costa McWs Proposed
General Plan. since the adopted General Plan actually had a reduction in
uses from what was proposed, it can be assumed that the traffic forecasts for
the City of Costa Mesa in the NBTAM would be somewhat lower than what
is shown in the document. Furthermore, this project and document does not
make a determination relative to the implementation of the widening project.
The implementation of the Dover Drive widening will be done in conjunction
with the Circulation Improvement and Open Space Agreement monitoring
program.
Westcliff Drive, Blue Gum Lane and Grove Lane are all constructed with a
36 foot cross section. City standards allow this cross section only for short
cul-de-sacs and loop streets (the standard public street width is 40 feet).
Adding additional traffic to existing single family residential streets that are
constructed to a standard less than 40 feet would place an unreasonable
hardship on the residences facing those streets.
At the time Westcliff Drive was constructed, 16th Street was planned to
extend through Castaways to join Santiago Drive. This would provide a major
collector street access from the Westcliff and Dover Shores subdivisions to the
16th Street/Dover Drive intersection. This may explain why Westcliff Drive
was allowed to be constructed less than 40 feet in width. If this concept had
been implemented, considerably more traffic from the Westcliff area would
utilize the 16th Street/Dover Drive intersection and 16th Street.
Blue Gum Lane and Grove Lane were designed as cul-de-sacs solely to serve
the residential development along the cul-de-sacs. At the time the develop-
ment was approved in 1977, potential traffic impacts on Westcliff Drive was
a major consideration in the review process. The small cul-de-sacs were not
designed to handle through traffic from adjacent development on Castaways.
They were designed to minimise traffic impacts on Westcliff Drive from the
Westcliff Grove subdivision. Additionally, the cul-de-sacs terminate at a 50
foot wide easement designated for pedestrian, bicycle and landscaping
purposes only.
Both 16th Street (between Dover Drive and Irvine Avenue) and Dover Drive
are designated arterial highways on the City's Circulation Element. These
arterials have adequate capacity to handle the added traffic from 151 dwelling
units. Neither of these streets have single family residences fronting or taking
access from the streets with a quarter mile of the project site.
00186
JDV-9
The City of Newport Beach does not consider it feasible or desirable to
provide the primary access to the Upper Castaways site through the reduced
standard public streets in the Westcliff area, especially when direct access is
available from a major improved arterial highway.
This alternative was analyzed in the Alternatives chapter of the Program EIR.
Alternative 6, titled Alternative Agreement Provisions - Use of Funds for
Open Space Acquisition, is discussed on pages 399 -400 of the Program EIR.
00I87
BLANK PAGE
IV. RESPONSES TO PUBLIC HEARING COMMENTS
Comments received during the Public Hearing held on June 18,1992, are contained in this
section. The commentors making comments pertaining to the Draft Program EIR are
identified in the List at the beginning of this section and identifies the agency, organization
or individual commenting, their name, address, the response number, and the acronym code.
The response to each hearing comment is provided immediately following the minutes page.
The comments received during the hearing that were directly related to the EIR have been
responded to in this section. The comments received during the hearing on the project, not
related to the adequacy of the EIR, do not have a response but will be included in the final
record of the project for review and consideration by the appropriate decision -makers. The
Hearing Minutes enclosed in this section are pages 25-40 which summarize the Public
Hearing on the Circulation Improvement and Open Space Agreement Draft Program EIR
from the June 18, 1992 Planning Commission Meeting.
List of Hearing Commentors
Circulation Improvement and Open Space Agreement EIR
Commentor comments/xesponse
No NamelMdress Codes Paee
1 Mr. Carl Hufbauer CH-1 193
Rep: SPON
20241 Bayview Ave.
2 Rev. Bill Kirlin-Hackett BKH 1-8 195
Rep: Newport Harbor Lutheran Church
1012 East Mayfair
Orange, CA
3 Dr. Richard G. Vinson RV-1 200
Rep: Costa Mesa Citizens Transportation
Alternative Study Group
5 Mr. Willis Longyear WL-1 202
Rep: Newport Conservancy
215 Via San Remo
7 Mr. Alan Remington AR-1 204
Rep: IYiends of Santa Ana River
9 Mr. Robert Hoffman RH-1 206
Rep: East Side Homeowners Association
19th Street
Costa Mesa, CA
12 Mr. Gary Drew GD 1-2 209
Rep: Newport Harbor Lutheran Church
Member and Council President
223 Monte Vista
Costa Mesa, CA
16 Mr. Allen Beek AB 212
2007 Highland
1 00190
Commentor
W
20
21
Mr. Gordon Glass MGG-1 215
2024 Avenida Chico
Dr. Jan Vandersloot JV 1-5 217
2221 16th Street
Mr. Jim Kociuva JK-1 218
5105 16th Street
PA
00190a
COMMISSIONERS
"Ok
June 18, 1992 MINUTES
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
ROLL CALL
INDEX
acres than the General Plan); less development than the General
Plan allows; and significant benefits to the City and the
Community.
Commissioner Gross asked if The Irvine Company was going to
make a contribution to maintain the land the Company is
dedicating to the City. Mr. Redwitz negatively replied, and he
explained that the land contribution significantly reduces the value
of the remaining development areas. In response to a question
posed by Commissioner Gross, Mr. Redwitz replied that The Irvine
Company would request a private community on the Castaways
property.
In response to a question posed by Chairman Di Sano, Ms. Temple
explained that it is the City's practice to assure that the closure of
the environmental review period occurs well in advance of the time
the EIR is certified, and the City Council is the body that certifies
the EIR. The Planning Commission public hearings are provided
as an additional forum for individuals to make comments on the
EIR verbally, and the comments would be responded to
accordingly. It is a practice that is allowed by the Environmental
Quality Act.
Commissioner Glover addressed the Castaways property and the
dedicated land on the bluff top. She indicated that she had
determined that the area should be used as a passive area for
pedestrians as opposed to a bicycle path. She stated that she had
a concern that the proposed uses that would be located in the open
space and the housing would be too much for the area, and too
much is being proposed for the site. She suggested a natural
walkway and to keep the bluffs natural, and not to construct a
concrete path.
The Planning Commission recessed at 9:25 and reconvened at 9:40
P.m.
W. Carl Hufbauer, 20241 Bayview Avenue, appeared before the
Planning Commission on behalf of SPON. Me asked what are the
benefits to the City of the proposed Development Agreement, and
are the most substantial things that the City would get that it
would not get if it went about business as usual without the
Agreement? The two biggest items would be an interest free loan
-25-
Commentor 1
79H"�what
0191
COMMISSIONERS
Ok\\\N \\
June 18, 1992 MINUTES
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
ROLL CALL
INDEX
of about $13 million for road projects and eventual dedications of
prime acreage on Upper Castaways and Newporter North that are
not required by the General Plan. He asked what are the costs to
the City and its residents of the proposed Development
Agreement? The City would lose its discretion to respond to
changing conditions, including endangered species; unacceptable
increases in traffic congestion and air pollution; or an
intensification of the public's desire to minimize development on
such key parcels as Upper Castaways and Newporter North. The
Newport Conservancy or like organizations would find themselves
under immense time pressure to raise funds or generate acquisition
packets for Upper Castaways and Newporter North as the
Agreement is now written. Given the costs and given the
irreversible damage to Newport Beach's aesthetic character and
biological resources, SPON is skeptical whether the proposed
Development Agreement as it now stands is in the interest of the
City and its residents. He stated that SPON has the following
sUggestions: Upper Castaways and Newporter North More
generous setbacks from the bluffs; height and bulk limitations so '
the aesthetics of the area as seen from across the bay are not
severely damaged as could occur under the present Agreement;
remove language regarding 'Dover Drive; language regarding
acquisition that would give the Newport Conservancy or similar
groups two years to generate funds for the pu ose of acquisition
of Upper Castaways and/or Newporter Nort i.
Commissioner Pomeroy responded to the foregoing statement
wherein he commented that it does not matter what the
Development Agreement states, the Commission does not pre-empt
an endangered species. The Irvine Company would not be able to
build on the property if they do not mitigate for an endangered
species.
In response to a question posed by Commissioner Gross, Mr.
Hufbauer replied that he is not a member of the Board of
Directors of the Newport Conservancy.
In response to a comment posed by Commissioner Gross, Ms.
Temple explained that the Planned Community texts contain the
basic setbacks, height, and parking requirements. Precise
development plans indicating the exact layout of buildings, the
location of internal roads, and the location of parking facilities that
-26-
CH-1
00192
Commentor 1, Mr. Carl Hutbauer
CH-1
These concerns are elaborated on in greater detail in the Spon Letter Responses to
Comments in Section III of this document.
00193
COMMISSIONERS
\04\N \
June 18, 1992 MINUTES
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
ROLL CALL
INDEX
may be provided for the public places are not addressed. The
Planned Community District Standards will be reviewed by the
Commission so as to make recommendations that will include
height limits and setbacks.
Commissioner Debay and Mr. Hufbauer discussed 'the feasibility
that a time limit for the Newport Conservancy or anotler
organization to acquire the Upper Castaways and/or Newporter
North be included in the Development Agreement.
-
Commentor
Reverend Bill Kirlin-Hackett,1012 East Mayfair, Orange, appeared
before the Planning Commission on behalf of the Newport Harbor
Lutheran Church, located at 16th Street and Dover Drive. The
church is the only developed parcel on what is considered Upper
iBKH-1
Castaways. Me EIR does not identify the church on the Upper
Castaways; however, the EIR for the Castaways Marina does
recognize the church as part of the Castaways site. The impacts
upon. the church that would result from the proposal would be that
BKFi-2'
the pre-school children would suffer during construction because of
the dust and noise level; the pre-school would be impacted
financially if the parents would not enroll the children because of
the dust and noise; the children's safety would be a concern
r
because of the proposed traffic on 16th Streett-jhe nearness of
bKH-3
homes as a result of the wrap -around layout proposed Eoise would
become an unneighborly factor between the church and the nearby
I�
residences; the worship life and schedule would be impacted
BKH-4
because of the unnecessary configuration; a severe impact would
occur on the wedding schedule and service concerns that the
131(44
church would be enveloped by a secured community with a possible
Mm,
Six foot wall the location of the park presents a problem of noise
KID
during wedding ceremonies and there would be a lack of parking
in the area; and the loss of weddings would have a severe financial
impac� Rev. Kirlin-Hackett suggested that the City, The Irvine
t
Company, and the churchCme jo a clear and firm agreement
.113_KH-7
prior to the approval of the plan ffe strongly recommended that
-tea
the EIR be recognized as insufficient in addressing the impact on
8KH48
the church and its missio:nj
Commissioner Merrill referred to the foregoing statements and he
askedif the church was.entitled to more expansion based on the
-
General Plan. Rev. Kirlin-Hackett replied that he was not aware
of further church expansion plans. He indicated that widening of
-27-
Commentor 2, Rev. Bill Kirlin-Hackett
BKH-1
The Newport Harbor Lutheran Church is identified several times in the Draft
Program EIR. Exhibit 8 on page 24 identifies the church as "existing church." The
church is also identified in the Land Use Section on page 56 in Exhibit 17 and in the
Aesthetics/Light and Glare Section on -page 93 under the subheading of Visual
Character.
The Newport Harbor Lutheran Church is not a part of the Upper Castaways project
and does not warrant further description or discussion for this Draft Program EIR.
The Castaways Marina EIR provided a more detail description of the church due to
the fact a haul road was proposed around the church by the Marina project. The
proposed Upper Castaways project will not impact the church facility as such.
Construction impacts in general were discussed in the Noise and Air Sections of the
Draft Program EIR. The church was not called out specifically because mitigation
identified applies generally to adjacent uses surrounding each project site. Mitigation
measures for construction related impacts to air and noise can be found on pages
192-194 and 233-234 in the Draft Program EIR.
BKH-2
Mitigation measures for construction impacts including noise and dust impacts have
been provided in the Program EIR. These measures are included in the Air Quality,
Noise, Earth Resources, and Water Resources sections of the report. These
measures include restrictions on the time of day and days of week that grading and
construction activities are allowed; requirements for adequate dust and erosion
control; and requirements to mitigate the impacts of haul operations. The required
mitigation measures will substantially alleviate any short-term impacts related to
grading and construction on the Upper Castaways site to a level of insignificance.
To further assure the commentor that the Newport Harbor Lutheran Church will be
adequately protected from short-term construction impacts the following measure has
been added to the Program EIR:
79. At the time specific site plans and grading plans are prepared and submitted
for review and approval by the City, the City shall review the plans in
conjunction with the environmental review process to confirm that the
mitigation measures provided will adequately control construction impacts
potentially impacting the Newport Harbor Lutheran Church, especially its pre-
school operations. If necessary, additional conditions related to construction
activities may be placed on the project.
2 00195
BKH-3
BKH-4
,t.
Residential uses will border the church property on the eastern boundary of the
church property. Residential and church uses are generally considered to be
compatible uses. At a General Plan and Zoning level of analysis, no significant
incompatibilities were expected, which is why none were discussed in the Program
EIR. At the time the site plan and grading plan are submitted for review, the City
of Newport Beach can further evaluate the specific design of the residential project
(including location and placement of structures, heights, location and height of
fencing, access, etc.) to determine if the residential development will significantly
conflict with the operations of the existing church. This type of analysis is more
appropriate to a subsequent level of discretionary action. Please refer to Responses
to Comments SPON-2 and SPON-5.
To further assure the commentor that the Newport Harbor Lutheran Church will be
adequately considered during the site plan review process for the Castaways
residential development, the following measure has been added to the Program EIR:
80. Prior to approval of a site plan review for the Upper Castaways site, the
applicant or successor in interest shall provide evidence that they have
consulted with the Newport Harbor Lutheran Church regarding the design of
the residential development. Design issues to be addressed include, but are
not limited to: parking, access, location and placement of structures,
directional signage, and landscaping.
Please refer to Response to Comment BKH-3.
Please refer to Response to Comment BKH-3.
BKH-6
A small active park is proposed across 16th Street from the church property on the
northern boundary of the church property. Park and church uses are generally
considered to be compatible uses. At a General Plan and Zoning level of analysis,
no significant incompatibilities were expected, which is why none were discussed in
the Program EIR. At the time a specific design for the layout and use of the
proposed active park is prepared and reviewed by the City of Newport Beach, the
proposed park will be further reviewed to determine if there are any potential
conflicts between the operations of the active park and the church. Please refer also
to Response to Comments SPON-2 and 5.
3 00166
1)MW,&A
Please refer to Responses to Comments BKH-2, BKH-3 and BKH-6.
BKH-8
Please refer to Responses to Comments BKH-1- 3 and BKH-6-
00197
4
COMMISSIONERS
.1k
OV\\\N o _
June 18, 1992 MINUTES
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
ROLL CALL
INDEX
Dover Drive would reduce some of the church's valuable frontage
land. The present plan as configured, has the church surrounded
by the passive park border.
In response to questions posed by Commissioner.Debay, .Rev.
Kirlin-Hackett replied that he had not met personally with The
Irvine Company to discuss the project, and that it would be difficult
to contact the residents residing in the closed community without
invitation. Commissioner Debay addressed the mitigation measures
that have been placed on the Castaways property during the
construction phase. Rev. Kirlin-Hackett stated that the mitigation
measures do not address the church during construction.
Commissioner Glover and Rev. Kirlin-Hackett discussed the
concerns that the church has with respect to the children playing
and other activities that would occur in the proposed park and the
impact that the noise and parking would have on the church.
Commissioner Edwards and Rev. Kirlin-Hackett addressed
comments regarding the widening of Dover Drive. Rev. Kirlin-
Hackett indicated that the church is concerned that if Dover Drive
would be,widened that the church would lose some of the parking
lot.
In response to a question posed by Commissioner Edwards, Mr.
Webb explained that a six -lane Dover Drive has been in the Master
Plan of Street and Highways since 1962.
Commissioner Debay referred to the proposed Upper Castaways
Planned Community District Regulations, page 6, wherein it states
that Noise mitigation programs shall be based upon the
recommendations of a licensed engineer practicing in acoustics and be
approved by the Planning Department.
Dr, Richard G. Vinson, Costa Mesa Citizens Transportation
ommentor 3
_; •
Alternatives Study Group, submitted and read a letter to the
1w ; _,,
Commission dated June 18,1992, from Roy Pizarek, Chairman. ge
RV-1
stated that the group requests to preserve the quality of life of
residential' neighborhoods; the deletion of the 19th Street and
Gisler Street crossings of the Santa Ana River and the deletion or
downgrading of East 19th Street as a secondary highway on Orange
County's Master Plan of Highways; that Upper Castaways could
00198
-28-
COMMISSIONERS
d
0 ���
rG
June 18, 1992 MINUTES
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
ROLL CALL
INDEX
result in significant traffic impacts in residential neighborhoods in
the east side of Costa Mesa and Dover Shores in Newport Beach;
RV-1
and that the Commission consider alternatives for the proposed
Upper Castaways project to compliment rather than degrade the
existing residential neighborhoo°J
Commissioner Pomeroy stated that the 19th Street crossing over
the Santa Ana River is essential to improve circulation throughout
the Newport Beach/Costa Mesa area.
-
Commentor 4
Mr. Robert Webber, 420 Heliotrope, appeared before the Planning
Commission on behalf of the Orange County Homeless Issues Task
Force. Mr. Webber stated that he had reviewed the City's
RW
compliance with the State regulations regarding the housing and
planning issues. He complemented staff with regard to the housing
issues. He requested that the City not lose the potential housing
stock because it has been the policy to use 20 percent of the
housing allocation for low and very low cost housing. He indicated
that affordable housing is not included in all of the proposed
Planned Community texts, and he requested assurance that
affordable housing would be reflected in each of the projects. He
recommended that the senior housing, the restaurant and the
athletic facility be developed at Bayview Landing. Mr. Hewicker
stated that there are no proposals to relax the City's affordable
housing policy. The terminology in the Planned Community texts
allows for the provision of affordable housing either on -site or off -
site.
Commentor 5
Mr. Willis Longyear, 215 Via San Remo, appeared before the
Planning Commission on behalf of the Newport Conservancy. He
71
stated that the Conservancy is proceeding with an active program
I WL
to acquire three privately held properties adjoining the Newport
-
Bay Ecology Reserve and Park System in order to protect an
ecological balance of the Reserve and to provide citizens of the
community with continued access to particular desirable
recreational open space. The Conservancy recommends that San
Diego Creek South remain open as a corridor for continued
wildlife access for Upper Newport Bay from inland open space
areas, and that Newporter North remain as an open wildlife habitat
as an -upland breeding and hunting area and an extended habitat
for endangered species. The Conservancy requests that Upper
Castaways and Newporter North be left undeveloped for at least
.���
-29-
Commentor 3, Dr. Richard G. Vinson
RV-1
These comments are elaborated on in greater detail in the CTASG Letter Responses
to Comments.
COMMISSIONERS
I \
June 18, 1992 MINUTES
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
ROLL CALL
INOEX
the period of years that would be required for the ecological sites
to be assessed and explored in an orderly unhurried manner. The
need for recreation and open space will become increasingly
important to the City as development continues to "hem" it in,
which requires that the Upper Castaways be retained for its,present
and future value as a particularly desirable parcel of recreational
and open space. That Newporter North be carefully planned to
provide low impact access for observation of wildlife in its natural
habitat. The viewpoint has been born out by a recent City survey
in which roughly 85 percent of those interviewed cited that
WL-1
preservation of open space and wildlife habitat are important issues
for the City. Preliminary review of the EIR indicates strong
possibilities that it also supports the initial assessment that
development of the foregoing parcels will impose irreparable
negative impact on the Upper Newport Bay Ecological Reserve and
Park Syste� The Conservancy requests that the City work with
the Conservancy to save the City's remaining small and rich
heritage of wildlife habitat and recreational open space. The
Conservancy requested that the Commission take no action in
accepting the EIR or approving the Development Agreement until
the response to comments has been completed.
In response to a question posed by Commissioner Pomeroy, Mr.
Longyear replied that the Conservancy would need approximately
$80 million to preserve the aforementioned sites, and they have not
begun the fundraising campaign. W. Longyear explained that if
The Irvine Company developed the foregoing properties that it
would take several years to get a return from their investment. The
Conservancy's intent is to build enough presence and financial
capability to meet The Irvine Company's requirements and they
hope to do that within 1-1/2 to 2 years. It is not expected that the
Conservancy would be able to pay The Irvine Company off within
that period of time.
Commissioner Gross and Mr. Longyear discussed the Conservancy's
desire to have additional time to study the EIR with respect to
Newporter North. Ms. Temple stated that there are several
archeological sites identified on the Newporter North site and that
there is specific mitigation included in the piogram that will
require, prior to the issuance of any Grading Permit, that the
investigation and salvage operation be complete. These types of
-30-
OOZOI
Commentor 5, Mr. Willis Longyear
WL-1
Comment noted. The Biological Resources section recognizes the regional
significance of the Upper Newport Bay and the Upper Newport Bay Ecological
Reserve. The project incrementally contributes to cumulative impacts related
biological resources in the region including the Upper Newport Bay. The project has
been designed to avoid many potential impacts and additionally, mitigation measures
have been provided to reduce impacts to the extent feasible.
0
00202
COMMISSIONERS
d
c�
June 18, 1992 MINUTES
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
ROLL CALL
INDEX
programs are subject to the approval of a Coastal Permit for
Cultural Resource Recovery.
Commentor f
Mr. Michael J. Daley, 1921 Port Weybridge, appeared before the
Planning Commission as President of the Harbor View
Homeowner's Association, representing 525 homes. He addressed
MD
the Freeway Reservation parcel wherein he indicated that the
homeowner's would be most affected by the proposed 36 dwellings
at Ford Road and MacArthur Boulevard. He stated that the
Association had a previous concern that Ford Road would become
a cul-de-sac and additional houses would impact the community;
however, The Association met with The Irvine Company regarding
the property and the development was reduced from 76 structures
to 36 structures so as to blend the proposed project with the
existing community.
Mr. Alan Remington appeared before the Planning Commission
Commentor 7
ieptesenting the Friends of the Santa Ana River. Mr. Remington
stated that roads are not the answer to traffic and there is currently
AR,
no crossing over the Santa Ana River at 19th Street; therefore,
there is no traffic. He stated that the residents oppose a six lane
road and. the traffic -would impact the residents- of Costa Mesa and
Newport Beach. He indicated that 2600 residences proposed in the
Santa Ana River area would generate heavy east and west traffic.
nimissioner Gross and Mr. Remington discussed the concerns
regarding the proposed impact of traffic at the corner of 19th
Street and Newport Boulevard; the widening of Dover Drive; and
the proposed 19th Street bri ge.
Mr. Jack Perkins, 474 - 16th Place, Costa Mesa, appeared before
the Planning Commissions as a member of the Newport Harbor
Lutheran Church. He stated that the Church moved from a Cliff
Drive location to the present location because a freeway was
proposed for that location; however, the freeway was never
constructed. He stated that sometimes a proposal is not executed
as planned wherein he referred to the concerns expressed regarding
the expansion of Dover Drive.
.Mr. Robert Hoffiman, a 19th Street resident in Costa Mesa,
appeared before the Planning Commission on behalf of the East
Side Homeowners Association. He submitted and read a letter
dated June 18, 1992, to the Planning Commission.Ce stated that
-31-
AR-1
Commentor E
Commentor 9
!RH-1',
: • 1
0203
Commentor 7, Mr. Alan Remington
AR-1
Please refer to Responses to Comments TASG-2 and JDV-1 in Section III of this
document.
7 &OZ04
COMMISSIONERS
,Oi\\\N \\
o .
June 18, 1992 MINUTES
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
ROLL CALL
INDEX
their concerns are the increase in traffic because of the proposed
development and associated street widening; the safety of the
RH-1
children; and the noise and pollution. The homeowners
recommended an alternative to the proposed Upper Castaways
project.
In response to questions posed by Commissioner Merrill, Mr. Webb
explained that the traffic projection does not indicate any change
in traffic on 19th Street related to the proposed development.
In response to questions posed by Commissioner Edwards, Mr.
Webb explained that the proposed widening of Dover Drive that
is included in the Circulation Element would be between West
Coast Highway and Westcliff Drive. Commissioner Edwards stated
that the Commission is not specifically addressing the widening of
Dover Drive. Mr. Webb explained that the Commission is only
addressing the part of the Development Agreement that requires
The• Irvine Company to provide the grading, if necessary. Mr.
Webb further explained that if the City Council would change the
Circulation Element of the General Plan and downgrade it, the
widening of Dover Drive could be eliminated.
In response to a question posed by Commissioner Glover, Mr.
Webb explained that the Upper Castaways is one of the small
increments that would occur within 20 years that would cause a
need for the widening of Dover. Drive.
Commissioner Merrill concluded that it is good engineer and traffic
planning to have The Irvine Company grade Dover Drive as a
requirement as long as the roadway is on the Master Plan. Mr.
Webb stated that in the interim the parcel would be landscaped
and would provide open space.
Mr. Royal Radtke, 330 Mayflower Drive, DeAnza Village,
Comrnentor 1
appeared before the Planning Commission on behalf of the Corona
del Mar Chamber of Commerce and the Bayside Village
RR
Homeowner's Association. Mr. Radtke stated that the Corona del
Mar Chamber of Commerce previously had concerns regarding the
Upper Castaways site and the area near the Newporter Hotel;
however, after examining the proposals, the Board of Directors
unanimously supported The Irvine Company's plan. The Bayside
Village Homeowner's Association has made no decision with
-32-
0205
a
Commentor 9, Mr. Robert Hoffman
RH-1
Please refer to Response to Comment Letter ESHA in Section III of this document.
U.
00206
COMMISSIONERS
June 18, 1992 MINUTES
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
ROLL CALL
III
Jill
I
INDEX
respect to the plan inasmuch as there are concerns regarding the
cliff area across from DeAnza Bayside Village which could become
a liability for the City should an accident occur within the 40 foot
setback.
In response to a question posed by Commissioner Edwards, Mr.
Radtke explained that the residents are concerned with the liability
factor inasmuch as the cliff areas are not properly marked, and the
type of development that would, be allowed within the 40 foot
setback.
ommentor 1
Mr. Neil Randle, 1848 Port Tiffin Place, appeared before the
Planning Commission on behalf of the residents concerned with the
NR
southern portion of the Freeway Reservation project. Mr. Randle
stated that the residents would prefer that the area remain open
space; however, after meeting with The Irvine Company, the
AdHoc Committee agreed to a modified project wherein the homes
would front on Newport Hills Drive and the number of structures
would be reduced from 15 homes to 12 homes.
Commentor 1
In response to a question posed by Commissioner Merrill, Mr.
Randle explained that the aforementioned AdHoc Committee has
been sanctioned by members of the Board of Directors of the
Newport Hills Community Association. Discussion ensued
regarding the feasibility of purchasing the property for open space.
Mr. GaryDrew, 223 Monte Vista, Costa Mesa, appeared before the
Planning Commission as a member of the Newport Harbor
Lutheran Church and Council President. He stated that the
Gb-1
Church has requested that specific clarifications be addressed in the
Environmental Impact Report regarding the Upper Castaways site,
i.e.: the inconsistencies of the Castawa s Marina EIR and the
Open Space Circulation Agreement )rIR. The Church is addressed
�GD-2
in the Castaways Marina EIR, and the Church is mentioned in a
--
minor way in the Open Space Circulation EIR, Visual Character
Section. The Church has further requested that the EIR address
mitigation measures similar to the Castaways Marina Ells Section
5.1,, page 5.1-9, Land Use: To mitigate potential short term impacts
[the Church would request long term impacts] to Church activities,
the project applicant or designated representative, shall coordinate/
communicate with officials of the Newport Harbor Lutheran Church
0207
-33-
COMMISSIONERS
A
O Y' �cA —
June 18, 1992 MINUTES
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
ROLL CALL
INDEX
to establish a schedules.. and plan to work out the logistics of the
GD-2
development as it impacts the Church.
Commissioner Merrill indicated that the Castaways Marina
provided for a haul road, and inasmuch as the haul road would be
constructed around the Church, the Church was specifically
addressed in the Castaways Marina EIR. Mr. Drew concurred;
however, he explained that the Castaways Marina is mentioned
many times with respect to the impact that the Marina would have
on the Church.
Ms. Temple stated that the general construction impact conditions
apply to everyone; however, staff has no problem with
incorporating specific references to the Church and will respond to
the foregoing comments in Response to Comment. The full scope
of mitigation will be reviewed with the Church prior to submittal
to the City Council.
Mr. Drew stated that the Church requests that prior to Tract Map
approval or submittal, a resolution be worked out between the City,
The Irvine Company, and Newport Harbor Lutheran Church. A
specific resolution would be in place prior to the approval of a
Tract Map, that the resolution shall contain that any private or
public development assure the Newport Harbor Lutheran Church
that it will not be impacted to affect their ability to service the
community, to adhere and to continue their mission's statements
and programs that are currently offered to the community. That no
impact be made that would affect the Church's physical site with
any constraints, including security, access, identity, that the Church
now enjoys.
Commentor 1
Ms. B. J. Johnson, 23 Canyon Crest, appeared before the Planning
r �-
Commission in support of the proposed Development Agreement.
IBJJ
She explained that the Agreement provides needs and economic
benefits for the City, and she supported the Newport Conservancy's
request to purchase the Upper Castaways site.
Mr. Ed Benson, '1028 Westwind Way, President of the Dover
Commentor 1
Shores Community Association, appeared before the Planning
Commission. He submitted a written text of his testimony to the
Commission expressing the Association's support of the
=--
0208
-34-
Commentor 12, W. Gary Drew
GD-1
GD-2
Please refer to Response to Comment BKH-1.
Please refer to Response to Comment BKH-i, 2, and 3.
COMMISSIONERS
A _
June 18, 1992 MINUTES
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
ROLL CALL
INDEX
Development Agreement and the benefits the City would acquire
as a result of the proposed project.
Commentor
Ms. Janet Remington, 1154 Boise Way, Costa Mesa, appeared
before the Planning Commission. She addressed the West Newport
JR
Oil project located adjacent to the Santa Ana River and 19th
Street, and the circulation pattern to Dover Drive. She stated that
a six lane highway would be constructed through the wetlands to
Dover Drive if the West Newport Oil project would be developed
from West Coast Highway to 19th Street in Costa Mesa, and she
expressed concerns regarding the impact the traffic would have on
the residents residing adjacent to the proposed roadway.
Commissioner Gross, Commissioner Pomeroy, Commissioner
Merrill and Ms. Remington discussed the feasibility of removing
the expansion of Dover Drive from the Master Plan of Arterial
Highways and her concerns regarding Dover Drive and the 19th
Street Bridge.
Mr. Webb stated that a study is currently going on with the County
of Orange that will review the traffic in the Huntington Beach,
Costa Mesa, Fountain Valley, and Newport Beach areas that will
evaluate the needs for 19th Street, Gisler Street, and Wilson Street'
bridges as well as the status of the East 19th Street link. The
recommendations that come out of the study will be forwarded to
the cities. He stated that he has been designated to participate in
the study. The group participating in the study are trying to
quantify some of the problems that are currently being addressed
and to try to determine where the traffic is coming from and going
to. The results of the study will be submitted to the City Council at
a later date.
Mr. Allen Beek, 2007 Highland, appeared before the Planning
Conrentor 1
Commission. Mr. Beek stated that the Development Agreement
AB
gives advance approval to projects that may be done many years in
the future, and it is simply a way of the City abdicating
responsibility in the future to maintain its vigilance over protecting
the health, safety, and welfare of the community. It is improper for
the City to give away the future years, the rights of future City
Councils, and the right of the people at the polls to make their
fundamental planning decisions for the City. It has been justified
that the City would get some streets built and paid for by The
Irvine Company; however, he said the City has no need for the
-35-
00214
June 18, 1992
COMMISSIONERS
110 N
i\
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
MINUTES
ROLL CALL
INDEX
streets, and he suggested more intersection capacity and not more
lanes. He suggested that the �Circulation Element be amended to
remove the additional lanes. [In: reference to the proposed Upper
Castaways project, Mr. Beek stated that the bluff is eroding, that
some of the runoff from the top of the bluff runs over the face and
down the bluff, and is carving gullies. One of the requirements of
the project should be that the gullies should be filled and restored,
and that a berm be established along the drainage ere should
be public bicycle and pedestrian access from 16th Street to the
bluff top development. He opposed the proposal to construct a 10
foot berm or mound adjacent to the residential development and
the open space inasmuch as the houses in back want a view and the
houses in front should be kept low and not built up, and they
should be restricted in height, so the neighbors behind can see over
the lower structures. The proposed 32 foot height limit is
completely out of character, at least for the front row of houses.
In response to a question posed by Commissioner Debay, Mr. Beek
explained .that The Irvine Company is taking every last dwelling
unit they are entitled to, on the Castaways, the Newporter North,
and San Diego Creek South. He stated that what The Irvine
Company is giving in open space is around the freeway,, and that
area cannot be developed.
In response to questions posed by Commissioner Gross, Ms. Flory
explained that the change in density would require a change in the
General Plan, and it is a matter of creating zoning for the
applications that currently exist. Mr. Hewicker explained that prior
to the time that there are homes on the site, the zoning has to be
established. Mr. Beek responded that the general outline would be
established with the subject Development Agreement and the City
would not be able to go back on the things that were given away
with the Development Agreement. W. Beek commended staff and
the City Attorney's office on the work that has been done with the
subject Development Agreement.
In response to a question posed by Commissioner Glover, Ms.
Temple explained that the comprehensive set of mitigation
measures require that the bluffs on the Castaways and Newporter
North undergo a stabilization program. In addition, staff set up a
program whereby in order to make use of the restored top of slope
in the areas where there are erosion swells, that The Irvine
-36-
AB-1
AB—g
-
0211
Commentor 16, Mr. Allen Beek
AB-1
AB-2
Mitigation measure 35 in the Program EIR provides the Upper Castaways site be
designed with drainage control devices which direct excess water from site
improvements away from the bluff face.
The potential for bluff and slope instability and stabilization is discussed on pages
280-281 in the Program EIR. Mitigation measures 3140 deal with erosion and bluff
and slope instability. Specifically mitigation measure 35 requires drainage of both
surface and subsurface water to be minimised. The proposed development will
conform to the bluff setback criteria identified by the City of Newport Beach and the
additional mitigation measures required to insure prevention of slope instability.
Stabilization of bluffs on Upper Castaways will be required as a safety requirement
for the trail system and view park areas. The bluffs at Upper Castaways will not be
stabilized in order to allow residential development but rather to allow public access.
The City of Newport Beach will be responsible for the stabilization of these bluffs
prior to public access.
Comment noted. This is a design issue which will be addressed at the time of site
plan review.
10
0021z
COMMISSIONERS
03 CEO �' N
01
June 18, 1992
MINUTES
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
ROLL CALL
INDEX
Company would be responsible for the restoration and re-
establishment of the slopes in those areas. Absent their willingness
to make the improvements themselves, then their development line
would be defined by the existing top of slope, which is in some
areas quite irregular. With The Irvine Company's willingness to
make those improvements, they could smooth out their
development'line and make use of the new line. Provisions have
been made for both - the restoration of the erosion and the overall
stabilization of the bluff on both sides. In the case of the
restoration of the erosion areas, the cost would be the responsibility
of The Irvine Company, and the overall bluff stabilization is
currently the responsibility of the City.
ommentor'
Mr. Dean Reinemann, appeared before the Planning Commission
He stated that he is on the Costa Mesa Transportation Committee;
DR
although he is a Newport Beach resident. He expressed his
concerns regarding the standard policy that the City uses to submit
comments regarding the EIR. Chairman Di Sano explained that the
comments on the EIR continue until July 18, 1992. Mr.
Reinemann stated that the removal of open space around the Back
Bay is the primary concern of the individuals attending the public
hearing.
--
Mr. Don Harvey, 2039 Port Weybridge, appeared before the
Comrnentor 1
Planning Commission. Mr. Harvey addressed Mr. Beek's foregoing
'DH
comments and the inappropriateness of the Development
Agreement, and he concurred that each project should be
considered on an individual basis. He said that the Development
Agreement would allow traffic to increase, and the result is that
there would be more pressure from the public for open space. He
requested not to take away for future representatives, the power to
respond to future conditions. Mr. Harvey stated that the reason
why the widening of Dover Drive does not show on the traffic
count is because, subsequent to an extensive conversation with Cal -
Trans, that the street width does not enter into projections. The
Development Agreement is based implicitly on projections of what
is going to happen in the future. Mr. Webb commented that it was
his impression that the aforementioned statement indicates that the
traffic models do not take into consideration the number of lanes
and roadways wherein Mr. Webb replied that the statement is
incorrect. Mr. Webb explained that the traffic model does indicate
the number of lanes and it is a constrained model. Mr. Harvey
0O Z 13
-37'
17
EA
COMMISSIONERS
June 18, 1992
MINUTES
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
ROLL CALL
INDEX
responded that in the Cal -Trans' models and projections, the lane
structure was not considered because it was not clear what that
would be. Mr. Harvey and Commissioner Gross discussed the
feasibility of a change in future zoning, density, and development.
Mr. Gordon Glass, 2024 Avenida Chico, appeared before the
ommentor 1
Planning Commission. Mr. Glass addressed Newporter North, the
EIR, the Planned Community text, and public view corridors. He
commented that Newport Conservancy will hopefully be able to
raise enough money to purchase the Newporter North property. If
the Conservancy does not succeed, then he recommended a view
corridor which would not drastically impact The Irvine Company's
ability to develop the property. If there would be a view plane and
view corridor established downward to the water level to about
where East Coast Highway is, there would be a perpetual view that
thousands of people a day can enjoy. He roposed a view corridor
approximately 1200 feet south from the intersection of Santa
Barbara and Jamboree Road; establish a site plane as viewed from
Jamboree Road at 4 feet above street level or the eye height of a
MGG-1
driver passing downward toward the water level; and no trees or
trees that could be controlled.•He proposed that as a part of the
Site Plan Review in the PC text that the aforementioned be giyen
serious consideration Ms. Temple explained that within the
provisions of the Development Agreement, action could not be
taken to reduce the number of units.
Dr. Jan VanderSloot, 2221 - 16th Street, appeared before the
Commentor e
Planning Commission. Dr. VanderSloot commended The Irvine
Company for the sensitivity in addressing the smaller wetlands that
are located on the subject properties, and their appreciation for the
value of wetlands as open space. He expressed a concem that after
the wetlands are dedicated to thhe City, is the City committed to
,N-1
preserving the areas as wetlands, are there any safeguards or
restrictions, or anything that would make sure that the wetland
areas that are dedicated actually remain wetlands for perpetuity.
He stated that the wetlands located at Jamboree Road and
MacArthur Boulevard may be impacted by the San Joaquin Hills
Corridor, the Newporter North site may be impacted by the access
road to the Corridor, and the Dover Drive. wetland would be
impacted by -the widening of Dover Dnve He recommended that
the Commission delay their decision until after the public comment
period is over because the Commission cannot be fully educated
00214
-38-
I7
an
Commentor 19, W. Gordon Glass
MGG-1
Please refer to Response to Comment GG-4 in Section III of this document.
OUZ15
11
June 18, 1992
COMMISSIONERS
110
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
MINUTES
ROLL CALL
INDEX
until after reviewing the comments or the biological affects of
Newporter North until the Commission has read what the Fish and
Game De artment and U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service have to
V. He said that the Bolsa Chica Mesa EIR has suggested that
JV-2
cats not be allowed within the houses because cats will disturb the
wildlife within the wetlands. He recommended that'The Irvine
Company give the Newport Conservancy additional time to come
up with the necessary funding, possibly up to five years. rr.
JV-3
VanderSloot stated that the Upper Castaways development would
L 5s.
impact 16th Street even though it is not stated in the EMI and
JV-4
Cere has been no noise study on East 16th Street a pointe out
L,
that developing an active park on Upper Castaways would not be-5
compatible with adjacent residences. He concluded that residential
developments do not generate enough property taxes over the long
run to pay for the services that are needed.
Mr. Jim Kociuva, 5105 -16th Street, appeared before the Planning
ommentor 2
Commission. [He stated that Upper Castaways would generate
"
more traffic for the eastside neighborhoods, and he opposed the
X-1
proposed circulation plan. He addressed the traffic congestion, at
the intersection of 17th Street and Irvine Avenue, and he suggested
an additional left turn lane for the east/west tra Fic.
Mr. Tom Redwitz reappeared before the Planning Commission.
Mr. Redwitz addressed the testimony during the public hearing
regarding Newport Conservancy, and he responded that The Irvine
Company would sell one or more of the subject properties so long
as the property was sold at fair market value and within a
reasonable time period of 12 to 18 months. He stated that The
Irvine Company has an 'open door' policy regarding the issue, and
the Company has cooperated with the Conservancy to discuss the
acquisition of the sites. In response to concerns posed during the
public hearing regarding Newporter North, Mr. Redwitz explained
that SPON requested the preservation of a view corridor from
Jamboree Road; therefore, the shape of the Newporter North
development pulls back from Jamboree Road going southbound to
open up a view corridor to the lower bay. In response to public
testimony regarding the proposed Development Agreement as
opposed to 'piecemeal' projects, Mr. Redwitz explained. that The
Irvine Company considers comprehensive planning to be the most
beneficial way to consider properties, and the method is consistent
00216
-39-
Commentor 20, Dr. Jan Vandersloot
JV-1
JV-2
JV-3
JV 4
JV-5
It is the intent of the City of Newport Beach to preserve important open space areas
as open space. However, the Program EIR recognizes that in some instances impacts
to wetlands are anticipated. For instance, the Program EIR recognizes the potential
impacts to the wetland on Dover Drive by the future widening of Dover Drive and
the possible impact of the future extension of Bayview Way on the San Diego Creek
North wetland. These potential impacts are fully disclosed at the level of detail
available in the Program EIR. Mitigation measures contained in the Program EIR
pertain equally to the City of Newport Beach and the applicant. These mitigation
measures will assure that any impacts to wetlands will be adequately mitigated to a
level of insignificance.
This issue is discussed in greater detail in Letter JDV in Section III of this document.
This issue is discussed in greater detail in Letter JDV in Section III of this document.
This issue is discussed in greater detail in Letter JDV in Section III of this document.
In general, park and residential uses are considered compatible uses. At a General
Plan and Zoning level of analysis, no significant incompatibilities were identified,
which is why none were discussed in the Program EIR. At the time a specific design
for the layout and use of the proposed active park and residential uses are prepared
and reviewed by the City of Newport Beach, the issue will be further reviewed to
determine if there are any potential conflicts between the operations of the active
park and the adjacent residential uses. Conditions can be placed on both the
residential development and the park uses to avoid unnecessary conflicts. Please
refer also to Response to Comments SPON-2 and 5.
12 0OZ17
Commentor 21, Mr. Jim Kociuva
JK-1
The Net Benefit Table (Table U) on page 178 in the Program EIR identifies that the
project contributes .01 in the am/pm peak hour to the Irvine and 17th Street
intersection. Table U identifies a second east bound left turn lane as a project
improvement which would result in a net benefit to the intersection.
Table V on page 180 in the Program EIR is a list of initial intersection improve-
ments which will receive priority in the implementation of mitigation measure 2. The
list identifies the Irvine and 17th Street intersection.
13 00218
COMMISSIONERS
June 18, 1992
MINUTES
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
ROLL CALL
INDEX
with the way The Irvine Company has previously developed
properties.
There being no others desiring to appear and be heard, the public
hearing was closed at this time.
Mr. Redwitz reappeared before the Planning Commission in
response to questions posed by Commissioner Glover regarding the
bluff restoration. Mr. Redwitz explained that the setback of the
development area would be 40 feet, and The Irvine Company is not
proposing to develop into the 40 foot setback The proposal was
originally that The Irvine Company would be allowed to grade into
the area, but not build into the area. Ms. Flory explained that the
concern is not whether the bluffs are restored, the concern is the
extra weight on the manufactured slope, or the additional weight
of the pad as it builds up in the extra 20 feet. Mr. Hewicker
explained that during the processing of raising the
grading,
elevation, and creating the pad, The Irvine Company would be
developing within the 40 foot setback and that would include the
additional height of the land and the weight of the earth. Mr.
Hewicker stated that development can be considered dirt or
structures. Ms. Temple explained that the restoration of the bluff
face does not affect the liability issues identified in relationship to
the creation of the manufactured slope. Mr. Watson reappeared
before the Planning Commission in response to the foregoing
comments wherein he explained that by The Irvine Company
coming 20 feet into the 40 feet, and if something that The Irvine
Company wants to do would cause an unstable condition on the
bluff, The Irvine Company would be responsible to correct what
they have caused. Mr. Watson further 'explained that to do any
development, grading, etc. and if the City would indicate that what
is being done would cause instability to the bluff, then The Irvine
Company would correct what they are doing or they would pay for
it. Ms. Flory stated that the City Attorney's Office would be
looking at an assumption of liability if there would be 20 feet into
the 40 feet. Commissioner Edwards suggested the foregoing as a
condition that could be added to the project. Mr. Watson concurred
with comments made by Commissioner Merrill: that The Irvine
Company would like to .intrude on the setback with a slope
easement. Mr. Watson explained that The Irvine Company has
only indicated that there is a possibility that they would want to
grade into the area. Commissioner Merrill stated that by elevating
4o_ 01219
V. REPORT PREPARATION RESOURCES
Preparers and Contributors to the Addendum and
Response to Comments
Preparers:
ASB Planning Inc. Annette Sanchez Baesel
Planning Consultant Sheri L. Provost
Contributors:
Transportation/Circulation
Air Quality/Noise
Biological Resources
Austin -Foust Associates
• Terry Austin
• Denise Gemma
Mestre Greve Associates, Inc.
• Fred Greve
• Will Bloomer
Steve G. Nelson
Persons and Organizations Consulted During the Preparation of Adden-
dum and Response to Comments
City of Newport Beach:
Advance Planning Manager Patricia Temple
Utilities Department Director Jeff Staneart
City Engineer Don Webb
Traffic Engineer Rich Edmonston
Project Applicant:
The Irvine Company Tom Redwitz
Mike Ericson
Paul Jones
Sat Tamaraguchi
Latham and Watkins Bob Break
Howard, Rice, Nemerovski,
Canady, Robertson & Falk William Boyd
Other Agencies and Organizations:
SCAG Barbara Dove
00220
APPENDIX A
00221
Draft
NEWPO,RT BEACH CIRCULATION IMPROVEMENT
AND OPEN SPACE AGREEMENT
Supplemental Traffic Data
Prepared by:
Austin -Foust Associates
2020 N. Tustin Avenue
Santa Ana, California 92701
August 10, 1992
DOZZz
NEWPORT BEACH CIRCULATION IMPROVEMENT
AND OPEN SPACE AGREEMENT
Supplemental Traffic Data
The data given in this document supplements the findings of the "Newport Beach Circulation
Improvement and Open Space Agreement, Traffic Study" prepared in May 1992. The purpose is to
identify the traffic implications of changes to the proposed land use and changes in the project
phasing.
PROJECT LAND USE AND TRIP GENERATION MODIFICATIONS
Since the traffic study for the Newport Beach Circulation Improvement and Open Space
Agreement project was prepared, several changes to the proposed land use plan have occurred.
Table 1 summarizes the land uses assumed in the traffic study and the approximate time -frame for
occupation of each use. The table is broken down into two components: the first portion is taken
directly from the traffic study and the second portion indicates the changes that are discussed in this
document for Bay View Landing (Site 5) and Newport Center (Site 12).
Changes to the Bay View Landing site involve replacing the 10,000 square feet of restaurant
use (planned for occupation in Year-2000) with 120 senior -housing units (for occupation in 1995).
As well, approximately 30,000 square feet of regional commercial use is added to the Newport Center
site. Both sites are illustrated in Figure 1.
The trip generation implications of these changes are summarized in Tables 2 through 4 which
give the trip generation forecasts for each phase of the project. In 1995, the net result of the project
changes is an increase of approximately 1,140 average daily trips (ADT). The corresponding trip
increase in the AM and PM peak hours, respectively, is approximately 57 and 96. In Year-2000, the
project changes result in a reduction of about 669 trips on a daily basis, and about 7 and 51 trips in
the AM and PM peak hours, respectively. By Year-2010, the overall change to the total project
results in an increase of about 471 daily trips. On a peak hour basis, the increase equates to about
50 and 45 trips in the AM and PM peak hours, respectively.
Newport Beach CIOSA 1 Austin -Foust Associates, Inc.
Supplemental Traffic Data WPM
DEVELOPMENT SITE
Table 1
PROJECT PHASING
LAND USE
UNIT
---------
1995
AMOUNT ---------
2000
2010
FRO( TRAFFIC STUDY
1. San Diego Creek South
Apartment
DU
300
300
300
2. San Diego Creek North
Open Space
ACRE
15
15
15
3. Jamboree/MacArthur
Open Space
ACRE
5
5
5
4. upper Castaways
Res -Low (SFA)
DU
151
151
151
Open Space
ACRE
13
13
13
Active Park
ACRE
5
5
5
View Park
ACRE
12
12
12
5. Bay View Landing
Restaurant
TSF
0
10
10
View Park
ACRE
0
11
11
6. Newporter North
Res-Med (SFA)
DU
212
212
212
7. Block 800
Res-Med (SFA)
DU
245
245
245
B. Corporate Plaza West
General Office
TSF
94
94
94
9a. Freeway Reservation North
Res-Med (SFD)
DU
36
36
36
Open Space
ACRE
17
17
17
9b. Freeway Reservation South
Res -Low (SFD)
DU
12
12
12
10. Newporter Knoll
Open Space
ACRE
43
43
43
View Park
ACRE
4
4
4
11. Newporter Resort
Resort Hotel
ROOM
0
68
68
REVISED LAND USES ON SITES 5 AND
NEW USES ON SITE 12
5. Bay View Landing
Restaurant
TSF
0
0
0
View Park
ACRE
0
11
11
Senior Housing
DU
120
120
120
12. Newport Center
Reg Comm
TSF
30
30
30
Note: Project development sites
are illustrated in Figure 1.
Newport Beach CIOSA 2 Austin -Foust Associates, Inc.
Supplemental Traffic Data 00224
yX
i
rw
S
p b7
p
y
a
®Jamboree/MacArthur
20 San Diego
Creek North
,o
o
(1 San Diego Creek
South
ITA
OB Newporter North
90reeway Reservation N
Dann
J f
HALM
�+Y
9b Freeway Reservation S
10 Newporter Knoll
�'cy
yI
_
E
O Block 800
11 Newporter Resort
12 Newport Center
y`�
q
wmxnT
��
O8 Corporate Plaza West
O5 Bayview Landing
O4 Upper Castaways
Q�o� eeimo
�BAY
8
PACIFIC
p
H
OCEAN
5
0
R•
Note: Newport Coast Drive was open
Figure 1
C R
for traffic in November 1990.
DEVELOPMENT SITES
r
iV
Table 2
1995 PROJECT LAND USE AND TRIP GENERATION
Traffic --AM PEAK HOUR-- ---PM PEAK HOUR --
Site Zone Land Use Units In Out Total In Out Total
ADT
1. SAN DIEGO CREEK SOUTH
61 Apartment 300 DU
60
120
180
120
90
210
1950
2. SAN DIEGO CREEK NORTH
Open Space 15 ACRE
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3. JAMBOREE/MACARTHUR
Open Space 5 ACRE
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4. UPPER CASTAWAYS
21 Res - Low (SPA) 151 DU
30
98
128
98
60
159
1480
Open Space 13 ACRE
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Active Park 5 ACRE
0
0
0
0
0
0
30
View Park 12 ACRE
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Sub Total
30
98
128
98
60
159
1510
S 'MY'MW%,ANDINO (Ad&d)
. 9 .. „�Cpi�','_�'IDUSlAl1 . ... .I.'�Q.. �7hI....
,
W.... ...'A
........
Z�
...�'�.........,.`�
6. NEWPORTER NORTH
55 Res - Low (SFA) 212 DU
42
138
ISO
138
85
223
2078
7. BLOCK800
74 Res - Med (SFA) 245 DU
49
147
196
147
98
245
2017
8. CORPORATE PLAZA WEST
78 General Office 94 TSF
179
28
207
56
160
216
1222
9a. FREEWAY RESERVATION NORTH
104 Res - Med (SFD) 36 DU
7
25
32
25
14
39
396
Open Space 17 ACRE
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Sub Total
7
25
32
25
14
39
396
9b. FREEWAY RESERVATION SOUTH
102 Res - Low (SFD) 12 DU
2
8
10
8
5
13
132
10. NEWPORT KNOLL
Open Space 43 ACRE
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
View Park 4 ACRE
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Sub Total
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
JZ
Regamat„
PREVIOUS GRAND TOTAL
369
557
926
591
513
1104
9394
M T.,I ANO T6T'AG ••'
•,38 ••..'
"S9G . •
983
" "8
' S92
1200
'ON
JN5;KEASE
18
Notes: 1. Project locations are shown in Figure 1.
2. NBTAM traffic zones are illustrated in the Appendix.'
3. Daily and peak hour trip generation for view parks are assumed to be nominal due
to their anticipated passive use.
4. Site 11 is not developed until Year-2000.
5. Changes to table from original traffic study areitigd2%flia
Newport Beach CIOSA 4 Austin -Foust Associa[e6i V �'S C
Supplemental Traffic Data VV V 2 2 6
Table 3
2000 PROJECT LAND USE AND TRIP GENERATION
Traffic —AM PEAK HOUR-- --PM PEAK HOUR ---
Site Zone Land Use Units In Out Total In Out Total ADT
S. BAY VIEW LANDING
55 Restaurant Moklo).
View Park- 11 ACRE 0 0 0 0 0 0 �- U
Sub Total 6' 7'_ ,,,
11. NEWPORTER RESORT
55 Hotel 68 Room 41 20
GRAND TOTAL 47 21
RMSE00ItANOTOTAr. . 1V ,,. 20
Notes: 1. Project locations are shown in Figure 1.
61 27 27 54 714
68 62 43 105 1383
t1 _. 271— 1271, ,. �4_. .7t4
M9
2. NBTAM traffic zones are illustrated in the Appendix.
3. Daily and peak hour trip generation for view parks are assumed to be nominal due to their anticipated passive use.
4. Sites 1-10 are developed by 1995.
5. Changes to table from original traffic study are hl$JW41h*
Newport Beach CIOSA 5 Austin -Foust Associates, Inc.
Supplemental Traffic Data 0 O 2 Z7
Table 4
2010 PROJECT LAND USE AND TRIP GENERATION
Traffic
.—AM PEAK HOUR---
---PM PEAK HOUR ---
Site Zone Land Use
Units
In
Out
Total
In
Out
Total
ADT
1. SAN DIEGO CREEK SOUTH
61 Apartment
300 DU
60
120
I80
120
90
210
1950
2. SAN DIEGO CREEK NORTH
Open Space
15 ACRE
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3. JAMBOREE/MACARTHUR
Open Space
5 ACRE
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4. UPPER CASTAWAYS
21 Res - Low (SFA)
151 DU
30
98
128
98
60
159
1480
Open Space
13 ACRE
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Active Park
5 ACRE
0
0
0
0
0
0
30
View Park
12 ACRE
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Sub Total
30
98
128
98
60
159
1510
S. BAY VIEW LANDING
55 AeatsufattE
"D"T33�.
Y
A
-151
Sa#t Housin.@.....,x.?1Ak
DU
36
48
36
12
48
x. ... n
� 490
View Park
,n...12
11 ACRE
0
x....nR.....
0
0 ��
...+v. n
0 � ���......0
0
U
Sub Total
12
. 34....
48
36
.12
48
40
6. NEWPORTER NORTH
55 Res - Low (SFA)
212 DU
42
138
1S0
138
85
223
2078
7. BLOCK 800
74 Res - Med (SFA)
245 DU
49
147
196
147
98
245
2107
8. CORPORATE PLAZA WEST
78 General Office
94 TSF
179
28
207
56
160
216
1222
9a. FREEWAY RESERVATION NORTH
104 Res - Low (SFD)
36 DU
7
25
32
25
14
39
396
Open Space
17 ACRE
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Sub Total
7
25
32
25
14
39
396
9b. FREEWAY RESERVATION SOUTH
102 Res - Low (SFD)
12 DU
2
8
10
8
5
13
132
10. NEWPORT KNOLL
Open Space
43 ACRE
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
View Park
4 ACRE
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Sub Total
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
(Continued)
Newport Beach CIOSA 6 Austin -Foust Associate Igc,,.� Oo
Supplemental Traffic Data jjf+'
Table 4 (cont)
2010 PROJECT LAND USE AND TRIP GENERATION
Traffic --AM PEAK HOUR--- ---PM PEAK HOUR --
Site Zone Land Use Units In Out Total In Out Total ADT
11. NEWPORTER RESORT
55 Hotel 68 Room 41 20 61 27 27 54 714
12. N ORrCENTER Add21
GRAND TOTAL 416 594 1000 653 556 1209 10777
R WD OV AAiCI'' OTA% ' '426 '." W MO.. .01 .370' W4 "' ' 21238
INCREASE 12 38 50 22 24 0 471
Notes: 1. Project locations are shown in Figure 1.
2. NBTAM traffic zones are illustrated in Appendix.
3. Daily and peak hour trip generation for view parks are assumed to be nominal due to their anticipated passive use.
4. Data given in this table is more definitive than the EIR project description and allows for comparison of alternatives.
S. Changes to table from original traffic study are Mimighta
Newport Beach CIOSA 7 Austin -Foust Associates, Ina Q 2 2 9
Supplemental Traffic Data
MODIFICATIONS TO TRAFFIC FORECASTS
The average daily traffic (ADT) volume changes due to the project modifications are
summarized below:
ADT VOLUME CHANGES DUE TO PROJECT CHANGES
INCREASE DUE
ADT VOLUME TO PROJECT
LOCATION WITH PROJECT* CHANGES
YEAR 1995
Jamboree Road
Bison to Ford
51,000
600
Ford to SIH Rd
55,000
700
SJH Rd to Santa Barbara
45,000
1,000
Santa Barbara to PCH
40,000
800
Pacific Coast Hwy
Dover to Bayside
72,000
Soo
Bayside to Jamboree
62,000
500
YEAR 2000
Jamboree Road
Santa Barbara to PCH
46,000
Soo
YEAR 2010
Jamboree Road
Bison to Ford
66,000
600
Ford to SJH Rd
68,000
700
SJH Rd to Santa Barbara
55,000
900
Santa Barbara to PCH
48,000
500
-From original traffic study.
These ADT volume increases due to the project modifications do not change any of the
findings in the traffic study relative to the impacts of the proposed project.
The peak hour implications of the project modifications are summarized in Tables 5 through
7. For each of the intersections affected by the project modifications, these tables show the "no
project" ICUs from the original traffic study, and the revised "with project" ICUs due to the project
modifications. Also shown is the ICU difference due to the project, or the project impact, based on
Newport Beach CIOSA 8 Austin -Foust Associates, Inc.
Supplemental Traffic Data 00230
INTERSECTION
Table 5
1995 ICU SUMMARY
NO PROJECT WITH
AM PM AM
PROJECT
PM
DIFFERENCE
AM PM
7.
Riverside & PCH
.92
1.03
.94
1.03
.02
(.01)
--
( --)
8.
Tustin & PCH
.74
.64
.76
.65
.02
(.01)
.01
(.01)
18.
Birch & Bristol S
.88
.88
.90
.89
.02
(.01)
.01
(.01)
25.
Dover & Westcliff
.52
.45
.54
.48
.02
(.01)
.03
(.02)
26.
Dover & 16th
.54
.59
.56
.60
.02
(.02)
.01
( --)
27.
Dover/Bayshore & PCH
.80
.a4
.81
.85
.01
( --)
.01
(.01)
28.
Bayside & PCH
.80
.77
.81
.78
.01
( --)
.01
(.01)
34.
Jamboree & University
.74
.88
.77
.94
.03
(.03)
.06
(.05)
35.
Jamboree & Bison
.65
.64
.67
.67
.02
(.02)
.03
(.02)
37.
MacArthur & Bison
.59
.59
.59
.59
--
(.01)
--
39.
MacArthur & Ford
.77
.70
.77
.70
--
(.01)
--
40.
Jamboree & SJH Rd
.66
.60
.70
.62
.04
(.03)
.02
(.01)
41.
Jamboree & Santa Barbara
.63
.65
.65
.67
.02
(.01)
.02
(.01)
42.
Jamboree & PCH
.76
.64
.80
.68
.04
(.02)
.04
(.03)
43.
Santa Cruz & SJH Rd
.36
.43
.37
.43
.01
( --)
--
( --)
44.
Santa Rosa & SJH Rd
.32
.40
.33
.43
.01
( --)
.03
(.03)
52.
Marguerite & SJH Rd
.44
.39
.45
.40
.01
( --)
.01
(.01)
Notes: 1. The ICU difference due to the
project
(or the
project
impact)
given
in the
original traffic
study is shown in parentheses.
2. Level of Service
Ranges: .00
- .60 A
.61
- .70 B
.71
- .80 C
.81
- .90 D
.91
- 1.00 E
Above 1.00 F
Newport Beach CIOSA 9 Austin -Foust Associ#Qla31
Supplemental Traffic Data
Table 6
2000 ICU SUMMARY
INTERSECTION
NO PROJECT
AM PM
WITH
AM
PROJECT
PM
DIFFERENCE
AM PM
5.
Newport & Via Lido
.58
.72
.59
.72
.01
( --)
--
( --)
7.
Riverside & PCH
.93
.98
.95
1.00
.02
(.02)
.02
(.01)
8.
Tustin & PCH
.57
.62
.59
.63
.02
(.01)
.01
(.01)
18.
Birch & Bristol S
.62
.90
.63
.91
.01
( --)
.01
(.01)
27.
Dover/Bayshore & PCH
.96
.89
.98
.90
.02
(.01)
.01
(.01)
28.
Bayside & PCH
.95
.84
.97
.84
.02
(.01)
--
( --)
35.
Jamboree & Bison
.94
.89
.99
.92
.05
(.03)
.03
(.03)
37.
MacArthur & Bison
.95
.94
.98
.95
.03
( --)
.01
(.01)
38.
Jamboree & Ford
.73
.82
.76
.84
.03
(.02)
.02
(.02)
40.
Jamboree & SJH Rd
.68
.65
.73
.69
.05
(.04)
.04
(.03)
41.
Jamboree & Santa Barbara
.66
.72
.68
.74
.02
(.01)
.02
(.02)
42.
Jamboree & PCH
.82
.83
.85
.84
.03
(.02)
.01
(.01)
48.
Avocado & PCH
.54
.63
.55
.64
.01
( --)
.01
(.01)
57.
Newport WS Ramp & PCH
.75
.79
.77
.80
.02
(.01)
.01
(.01)
Notes: 1. The ICU difference due to
the project (or
the project
impact)
given in
the
original traffic study is
shown
in parentheses.
2. Level of Service Ranges:
.00 -
.60 A
.61 -
.70 8
.71 -
.80 C
.81 -
.90 D
.91 -
1.00 E
Above
1.00 F
2 3 2
Newport Beach CIOSA
10
Austin -Foust Associates, n .
Supplemental
Tra(rtc Data
Table 7
2010 ICU SUMMARY
PEAK
NO
WITH
ICU DIFFERENCE
INTERSECTION
HOUR
PROJECT
PROJECT
X100
2.
Superior & PCH
AM
.849
.863
1.4
(1.1)
PM
.777
.77
0.0
(0.3)
7.
Riverside & PCH
AM
.660
.675
1.5
(1.3)
PM
.859
.872
1.3
(1.3)
8.
Tustin & PCH
AM
.554
.569
1.5
(1.3)
PM
.635
.646
1.1
(1.1)
9.
MacArthur & Campus
AM
.793
.797
0.4
(0.4)
PM
1.034
1.041
0.7
(0.1)
10.
MacArthur & Birch
AM
.868
.872
0.4
(0.4)
PM
.835
.849
1.4
(0.1)
11.
Von Karman & Campus
AM
.696
.697
0.1
(0.1)
PM
.896
.900
0.4
(0.1)
12.
MacArthur & Von Karmen
AM
.566
.571
0.5
(0.5)
PM
.625
.63
0.5
(0.6)
13.
Jamboree & Campus
AM
.762
.769
0.7
(0.5)
PM
.921
.926
0.5
(0.3)
14.
Jamboree & Birch
AM
.761
.771
0.1
(0.8)
PM
.785
.785
0.0
(0.7)
15.
Campus & Bristol N
AM
.851
.856
0.5
(0.5)
PM
1.139
1.142
0.3
(0.1)
16.
Birch & Bristol N
AM
.780
.792
1.2
(0.2)
PM
.959
.960
0.1
(0.1)
26.
Dover & 16th
AM
.559
.581
2.2
(2.1)
PM
.625
.647
2.2
(2.2)
27.
Dover/Bayshore & PCH
AM
.776
.797
2.1
(1.9)
PM
.797
.810
1.3
(1.3)
28.
Bayside & PCH
AM
.883
.900
1.7
(1.7)
PM
.853
.875
2.2
(1.7)
29.
MacArthur & Jamboree
AM
.849
.865
1.6
(1.4)
PM
1.173
1.182
0.9
(0.7)
30.
Jamboree & Bristol N
AM
1.025
1.036
1.1
(0.9)
PM
1.046
1.056
1.0
0.2)
32.
Jamboree & Bristol S
AM
.785
.800
1.5
(1.5)
PM
1.199
1.204
0.5
0.1)
33.
Jamboree & Bayvieu
AM
.831
.848
1.7
(0.8)
PM
.950
.975
2.5
(2.2)
34.
Jamboree & University
AM
.672
.6BO
0.8
(0.6)
PM
.824
.854
3.0
(2.9)
(Continued)
Newport Beach CIOSA 11 Austin -Foust Associates, Inc.
Supplemental Traffic Data 00233
Table 7 (cont)
2010 ICU SUMMARY
PEAK
NO
WITH
ICU DIFFERENCE
INTERSECTION
HOUR
PROJECT
PROJECT
X100
35.
Jamboree & Bison
AM
.630
.656
2.6
(2.0)
PM
.824
.861
3.7
(2.6)
37.
MacArthur & Bison
AM
.608
.614
0.6
(0.8)
PM
.773
.783
1.0
(0.8)
38.
Jamboree & Ford
AM
.801
.832
3.1
(2.3)
PM
.912
.946
3.4
(3.2)
39.
MacArthur & Ford
AM
.573
.581
0.8
(0.7)
PM
.824
.838
1.4
(1.4)
40.
Jamboree & SJH Rd
AM
.765
.791
2.6
(1.9)
PM
.784
.821
3.7
(3.3)
41.
Jamboree & Santa Barbara
AM
.627
.652
2.5
(1.6)
PM
.748
.790
4.2
(3.2)
42.
Jamboree & PCH
AM
.802
.883
8.1
(7.8)
PM
.843
.859
1.6
(1.7)
45.
MacArthur & SJH Rd
AM
.534
.538
0.4
(0.6)
PM
.773
.780
0.7
(0.7)
47.
Newport Center & PCH
AM
.549
.555
0.6
(0.4)
PM
.412
.417
0.5
(0.5)
48.
Avocado & PCH
AM
.563
.563
0.0
(0.7)
PM
.703
.715
1.2
(0.7)
52.
Marguerite & SJH Rd
AM
.555
.565
1.0
(0.8)
PM
.463
.472
0.9
(0.9)
55.
15th & PCH
AM
.628
.633
0.5
(0.2)
PM
.882
.891
0.9
(0.8)
57.
Newport NB Romp & PCH
AM
.807
.822
0.5
(1.3)
PM
.819
.825
0.6
(1.1)
59.
Spyglass Hill & SJH Rd
AM
.663
.678
1.5
(0.7)
PM
.514
.522
0.8
(0.6)
63.
Gabrielino & Bonita Cyn
AM
.851
.856
0.5
(0.5)
PM
.802
.816
1.4
(0.7)
64.
Culver Dr & Bonita Cyn
AM
.631
.635
0.4
(0.2)
PM
.662
.666
0.4
(0.6)
65.
Newport Coast & SJH Rd
AM
.746
.747
0.1
(0.4)
PM
.688
.68
0.0
(0.2)
(Continued)
Newport Beach CIOSA 12 Austin -Foust Associates, Inc.
Supplemental Traffic Data 00234
Table 7 (cont)
2010 ICU SUMMARY
PEAK NO WITH ICU DIFFERENCE
INTERSECTION HOUR PROJECT PROJECT X100
66. Bison & SJHTC EB Ramps AM .617 .625 0.8 (0.5)
PM .652 .655 0.3 (0.3)
73. Newport Coast & SJHTC WS AM .517 .517 0.0 (0.0)
PM .513 .513 0.0 (0.2)
Notes: 1. The ICU difference due to the project (or the project impact) given in
the original traffic study is shown in parentheses.
2. Level of Service Ranges: .00 - .60 A
.61 - .70 B
.71 - .80 C
.81 - .90 D
.91 - 1.00 E
Above 1.00 F
Newport Beach CIOSA
Supplemental Traffic Data
the project modifications (the ICU difference due to the project as given in the original traffic study
is shown in parenthesis).
As discussed in the traffic study, an ICU of .90 (Level of Service "D") is generally taken as
the maximum level of service (LOS) desirable for an intersection, and at 1.00 the theoretical absolute
capacity of the intersection has been reached. The project impact is considered to be significant by
the City of Newport Beach based on the Circulation Element, the Traffic Phasing Ordinance, and
Policy S-1 if it causes an ICU of .90 or less to reach .91 or greater, or if it causes a one -percent or
more increase to the ICU value at intersection that exceeds .90 (LOS "D") without the project.
As shown in the tables for all three time -frames, there are no significant changes to the ICU
values, the locations of intersections impacted by the project do not change, and the suggested
mitigation from the original traffic study still applies.
1. "Newport Beach Circulation Improvement and Open Space Agreement, Traffic
Study," Austin -Foust Associates, Inc., May 1992.
00236
Newport Beach CIOSA 14 Austin -Foust Associates, Ina
Supplemental Traffic Data
APPENDIX
LAND USE AND TRIP GENERATION
The land use and trip generation given in this appendix includes all of the modifications to
the project addressed in this document.
00237
Newport Beach CIOSA A-1 Austin -Foust Associates, Inc.
Supplemental Traffic Data
NBTAM - CITY OF
NEWPORT BEACH 1995
LAND USE AND
TRIP
GENERATION
-----AM
PK HR-----
-----PM
PK MR
-----
ZONEUSE
UNITS
IN OUT
TOTAL
IN
OUT
TOTAL
ADT
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1
15. General Commercial
268.91
TSF
134
108
242
376
430
807
10756
1
19. Restaurant
10.56
TSF
6
1
7
37
17
54
706
1
28. General Office
540.13
TSF
1026
162
1188
324
918
1242
7022
1
29. Medical Office
12.49
TSF
7
2
10
10
31
41
562
1
30. Industrial
126.81
TSF
101
25
127
51
89
139
634
1
31. R & D
19.12
TSF
19
2
21
6
21
27
182
1
53. Vacant Land
1.27
ACRE
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
TOTAL
1295
300
1596
804
1506
2310
19862
2
10. Hotel
349.00
ROOM
209
105
314
140
140
279
3665
2
15. General Commercial
57.83
TSF
29
23
52
81
93
173
2313
2
19. Restaurant
75.85
TSF
46
8
53
265
121
387
5074
2
21. Auto Dealer
10.63
ACRE
71
99
170
58
78
136
1595
2
23. Health Club
45.24
TSF
27
27
54
86
86
172
1810
2
28. General Office
2244.50
TSF
4265
673
4938
1347
3816
5162
29179
2
52. Auto Parking
326.89
TSF
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
53. Vacant Land
2.15
ACRE
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
TOTAL
4647
935
5582
1977
4333
6310
43635
4
15. General Commercial
12.51
TSF
6
5
11
18
20
38
500
4
19. Restaurant
30.09
TSF
18
3
21
105
48
153
2013
4
28. General Office
756.64
TSF
1438
227
1665
454
1286
1740
9836
4
52. Auto Parking
335.00
TSF
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
TOTAL
1462
235
1697
577
1354
1931
12350
5
28. General Office
250.18
TSF
475
75
550
150
425
575
3252
5
52. Auto Parking
523.68
TSF
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
5
TOTAL
475
75
550
150
425
575
3252
6
28. General Office
65.07
TSF
126
20
145
40
112
152
859
6
36. Government Office
74.45
TSF
141
22
164
45
127
171
968
6
TOTAL
267
42
309
84
239
323
1827
7
10. Hotel
471.00
ROOM
283
141
424
188
188
377
4946
7
28. General Office
393.05
TSF
747
118
865
236
668
904
5110
7
46. Youth Ctr/Service
10.30
TSF
1
1
2
2
2
4
41
7
52. Auto Parking
792.84
TSF
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
7
TOTAL
1030
260
1291
426
859
1285
10096
8
19. Restaurant
21.39
TSF
13
2
15
75
34
109
1431
8
20. Fast Food Restaurant
2.15
TSF
9
9
18
11
8
19
305
8
28. General Office
1118.74
TSF
2126
336
2461
671
1902
2573
14544
8
30. Industrial
150.00
TSF
120
30
150
60
105
165
750
8
31. R & D
280.00
TSF
280
28
308
84
308
392
2660
8
52. Auto Parking
1395.37
TSF
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
8
TOTAL
2548
404
2952
901
2357
3258
19690
9
15. General Commercial
2.70
TSF
1
1
2
4
4
8
108
9
18. Unclassified Comm.
2.11
TSF
0
0
0
0
0
1
844
9
20. Fast Food Restaurant
1.38
TSF
6
6
12
7
5
12
196
9
21. Auto Dealer
0.66
ACRE
4
6
11
4
5
8
99
9
28. General Office
138.29
TSF
263
41
304
83
235
318
Oft3g
NBTAM - CITY
OF NEWPORT BEACH 1995
LAND USE AND
TRIP
GENERATION
-----AM
PK HR-----
-----PM PK HR-----
ZONE
USE
UNITS
IN
OUT
TOTAL
IN
OUT
TOTAL
ADT
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
9
29. Medical Office
2.82
TSF
2
1
2
2
7
9
127
9
TOTAL
276
55
331
100
257
357
3172
10
3. Res -Low (SFD)
145.00
DU
29
102
131
102
58
160
1595
10
4. Res -Medium (SFA)
88.00
DU
18
53
70
53
35
88
757
10
10. Hotel
256.00
ROOM
154
77
230
102
102
205
2688
10
15. General Commercial
21.58
TSF
11
9
19
30
35
65
863
10
19. Restaurant
1.20
TSF
1
0
1
4
2
6
80
10
28. General Office
660.00
TSF
1254
198
1452
396
1122
1518
8580
10
47. Park
3.08
ACRE
0
0
0
0
0
0
18
10
52, Auto Parking
267.94
TSF
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
10
53. Vacant Land
5.18
ACRE
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
10
TOTAL
1466
438
1904
687
1354
2041
14582
11
3. Res -Low (SFD)
60.00
DU
12
42
54
42
24
66
660
11
4. Res -Medium (SFA)
33.00
OU
7
20
26
20
13
33
284
11
23. Health Club
28.82
TSF
17
17
35
55
55
110
1153
11
28. General Office
67.95
TSF
129
20
149
41
116.
156
883
11
50. Golf Course
25.00
ACRE
5
3
8
3
8
10
150
11
52. Auto Parking
105.63
TSF
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
11
TOTAL
170
102
272
160
215
375
3130
13
3. Res -Low (SFD)
327.00
DU
65
229
294
229
131
360
3597
13
44. Church
5.36
TSF
0
0
1
2
2
3
41
13
TOTAL
66
229
295
231
132
363
3638
14
3. Res -Low (SFD)
114.00
DU
23
80
103
80
46
125
1254
14
TOTAL
23
80
103
80
46
125
1254
15
3. Res -Low (SFD)
633.00
DU
127
443
570
443
253
696
6963
15
TOTAL
127
443
570
443
253
696
6963
16
3. Res -Low (SFD)
115.00
DU
23
81
104
81
46
127
1265
16
4. Res -Medium (SFA)
60.00
DU
12
36
48
36
24
60
516
16
5. Apartment
352.00
DU
70
141
211
141
106
246
2288
16
12. Neighborhood Comm.
120.51
TSF
72
60
133
229
241
470
5423
16
15. General Commercial
31.66
TSF
16
13
28
44
51
95
1266
16
19. Restaurant
4.37
TSF
3
0
3
15
7
22
292
16
28. General Office
95.01
TSF
181
29
209
57
162
219
1235
16
29. Medical Office
43.22
TSF
26
9
35
35
108
143
1945
16
33. Elementary School
636.00
STU
64
0
64
0
0
0
636
16
38. Library
5.24
TSF
7
7
14
19
17
36
219
16
41. Fire Station
6.46
TSF
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
16
TOTAL
474
375
848
656
761
1417
15086
17
3. Res -Low (SFD)
490.00
DU
98
343
441
343
196
539
5390
17
TOTAL
98
343
441
343
196
539
5390
18
3. Res -Low (SFD)
266.00
OU
53
186
239
186
106
293
2926
18
46. Youth Ctr/Service
10.67
TSF
1
1
2
2
2
4
43
18
47. Park
4.00
ACRE
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
9
18
TOTAL
54
187
242
188
109
297
ZGB 2 J
NBTAM - CITY OF
NEWPORT BEACH 1995
LAND USE AND
TRIP
GENERATION
-----AM
PK HR-----
-----PM PK
HR-----
ZONE
USE
UNITS
IN
OUT
TOTAL
IN
OUT
TOTAL
ADT
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
19
S.
Apartment
1445.00
DU
289
578
857
578
434
1012
9393
19
TOTAL
289
578
867
578
434
1012
9393
20
15.
General Commercial
1.73
TSF
1
1
2
2
3
5
69
20
28.
General Office
103.36
TSF
196
31
227
62
176
238
1344
20
44.
Church
24.10
TSF
2
1
3
8
7
15
186
20
46.
Youth Ctr/Service
2.10
TSF
0
0
0
0
0
1
8
20
TOTAL
199
33
232
73
186
259
1607
21
25.
Marina
125.00
SLIP
0
0
0
0
0
0
63
21
44.
Church
10.15
TSF
1
0
1
3
3
6
78
21
54.
Res - Low (SFA)
151.00
DU
30
98
128
98
60
159
1480
21
TOTAL
31
98
129
102
63
165
1620
22
3.
Res -Low (SFD)
307.00
DU
61
215
276
215
123
338
3377
22
4.
Res -Medium (SFA)
218.00
DU
44
131
174
131
87
218
1875
22
28.
General Office
19.00
TSF
36
6
42
11
32
44
247
22
29.
Medical Office
12.00
TSF
7
2
10
10
30
40
540
22
32.
Pre-School/Day Care
103.88
TSF
623
561
1184
613
665
1278
6960
22
34.
Junior/High School
2184.00
STU
437
218
655
218
218
437
3058
22
43.
Nursing/Conv. Home
68.00
PAT
7
7
14
7
14
20
184
22
46.
Youth Ctr/Service
13.37
TSF
1
1
3
3
3
5
53
22
TOTAL
1217
1141
2358
1207
1172
2379
16293
23
3.
Res -Low (SFO)
257.00
OU
51
180
231
180
103
283
2827
23
5.
Apartment
152.00
DU
30
61
91
61
46
106
988
23
10.
Hotel
124.00
ROOM
74
37
112
50
50
99
1302
23
15.
General Commercial
98.93
TSF
49
40
89
139
158
297
3957
23
19.
Restaurant
21.62
TSF
13
2
15
76
35
110
1446
23
20.
Fast Food Restaurant
4.97
TSF
22
20
42
26
18
44
706
23
21.
Auto Dealer
1.97
ACRE
13
18
32
11
14
25
296
23
28.
General Office
17.78
TSF
34
5
39
11
30
41
231
23
29.
Medical Office
11.49
TSF
7
2
9
9
29
38
517
23
53.
Vacant Land
0.53
ACRE
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
23
TOTAL
294
365
660
561
482
1043
12270
24
3.
Res -Low (SFD)
550.00
DU
110
385
495
385
220
605
6050
24
5.
Apartment
55.00
DU
11
22
33
22
17
39
358
24
26.
Theater
90.00
SEAT
0
0
0
18
0
18
135
24
33.
Elementary School
436.00
STU
44
0
44
0
0
0
436
24
46.
Youth Ctr/Service
9.03
TSF
1
1
2
2
2
4
36
24
47.
Park
5.90
ACRE
0
0
0
0
0
0
35
24
TOTAL
166
408
573
427
238
665
7050
25
5.
Apartment
36.00
DU
7
14
22
14
11
25
234
25
15.
General Commercial
164.54
TSF
82
66
148
230
263
494
6582
25
19.
Restaurant
93.25
TSF
56
9
65
326
149
476
6238
25
20.
Fast Food Restaurant
4.99
TSF
22
20
42
26
18
44
709
25
21.
Auto Dealer
4.45
ACRE
30
41
71
24
32
57
668
25
22.
Yacht Club
2.25
TSF
2
2
3
3
3
6
113
25
28.
General Office
266.16
TSF
506
80
586
160
452
612
3460
25
39.
Post Office
9.90
TSF
28
25
52
35
33
67
859
002dO
NBTAM - CITY OF
NEWPORT BEACH 1995
LAND USE AND
TRIP
GENERATION
-----AM
PK HR-----
-----PM PK
HR-----
ZONE
USE
UNITS
IN OUT
TOTAL
IN
OUT
TOTAL
ADT
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
25
52.
Auto Parking
148.55
TSF
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
25
TOTAL
732
257
989
819
962
1781
18862
26
3.
Res -Low (SFD)
163.00
DU
33
114
147
114
65
179
1793
26
4.
Res -Medium (SFA)
165.00
DU
33
99
132
99
66
165
1419
26
9.
Motel
53.00
ROOM
21
16
37
16
21
37
535
26
12.
Neighborhood Comm.
1.02
TSF
1
1
1
2
2
4
46
26
15.
General Commercial
35.19
TSF
18
14
32
49
56
106
1408
26
19.
Restaurant
14.41
TSF
9
1
10
50
23
73
964
26
28.
General Office
100.57
TSF
191
30
221
60
171
231
1307
26
29.
Medical Office
8.37
TSF
5
2
7
7
21
28
377
26
30.
Industrial
1.70
TSF
1
0
2
1
1
2
9
26
44.
Church
1.15
TSF
0
0
0
0
0
1
9
26
45.
Cemetary/Res/Util
0.16
ACRE
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
26
52.
Auto Parking
6,60
TSF
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
26
53.
Vacant Land
0.66
ACRE
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
26
TOTAL
311
277
588
399
427
826
7867
27
4.
Res -Medium (SFA)
98.00
DU
20
59
78
59
39
98
843
27
5.
Apartment
141.00
DU
28
56
85
56
42
99
917
27
29.
Medical Office
22.70
TSF
14
5
18
18
57
75
1022
27
30.
Industrial
166.10
TSF
133
33
166
66
116
183
831
27
36.
Government Office
63.81
TSF
121
19
140
38
108
147
830
27
43.
Nursing/Conv. Home
270.00
PAT
27
27
54
27
54
81
729
27
TOTAL
343
199
542
265
417
682
5170
28
4.
Res -Medium (SFA)
673.00
DU
135
404
538
404
269
673
5788
28
28.
General Office
7.03
TSF
13
2
15
4
12
16
91
28
29.
Medical Office
217.89
TSF
131
44
174
174
545
719
9805
28
42.
Hospital
578.75
BED
405
174
579
289
463
752
6598
28
43,
Nursing/Conv. Home
95.00
PAT
10
10
19
10
19
29
257
28
53.
Vacant Land
20.47
ACRE
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
28
TOTAL
693
633
1326
881
1308
2189
22538
29
3.
Res -Low (SFD)
68.00
DU
14
48
61
48
27
75
748
29
4.
Res -Medium (SFA)
28.00
DU
6
17
22
17
11
28
241
29
15.
General Commercial
0.85
TSF
0
0
1
1
1
3
34
29
19.
Restaurant
4.20
TSF
3
0
3
15
7
21
281
29
29.
Medical Office
3.85
TSF
2
1
3
3
10
13
173
29
TOTAL
24
66
90
83
56
139
1477
30
4.
Res -Medium (SFA)
573.00
DU
115
344
458
344
229
573
4928
30
5.
Apartment
369.00
DU
74
148
221
148
111
258
2399
30
7.
Elderly Residential
148.00
DU
15
44
59
44
15
59
592
30
15.
General Commercial
6.89
TSF
3
3
6
10
11
21
276
30
28.
General Office
16.00
TSF
30
5
35
10
27
37
208
30
29.
Medical Office
25.50
TSF
15
5
20
20
64
84
1148
30
30.
Industrial
39.60
TSF
32
8
40
16
28
44
198
30
43.
Nursing/Conv. Home
96.00
PAT
10
10
19
10
19
29
259
30
52.
Auto Parking
21.65
TSF
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
30
53.
Vacant Land
107.61
ACRE
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
30
TOTAL
294
566
860
601
504
1104
10007
00241
NBTAM - CITY OF
NEWPORT BEACH 1995
LAND USE AND
TRIP
GENERATION
-----AM
PK HR-----
-----PM
PK
HR-----
ZONE
USE
UNITS
IN
OUT
TOTAL
IN
OUT
TOTAL
ADT
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
31
3. Res -Low (SFD)
3.00
DU
1
2
3
2
1
3
33
31
5. Apartment
71.00
DU
14
28
43
28
21
50
462
31
8. Mobile Home
419.00
DU
84
168
251
168
126
293
2514
31
15. General Commercial
13.50
TSF
7
5
12
19
22
41
540
31
21. Auto Dealer
0.44
ACRE
3
4
7
2
3
6
66
31
28. General Office
97.81
TSF
186
29
215
59
166
225
1272
31
29. Medical Office
61.63
TSF
37
12
49
49
154
203
2773
31
30. Industrial
416.60
TSF
333
83
417
167
292
458
2083
31
31. R & D
116.75
TSF
117
12
128
35
128
163
1109
31
35. Private School
622.00
STU
62
0
62
0
0
0
622
31
36. Government Office
22.40
TSF
43
7
49
13
38
52
291
31
43. Nursing/Cony. Home
59.00
PAT
6
6
12
6
12
18
159
31
53. Vacant Land
32.51
ACRE
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
31
TOTAL
892
357
1249
548
963
1512
11924
32
4. Res -Medium (SFA)
281.00
DU
56
169
225
169
112
281
2417
32
TOTAL
56
169
225
169
112
281
2417
33
3. Res -Low (SFD)
459.00
DU
92
321
413
321
184
505
5049
33
4. Res -Medium (SFA)
203.00
DU
41
122
162
122
81
203
1746
33
5. Apartment
23.00
OU
5
9
14
9
7
16
150
33
9. Motel
90.00
ROOM
36
27
63
27
36
63
909
33
15. General Commercial
19.30
TSF
10
8
17
27
31
58
772
33
18. Unclassified Comm.
5.00
TSF
1
1
1
1
1
2
2000
33
19. Restaurant
10.09
TSF
6
1
7
35
16
51
675
33
20. Fast Food Restaurant
0.69
TSF
3
3
6
4
2
6
98
33
38. Library
2.10
TSF
3
3
6
8
7
14
88
33
52. Auto Parking
5.10
TSF
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
33
TOTAL
195
494
689
554
365
919
11486
34
3. Res -Low (SFD)
41.00
DU
8
29
37
29
16
45
451
34
4. Res -Medium (SFA)
178.00
OU
36
107
142
107
71
178
1531
34
47. Park
4.50
ACRE
0
0
0
0
0
0
27
34
TOTAL
44
136
179
136
88
223
2009
35
3. Res -Low (SFD)
122.00
OU
24
85
110
85
49
134
1342
35
4. Res -Medium (SFA)
314.00
DU
63
188
251
188
126
314
2700
35
5. Apartment
51.00
OU
10
20
31
20
15
36
332
35
47. Park
6.50
ACRE
0
0
0
0
0
0
39
35
TOTAL
97
294
392
294
190
484
4413
36
3. Res -Low (SFD)
231.00
OU
46
162
208
162
92
254
2541
36
4. Res -Medium (SFA)
814.00
DU
163
488
651
488
326
814
7000
36
TOTAL
209
650
859
650
418
1068
9541
37
3. Res -Low (SFD)
211.00
OU
42
148
190
148
84
232
2321
37
4. Res -Medium (SFA)
451.00
DU
90
271
361
271
180
451
3879
37
5. Apartment
312.00
DU
62
125
187
125
94
218
2028
37
15. General Commercial
13.21
TSF
7
5
12
18
21
40
528
37
19. Restaurant
3.75
TSF
2
0
3
13
6
19
251
37
20. Fast Food Restaurant
2.70
TSF
12
11
23
14
10
24
383
37
TOTAL
216
560
� 775
589
395
984
00924 2
NBTAM - CITY OF
NEWPORT BEACH 1995
LAND USE AND
TRIP
GENERATION
-----AM
PK HR-----
-----PM
PK HR-----
ZONE
USE
UNITS
IN
OUT
TOTAL
IN OUT
TOTAL
ADT
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
38
3.
Res -Low (SFD)
50.00
DU
10
35
45
35
20
55
550
38
4.
Res -Medium (SFA)
76.00
DU
15
46
61
46
30
76
654
38
16.
Comm./Recreation
1.32
ACRE
1
1
1
3
3
6
53
38
18.
Unclassified Cow.
6.44
TSF
1
1
1
1
1
3
2576
38
19.
Restaurant
2.02
TSF
1
0
1
7
3
10
135
38
28.
General Office
10.36
TSF
20
3
23
6
18
24
135
38
29.
Medical Office
0.84
TSF
1
0
1
1
2
3
38
38
TOTAL
48
85
133
99
78
177
4140
39
4.
Res -Medium (SFA)
89.00
DU
18
53
71
53
36
89
765
39
12.
Neighborhood Conn.
37.50
TSF
23
19
41
71
75
146
1688
39
15.
General Commercial
5.87
TSF
3
2
5
8
9
18
235
39
18.
Unclassified Comm.
1.58
TSF
0
0
0
0
0
1
632
39
19.
Restaurant
5.28
TSF
3
1
4
18
8
27
353
39
20.
Fast Food Restaurant
2.12
TSF
9
8
18
11
8
19
301
39
28.
General Office
20.02
TSF
38
6
44
12
34
46
260
39
TOTAL
94
90
184
175
170
345
4234
40
4.
Res -Medium (SFA)
82.00
DU
16
49
66
49
33
82
705
40
15.
General Commercial
16.00
TSF
8
6
14
22
26
48
640
40
18.
Unclassified Conn.
3.45
TSF
0
0
1
1
1
1
1380
40
19.
Restaurant
35.61
TSF
21
4
25
125
57
182
2382
40
28.
General Office
27.40
TSF
52
8
60
16
47
63
356
40
52.
Auto Parking
2.25
TSF
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
40
53.
Vacant Land
0.16
ACRE
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
40
TOTAL
98
68
166
213
163
376
5464
41
3.
Res -Low (SFD)
20.00
DU
4
14
18
14
8
22
220
41
4.
Res -Medium (SFA)
110.00
DU
22
66
88
66
44
110
946
41
5.
Apartment
5.00
DU
1
2
3
2
2
4
33
41
9.
Motel
3.00
ROOM
1
1
2
1
1
2
30
41
10.
Hotel
22.00
ROOM
13
7
20
9
9
18
231
41
15.
General Commercial
27.32
TSF
14
11
25
38
44
82
1093
41
19.
Restaurant
35.05
TSF
21
4
25
123
56
179
2345
41
20.
Fast Food Restaurant
8.60
TSF
38
34
72
45
31
76
1221
41
28.
General Office
15.80
TSF
30
5
35
9
27
36,
205
41
29.
Medical Office
0.50
TSF
0
0
0
0
1
2
23
41
52.
Auto Parking
1.88
TSF
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
41
53.
Vacant Land
0.09
ACRE
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
41
TOTAL
144
143
287
307
222
530
6347
42
15.
General Commercial
54.57
TSF
27
22
49
76
87
164
2183
42
18.
Unclassified Comm.
2.44
TSF
0
0
0
0
0
1
976
42
19.
Restaurant
35.33
TSF
21
4
25
124
57
180
2364
42
20.
Fast Food Restaurant
6.46
TSF
28
26
54
34
23
57
917
42
28,
General Office
90.22
TSF
171
27
198
54
153
208
1173
42
36.
Government Office
6.00
TSF
11
2
13
4
10
14
78
42
46.
Youth Ctr/Service
6.00
TSF
1
1
1
1
1
2
24
42
TOTAL
261
81
341
293
332
625
7715
43
12.
Neighborhood Comm.
62.64
TSF
38
31
69
119
125
244
2819
43
15.
General Commercial
7.99
TSF
4
3
7
11
13
24
04 3
002
NBTAM - CITY OF
NEWPORT BEACH 1995
LAND USE AND
TRIP
GENERATION
-----AM
PK HR-----
-----PM PK
HR-----
ZONE
USE
UNITS
IN
OUT
TOTAL
IN
OUT
TOTAL
ADT
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
43
19.
Restaurant
6.83
TSF
4
1
5
24
11
35
457
43
26.
Theater
685.00
SEAT
0
0
0
137
0
137
1028
43
28.
General Office
49.62
TSF
94
15
109
30
84
114
645
43
29.
Medical Office
1.06
TSF
1
0
1
1
3
3
48
43
36.
Government Office
52.87
TSF
100
16
116
32
90
122
687
43
44.
Church
17.67
TSF
1
1
2
6
5
11
136
43
TOTAL
242
67
309
359
331
691
6139
44
4.
Res -Medium (SFA)
63.00
DU
13
38
50
38
25
63
542
44
9.
Motel
16.00
ROOM
6
5
11
5
6
11
162
44
15.
General Commercial
131.14
TSF
66
52
118
184
210
393
5246
44
18.
Unclassified Comm.
16.59
TSF
2
2
3
3
3
7
6636
44
19.
Restaurant
34.50
TSF
21
3
24
121
55
176
2308
44
20.
Fast Food Restaurant
2.20
TSF
10
9
18
11
8
19
312
44
28.
General Office
96.11
TSF
183
29
211
58
163
221
1249
44
46.
Youth Ctr/Service
4.65
TSF
0
0
1
1
1
2
19
44
52.
Auto Parking
119.35
TSF
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
44
53.
Vacant Land
0.59
ACRE
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
44
TOTAL
300
138
438
420
472
892
16473
45
4.
Res -Medium (SFA)
151.00
DU
30
91
121
91
60
151
1299
45
8.
Mobile Home
281.00
DU
56
112
169
112
84
197
1686
45
9.
Motel
30.00
ROOM
12
9
21
9
12
21
303
45
15.
General Commercial
29.96
TSF
15
12
27
42
48
90
1198
45
19.
Restaurant
4.60
TSF
3
0
3
16
7
23
308
45
28.
General Office
1.00
TSF
2
0
2
1
2
2
13
45
30.
Industrial
38.00
TSF
30
8
38
15
27
42
190
45
TOTAL
148
232
381
286
240
526
4997
46
3.
Res -Low (SFD)
853.00
DU
171
597
768
597
341
938
9383
46
4.
Res -Medium (SFA)
102.00
DU
20
61
82
61
41
102
877
46
5.
Apartment
26.00
DU
5
10
16
10
8
18
169
46
22.
Yacht Club
21.00
TSF
17
15
32
29
29
59
1050
46
TOTAL
213
683
895
698
419
1117
11479
47
3.
Res -Low (SFD)
116.00
OU
23
81
104
81
46
128
1276
47
4.
Res -Medium (SFA)
453.00
DU
91
272
362
272
181
453
3896
47
5.
Apartment
103.00
DU
21
41
62
41
31
72
670
47
8.
Mobile Home
58.00
OU
12
23
35
23
17
41
348
47
9.
Motel
16.00
ROOM
6
5
11
5
6
11
162
47
15.
General Commercial
6.28
TSF
3
3
6
9
10
19
251
47
20.
Fast Food Restaurant
1.25
TSF
6
5
11
7
5
11
178
47
25.
Marina
58.00
SLIP
0
0
0
0
0
0
29
47
32.
Pre-School/Day Care
13.44
TSF
81
73
153
79
86
165
900
47
33.
Elementary School
389.00
STU
39
0
39
0
0
0
389
47
44.
Church
9.86
TSF
1
0
1
3
3
8
76
47
46.
Youth Ctr/Service
7.70
TSF
1
1
2
2
2
3
31
47
53.
Vacant Land
0.25
ACRE
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
47
TOTAL
282
503
785
522
387
909
8205
48
3.
Res -Low (SFD)
362.00
DU
72
253
326
253
145
398
3982
48
4.
Res -Medium (SFA)
572.00
DU
114
343
458
343
229
572o p Z493
NBTAM - CITY OF
NEWPORT BEACH 1995
LAND USE AND
TRIP
GENERATION
-----AM
PK HR-----
-----PM
PK
HR-----
ZONE
USE
UNITS
IN
OUT
TOTAL
IN OUT
TOTAL
ADT
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------'
48
5.
Apartment
173.00
DU
35
69
104
69
52
121
1125
48
12.
Neighborhood Comm.
6.72
TSF
4
3
7
13
13
26
302
48
15.
General Commercial
7.12
TSF
4
3
6
10
11
21
285
48
19.
Restaurant
3.50
TSF
2
0
2
12
6
18
234
48
20.
Fast Food Restaurant
2.14
TSF
9
9
18
11
8
19
304
48
28.
General Office
18.54
TSF
35
6
41
11
32
43
241
48
29.
Medical Office
0.68
TSF
0
0
1
1
2
2
31
48
38.
Library
4.80
TSF
7
6
13
17
15
33
201
48
41.
Fire Station
2.40
TSF
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
48
46.
Youth Ctr/Service
4.97
TSF
0
0
1
1
1
2
20
48
52.
Auto Parking
2.10
TSF
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
48
TOTAL
283
693
977
742
513
1255
11643
49
3.
Res -Low (SFD)
9.00
DU
2
6
8
6
4
10
99
49
4.
Res -Medium (SFA)
79.00
DU
16
47
63
47
32
79
679
49
5.
Apartment
69.00
DU
14
28
41
28
21
48
449
49
10.
Hotel
34.00
ROOM
20
10
31
14
14
27
357
49
15.
General Commercial
82.21
TSF
41
33
74
115
132
247
3288
49
16.
Comm./Recreation
4.47
ACRE
2
2
4
11
11
22
179
49
19.
Restaurant
69.42
TSF
42
7
49
243
111
354
4644
49
20.
Fast Food Restaurant
12.25
TSF
54
49
103
64
44
108
1740
49
22.
Yacht Club
0.50
TSF
0
0
1
1
1
1
25
49
26.
Theater
440.00
SEAT
0
0
0
88
0
88
660
49
28.
General Office
164.43
TSF
312
49
362
99
280
378
2138
49
39.
Post Office
1.70
TSF
5
4
9
6
6
12
148
49
52.
Auto Parking
22.56
TSF
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
49
TOTAL
508
236
745
721
653
1374
14405
50
3.
Res -Low (SFD)
592.00
DU
118
414
533
414
237
651
6512
50
4.
Res -Medium (SFA)
238.00
DU
48
143
190
143
95
238
2047
50
5.
Apartment
69.00
DU
14
28
41
28
21
48
449
50
24.
Tennis Club
2.00
CRT
1
1
3
4
4
8
89
50
47.
Park
2.50
ACRE
0
0
0
0
0
0
15
50
TOTAL
181
586
767
589
357
946
9111
51
3.
Res -Low (SFD)
246.00
DU
49
172
221
172
98
271
2706
51
4.
Res -Medium (SFA)
263.00
DU
53
158
210
158
105
263
2262
51
15.
General Commercial
11.67
TSF
6
5
11
16
19
35
467
51
18.
Unclassified Comn.
3.56
TSF
0
0
1
1
1
1
1424
51
19.
Restaurant
19.03
TSF
11
2
13
67
30
97
1273
51
22.
Yacht Club
8.29
TSF
7
6
12
12
12
23
415
51
25.
Marina
392.00
SLIP
0
0
0
0
0
0
196
51
28.
General Office
13.20
TSF
25
4
29
8
22
30
172
51
30.
Industrial
5.04
TSF
4
1
5
2
4
6
25
51
36.
Government Office
0.60
TSF
1
0
1
0
1
1
8
51
TOTAL
156
348
504
436
292
728
8947
52
5.
Apartment
520.00
DU
104
208
312
208
156
364
3380
52
12.
Neighborhood Comm.
62.68
TSF
38
31
69
119
125
244
2821
52
15.
General Commercial
7.40
TSF
4
3
7
10
12
22
296
52
18.
Unclassified Comm.
1.20
TSF
0
0
0
0
0
0
480
52
19,
Restaurant
20.82
TSF
12
2
15
73
33
106
1393
NBTAM - CITY OF
NEWPORT BEACH 1995
LAND USE AND
TRIP
GENERATION
-----AM
PK HR-----
-----PM
PK HR-----
ZONE
USE
UNITS
IN
OUT
TOTAL
IN
OUT
TOTAL
ADT
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
52
21.
Auto Dealer
4.12
ACRE
28
38
66
23
30
53
618
52
TOTAL
186
283
468
433
357
790
8987
53
3.
Res -Low (SFD)
765.00
DU
153
536
689
536
306
842
8415
53
4.
Res -Medium (SFA)
1678.00
DU
336
1007
1342
1007
671
1678
14431
53
7.
Elderly Residential
13.00
DU
1
4
5
4
1
5
52
53
12.
Neighborhood Comm.
7.90
TSF
5
4
9
15
16
31
356
53
15.
General Commercial
58.00
TSF
29
23
52
81
93
174
2320
53
18.
Unclassified Comm.
3.45
TSF
0
0
1
1
1
1
13BO
53
19.
Restaurant
16.54
TSF
10
2
12
58
26
84
1107
53
20.
Fast Food Restaurant
5.43
TSF
24
22
46
28
20
48
771
53
28.
General Office
18.37
TSF
35
6
40
11
31
42
239
53
29.
Medical Office
1.75
TSF
1
0
1
1
4
6
79
53
39.
Post Office
1.90
TSF
5
5
10
7
6
13
165
53
41.
Fire Station
1.00
TSF
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
53
44.
Church
3.00
TSF
0
0
0
1
1
2
23
53
47.
Park
0.41
ACRE
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
53
52.
Auto Parking
7.65
TSF
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
53
TOTAL
599
1608
2207
1749
1177
2926
29339
54
8.
Mobile Home
291.00
DU
58
116
175
116
87
204
1746
54
15.
General Commercial
15.16
TSF
8
6
14
21
24
45
606
54
19.
Restaurant
4.55
TSF
3
0
3
16
7
23
304
54
25.
Marina
218.00
SLIP
0
0
0
0
0
0
109
54
28.
General Office
7.58
TSF
14
2
17
5
13
17
99
54
TOTAL
83
125
208
158
132
290
2864
55
7.
Elderly Residential
120.00
OU
12
36
48
36
12
48
480
55
10.
Hotel
207.00
ROOM
124
62
186
83
83
166
2174
55
10.
Hotel
410.00
ROOM
246
123
369
164
164
328
4305
55
17.
Resort Commercial
36.00
TSF
18
14
32
50
58
108
1260
55
19.
Restaurant
36.05
TSF
22
4
25
126
58
184
2412
55
24.
Tennis Club
16.00
CRT
11
10
21
34
32
66
709
55
28.
General Office
6.00
TSF
11
2
13
4
10
14
78
55
30.
Industrial
17.23
TSF
14
3
17
7
12
19
86
55
46.
Youth Ctr/Service
2.69
TSF
0
0
1
1
1
1
11
55
50.
Golf Course
9.00
ACRE
2
1
3
1
3
4
54
55
53.
vacant Land
58.23
ACRE
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
55
54.
Res - Low (SFA)
212.00
DU
42
138
180
138
85
223
2078
55
TOTAL
503
393
896
643
516
1159
13646
56
6.
Park Newport
1306.00
DU
131
392
522
392
261
653
6269
56
TOTAL
131
392
522
392
261
653
6269
57
3.
Res -Low (SFD)
662.00
DU
132
463
596
463
265
728
7282
57
4.
Res -Medium (SFA)
164.00
DU
33
98
131
98
66
164
1410
57
32.
Pre-School/Day Care
15.95
TSF
96
86
182
94
102
196
1069
57
33.
Elementary School
75.00
STU
8
0
8
0
0
0
75
57
34.
Junior/High School
1801.00
STU
360
180
540
180
180
360
2521
57
35.
Private School
189.00
STU
19
0
19
0
0
0
189
57
43.
Nursing/Conv. Home
4.00
PAT
0
0
1
0
1
1
11
57
44.
Church
21.84
TSF
2
1
2
7
7
14
168
00246
NBTAM - CITY
OF NEWPORT BEACH 1995
LAND USE AND
TRIP
GENERATION
-----AM
PK HR-----
-----PM PK HR-----
ZONE
USE
UNITS
IN
OUT
TOTAL
IN
OUT
TOTAL
ADT
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
57
46. Youth Ctr/Service
13.52
TSF
1
1
3
3
3
5
54
57
47. Park
13.87
ACRE
0
0
0
0
0
0
83
57
TOTAL
651
830
1481
847
623
1469
12863
58
3. Res -Low (SFD)
712.00
DU
142
498
641
498
285
783
7832
58
12. Neighborhood Comm.
55.40
TSF
33
28
61
105
111
216
2493
58
15. General Commercial
1.39
TSF
1
1
1
2
2
4
56
58
18. Unclassified Comm.
1.61
TSF
0
0
0
0
0
1
644
58
24. Tennis Club
23.00
CRT
16
14
30
48
46
94
1019
58
28. General Office
11.66
TSF
22
3
26
7
20
27
152
58
TOTAL
215
544
759
661
464
1125
12195
59
3. Res -Low (SFD)
456.00
DU
91
319
410
319
182
502
5016
59
47. Park
1.60
ACRE
0
0
0
0
0
0
10
59
TOTAL
91
319
410
319
182
502
5026
61
5. Apartment
300.00
DU
60
120
180
120
90
210
1950
61
TOTAL
60
120
180
120
90
210
1950
62
3. Res -Low (SFD)
159.00
DU
32
Ill
143
ill
64
175
1749
62
4. Res -Medium (SFA)
120.00
DU
24
72
96
72
48
120
1032
62
5. Apartment
570.00
DU
114
228
342
228
171
399
3705
62
15. General Commercial
50.00
TSF
25
20
45
70
80
150
2000
62
47. Park
14.23
ACRE
0
0
0
0
0
0
85
62
TOTAL
195
431
626
481
363
844
8571
63
15. General Commercial
8.39
TSF
4
3
8
12
13
25
336
63
30. Industrial
33.94
TSF
27
7
34
14
24
37
170
63
31. R & D
45.91
TSF
46
5
51
14
51
64
436
63
35. Private School
52.00
STU
5
0
5
0
0
0
52
63
39. Post Office
40.20
TSF
113
101
213
141
133
273
3489'
63
44. Church
63.77
TSF
5
2
7
22
19
41
491
63
45. Cemetary/Res/Util
2.27
ACRE
0
0
0
0
0
0
5
63
53. Vacant Land
5.83
ACRE
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
63
TOTAL
200
117
317
201
239
441
4978
64
4. Res -Medium (SFA)
227.00
DU
45
136
182
136
91
227
1952
64
TOTAL
45
136
182
136
91
227
1952
65
31. R & D
1253.37
TSF
1253
125
1379
376
1379
1755
11907
65
TOTAL
1253
125
1379
376
1379
1755
11907
66
4. Res -Medium (SFA)
50.00
DU
10
30
40
30
20
50
430
66
TOTAL
10
30
40
30
20
50
430
67
3. Res -Low (SFD)
92.00
DU
18
64
83
64
37
101
1012
67
4. Res -Medium (SFA)
54.00
DU
11
32
43
32
22
54
464
67
TOTAL
29
97
126
97
58
155
1476
68
4. Res -Medium (SFA)
144.00
DU
29
86
115
86
58
144
1238
68
5. Apartment
78.00
DU
15
31
47
31
23
55
507
68
TOTAL
44
118
162
118
81
199
1745
00247
NBTAM - CITY OF
NEWPORT BEACH 1995
LAND USE AND
TRIP
GENERATION
-----AM
PK HR-----
-----PM PK
HR-----
ZONE
USE
UNITS
IN OUT
TOTAL
IN
OUT
TOTAL
ADT
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
69
3. Res -Low (SFD)
101.00
DU
20
71
91
71
40
111
1111
69
4. Res -Medium (SFA)
182.00
DU
36
109
146
109
73
182
1565
69
18. Unclassified Comm.
1.83
TSF
0
0
0
0
0
1
732
69
50. Golf Course
144.90
ACRE
29
14
43
14
43
58
869
69
TOTAL
85
195
280
195
157
352
4278
70
3. Res -Low (SFD)
142.00
DU
28
99
128
99
57
156
1562
70
4. Res -Medium (SFA)
43.00
DU
9
26
34
26
17
43
370
70
5. Apartment
74.00
DU
15
30
44
30
22
52
481
70
TOTAL
52
155
207
155
96
251
2413
71
3. Res -Low (SFD)
21.00
DU
4
15
19
15
8
23
231
71
TOTAL
4
15
19
15
8
23
231
72
10. Hotel
325.00
ROOM
195
98
293
130
130
260
3413
72
19. Restaurant
5.33
TSF
3
1
4
19
9
27
357
72
28. General Office
950.00
TSF
1805
285
2090
570
1615
2185
12350
72
47. Park
0.10
ACRE
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
72
52. Auto Parking
402.19
TSF
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
72
TOTAL
2003
383
2386
719
1754
2472
16120
73
14. Regional Commercial
1310.75
TSF
262
131
393
918
1180
2097
28837
73
26. Theater
1700.00
SEAT
0
0
0
340
0
340
2550
73
TOTAL
262
131
393
1258
1180
2437
31387
74
4. Res -Medium (SFA)
245.00
DU
49
147
196
147
98
245
2107
74
14. Regional Commercial
30.00
TSF
6
3
9
21
27
48
660
74
18. Unclassified Cam.
1.76
TSF
0
0
0
0
0
1
704
74
19. Restaurant
13.10
TSF
8
1
9
46
21
67
876
74
21. Auto Dealer
1.91
ACRE
13
18
31
11
14
24
287
74
28. General Office
863.49
TSF
1641
259
1900
518
1468
1986
11225
74
36. Government Office
48.00
TSF
91
14
106
29
82
110
624
74
37. Civic Center/Museum
21.21
TSF
53
6
59
23
55
78
679
74
41. Fire Station
13.48
TSF
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
74
47. Park
0.07
ACRE
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
74
52. Auto Parking
39.20
TSF
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
74
TOTAL
1861
449
2310
795
1765
2560
17162
75
4. Res -Medium (SFA)
67.00
DU
13
40
54
40
27
67
576
75
10. Hotel
600.00
ROOM
360
180
540
240
240
480
6300
75
28. General Office
11.63
TSF
22
3
26
7
20
27
151
75
TOTAL
395
224
619
287
287
574
7027
76
4. Res -Medium (SFA)
132.00
DU
26
79
106
79
53
132
1135
76
TOTAL
26
79
106
79
53
132
1135
77
5. Apartment
228.00
DU
46
91
137
91
68
160
1482
77
50. Golf Course
128.50
ACRE
26
13
39
13
39
51
771
77
TOTAL
71
104
175
104
107
211
2253
78
15. General Commercial
7.50
TSF
4
3
7
11
12
23
300
78
24. Tennis Club
22.00
CRT
15
13
29
46
44
90
975
00248
NBTAM - CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 1995 LAND USE AND TRIP GENERATION
-----AM PK HR-----
ZONE
USE
UNITS
IN
OUT
TOTAL
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
78
28. General Office
137.50
TSF
261
41
303
78
47. Park
1.50
ACRE
0
0
0
78
50. Golf Course
3.02
ACRE
1
0
1
78
TOTAL
281
58
339
79
28. General Office
465.34
TSF
884
140
1024
79
29. Medical Office
351.95
TSF
211
70
282
79
40. OCTD Facility
2.50
ACRE
0
0
0
79
47. Park
0.77
ACRE
0
0
0
79
52. Auto Parking
492.05
TSF
0
0
0
79
53. Vacant Land
7.44
ACRE
0
0
0
79
TOTAL
1095
210
1305
80
15. General Commercial
3.15
TSF
2
1
3
80
19. Restaurant
14.10
TSF
8
1
10
80
23. Health Club
16.13
TSF
10
10
19
80
26. Theater
2150.00
SEAT
0
0
0
80
28. General Office
442.11
TSF
840
133
973
80
TOTAL
860
145
1005
81
28. General Office
347.32
TSF
660
104
764
81
47. Park
1.51
ACRE
0
0
0
81
TOTAL
660
104
764
82
37. Civic Center/Museum
70.00
TSF
175
21
196
82
38. Library
52.00
TSF
73
68
140
82
TOTAL
248
89
336
83
3. Res -Low (SFD)
410.00
DU
82
287
369
83
4. Res -Medium (SFA)
37.00
OU
7
22
30
83
5. Apartment
61.00
DU
12
24
37
83
22. Yacht Club
48.16
TSF
39
34
72
83
25. Marina
233.00
SLIP
0
0
0
83
28. General Office
140.13
TSF
266
42
308
83
36. Government Office
19.30
TSF
37
6
42
83
45. Cemetary/Res/Util
0.04
ACRE
0
0
0
83
TOTAL
443
415
858
84
3. Res -Low (SFD)
267.00
DU
53
187
240
84
4. Res -Medium (SFA)
322.00
DU
64
193
258
84
5. Apartment
178.00
DU
36
71
107
84
25. Marina
18.00
SLIP
0
0
0
84
TOTAL
153
451
605
85
3. Res -Low (SFD)
292.00
DU
58
204
263
85
4. Res -Medium (SFA)
228.00
DU
46
137
182
85
5. Apartment
121.00
DU
24
48
73
85
15. General Commercial
59.20
TSF
30
24
53
85
18. Unclassified Comm.
0.75
TSF
0
0
0
85
19. Restaurant
7.60
TSF
5
1
5
85
20. Fast Food Restaurant
0.19
TSF
1
1
2
85
28. General Office
18.03
TSF
34
5
40
-----PM PK MR-----
INOUT
TOTAL
ADT
------------------------------
83
234
316
1788
0
0
0
9
0
1
1
18
140
291
430
3089
279
791
1070
6049
282
880
1161
15838
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
561
1671
2232
21892
4
5
9
126
49
23
72
943
31
31
61
645
430
0
430
3225
265
752
1017
5747
780
810
1590
10687
208
590
799
4515
0
0
0
9
208
590
799
4524
77
182
259
2240
187
166
354
2174
264
348
613
4414
287
164
451
4510
22
15
37
318
24
18
43
397
67
67
135
2408
0
0
0
117
84
238
322
1822
12
33
44
251
0
0
0
0
497
536
1032
9822
187
107
294
2937
193
129
322
2769
71
53
125
1157
0
0
0
9
451
289
740
6872
204
117
321
3212
137
91
228
1961
48
36
85
787
83
95
178
2368
0
0
0
300
27
12
39
508
1
1
2
27
11
31
41
234
00249
NBTAM - CITY OF
NEWPORT BEACH 1995
LAND USE AND
TRIP
GENERATION
-----AM
PK HR-----
-----PM
PK HR-----
ZONE
USE
UNITS
IN OUT
TOTAL
IN
OUT
TOTAL
ADT
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
85
29. Medical Office
1.07
TSF
1
0
1
1
3
4
48
85
52. Auto Parking
22.25
TSF
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
85
TOTAL
198
420
619
512
385
897
9445
86
3. Res -Low (SFO)
144.00
OU
29
101
130
101
58
158
1584
86
TOTAL
29
101
130
101
58
158
1584
87
3. Res -Low (SFD)
176.00
DU
35
123
158
123
70
194
1936
87
TOTAL
35
123
158
123
70
194
1936
88
3. Res -Low (SFD)
124.00
DU
25
87
112
87
50
136
1364
88
4. Res -Medium (SFA)
905.00
OU
181
543
724
543
362
905
7783
88
12. Neighborhood Comm.
16.77
TSF
10
8
18
32
34
65
755
88
15. General Commercial
116.00
TSF
58
46
104
162
186
348
4640
88
19. Restaurant
24.80
TSF
15
2
17
87
40
126
1659
88
20. Fast Food Restaurant
0.43
TSF
2
2
4
2
2
4
61
88
26. Theater
500.00
SEAT
0
0
0
100
0
100
750
88
28. General Office
60.91
TSF
116
18
134
37
104
140
792
88
29. Medical Office
7.36
TSF
4
1
6
6
18
24
331
88
52. Auto Parking
34.34
TSF
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
88
TOTAL
411
709
1119
1056
794
1849
18135
89
3. Res -Low (SFD)
158.00
DU
32
ill
142
ill
53
174
1738
89
4. Res -Medium (SFA)
405.00
DU
81
243
324
243
162
405
3483
89
15. General Commercial
74.60
TSF
37
30
67
104
119
224
2984
89
18. Unclassified Conn.
0.86
TSF
0
0
0
0
0
0
344
89
19. Restaurant
6.42
TSF
4
1
4
22
10
33
429
89
20. Fast Food Restaurant
2.16
TSF
10
9
18
11
8
19
307
89
23. Health Club
1.72
TSF
1
1
2
3
3
7
69
89
28. General Office
40.19
TSF
76
12
88
24
68
92
522
89
29. Medical Office
0.88
TSF
1
0
1
1
2
3
40
89
44. Church
12.34
TSF
1
0
1
4
4
8
95
89
TOTAL
242
406
649
524
440
964
10011
90
3. Res -Low (SFD)
126.00
DU
25
88
113
88
50
139
1386
90
4. Res -Medium (SFA)
790.00
OU
158
474
632
474
316
790
6794
90
15. General Commercial
26.37
TSF
13
11
24
37
42
79
1055
90
19. Restaurant
13.40
TSF
8
1
9
47
21
68
896
90
20. Fast Food Restaurant
0.13
TSF
1
1
1
1
0
1
18
90
28. General Office
32.14
TSF
61
10
71
19
55
74
418
90
29. Medical Office
0.72
TSF
0
0
1
1
2
2
32
90
39. Post Office
5.00
TSF
14
13
27
18
17
34
434
90
41. Fire Station
1.82
TSF
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
90
53. Vacant Land
0.33
ACRE
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
90
TOTAL
280
597
877
684
503
1187
11034
91
3. Res -Low (SFD)
194.00
DU
39
136
175
136
78
213
2134
91
4. Res -Medium (SFA)
61.00
DU
12
37
49
37
24
61
525
91
S. Apartment
55.00
DU
11
22
33
22
17
39
358
91
TOTAL
62
194
256
194
119
313
3016
92
3. Res -Low (SFD)
142.00
OU
28
99
128
99
57
156
1562
92
TOTAL
28
99
128
99
57
(1102551062
NBTAM - CITY OF
NEWPORT BEACH 1995
LAND USE AND
TRIP
GENERATION
-----AM
PK HR-----
-----PM
PK MR-----
ZONEUSE
UNITS
IN
OUT
TOTAL
IN
OUT
TOTAL
ADT
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
93
3. Res -Low (SFD)
225.00
DU
45
158
203
158
90
248
2475
93
5. Apartment
120.00
DU
24
48
72
48
36
84
780
93
33. Elementary School
790.00
STU
79
0
79
0
0
0
790
93
46. Youth Ctr/Service
5.60
TSF
1
1
1
1
1
2
22
93
TOTAL
149
206
355
207
127
334
4067
94
3. Res -Low (SFD)
220.00
DU
44
154
198
154
88
242
2420
94
15. General Commercial
60.28
TSF
30
24
54
84
96
181
2411
94
45. Cemetary/Res/Util
2.79
ACRE
0
0
0
0
0
0
6
94
47. Park
8.50
ACRE
0
0
0
0
0
0
51
94
TOTAL
74
178
252
238
184
423
4888
95
4. Res -Medium (SFA)
247.00
DU
49
148
198
148
99
247
2124
95
TOTAL
49
148
198
148
99
247
2124
96
3. Res -Low (SFD)
448.00
DU
90
314
403
314
179
493
4928
96
7. Elderly Residential
100.00
DU
10
30
40
30
10
40
400
96
35. Private School
162.00
STU
16
0
16
0
0
0
162
96
46. Youth Ctr/Service
18.00
TSF
2
2
4
4
4
7
72
96
47. Park
5.97
ACRE
0
0
0
0
0
0
36
96
TOTAL
118
345
463
347
193
540
5598
97
3. Res -Low (SFD)
40.00
DU
8
28
36
28
16
44
440
97
TOTAL
8
28
36
28
16
44
440
98
5. Apartment
388.00
DU
78
155
233
155
116
272
2522
98
32. Pre-School/Day Care
8.40
TSF
50
45
96
50
54
103
563
98
TOTAL
128
201
329
205
170
375
3085
99
4. Res -Medium (SFA)
94.00
DU
19
56
75
56
38
94
808
99
7. Elderly Residential
100.00
DU
10
30
40
30
10
40
400
99
TOTAL
29
86
115
86
48
134
1208
100
S. Apartment
168.00
DU
34
67
101
67
50
118
1092
100
12. Neighborhood Comm.
67.55
TSF
41
34
74
128
135
263
3040
100
18. Unclassified Conn.
3.10
TSF
0
0
1
1
1
1
1240
100
28. General Office
9.75
TSF
19
3
21
6
17
22
127
100
32. Pre-School/Day Care
29.47
TSF
177
159
336
174
189
362
1974
100
35. Private School
406.00
STU
41
0
41
0
0
0
406
100
44. Church
125.32
TSF
10
4
14
43
38
80
965
100
46. Youth Ctr/Service
15.99
TSF
2
2
3
3
3
6
64
100
TOTAL
322
269
591
422
432
854
8908
101
3. Res -Low (SFD)
441.00
DU
88
309
397
309
176
485
4851
101
4. Res -Medium (SFA)
172.00
DU
34
103
138
103
69
172
1479
101
47. Park
2.50
ACRE
0
0
0
0
0
0
15
101
TOTAL
123
412
535
412
245
657
6345
102
3. Res -Low (SFD)
475.00
DU
95
333
428
333
190
523
5225
102
33. Elementary School
498.00
STU
50
0
50
0
0
0
498
102
45. Cemetary/Res/Util
0.06
ACRE
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
102
47. Park
20.75
ACRE
0
0
0
0
0
0
125
102
TOTAL
145
333
477
333
190
dt 2 5 f148
NBTAM - CITY
OF NEWPORT BEACH 1995
LAND USE AND
TRIP
GENERATION
-----AM
PK HR-----
-----PM
PK
HR-----
ZONE
USE
UNITS
IN OUT
TOTAL
IN
OUT
TOTAL
ADT
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
103
3. Res -Low (SFD)
206.00
DU
41
144
185
144
82
227
2266
103
45. Cemetary/Res/Util
12.59
ACRE
0
0
0
0
0
0
25
103
47. Park
7.32
ACRE
0
0
0
0
0
0
44
103
TOTAL
41
144
185
144
82
227
2335
104
3. Res -Low (SFD)
616.00
DU
123
431
554
431
246
678
6776
104
TOTAL
123
431
554
431
246
678
6776
105
3. Res -Low (SFD)
119.00
OU
24
83
107
83
48
131
1309
105
4. Res -Medium (SFA)
120.00
DU
24
72
96
72
48
120
1032
105
12. Neighborhood Comm.
77.33
TSF
46
39
85
147
155
302
3480
105
18. Unclassified Conn.
1.40
TSF
0
0
0
0
0
1
560
105
28. General Office
11.17
TSF
21
3
25
7
19
26
145
105
TOTAL
116
197
313
309
270
579
6526
NBTAM - CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 1995 LAND USE AND TRIP GENERATION SUMMARY
-----AM PK HR----------PM PK HR-----
USE UNITS IN OUT TOTAL IN OUT TOTAL ADT
1.
Res -Coast Estate
0.00
DU
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2.
Res-Estate/Rural
0.00
DU
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3.
Res -Low (SFD)
14743.00
DU
2949
10320
13269
10320
5897
16217
162173
4.
Res -Medium (SFA)
12942.00
DU
2588
7765
10354
7765
5177
12942
111301
5.
Apartment
6313.00
DU
1263
2525
3788
2525
1894
4419
41035
S.
Park Newport
1306.00
DU
131
392
522
392
261
653
6269
7.
Elderly Residential
481.00
DU
48
144
192
144
48
192
1924
8.
Mobile Home
1049.00
DU
210
420
629
420
315
734
6294
9.
Motel
208.00
ROOM
83
62
146
62
83
146
2101
10.
Hotel
2798.00
ROOM
1679
839
2518
1119
1119
2238
29379
11.
Resort Hotel
0.00
ROOM
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
12.
Neighborhood Conn.
516.02
TSF
310
258
568
980
1032
2012
23221
13.
District Comm.
0.00
TSF
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
14.
Regional Commercial
1340.75
TSF
268
134
402
939
1207
2145
29497
15.
General Commercial
1616.90
TSF
808
647
1455
2264
2587
4851
64676
16.
Comm./Recreation
5.79
ACRE
3
3
6
14
14
28
232
17.
Resort Commercial
36.00
TSF
18
14
32
50
58
108
1260
18.
Unclassified Comm.
57.13
TSF
6
6
11
11
11
23
22852
19.
Restaurant
704.66
TSF
423
70
493
2466
1127
3594
47142
20.
Fast Food Restaurant
60.24
TSF
265
241
506
313
217
530
8554
21.
Auto Dealer
24.18
ACRE
162
225
387
133
177
310
3627
22.
Yacht Club
80.20
TSF
64
56
120
112
112
225
4010
23.
Health Club
91.91
TSF
55
55
110
175
175
349
3676
24.
Tennis Club
63.00
CRT
44
38
82
132
126
258
2791
25,
Marina
1044.00
SLIP
0
0
0
0
0
0
522
26.
Theater
5565.00
SEAT
0
0
0
1113
0
1113
8348
27.
Newport Dunes
0.00
ACRE
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
28.
General Office
11038.29
TSF
20973
3311
24284
6623
18765
25388
143498
29.
Medical Office
788.77
TSF
473
158
631
631
1972
2603
35495
30.
Industrial
995.02
TSF
796
199
995
398
697
1095
4975
31.
R & D
1715.15
TSF
1715
172
1887
515
1887
2401
16294
32.
Pre-School/Day Care
171.14
TSF
1027
924
1951
1010
1095
2105
11466
33.
Elementary School
2824.00
STU
282
0
282
0
0
0
2824
34.
Junior/High School
3985.00
STU
797
399
1196
399
399
797
5579
35.
Private School
1431.00
STU
143
0
143
0
0
0
1431
36.
Government Office
287.43
TSF
546
86
632
172
489
661
3737
37.
Civic Center/Museum
91.21
TSF
228
27
255
100
237
337
2919
38.
Library
64.14
TSF
90
83
173
231
205
436
2681
39.
Post Office
58.70
TSF
164
147
311
205
194
399
5095
40.
OCTD Facility
2.50
ACRE
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
41.
Fire Station
25.16
TSF
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
42.
Hospital
578.75
BED
405
174
579
289
463
752
6598
43.
Nursing/Conv. Home
592.00
PAT
59
59
118
59
118
178
1598
44.
Church
294.56
TSF
24
9
32
100
88
189
2268
45.
Cemetary/Res/Util
17.91
ACRE
0
0
0
0
0
0
36
46.
Youth Ctr/Service
124.59
TSF
12
12
25
25
25
50
498
47.
Park
105.58
ACRE
0
0
0
0
0
0
633
48.
Regional Park
0.00
ACRE
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
49.
Beach
0.00
UNIT
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
50.
Golf Course
310.42
ACRE
62
31
93
31
93
124
1863
51.
Resort Golf Course
0.00
ACRE
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
52.
Auto Parking
5075.07
TSF
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
53.
Vacant Land
243.30
ACRE
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
54.
Res - Low (SFA)
363.00
OU
73
236
309
236
145
381
3557
GRAND TOTAL
39246
30242
69489
42475
48509
90984
833927
NBTAM - CITY OF
NEWPORT BEACH 2O00
LAND USE AND
TRIP
GENERATION
-----AM
PK HR-----
-----PM PK
HR-----
ZONE
USE
UNITS
IN
OUT
TOTAL
IN
OUT
TOTAL
ADT
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1
15. General Commercial
296.21
TSF
148
118
267
415
474
889
11848
1
19. Restaurant
11.13
TSF
7
1
8
39
18
57
745
1
28. General Office
594.73
TSF
1130
178
1308
357
1011
1368
7731
1
29. Medical Office
13.43
TSF
8
3
11
11
34
44
604
1
30. Industrial
135.28
TSF
108
27
135
54
95
149
676
1
31. R & D
20.06
TSF
20
2
22
6
22
28
191
1
53. Vacant Land
1.27
ACRE
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
TOTAL
1421
330
1751
881
1653
2534
21796
2
10. Hotel
388.67
ROOM
233
117
350
155
155
311
4081
2
15. General Commercial
58.28
TSF
29
23
52
82
93
175
2331
2
19. Restaurant
75.85
TSF
46
8
53
265
121
387
5074
2
21. Auto Dealer
10.63
ACRE
71
99
170
58
78
136
1595
2
23. Health Club
45.24
TSF
27
27
54
86
86
172
1810
2
28. General Office
2259.62
TSF
4293
678
4971
1356
3841
5197
29375
2
52. Auto Parking
326.89
TSF
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
53. Vacant Land
2.15
ACRE
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
TOTAL
4699
951
5651
2003
4375
6378
44266
4
15. General Commercial
25.01
TSF
13
10
23
35
40
75
1000
4
19. Restaurant
30.09
TSF
18
3
21
105
48
153
2013
4
28. General Office
756.64
TSF
1438
227
1665
454
1286
1740
9836
4
52. Auto Parking
335.00
TSF
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
TOTAL
1468
240
1708
594
1374
1969
12850
5
28. General Office
250.18
TSF
475
75
550
150
425
575
3252
5
52. Auto Parking
523.68
TSF
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
5
TOTAL
475
75
550
150
425
575
3252
6
28. General Office
66.42
TSF
126
20
146
40
113
153
863
6
36. Government Office
79.63
TSF
151
24
175
48
135
183
1035
6
TOTAL
277
44
321
88
248
336
1899
7
10. Hotel
471.00
ROOM
283
141
424
188
188
377
4946
7
28. General Office
393.05
TSF
747
118
865
236
668
904
5110
7
46. Youth Ctr/Service
10.30
TSF
1
1
2
2
2
4
41
7
52. Auto Parking
792.84
TSF
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
7
TOTAL
1030
260
1291
426
859
1285
10096
8
19. Restaurant
21.39
TSF
13
2
15
75
34
109
1431
8
20. Fast Food Restaurant
2.15
TSF
9
9
18
11
8
19
305
8
28. General Office
1118.74
TSF
2126
336
2461
671
1902
2573
14544
8
30. Industrial
150.00
TSF
120
30
150
60
105
165
750
8
31. R & D
280.00
TSF
280
28
308
84
308
392
2660
8
52. Auto Parking
1395.37
TSF
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
8
TOTAL
2548
404
2952
901
2357
3258
19690
9
15. General Commercial
3.00
TSF
2
1
3
4
5
9
120
9
18. Unclassified Comm.
2.35
TSF
0
0
0
0
0
1
940
9
20. Fast Food Restaurant
1.47
TSF
6
6
12
8
5
13
209
9
21. Auto Dealer
0.66
ACRE
4
6
11
4
5
8
00
5�! rt
9
28. General Office
153.82
TSF
292
46
338
92
261
354
20 OO 2
NBTAM - CITY
OF NEWPORT BEACH 2O00
LAND USE AND
TRIP
GENERATION
-----AM
PK HR-----
-----PM
PK
HR-----
ZONE
USE
UNITS
IN
OUT
TOTAL
IN
OUT
TOTAL
ADT
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
9
29. Medical Office
3.14
TSF
2
1
3
3
8
10
141
9
TOTAL
307
60
367
111
285
395
3509
10
3. Res -Low (SFD)
145.00
DU
29
102
131
102
58
160
1595
10
4. Res -Medium (SFA)
88.00
DU
18
53
70
53
35
88
757
10
10. Hotel
270.67
ROOM
162
81
244
108
108
217
2842
10
15. General Commercial
26.05
TSF
13
10
23
36
42
78
1042
10
19. Restaurant
1.20
TSF
1
0
1
4
2
6
80
10
28. General Office
660.00
TSF
1254
198
1452
396
1122
1518
8580
10
47. Park
3.16
ACRE
0
0
0
0
0
0
19
10
52. Auto Parking
267.94
TSF
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
10
53. Vacant Land
5.18
ACRE
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
10
TOTAL
1477
444
1921
699
1367
2066
14915
11
3. Res -Low (SFD)
60.00
DU
12
42
54
42
24
66
660
11
4. Res -Medium (SFA)
33.00
DU
7
20
26
20
13
33
284
11
23. Health Club
39.32
TSF
24
24
47
75
75
149
1573
11
28. General Office
67.95
TSF
129
20
149
41
116
156
883
11
50. Golf Course
25.00
ACRE
5
3
8
3
8
10
150
11
52. Auto Parking
105.63
TSF
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
11
TOTAL
176
108
285
180
235
415
3550
13
3. Res -Low (SFD)
335.00
DU
67
235
302
235
134
369
3685
13
44. Church
6.48
TSF
1
0
1
2
2
4
50
13
TOTAL
68
235
302
237
136
373
3735
14
3. Res -Low (SFD)
114.00
DU
23
80
103
80
46
125
1254
14
TOTAL
23
80
103
80
46
125
1254
15
3. Res -Low (SFD)
633.00
DU
127
443
570
443
253
695
6963
15
TOTAL
127
443
570
443
253
696
6963
16
3. Res -Low (SFD)
115.00
DU
23
81
104
81
46
127
1265
16
4. Res -Medium (SFA)
60.00
DU
12
36
48
36
24
60
516
16
5. Apartment
352.00
OU
70
141
211
141
106
246
2288
16
12. Neighborhood Comm.
128.05
TSF
77
64
141
243
256
499
5762
16
15. General Commercial
31.66
TSF
16
13
28
44
51
95
1266
16
19. Restaurant
4.37
TSF
3
0
3
15
7
22
292
16
28. General Office
134.89
TSF
256
40
297
81
229
310
1754
16
29. Medical Office
43.22
TSF
26
9
35
35
108
143
1945
16
33. Elementary School
636.00
STU
64
0
64
0
0
0
636
16
38. Library
5.24
TSF
7
7
14
19
17
36
219
16
41. Fire Station
6.46
TSF
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
16
TOTAL
554
390
944
695
843
1538
15944
17
3. Res -Low (SFD)
490.00
DU
98
343
441
343
196
539
5390
17
TOTAL
98
343
441
343
196
539
5390
18
3. Res -Low (SFD)
266.00
DU
53
186
239
186
106
293
2926
18
46. Youth Ctr/Service
13.19
TSF
1
1
3
3
3
5
53
18
47. Park
4.00
ACRE
0
0
0
0
0
0
24
18
TOTAL
55
188
242
189
109
298
0
0
0255
NBTAM - CITY OF
NEWPORT BEACH 2O00
LAND USE
AND TRIP
GENERATION
-----AM
PK HR-----
-----PM PK
HR-----
ZONE
USE
UNITS
IN
OUT
TOTAL
IN
OUT
TOTAL
ADT
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
19
S.
Apartment
1445.00
DU
289
578
867
578
434
1012
9393
19
TOTAL
289
578
867
578
434
1012
9393
20
15.
General Commercial
1.73
TSF
1
1
2
2
3
5
69
20
28.
General Office
111.84
TSF
212
34
246
67
190
257
1454
20
44.
Church
24.10
TSF
2
1
3
8
7
15
186
20
46.
Youth Ctr/Service
2.10
TSF
0
0
0
0
0
1
8
20
TOTAL
215
35
251
78
201
279
1717
21
25.
Marina
125.00
SLIP
0
0
0
0
0
0
63
21
44.
Church
10.15
TSF
1
0
1
3
3
6
78
21
54.
Res - Low (SFA)
151.00
DU
30
98
128
98
60
159
1480
21
TOTAL
31
98
129
102
63
165
1620
22
3.
Res -Low (SFD)
307.00
OU
61
215
276
215
123
338
3377
22
4.
Res -Medium (SFA)
223.67
DU
45
134
179
134
89
224
1924
22
28.
General Office
20.37
TSF
39
6
45
12
35
47
265
22
29.
Medical Office
12.00
TSF
7
2
10
10
30
40
540
22
32.
Pre-School/Day Care
103.88
TSF
623
561
1184
613
665
1278
6960
22
34.
Junior/High School
2184.00
STU
437
218
655
218
218
437
3058
22
43.
Nursing/Conv. Home
68.00
PAT
7
7
14
7
14
20
184
22
46.
Youth Ctr/Service
13.37
TSF
1
1
3
3
3
5
53
22
TOTAL
1220
1145
2365
1212
1176
2388
16360
23
3.
Res -Low (SFD)
257.00
DU
51
180
231
180
103
283
2827
23
5.
Apartment
152.00
DU
30
61
91
61
46
106
988
23
10.
Hotel
124.00
ROOM
74
37
112
50
50
99
1302
23
15.
General Commercial
150.56
TSF
75
60
136
211
241
452
6022
23
19.
Restaurant
30.17
TSF
18
3
21
106
48
154
2018
23
20.
Fast Food Restaurant
6.93
TSF
30
28
58
36
25
61
984
23
21.
Auto Dealer
1.97
ACRE
13
1s
32
11
14
25
296
23
28.
General Office
27.06
TSF
51
8
60
16
46
62
352
23
29.
Medical Office
17.49
TSF
10
3
14
14
44
58
787
23
53.
Vacant Land
0.53
ACRE
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
23
TOTAL
355
399
754
684
616
1300
15576
24
3.
Res -Low (SFD)
550.00
DU
110
385
495
385
220
605
6050
24
5.
Apartment
56.33
DU
11
23
34
23
17
39
366
24
26.
Theater
90.00
SEAT
0
0
0
18
0
18
135
24
33.
Elementary School
436.00
STU
44
0
44
0
0
0
436
24
46.
Youth Ctr/Service
17.16
TSF
2
2
3
3
3
7
69
24
47.
Park
5.90
ACRE
0
0
0
0
0
0
35
24
TOTAL
167
409
576
429
240
669
7091
25
5.
Apartment
36.00
DU
7
14
22
14
11
25
234
25
15.
General Commercial
199.67
TSF
100
80
180
280
319
599
7987
25
19.
Restaurant
106.32
TSF
64
11
74
372
170
542
7113
25
20.
Fast Food Restaurant
5.69
TSF
25
23
48
30
20
50
808
25
21.
Auto Dealer
4.45
ACRE
30
41
71
24
32
57
668
25
22.
Yacht Club
2.25
TSF
2
2
3
3
3
6
113
25
28.
General Office
322.99
TSF
614
97
711
194
549
743
4199
25
39.
Post Office
9.90
TSF
28
25
52
35
33
6b 0
2 �t
NBTAM - CITY OF
NEWPORT BEACH 2O00
LAND USE AND
TRIP
GENERATION
-----AM
PK HR-----
-----PM PK
HR-----
ZONE
USE
UNITS
IN
OUT
TOTAL
IN
OUT
TOTAL
ADT
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
25
52.
Auto Parking
148.55
TSF
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
25
TOTAL
869
292
1161
952
1138
2090
21980
26
3.
Res -Low (SFD)
163.00
DU
33
114
147
114
65
179
1793
26
4,
Res -Medium (SFA)
176.67
DU
35
106
141
106
71
177
1519
26
9.
Motel
53.00
ROOM
21
16
37
16
21
37
535
26
12.
Neighborhood Comm.
1.14
TSF
1
1
1
2
2
4
51
26
15.
General Commercial
39.27
TSF
20
16
35
55
63
118
1571
26
19.
Restaurant
15.46
TSF
9
2
11
54
25
79
1034
26
28.
General Office
112.29
TSF
213
34
247
67
191
258
1460
26
29.
Medical Office
9.34
TSF
6
2
7
7
23
31
420
26
30.
Industrial
1.90
TSF
2
0
2
1
1
2
10
26
44.
Church
1.15
TSF
0
0
0
0
0
1
9
26
45.
Cemetary/Res/Util
0.16
ACRE
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
26
52.
Auto Parking
6.60
TSF
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
26
53.
Vacant Land
0.66
ACRE
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
26
TOTAL
339
290
629
423
463
886
8403
27
4.
Res -Medium (SFA)
98.00
DU
20
59
78
59
39
98
843
27
S.
Apartment
141.33
DU
28
57
85
57
42
99
919
27
29.
Medical Office
23.29
TSF
14
5
19
19
58
77
1048
27
30.
Industrial
210.11
TSF
168
42
210
84
147
231
1051
27
36.
Government Office
63.81
TSF
121
19
140
38
108
147
830
27
43.
Nursing/Conv. Home
270.00
PAT
27
27
54
27
54
81
729
27
TOTAL
378
208
586
283
449
733
5419
28
4.
Res -Medium (SFA)
673.00
DU
135
404
538
404
269
673
5788
28
28.
General Office
7.91
TSF
15
2
17
5
13
18
103
28
29.
Medical Office
240.21
TSF
144
48
192
192
601
793
10809
28
42.
Hospital
807.50
BED
565
242
808
404
646
1050
9206
28
43.
Nursing/Conv. Home
95.00
PAT
10
10
19
10
19
29
257
28
53.
Vacant Land
20.47
ACRE
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
28
TOTAL
869
706
1574
1014
1548
2562
26162
29
3.
Res -Low (SFD)
68.00
DU
14
48
61
48
27
75
748
29
4.
Res -Medium (SFA)
28.00
DU
6
17
22
17
11
28
241
29
15.
General Commercial
1.70
TSF
1
1
2
2
3
5
68
29
19.
Restaurant
4.20
TSF
3
0
3
15
7
21
281
29
29.
Medical Office
3.85
TSF
2
1
3
3
10
13
173
29
TOTAL
25
66
91
85
57
142
1511
30
4.
Res -Medium (SFA)
573.00
DU
115
344
458
344
229
573
4928
30
S.
Apartment
384.33
DU
77
154
231
154
115
269
2498
30
7.
Elderly Residential
148.00
DU
15
44
59
44
15
59
592
30
15.
General Commercial
7.51
TSF
4
3
7
11
12
23
300
30
28.
General Office
16.00
TSF
30
5
35
10
27
37
208
30
29.
Medical Office
33.00
TSF
20
7
26
26
83
109
1485
30
30.
Industrial
39.60
TSF
32
8
40
16
28
44
198
30
43.
Nursing/Conv. Home
96.00
PAT
30
10
19
10
19
29
259
30
52.
Auto Parking
21.65
TSF
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
30
53.
Vacant Land
72.22
ACRE
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
30
TOTAL
302
574
875
614
528
1142
Olo 2 5 7
NBTAM - CITY OF
NEWPORT BEACH 2O00
LAND USE AND
TRIP
GENERATION
-----AM
PK HR-----
-----PM PK HR-----
ZONE
USE
UNITS
IN
OUT
TOTAL
IN
OUT
TOTAL
ADT
'---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
31
3. Res -Low (SFD)
3.00
DU
1
2
3
2
1
3
33
31
5. Apartment
87.33
DU
17
35
52
35
26
61
568
31
8. Mobile Home
419.00
DU
84
168
251
168
126
293
2514
31
15. General Commercial
13.50
TSF
7
5
12
19
22
41
540
31
21. Auto Dealer
0.44
ACRE
3
4
7
2
3
6
66
31
28. General Office
156.71
TSF
298
47
345
94
266
360
2037
31
29. Medical Office
61.63
TSF
37
12
49
49
154
203
2773
31
30. Industrial
416.60
TSF
333
83
417
167
292
458
2083
31
31. R & D
219.72
TSF
220
22
242
66
242
308
2087
31
35. Private School
622.00
STU
62
0
62
0
0
0
622
31
36. Government Office
22.40
TSF
43
7
49
13
38
52
291
31
43. Nursing/Conv. Home
59.00
PAT
6
6
12
6
12
18
159
31
53. Vacant Land
32.51
ACRE
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
31
TOTAL
1110
391
1501
621
1182
1803
13774
32
4. Res -Medium (SFA)
281.00
DU
56
169
225
169
112
281
2417
32
TOTAL
56
169
225
169
112
281
2417
33
3. Res -Low (SFO)
459.00
DU
92
321
413
321
184
505
5049
33
4. Res -Medium (SFA)
225.33
DU
45
135
180
135
90
225
1938
33
5. Apartment
23.00
DU
5
9
14
9
7
16
150
33
9. Motel
90.00
ROOM
36
27
63
27
36
63
909
33
15. General Commercial
22.38
TSF
11
9
20
31
36
67
895
33
18. Unclassified Comm.
5.80
TSF
1
1
1
1
1
2
2320
33
19. Restaurant
11.12
TSF
7
1
8
39
18
57
744
33
20. Fast Food Restaurant
0.76
TSF
3
3
6
4
3
7
108
33
38. Library
2.10
TSF
3
3
6
8
7
14
88
33
52. Auto Parking
5.10
TSF
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
33
TOTAL
202
509
711
576
381
956
12200
34
3. Res -Low (SFD)
41.00
DU
8
29
37
29
16
45
451
34
4. Res -Medium (SFA)
190.00
DU
38
114
152
114
76
190
1634
34
47. Park
4.50
ACRE
0
0
0
0
0
0
27
34
TOTAL
46
143
189
143
92
235
2112
35
3. Res -Low (SFD)
123.00
OU
25
86
111
86
49
135
1353
35
4. Res -Medium (SFA)
326.00
DU
65
196
261
196
130
326
2804
35
5. Apartment
51.00
DU
10
20
31
20
15
36
332
35
47. Park
6.50
ACRE
0
0
0
0
0
0
39
35
TOTAL
100
302
402
302
195
497
4527
36
3. Res -Low (SFD)
231.00
DU
46
162
208
162
92
254
2541
36
4. Res -Medium (SFA)
875.00
DU
175
525
700
525
350
875
7525
36
TOTAL
221
687
908
687
442
1129
10066
37
3. Res -Low (SFD)
211.00
DU
42
148
190
148
84
232
2321
37
4. Res -Medium (SFA)
518.67
DU
104
311
415
311
207
519
4461
37
5. Apartment
312.00
DU
62
125
187
125
94
218
2028
37
15. General Commercial
15.98
TSF
8
6
14
22
26
48
639
37
19. Restaurant
3.75
TSF
2
0
3
13
6
19
251
37
20. Fast Food Restaurant
2.70
TSF
12
11
23
14
10
24
383
37
TOTAL
230
601
832
633
427
1060
10083
o
NBTAM - CITY OF
NEWPORT BEACH 2O00
LAND USE AND
TRIP
GENERATION
-----AM
PK HR-----
-----PM PK HR-----
ZONE
USE
UNITS
IN OUT
TOTAL
IN
OUT
TOTAL
ADT
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
38
3.
Res -Low (SFD)
50.00
DU
10
35
45
35
20
55
550
38
4.
Res -Medium (SFA)
85.00
DU
17
51
68
51
34
85
731
38
15.
General Commercial
6.21
TSF
3
2
6
9
10
19
248
38
16.
Comm./Recreation
2.63
ACRE
1
1
3
6
7
13
105
38
18.
Unclassified Comp.
6.82
TSF
1
1
1
1
1
3
2728
38
19.
Restaurant
2.09
TSF
1
0
1
7
3
11
140
38
28.
General Office
10.97
TSF
21
3
24
7
19
25
143
38
29.
Medical Office
0.89
TSF
1
0
1
1
2
3
40
38
TOTAL
55
94
149
117
96
213
4685
39
4.
Res -Medium (SFA)
91.00
DU
18
55
73
55
36
91
783
39
12.
Neighborhood Comm.
37.50
TSF
23
19
41
71
75
146
1688
39
15.
General Commercial
7.80
TSF
4
3
7
11
12
23
312
39
18.
Unclassified Conn.
1.58
TSF
0
0
0
0
0
1
632
39
19,
Restaurant
5.28
TSF
3
1
4
18
8
27
353
39
20.
Fast Food Restaurant
2.12
TSF
9
8
18
11
8
19
301
39
28.
General Office
20.02
TSF
38
6
44
12
34
46
260
39
TOTAL
95
92
187
179
174
353
4329
40
4.
Res -Medium (SFA)
107.67
DU
22
65
86
65
43
108
926
40
15.
General Commercial
16.23
TSF
8
6
15
23
26
49
649
40
18.
Unclassified Conn.
3.45
TSF
0
0
1
1
1
1
1380
40
19.
Restaurant
35.61
TSF
21
4
25
125
57
182
2382
40
28.
General Office
27.40
TSF
52
8
60
16
47
63
356
40
52.
Auto Parking
2.25
TSF
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
40
53,
Vacant Land
0.16
ACRE
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
40
TOTAL
103
83
187
229
173
402
5694
41
3.
Res -Low (SFD)
20.00
DU
4
14
18
14
8
22
220
41
4.
Res -Medium (SFA)
110.00
OU
22
66
88
66
44
110
946
41
5.
Apartment
5.00
DU
1
2
3
2
2
4
33
41
8.
Mobile Home
19.33
DU
4
8
12
8
6
14
116
41
9.
Motel
3.00
ROOM
1
1
2
1
1
2
30
41
10.
Hotel
22.00
ROOM
13
7
20
9
9
18
231
41
15.
General Commercial
28.21
TSF
14
11
25
39
45
85
1128
41
19.
Restaurant
35.75
TSF
21
4
25
125
57
182
2392
41
20.
Fast Food Restaurant
8.77
TSF
39
35
74
46
32
77
1245
41
28.
General Office
16.32
TSF
31
5
36
10
28
38
212
41
29.
Medical Office
1.00
TSF
1
0
1
1
3
3
45
41
52.
Auto Parking
1.88
TSF
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
41
53.
Vacant Land
0.09
ACRE
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
41
TOTAL
151
152
303
320
233
554
6598
42
15.
General Commercial
58.78
TSF
29
24
53
82
94
176
2351
42
18.
Unclassified Comm.
2.63
TSF
0
0
1
1
1
1
1052
42
19.
Restaurant
37.02
TSF
22
4
26
130
59
189
2477
42
20.
Fast Food Restaurant
6.77
TSF
30
27
57
35
24
60
961
42
28.
General Office
90.22
TSF
171
27
198
54
153
208
1173
42
36.
Government Office
6.00
TSF
11
2
13
4
10
14
78
42
46.
Youth Ctr/Service
6.00
TSF
1
1
1
1
1
2
24
42
TOTAL
265
84
349
307
343
649
8116
00259
NBTAM - CITY OF
NEWPORT BEACH 2O00
LAND USE AND
TRIP
GENERATION
-----AM
PK HR-----
-----PM PK
HR-----
ZONE
USE
UNITS
IN OUT
TOTAL
IN
OUT
TOTAL
ADT
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
43
12.
Neighborhood Comm.
66.26
TSF
40
33
73
126
133
258
2982
43
15.
General Commercial
8.45
TSF
4
3
8
12
14
25
338
43
19.
Restaurant
7.07
TSF
4
1
5
25
11
36
473
43
26.
Theater
685.00
SEAT
0
0
0
137
0
137
1028
43
28.
General Office
52.49
TSF
100
16
115
31
89
121
682
43
29.
Medical Office
1.12
TSF
1
0
1
1
3
4
50
43
36.
Government Office
66.46
TSF
126
20
146
40
113
153
864
43
44.
Church
17.67
TSF
1
1
2
6
5
11
136
43
TOTAL
276
74
350
378
368
745
6553
44
4.
Res -Medium (SFA)
99.33
DU
20
60
79
60
40
99
854
44
9.
Motel
16.00
ROOM
6
5
11
5
6
11
162
44
15.
General Commercial
133.59
TSF
67
53
120
187
214
401
5344
44
18.
Unclassified Comm.
16.90
TSF
2
2
3
3
3
7
6760
44
19.
Restaurant
34.89
TSF
21
3
24
122
56
178
2334
44
20.
Fast Food Restaurant
2.23
TSF
10
9
19
12
8
20
317
44
28.
General Office
97.91
TSF
186
29
215
59
166
225
1273
44
46.
Youth Ctr/Service
4.65
TSF
0
0
1
1
1
2
19
44
52.
Auto Parking
119.35
TSF
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
44
53.
Vacant Land
0.59
ACRE
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
44
TOTAL
312
162
474
448
494
943
17062
45
4.
Res -Medium (SFA)
236.67
DU
47
142
189
142
95
237
2035
45
8.
Mobile Home
281.00
DU
56
112
169
112
84
197
1686
45
9.
Motel 130.00
ROOM
12
9
21
9
12
21
303
45
15.
General Commercial
59.92
TSF
30
24
54
84
96
180
2397
45
19.
Restaurant
4.60
TSF
3
0
3
16
7
23
308
45
28.
General Office
1.00
TSF
2
0
2
1
2
2
13
45
30.
Industrial
38.00
TSF
30
8
38
15
27
42
190
45
TOTAL
181
296
476
379
323
702
6932
46
3.
Res -Low (SFD)
915.33
DU
183
641
824
641
366
1007
10069
46
4.
Res -Medium (SFA)
102.00
DU
20
61
82
61
41
102
877
46
5.
Apartment
26.00
DU
5
10
16
10
8
18
169
46
22.
Yacht Club
21.00
TSF
17
15
32
29
29
59
1050
46
TOTAL
225
727
952
742
444
1186
12165
47
3.
Res -Low (SFD)
116.00
OU
23
81
104
81
46
128
1276
47
4.
Res -Medium (SFA)
460.00
DU
92
276
368
276
184
460
3956
47
S.
Apartment
103.00
DU
21
41
62
41
31
72
670
47
B.
Mobile Home
58.00
DU
12
23
35
23
17
41
348
47
9.
Motel
16.00
ROOM
6
5
11
5
6
11
162
47
15.
General Commercial
8.06
TSF
4
3
7
11
13
24
322
47
20.
Fast Food Restaurant
1.25
TSF
6
5
11
7
5
11
178
47
25.
Marina
58.00
SLIP
0
0
0
0
0
0
29
47
32,
Pre-School/Day Care
13.44
TSF
81
73
153
79
86
165
900
47
33.
Elementary School
389.00
STU
39
0
39
0
0
0
389
47
44.
Church
9.86
TSF
1
0
1
3
3
6
76
47
46.
Youth Ctr/Service
7.70
TSF
1
1
2
2
2
3
31
47
53.
Vacant Land
0.25
ACRE
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
47
TOTAL
284
508
793
528
393
921
062t
0
NBTAM - CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 2O00 LAND USE AND TRIP GENERATION
-----AM PK
HR-----
-----PM PK
HR-----
ZONE
USE
UNITS
IN
OUT
TOTAL
IN
OUT
TOTAL
ADT
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
48
3.
Res -Low (SFD)
362.00
DU
72
253
326
253
145
398
3982
48
4.
Res -Medium (SFA)
609.33
DU
122
366
487
366
244
609
5240
48
5.
Apartment
173.00
DU
35
69
104
69
52
121
1125
48
12.
Neighborhood Conn.
8.44
TSF
5
4
9
16
17
33
380
48
15.
General Commercial
8.94
TSF
4
4
8
13
14
27
358
48
19.
Restaurant
4.10
TSF
2
0
3
14
7
21
274
48
20.
Fast Food Restaurant
2.50
TSF
11
10
21
13
9
22
355
48
28.
General Office
23.28
TSF
44
7
51
14
40
54
303
48
29.
Medical Office
1.36
TSF
1
0
1
1
3
4
61
48
38.
Library
4.80
TSF
7
6
13
17
15
33
201
48
41.
Fire Station
2.40
TSF
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
48
46.
Youth Ctr/Service
4.97
TSF
0
0
1
1
1
2
20
48
52.
Auto Parking
2.10
TSF
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
48
TOTAL
304
720
1025
777
547
1324
12298
49
3.
Res -Law (SFD)
9.00
DU
2
6
8
6
4
10
99
49
4.
Res -Medium (SFA)
96.33
DU
19
58
77
58
39
96
828
49
5.
Apartment
69.00
DU
14
28
41
28
21
48
449
49
10.
Hotel
34.00
ROOM
20
10
31
14
14
27
357
49
15.
General Commercial
83.55
TSF
42
33
75
117
134
251
3342
49
16.
Comm./Recreation
4.54
ACRE
2
2
5
11
11
22
182
49
19.
Restaurant
70.11
TSF
42
7
49
245
112
358
4690
49
20.
Fast Food Restaurant
12.37
TSF
54
49
104
64
45
109
1757
49
22.
Yacht Club
0.50
TSF
0
0
1
1
1
1
25
49
26.
Theater
440.00
SEAT
0
0
0
88
0
88
660
49
28.
General Office
167.11
TSF
318
50
368
100
284
384
2172
49
39.
Post Office
1.70
TSF
5
4
9
6
6
12
148
49
52.
Auto Parking
22.56
TSF
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
49
TOTAL
518
249
767
738
669
1406
14708
50
3.
Res -Low (SFD)
592.00
OU
118
414
533
414
237
651
6512
50
4.
Res -Medium (SFA)
275.00
OU
55
165
220
165
110
275
2365
50
5.
Apartment
69.00
DU
14
28
41
28
21
48
449
50
24.
Tennis Club
2.00
CRT
1
1
3
4
4
8
89
50
47.
Park
2.50
ACRE
0
0
0
0
0
0
15
50
TOTAL
189
608
797
fill
372
983
9429
51
3.
Res -Low (SFD)
246.00
DU
49
172
221
172
98
271
2706
51
4.
Res -Medium (SFA)
263.00
DU
53
158
210
158
105
263
2262
51
15.
General Commercial
22.09
TSF
11
9
20
31
35
66
884
51
18.
Unclassified Conn.
3.56
TSF
0
0
1
1
1
1
1424
51
19.
Restaurant
19.03
TSF
11
2
13
67
30
97
1273
51
22.
Yacht Club
8.29
TSF
7
6
12
12
12
23
415
51
25.
Marina
392.00
SLIP
0
0
0
0
0
0
196
51
28.
General Office
13.20
TSF
25
4
29
8
22
30
172
51
30.
Industrial
5.04
TSF
4
1
5
2
4
6
25
51
36.
Government Office
0.60
TSF
1
0
1
0
1
1
8
51
TOTAL
162
352
514
450
309
759
9364
52
5.
Apartment
520.00
OU
104
208
312
208
156
364
3380
52
12.
Neighborhood Comm.
73.00
TSF
44
37
80
139
146
285
3285
52
15.
General Commercial
14.80
TSF
7
6
13
21
24
44
559922
t
FD O Fi YF j
NBTAM - CITY OF
NEWPORT BEACH 2O00
LAND USE AND
TRIP
GENERATION
-----AM
PK HR-----
-----PM PK
HR-----
ZONE
USE
UNITS
IN
OUT
TOTAL
IN
OUT
TOTAL
ADT
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
52
18.
Unclassified Comm.
1.20
TSF
0
0
0
0
0
0
480
52
19.
Restaurant
20.82
TSF
12
2
15
73
33
106
1393
52
21.
Auto Dealer
4.12
ACRE
28
38
66
23
30
53
618
52
TOTAL
195
291
486
463
389
852
9748
53
3.
Res -Low (SFD)
524.33
DU
105
367
472
367
210
577
5768
53
4.
Res -Medium (SFA)
2158.33
DU
432
1295
1727
1295
863
2158
18562
53
7.
Elderly Residential
13.00
DU
1
4
5
4
1
5
52
53
12.
Neighborhood Comm.
7.90
TSF
5
4
9
15
16
31
356
53
15.
General Commercial
59.72
TSF
30
24
54
84
96
179
2389
53
18.
Unclassified Comm.
3.45
TSF
0
0
1
1
1
1
1380
53
19.
Restaurant
16.54
TSF
10
2
12
58
26
84
1107
53
20.
Fast Food Restaurant
5.43
TSF
24
22
46
28
20
48
771
53
28.
General Office
18.37
TSF
35
6
40
11
31
42
239
53
29.
Medical Office
1.75
TSF
1
0
1
1
4
6
79
53
39.
Post Office
1.90
TSF
5
5
10
7
6
13
165
53
41.
Fire Station
1.00
TSF
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
53
44.
Church
3.00
TSF
0
0
0
1
1
2
23
53
47.
Park
0.81
ACRE
0
0
0
0
0
0
5
53
52.
Auto Parking
7.65
TSF
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
53
TOTAL
648
1728
2376
1871
1275
3147
30894
54
8.
Mobile Home
291.00
DU
58
116
175
116
87
204
1746
54
15.
General Commercial
30.32
TSF
15
12
27
42
49
91
1213
54
19.
Restaurant
9.10
TSF
5
1
6
32
15
46
609
54
25.
Marina
218.00
SLIP
0
0
0
0
0
0
109
54
28.
General Office
15.16
TSF
29
5
33
9
26
35
197
54
TOTAL
108
134
242
200
176
376
3874
55
10.
Hotel
207.00
ROOM
124
62
186
83
83
166
2174
55
10.
Hotel
478.00
ROOM
287
143
430
191
191
382
5019
55
17.
Resort Commercial
36.00
TSF
18
14
32
50
58
108
1260
55
19.
Restaurant
42.01
TSF
25
4
29
147
67
214
2810
55
24.
Tennis Club
16.00
CRT
11
10
21
34
32
66
709
55
28.
General Office
6.00
TSF
11
2
13
4
10
14
78
55
30.
Industrial
17.23
TSF
14
3
17
7
12
19
86
55
46.
Youth Ctr/Service
2.69
TSF
0
0
1
1
1
1
11
55
50.
Golf Course
9.00
ACRE
2
1
3
1
3
4
54
55
53.
Vacant Land
58.23
ACRE
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
55
54.
Res - Low (SFA)
212.00
DU
42
138
180
138
85
223
2078
55
TOTAL
535
378
913
655
541
1196
14278
56
6.
Park Newport
1306.00
DU
131
392
522
392
261
653
6269
56
TOTAL
131
392
522
392
261
653
6269
57
3.
Res -Low (SFD)
662.00
DU
132
463
596
463
265
728
7282
57
4.
Res -Medium (SFA)
154.00
OU
33
98
131
98
66
164
1410
57
32.
Pre-School/Day Care
15.95
TSF
96
86
182
94
102
196
1069
57
33.
Elementary School
150.00
STU
IS
0
15
0
0
0
150
57
34.
Junior/High School
1801.00
STU
360
180
540
180
180
360
2521
57
35.
Private School
189.00
STU
19
0
19
0
0
0
189
57
43.
Nursing/Conv. Home
4.00
PAT
0
0
1
0
1
1
11
00262
NBTAM - CITY
OF NEWPORT BEACH 2O00
LAND USE AND
TRIP
GENERATION
-----AM
PK HR-----
-----PM
PK
HR-----
ZONE
USE
UNITS
IN OUT
TOTAL
IN
OUT
TOTAL
ADT
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
57
44. Church
26.21
TSF
2
1
3
9
8
17
202
57
46. Youth Ctr/Service
14.01
TSF
1
1
3
3
3
6
56
57
47. Park
13.87
ACRE
0
0
0
0
0
0
83
57
TOTAL
659
831
1490
848
624
1472
12973
58
3. Res -Low (SFD)
712.00
DU
142
498
641
498
285
783
7832
58
12. Neighborhood Comm.
62.47
TSF
37
31
69
119
125
244
2811
58
15. General Commercial
2.79
TSF
1
1
3
4
4
8
112
58
18. Unclassified Comm.
1.61
TSF
0
0
0
0
0
1
644
58
24. Tennis Club
26.67
CRT
19
16
35
56
53
109
1181
58
28. General Office
11.66
TSF
22
3
26
7
20
27
152
58
TOTAL
222
550
773
684
488
1172
12732
59
3. Res -Low (SFD)
456.00
DU
91
319
410
319
182
502
5016
59
47. Park
1.60
ACRE
0
0
0
0
0
0
10
59
TOTAL
91
319
410
319
182
502
5026
61
5. Apartment
300.00
DU
60
120
180
120
90
210
1950
61
TOTAL
60
120
180
120
90
210
1950
62
3. Res -Low (SFD)
159.00
DU
32
111
143
111
64
175
1749
62
4. Res -Medium (SFA)
120.00
OU
24
72
96
72
48
120
1032
62
5. Apartment
570.00
DU
114
228
342
228
171
399
3705
62
15. General Commercial
50.00
TSF
25
20
45
70
80
150
2000
62
47. Park
14.23
ACRE
0
0
0
0
0
0
85
62
TOTAL
195
431
626
481
363
844
8571
63
15. General Commercial
16.78
TSF
8
7
15
23
27
50
671
63
30. Industrial
33.94
TSF
27
7
34
14
24
37
170
63
31. R & D
46.83
TSF
47
5
52
14
52
66
445
63
35, Private School
52.00
STU
5
0
5
0
0
0
52
63
39. Post Office
45.20
TSF
127
113
240
158
149
307
3923
63
44. Church
71.94
TSF
6
2
8
24
22
46
554
63
45. Cemetary/Res/Util
2.27
ACRE
0
0
0
0
0
0
5
63
53. Vacant Land
5.83
ACRE
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
63
TOTAL
220
133
353
234
273
507
5820
64
4. Res -Medium (SFA)
227.00
DU
45
136
182
136
91
227
1952
64
TOTAL
45
136
182
136
91
227
1952
65
31. R & D
1279.25
TSF
1279
128
1407
384
1407
1791
12153
65
TOTAL
1279
128
1407
384
1407
1791
12153
66
4. Res -Medium (SFA)
50.00
DU
10
30
40
30
20
50
430
66
TOTAL
10
30
40
30
20
50
430
67
3. Res -Low (SFD)
92.00
DU
18
64
83
64
37
101
1012
67
4. Res -Medium (SFA)
54.00
DU
11
32
43
32
22
54
464
67
TOTAL
29
97
126
97
58
155
1476
68
4. Res -Medium (SFA)
144.00
DU
29
86
115
86
58
144
1238
68
5. Apartment
78.00
DU
16
31
47
31
23
55
5(00 2 6 3
68
TOTAL
44
118
162
118
81
199
1745
NBTAM - CITY OF
NEWPORT BEACH 2O00
LAND USE AND
TRIP
GENERATION
-----AM
PK HR-----
-----PM PK
HR-----
ZONE
USE
UNITS
IN OUT
TOTAL
IN
OUT
TOTAL
ADT
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
69
3. Res -Low (SFD)
101.00
DU
20
71
91
71
40
Ill
1111
69
4. Res -Medium (SFA)
182.00
DU
36
109
146
109
73
182
1565
69
18. Unclassified Comm.
1.83
TSF
0
0
0
0
0
1
732
69
50. Golf Course
144.90
ACRE
29
14
43
14
43
58
869
69
TOTAL
86
195
280
195
157
352
4278
70
3. Res -Low (SFO)
142.00
DU
28
99
128
99
57
156
1562
70
4. Res -Medium (SFA)
43.00
DU
9
26
34
26
17
43
370
70
5. Apartment
74.00
DU
15
30
44
30
22
52
481
70
TOTAL
52
155
207
155
96
251
2413
71
3. Res -Low (SFD)
21.00
DU
4
15
19
15
8
23
231
71
TOTAL
4
15
19
15
8
23
231
72
10. Hotel
325.00
ROOM
195
98
293
130
130
260
3413
72
19. Restaurant
5.33
TSF
3
1
4
19
9
27
357
72
28. General Office
950.00
TSF
1805
285
2090
570
1615
2185
12350
72
47. Park
0.14
ACRE
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
72
52. Auto Parking
402.19
TSF
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
72
TOTAL
2003
383
2386
719
1754
2472
16120
73
14. Regional Commercial
1310.75
TSF
262
131
393
918
1180
2097
28837
73
26. Theater
1700.00
SEAT
0
0
0
340
0
340
2550
73
TOTAL
252
131
393
1258
1180
2437
31387
74
4. Res -Medium (SFA)
245.00
DU
49
147
196
147
98
245
2107
74
18. Unclassified Conn.
1.76
TSF
0
0
0
0
0
1
704
74
19. Restaurant
13.10
TSF
8
1
9
46
21
67
876
74
21. Auto Dealer
1.91
ACRE
13
18
31
11
14
24
287
74
28. General Office
863.49
TSF
1641
259
1900
518
1468
1986
11225
74
36. Government Office
48.00
TSF
91
14
106
29
82
110
624
74
41. Fire Station
13.48
TSF
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
74
47. Park
0.07
ACRE
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
74
52. Auto Parking
39.20
TSF
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
74
TOTAL
1802
440
2241
751
1683
2433
15824
75
4. Res -Medium (SFA)
67.00
OU
13
40
54
40
27
67
576
75
10. Hotel
603.67
ROOM
362
181
543
241
241
483
6339
75
28. General Office
11.63
TSF
22
3
26
7
20
27
151
75
TOTAL
398
225
622
289
288
577
7066
76
4. Res -Medium (SFA)
132.00
DU
26
79
106
79
53
132
1135
76
TOTAL
26
79
106
79
53
132
1135
77
S. Apartment
228.00
OU
46
91
137
91
68
160
1482
77
50. Golf Course
128.50
ACRE
26
13
39
13
39
51
771
77
TOTAL
71
104
175
104
107
211
2253
78
15. General Commercial
7.50
TSF
4
3
7
11
12
23
300
78
24. Tennis Club
22.00
CRT
15
13
29
46
44
90
975
78
28. General Office
137.50
TSF
261
41
303
83
234
316
1788
78
47. Park
1.50
ACRE
0
0
0
0
0
0
9
00264
ZONE
78
78
79
79
79
79
79
79
79
80
80
80
80
80
80
81
81
81
82
82
82
83
83
83
83
83
83
83
83
83
84
84
84
84
84
85
85
85
85
85
85
85
85
85
85
85
NBTAM - CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 2O00 LAND USE AND TRIP GENERATION
-----AM PK HR-----
USE
UNITS
IN
OUT
TOTAL
----------------------------------------------------
50. Golf Course
3.02
ACRE
1
0
1
TOTAL
281
58
339
28. General Office
465.34
TSF
884
140
1024
29. Medical Office
351.95
TSF
211
70
282
40. OCTD Facility
2.50
ACRE
0
0
0
47. Park
0.77
ACRE
0
0
0
52. Auto Parking
492.05
TSF
0
0
0
53. vacant Land
7.44
ACRE
0
0
0
TOTAL
1095
210
1305
15, General Commercial
3.15
TSF
2
1
3
19. Restaurant
14.10
TSF
8
1
10
23. Health Club
16.13
TSF
10
10
19
26. Theater
2150.00
SEAT
0
0
0
28. General Office
442.11
TSF
840
133
973
TOTAL
860
145
1005
28. General Office
347.32
TSF
660
104
764
47. Park
1.51
ACRE
0
0
0
TOTAL
660
104
764
37. Civic Center/Museum
100.00
TSF
250
30
280
38. Library
56.33
TSF
79
73
152
TOTAL
329
103
432
3. Res -Low (SFD)
410.00
DU
82
287
369
4. Res -Medium (SFA)
37.00
DU
7
22
30
5. Apartment
65.67
DU
13
26
39
22. Yacht Club
52.78
TSF
42
37
79
25. Marina
233.00
SLIP
0
0
0
28. General Office
140.88
TSF
268
42
310
36. Government Office
19.30
TSF
37
6
42
45. Cemetary/Res/Util
0.04
ACRE
0
0
0
TOTAL
449
420
870
3. Res -Low (SFD)
259.33
OU
52
182
233
4. Res -Medium (SFA)
343.67
DU
69
206
275
5. Apartment
209.67
DU
42
84
126
25. Marina
18.00
SLIP
0
0
0
TOTAL
163
472
634
3. Res -Low (SFD)
308.33
DU
62
216
277
4. Res -Medium (SFA)
156.67
DU
31
94
125
5. Apartment
96.33
DU
19
39
58
15. General Commercial
65.72
TSF
33
26
59
18. Unclassified Comm.
1.49
TSF
0
0
0
19. Restaurant
8.12
TSF
5
1
6
20. Fast Food Restaurant
0.38
TSF
2
2
3
28. General Office
20.01
TSF
38
6
44
29. Medical Office
2.13
TSF
1
0
2
52. Auto Parking
22.25
TSF
0
0
0
TOTAL
191
384
575
-----PM PK HR-----
IN OUT TOTAL
0 1 1
140 291 430
279 791 1070
282 880 1161
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
561 1671 2232
4 5 9
49 23 72
31 31 61
430 0 430
265 752 1017
780 810 1590
208 590 799
0 0 0
208 590 799
110 260 370
203 180 383
313 440 753
287 164 451
22 15 37
26 20 46
74 74 148
0 0 0
85 239 324
12 33 44
0 0 0
505 545 1050
182 104 285
206 137 344
84 63 147
0 0 0
472 304 776
216 123 339
94 63 157
39 29 67
92 105 197
0 0 1
28 13 41
2 1 3
12 34 46
2 5 7
0 0 0
485 374 859
ADT
18
3089
6049
15838
0
5
0
0
21892
126
943
645
3225
5747
10687
4515
9
4524
3200
2355
5555
4510
318
427
2639
117
1831
251
0
10093
2853
2956
1363
9
7180
3392
1347
626
2629
596
543
54
260
1600265
9543
ZONE
86
86
87
87
88
88
88
88
88
88
88
88
88
88
88
89
89
89
89
89
89
89
89
89
89
89
90
90
90
90
90
90
90
90
90
90
90
91
91
91
91
92
92
93
93
NBTAM - CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 2O00 LAND USE AND TRIP GENERATION
-----AM PK HR-----
USE
UNITS
IN
OUT
TOTAL
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Res -Low (SFD)
144.00
DU
29
101
130
TOTAL
29
101
130
3. Res -Low (SFD)
176.00
DU
35
123
158
TOTAL
35
123
158
3. Res -Low (SFD)
108.67
DU
22
76
98
4. Res -Medium (SFA)
948.00
DU
190
569
758
12. Neighborhood Comm.
18.19
TSF
11
9
20
15. General Commercial
126.31
TSF
63
51
114
19. Restaurant
26.13
TSF
16
3
18
20. Fast Food Restaurant
0.85
TSF
4
3
7
26. Theater
500.00
SEAT
0
0
0
28. General Office
66.37
TSF
126
20
146
29. Medical Office
7.97
TSF
5
2
6
52. Auto Parking
34.34
TSF
0
0
0
TOTAL
436
732
1168
3. Res -Low (SFO)
158.00
OU
32
111
142
4. Res -Medium (SFA)
478.67
DU
96
287
383
15. General Commercial
77.23
TSF
39
31
70
18. Unclassified Comm.
1.72
TSF
0
0
0
19. Restaurant
6.56
TSF
4
1
5
20. Fast Food Restaurant
2.21
TSF
10
9
19
23. Health Club
1.72
TSF
1
1
2
28. General Office
41.61
TSF
79
12
92
29. Medical Office
0.91
TSF
1
0
1
44. Church
12.34
TSF
1
0
1
TOTAL
261
452
714
3. Res -Low (SFD)
100.67
OU
20
70
91
4. Res -Medium (SFA)
811.33
DU
162
487
649
15. General Commercial
28.71
TSF
14
11
26
19. Restaurant
14.07
TSF
8
1
10
20. Fast Food Restaurant
0.26
TSF
1
1
2
28. General Office
35.00
TSF
67
11
77
29. Medical Office
1.44
TSF
1
0
1
39. Post Office
5.00
TSF
14
13
27
41. Fire Station
1.82
TSF
0
0
0
53. Vacant Land
0.33
ACRE
0
0
0
TOTAL
288
594
882
3. Res -Low (SFD)
183.67
DU
37
129
165
4. Res -Medium (SFA)
107.67
DU
22
65
86
5. Apartment
38.67
DU
8
15
23
TOTAL
66
209
275
3. Res -Low (SFD)
142.00
DU
28
99
128
TOTAL
28
99
128
3. Res -Low (SFD)
225.00
DU
45
158
203
5. Apartment
120.00
DU
24
48
72
-----PM PK HR-----
IN OUT TOTAL
-------------------
101 58 158
101 58 158
123 70 194
123 70 194
76 43 120
569 379 948
35 36 71
177 202 379
91 42 133
4 3 7
100 0 100
40 113 153
6 20 26
0 0 0
1098 839 1937
Ill 63 174
287 191 479
108 124 232
0 0 1
23 10 33
11 8 19
3 3 7
25 71 96
1 2 3
4 4 8
574 477 1051
70 40 111
487 325 811
40 46 86
49 23 72
1 1 2
21 60 81
1 4 5
18 17 34
0 0 0
0 0 0
688 514 1201
129 73 202
65 43 108
15 12 27
209 128 337
99 57 156
99 57 156
158 90 248
48 36 84
ADT
1584
1584
1936
1936
1195
8153
819
5052
1748
121
750
863
359
0
19059
1738
4117
3089
688
439
314
69
541
41
95
11130
1107
6977
1148
941
37
455
65
434
0
0
11165
2020
926
251
3198
1562
1562
00266
2475
780
ZONE
93
93
93
94
94
94
94
94
95
95
96
96
96
96
96
96
97
97
98
98
98
99
99
99
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
101
101
101
101
102
102
102
102
102
NBTAM - CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 2O00 LAND USE AND TRIP GENERATION
-----AM
PK
MR-----
USEUNITS
IN
OUT
TOTAL
------------------------------------------------------------------
33. Elementary School
790.00
STU
79
0
79
46. Youth Ctr/Service
5.60
TSF
1
1
1
TOTAL
149
206
355
3. Res -Low (SFD)
220.00
DU
44
154
198
15. General Commercial
63.78
TSF
32
26
57
45. Cemetary/Res/Util
2.79
ACRE
0
0
0
47. Park
8.50
ACRE
0
0
0
TOTAL
76
180
255
4. Res -Medium (SFA)
247.00
DU
49
148
198
TOTAL
49
148
198
3. Res -Low (SFD)
448.00
DU
90
314
403
7. Elderly Residential
100.00
DU
10
30
40
35. Private School
162.00
STU
16
0
16
46. Youth Ctr/Service
18.00
TSF
2
2
4
47. Park
5.97
ACRE
0
0
0
TOTAL
118
345
463
3. Res -Low (SFD)
40.00
DU
8
28
36
TOTAL
8
28
36
5. Apartment
388.00
DU
78
155
233
32. Pre-School/Day Care
8.40
TSF
50
45
96
TOTAL
128
201
329
4. Res -Medium (SFA)
94.00
OU
19
56
75
7. Elderly Residential
100.00
DU
10
30
40
TOTAL
29
86
115
5. Apartment
168.00
DU
34
67
101
12. Neighborhood Conn.
68.08
TSF
41
34
75
18. Unclassified Come.
4.24
TSF
0
0
1
28. General Office
9.75
TSF
19
3
21
32. Pre-School/Day Care
31.73
TSF
190
171
362
35. Private School
405.00
STU
41
0
41
44. Church
148.31
TSF
12
4
16
46. Youth Ctr/Service
15.99
TSF
2
2
3
TOTAL
338
282
620
3. Res -Low (SFD)
441.00
DU
88
309
397
4. Res -Medium (SFA)
172.00
DU
34
103
138
47. Park
2.50
ACRE
0
0
0
TOTAL
123
412
535
3. Res -Low (SFD)
475.00
DU
95
333
428
33. Elementary School
498.00
STU
50
0
50
45. Cemetary/Res/Util
0.06
ACRE
0
0
0
47. Park
20.75
ACRE
0
0
0
TOTAL
145
333
477
-----PM PK MR-----
INOUT TOTAL
------------------
0 0 0
1 1 2
207 127 334
154 88 242
89 102 191
0 0 0
0 0 0
243 190 433
148 99 247
148 99 247
314 179 493
30 10 40
0 0 0
4 4 7
0 0 0
347 193 540
28 16 44
28 16 44
155 116 272
50 54 103
205 170 375
56 38 94
30 10 40
86 48 134
67 50 118
129 136 266
1 1 2
6 17 22
187 203 390
0 0 0
50 44 95
3 3 6
444 455 899
309 176 485
103 69 172
0 0 0
412 245 657
333 190 523
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
333 190 523
ADT
790
22
4067
2420
2551
6
51
5028
2124
2124
4928
400
162
72
36
5598
440
440
2522
563
3085
808
400
1208
1092
3064
1696
127
2126
406
1142
64
9716
4851
1479
15
6345
5225
498
0
125
584800267
NBTAM - CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 2O00 LAND USE AND TRIP GENERATION
-----AM PK HR----------PM PK HR-----
ZONE
USE
UNITS
IN
OUT
TOTAL
IN
OUT
TOTAL
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
103
3. Res -Low (SFD)
206.00
DU
41
144
185
144
82
227
103
45. Cemetary/Res/Util
12.59
ACRE
0
0
0
0
0
0
103
47. Park
7.32
ACRE
0
0
0
0
0
0
103
TOTAL
41
144
185
144
82
227
104
3. Res -Low (SFD)
616.00
DU
123
431
554
431
246
678
104
TOTAL
123
431
554
431
246
678
105
3. Res -Low (SFD)
119.00
DU
24
83
107
83
48
131
105
4. Res -Medium (SFA)
120.00
DU
24
72
96
72
48
120
105
12. Neighborhood Comm.
83.27
TSF
50
42
92
158
167
325
105
18. Unclassified Conn.
1.40
TSF
0
0
0
0
0
1
105
28. General Office
11.17
TSF
21
3
25
7
19
26
105
TOTAL
119
200
320
320
281
602
ADT
2266
25
44
2335
6776
6776
1309
1032
3747
560
145
6793
0
NBTAM - CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 2O00 LAND USE AND TRIP GENERATION SUMMARY
-----AM PK HR----------PM PK HR-----
USE UNITS IN OUT TOTAL IN OUT TOTAL ADT
1.
Res -Coast Estate
0.00
DU
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2.
Res-Estate/Rural
0.00
DU
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3.
Res -Low (SFD)
14531.33
DU
2906
10172
13078
10172
5813
15984
159845
4.
Res -Medium (SFA)
14007.01
DU
2801
8404
11206
8404
5603
14007
120460
5.
Apartment
6341.66
DU
1268
2537
3805
2537
1902
4439
41221
6.
Park Newport
1306.00
DU
131
392
522
392
261
653
6269
7.
Elderly Residential
361.00
DU
36
108
144
108
36
144
1444
B.
Mobile Home
1068.33
DU
214
427
641
427
320
748
6410
9.
Motel
208.00
ROOM
83
62
146
62
83
146
2101
10.
Hotel
2924.01
ROOM
1754
877
2632
1170
1170
2339
30702
11.
Resort Hotel
0.00
ROOM
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
12.
Neighborhood Conn.
554.30
TSF
333
277
610
1053
1109
2162
24944
13.
District Comm.
0.00
TSF
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
14.
Regional Commercial
1310.75
TSF
262
131
393
918
1180
2097
28837
15.
General Commercial
1881.15
TSF
941
752
1693
2634
3010
5643
75246
16.
Comm./Recreation
7.17
ACRE
4
4
7
17
18
35
287
17.
Resort Commercial
36.00
TSF
18
14
32
50
58
108
1260
18.
Unclassified Comm.
61.79
TSF
6
6
12
12
12
25
24716
19.
Restaurant
746.48
TSF
448
75
523
2613
1194
3807
49940
20.
Fast Food Restaurant
64.84
TSF
285
259
545
337
233
571
9207
21.
Auto Dealer
24.18
ACRE
162
225
387
133
177
310
3627
22.
Yacht Club
84.82
TSF
68
59
127
119
119
237
4241
23.
Health Club
102.41
TSF
61
61
123
195
195
389
4096
24.
Tennis Club
66.67
CRT
47
40
87
140
133
273
2953
25.
Marina
1044.00
SLIP
0
0
0
0
0
0
522
26.
Theater
5565.00
SEAT
0
0
0
1113
0
1113
8348
27.
Newport Dunes
0.00
ACRE
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
28.
General Office
11344.50
TSF
21555
3403
24958
6807
19286
26092
147478
29.
Medical Office
831.12
TSF
499
166
665
665
2078
2743
37400
30.
Industrial
1047.70
TSF
838
210
1048
419
733
1152
5239
31.
R & D
1845.86
TSF
1846
185
2030
554
2030
2584
17536
32.
Pre-School/Day Care
173.40
TSF
1040
936
1977
1023
1110
2133
11618
33.
Elementary School
2899.00
STU
290
0
290
0
0
0
2899
34.
Junior/High School
3985.00
STU
797
399
1196
399
399
797
5579
35.
Private School
1431.00
STU
143
0
143
0
0
0
1431
36.
Government Office
306.20
TSF
582
92
674
184
521
704
3981
37.
Civic Center/Museum
100.00
TSF
250
30
280
110
260
370
3200
38.
Library
68.47
TSF
96
89
185
246
219
466
2862
39.
Post Office
63.70
TSF
178
159
338
223
210
433
5529
40.
OCTD Facility
2.50
ACRE
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
41.
Fire Station
25.16
TSF
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
42.
Hospital
807.50
BED
565
242
808
404
646
1050
9206
43.
Nursing/Conv. Home
592.00
PAT
59
59
118
59
118
178
1598
44.
Church
331.21
TSF
26
10
36
113
99
212
2550
45.
Cemetary/Res/Util
17.91
ACRE
0
0
0
0
0
0
36
46.
Youth Ctr/Service
135.73
TSF
14
14
27
27
27
54
543
47.
Park
106.10
ACRE
0
0
0
0
0
0
637
48.
Regional Park
0.00
ACRE
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
49.
Beach
0.00
UNIT
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
50.
Golf Course
310.42
ACRE
62
31
93
31
93
124
1863
51.
Resort Golf Course
0.00
ACRE
0
0
0
0
0
0
0 f/1�
52.
Auto Parking
5075.07
TSF
0
0
0
0
0
0
0 0 0 2 6 9
53.
Vacant Land
207.91
ACRE
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
54.
Res - Low (SFA)
363.00
DU
73
236
309
236
145
381
3557
GRAND TOTAL
40741
31145
71886
44105
50600
94705
871415
ZONE
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
4
4
4
4
4
5
5
5
6
6
6
7
7
7
7
7
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
9
9
9
9
9
NBTAM - CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 2O10 LAND USE AND TRIP GENERATION
-----AM PK MR-----
USEUNITS
IN
OUT
TOTAL
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
15.
General Commercial
350.80
TSF
175
140
316
19.
Restaurant
12.26
TSF
7
1
9
28.
General Office
703.92
TSF
1337
211
1549
29.
Medical Office
15.31
TSF
9
3
12
30.
Industrial
152.23
TSF
122
30
152
31.
R & D
21.94
TSF
22
2
24
53.
vacant Land
1.27
ACRE
0
0
0
TOTAL
1673
388
2062
10.
Hotel
468.00
ROOM
281
140
421
15.
General Commercial
59.18
TSF
30
24
53
19.
Restaurant
75.85
TSF
46
8
53
21.
Auto Dealer
10.63
ACRE
71
99
170
23.
Health Club
45.24
TSF
27
27
54
28.
General Office
2289.87
TSF
4351
687
5038
52.
Auto Parking
326.89
TSF
0
0
0
53.
vacant Land
2.15
ACRE
0
0
0
TOTAL
4805
985
5790
15.
General Commercial
50.02
TSF
25
20
45
19.
Restaurant
30.09
TSF
18
3
21
28.
General Office
756.64
TSF
1438
227
1665
52.
Auto Parking
335.00
TSF
0
0
0
TOTAL
1481
250
1731
28.
General Office
250.18
TSF
475
75
550
52.
Auto Parking
523.68
TSF
0
0
0
TOTAL
475
75
550
28,
General Office
67.12
TSF
128
20
148
36.
Government Office
90.00
TSF
171
27
198
TOTAL
299
47
346
10.
Hotel
471.00
ROOM
283
141
424
28.
General Office
393.05
TSF
747
118
865
46.
Youth Ctr/Service
10.30
TSF
1
1
2
52.
Auto Parking
792.84
TSF
0
0
0
TOTAL
1030
260
1291
19.
Restaurant
21.39
TSF
13
2
15
20.
Fast Food Restaurant
2.15
TSF
9
9
18
28.
General Office
1118.74
TSF
2126
336
2461
30.
Industrial
150.00
TSF
120
30
150
31.
R & D
280.00
TSF
280
28
308
52.
Auto Parking
1395.37
TSF
0
0
0
TOTAL
2548
404
2952
15.
General Commercial
3.61
TSF
2
1
3
18.
Unclassified Comn.
2.82
TSF
0
0
1
20.
Fast Food Restaurant
1.66
TSF
7
7
14
21.
Auto Dealer
0.66
ACRE
4
6
11
28,
General Office
184.88
TSF
351
55
407
-----PM PK MR-----
INOUT TOTAL
491 561 1052
43 20 63
422 1197 1619
12 38 51
61 107 167
7 24 31
0 0 0
1036 1947 2983
187 187 374
83 95 178
265 121 387
58 78 136
86 86 172
1374 3893 5267
0 0 0
0 0 0
2054 4460 6513
70 80 150
105 48 153
454 1286 1740
0 0 0
629 1414 2044
150 425 575
0 0 0
150 425 575
40 114 154
54 153 207
94 267 361
188 188 377
236 668 904
2 2 4
0 0 0
426 859 1285
75 34 109
11 8 19
671 1902 2573
60 105 165
84 308 392
0 0 0
901 2357 3258
5 6 11
1 1 1
9 6 15
4 5 8
111 314 425
ADT
14032
820
9151
689
761
208
0
25662
4914
2367
5074
1595
1810
29768
0
0
45528
2001
2013
9836
0
13850
3252
0
3252
873
1170
2043
4946
5110
41
0
10096
1431
305
14544
750
2660
0
19690
144
123 0270
99
2403
ZONE
9
9
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
13
13
13
14
14
15
15
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
17
17
18
18
18
18
NBTAM - CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 2O10 LAND USE AND TRIP GENERATION
-----AM
PK
HR-----
USE
UNITS
IN
OUT
TOTAL
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
29. Medical Office
3.77
TSF
2
1
3
TOTAL
367
71
438
3. Res -Low (SFD)
145.00
DU
29
102
131
4. Res -Medium (SFA)
88.00
DU
18
53
70
10. Hotel
300.00
ROOM
180
90
270
15. General Commercial
35.00
TSF
18
14
32
28. General Office
660.00
TSF
1254
198
1452
47. Park
3.33
ACRE
0
0
0
52. Auto Parking
267.94
TSF
0
0
0
53. Vacant Land
5.18
ACRE
0
0
0
TOTAL
1498
456
1954
3. Res -Low (SFD)
60.00
DU
12
42
54
4. Res -Medium (SFA)
33.00
DU
7
20
26
23. Health Club
60.33
TSF
36
36
72
28. General Office
67.95
TSF
129
20
149
50. Golf Course
25.00
ACRE
5
3
8
52. Auto Parking
105.63
TSF
0
0
0
TOTAL
189
121
310
3. Res -Low (SFD)
351.00
OU
70
246
316
44. Church
8.73
TSF
1
0
1
TOTAL
71
246
317
3. Res -Low (SFD)
114.00
DU
23
80
103
TOTAL
23
80
103
3. Res -Low (SFD)
633.00
DU
127
443
570
TOTAL
127
443
570
3. Res -Low (SFD)
115.00
DU
23
81
104
4. Res -Medium (SFA)
60.00
DU
12
36
48
5. Apartment
352.00
DU
70
141
211
12. Neighborhood Comm.
143.14
TSF
86
72
157
15. General Commercial
31.66
TSF
16
13
28
19. Restaurant
4.37
TSF
3
0
3
28. General Office
214.66
TSF
408
64
472
29. Medical Office
43.22
TSF
26
9
35
33. Elementary School
636.00
STU
64
0
64
38. Library
5.24
TSF
7
7
14
41. Fire Station
6.46
TSF
0
0
0
TOTAL
714
422
1136
3. Res -Low (SFD)
490.00
DU
98
343
441
TOTAL
98
343
441
3. Res -Low (SFD)
266.00
DU
53
186
239
46. Youth Ctr/Service
18.23
TSF
2
2
4
47. Park
4.00
ACRE
0
0
0
TOTAL
55
188
243
-----PM PK HR-----
IN OUT TOTAL
------------------
3 9 12
132 341 473
102 58 160
53 35 88
120 120 240
49 56 105
396 1122 1518
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
719 1391 2111
42 24 66
20 13 33
115 115 229
41 116 156
3 8 10
0 0 0
220 275 495
246 140 386
3 3 6
249 143 392
80 46 125
80 46 125
443 253 696
443 253 696
81 46 127
36 24 60
141 106 246
272 286 558
44 51 95
15 7 22
129 365 494
35 108 143
0 0 0
19 17 36
0 0 0
771 1009 1780
343 196 539
343 196 539
186 106 293
4 4 7
0 0 0
190 110 300
ADT
170
4180
1595
757
3150
1400
8580
20
0
0
15502
660
284
2413
883
150
0
4390
3861
67
3928
1254
1254
6963
6963
1265
516
2288
6441
1266
292
2791
1945
636
219
0
17660
5390
5390
29260027173
24
3023
ZONE
19
19
20
20
20
20
20
21
21
21
21
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
23
23
23
23
23
23
23
23
23
23
23
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
NBTAM - CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 2O10 LAND USE AND TRIP GENERATION
-----AM PK HR-----
USE
UNITS
IN
OUT
TOTAL
--------------------------
5.
Apartment
1445.00
DU
289
578
867
TOTAL
289
578
867
15.
General Commercial
1.73
TSF
1
1
2
28.
General Office
128.81
TSF
245
39
283
44.
Church
24.10
TSF
2
1
3
46.
Youth Ctr/Service
2.10
TSF
0
0
0
TOTAL
248
40
288
25.
Marina
125.00
SLIP
0
0
0
44.
Church
10.15
TSF
1
0
1
54.
Res - Low (SFA)
151.00
DU
30
98
128
TOTAL
31
98
129
3.
Res -Low (SFD)
307.00
DU
61
215
276
4.
Res -Medium (SFA)
235.00
DU
47
141
188
28.
General Office
23.10
TSF
44
7
51
29.
Medical Office
12.00
TSF
7
2
10
32,
Pre-School/Day Care
103.88
TSF
623
561
1184
34.
Junior/High School
2184.00
STU
437
218
655
43.
Nursing/Conv. Home
68.00
PAT
7
7
14
46.
Youth Ctr/Service
13.37
TSF
1
1
3
TOTAL
1228
1153
2380
3.
Res -Low (SFD)
257.00
DU
51
180
231
5.
Apartment
152.00
DU
30
61
91
10.
Hotel
124.00
ROOM
74
37
112
15.
General Commercial
253.83
TSF
127
102
228
19.
Restaurant
47.28
TSF
28
5
33
20.
Fast Food Restaurant
10.86
TSF
48
43
91
21.
Auto Dealer
1.97
ACRE
13
18
32
28.
General Office
45.61
TSF
87
14
100
29.
Medical Office
29.48
TSF
18
6
24
53.
Vacant Land
0.53
ACRE
0
0
0
TOTAL
477
466
942
3.
Res -Low (SFD)
550.00
DU
110
385
495
5.
Apartment
59.00
DU
12
24
35
26,
Theater
90.00
SEAT
0
0
0
33.
Elementary School
436.00
STU
44
0
44
46.
Youth Ctr/Service
33.43
TSF
3
3
7
47.
Park
5.90
ACRE
0
0
0
TOTAL
169
412
581
5.
Apartment
36.00
DU
7
14
22
15,
General Commercial
269.94
TSF
135
108
243
19.
Restaurant
132.45
TSF
79
13
93
20.
Fast Food Restaurant
7.09
TSF
31
28
60
21.
Auto Dealer
4.45
ACRE
30
41
71
22.
Yacht Club
2.25
TSF
2
2
3
28.
General Office
436.66
TSF
830
131
961
39.
Post Office
9.90
TSF
28
25
52
-----PM PK HR-----
IN OUT TOTAL
------------------
578 434 1012
578 434 1012
2 3 5
77 219 296
8 7 15
0 0 1
88 229 318
0 0 0
3 3 6
98 60 159
102 63 165
215 123 338
141 94 235
14 39 53
10 30 40
613 665 1278
218 218 437
7 14 20
3 3 5
1220 1186 2406
180 103 283
61 46 106
50 50 99
355 406 761
165 76 241
56 39 96
11 14 25
27 78 105
24 74 97
0 0 0
929 884 1814
385 220 605
24 18 41
18 0 18
0 0 0
7 7 13
0 0 0
433 244 678
14 11 25
378 432 810
464 212 675
37 26 62
24 32 57
3 3 5
262 742 1004
35 33 67
ADT
9393
9393
69
1675
186
8
1938
63
78
1480
1620
3377
2021
300
540
6960
3058
184
53
16493
2827
988
1302
10153
3163
1542
296
593
1327
0
22190
6050
384
135
436
134
35
7174
234
10798
8861
1007
1130OZ72
5677
859
NBTAM - CITY OF
NEWPORT BEACH 2O10
LAND USE AND
TRIP
GENERATION
-----AM
PK HR-----
-----PM PK
HR-----
ZONE
USE
UNITS
IN
OUT
TOTAL
IN
OUT
TOTAL
ADT
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
25
52.
Auto Parking
148.55
TSF
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
25
TOTAL
1142
363
1505
1217
1491
2708
28215
26
3.
Res -Low (SFD)
163.00
DU
33
114
147
114
65
179
1793
26
4.
Res -Medium (SFA)
200.00
DU
40
120
160
120
80
200
1720
26
9.
Motel
53.00
ROOM
21
16
37
16
21
37
535
26
12.
Neighborhood Conn.
1.37
TSF
1
1
2
3
3
5
62
26
15.
General Commercial
47.44
TSF
24
19
43
'66
76
142
1898
26
19.
Restaurant
17.57
TSF
11
2
12
61
28
90
1175
26
28.
General Office
135.73
TSF
258
41
299
81
231
312
1764
26
29.
Medical Office
11.29
TSF
7
2
9
9
28
37
508
26
30.
Industrial
2.29
TSF
2
0
2
1
2
3
11
26
44.
Church
1.15
TSF
0
0
0
0
0
1
9
26
45.
Cemetary/Res/Util
0.16
ACRE
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
26
52.
Auto Parking
6.60
TSF
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
26
53.
Vacant Land
0.66
ACRE
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
26
TOTAL
395
315
710
472
534
1006
9476
27
4.
Res -Medium (SFA)
98.00
DU
20
59
78
59
39
98
843
27
S.
Apartment
142.00
DU
28
57
85
57
43
99
923
27
29.
Medical Office
24.46
TSF
15
5
20
20
61
81
1101
27
30.
Industrial
298.12
TSF
238
60
298
119
209
328
1491
27
36.
Government Office
63.81
TSF
121
19
140
38
108
147
830
27
43.
Nursing/Conv. Home
270.00
PAT
27
27
54
27
54
81
729
27
TOTAL
449
226
676
320
514
834
5916
28
4.
Res -Medium (SFA)
673.00
DU
135
404
538
404
269
673
5788
28
28.
General Office
9.66
TSF
18
3
21
6
16
22
126
28
29.
Medical Office
284.86
TSF
171
57
228
228
712
940
12819
28
42.
Hospital
1265.00
BED
886
380
1265
633
1012
1645
14421
28
43.
Nursing/Conv. Home
95.00
PAT
10
10
19
10
19
29
257
28
53.
Vacant Land
20.47
ACRE
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
28
TOTAL
1219
853
2072
1279
2029
3308
33410
29
3.
Res -Low (SFD)
68.00
DU
14
48
61
48
27
75
748
29
4.
Res -Medium (SFA)
28.00
DU
6
17
22
17
11
28
241
29
15.
General Commercial
3.40
TSF
2
1
3
5
5
10
136
29
19.
Restaurant
4.20
TSF
3
0
3
15
7
21
281
29
TOTAL
23
66
90
84
51
134
1406
30
4.
Res -Medium (SFA)
573.00
DU
115
344
458
344
229
573
4928
30
5.
Apartment
415.00
DU
83
166
249
166
125
291
2698
30
7.
Elderly Residential
148.00
DU
15
44
59
44
15
59
592
30
15.
General Commercial
8.76
TSF
4
4
8
12
14
26
350
30
28.
General Office
16.00
TSF
30
5
35
10
27
37
208
30
29,
Medical Office
48.00
TSF
29
10
38
38
120
158
2160
30
30.
Industrial
39.60
TSF
32
8
40
16
28
44
198
30
43.
Nursing/Conv. Home
96.00
PAT
10
10
19
10
19
29
259
30
52.
Auto Parking
21.65
TSF
0
0
0
0
0
0
10
30
53.
Vacant Land
1.43
ACRE
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
30
TOTAL
317
590
907
640
577
1217
1OV 9 7 3
ce
31
31
31
31
31
31
31
31
31
31
31
31
31
32
32
33
33
33
33
33
33
33
33
33
33
33
34
34
34
34
35
35
35
35
35
36
36
36
37
37
37
37
37
37
4.-
NBTAM - CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 2O10 LAND USE AND TRIP GENERATION
-----AM PK
HR-----
USE
UNITS
IN
OUT
TOTAL
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. Apartment
120.00
DU
24
48
72
8. Mobile Home
419.00
DU
84
168
251
15. General Commercial
13.50
TSF
7
5
12
21. Auto Dealer
0.44
ACRE
3
4
7
28. General Office
274.51
TSF
522
82
604
29. Medical Office
61.63
TSF
37
12
49
30. Industrial
416.60
TSF
333
83
417
31. R & D
425.67
TSF
426
43
468
35. Private School
622.00
STU
62
0
62
36. Government Office
22.40
TSF
43
7
49
43. Nbrsing/Conv. Home
59.00
PAT
6
6
12
53. Vacant Land
32.51
ACRE
0
0
0
TOTAL
1546
458
2004
4. Res -Medium (SFA)
281.00
DU
56
169
225
TOTAL
56
169
225
3. Res -Low (SFD)
459.00
DU
92
321
413
4. Res -Medium (SFA)
270.00
DU
54
162
216
S. Apartment
23.00
DU
5
9
14
9. Motel
90.00
ROOM
36
27
63
15. General Commercial
28.55
TSF
14
11
26
18. Unclassified Conn.
7.39
TSF
1
1
1
19. Restaurant
13.19
TSF
8
1
9
20. Fast Food Restaurant
0.90
TSF
4
4
8
38. Library
2.10
TSF
3
3
6
52. Auto Parking
5.10
TSF
0
0
0
TOTAL
216
539
756
3. Res -Low (SFD)
41.00
DU
8
29
37
4. Res -Medium (SFA)
214.00
DU
43
128
171
47. Park
4.50
ACRE
0
0
0
TOTAL
51
157
208
3. Res -Low (SFD)
125.00
DU
25
88
113
4. Res -Medium (SFA)
350.00
DU
70
210
280
5. Apartment
51.00
DU
10
20
31
47. Park
6.50
ACRE
0
0
0
TOTAL
105
318
423
3. Res -Law (SFD)
231.00
DU
46
162
208
4. Res -Medium (SFA)
997.00
DU
199
598
798
TOTAL
246
760
1006
3. Res -Low (SFO)
211.00
DU
42
148
190
4. Res -Medium (SFA)
654.00
DU
131
392
523
16. General Commercial
21.51
TSF
11
9
19
19. Restaurant
3.75
TSF
2
0
3
20. Fast Food Restaurant
2.70
TSF
12
11
23
TOTAL
198
560
758
3. Res -Low (SFD)
50.00
DU
10
35
45
-----PM PK HR-----
IN OUT TOTAL
------------------
48 36 84
168 126 293
19 22 41
2 3 6
165 467 631
49 154 203
167 292 458
128 468 596
0 0 0
13 38 52
6 12 18
0 0 0
765 1617 2382
169 112 281
169 112 281
321 184 505
162 108 270
9 7 16
27 36 63
40 46 86
1 1 3
46 21 67
5 3 8
8 7 14
0 0 0
619 413 1032
29 16 45
128 86 214
0 0 0
157 102 259
88 50 138
210 140 350
20 IS 36
0 0 0
318 205 523
162 92 254
598 399 997
760 491 1251
148 84 232
392 262 654
30 34 65
13 6 19
14 10 24
597 396 994
35 20 55
ADT
780
2514
540
66
3569
2773
2083
4044
622
291
159
0
17441
2417
2417
5049
2322
150
909
1142
2956
882
128
88
0
13625
451
1840
27
2318
1375
3010
332
39
4756
2541
8574
11115
2321
5624
860
251
383
9440 00274
550
NBTAM - CITY OF
NEWPORT BEACH 2O10
LAND USE AND
TRIP
GENERATION
-----AM
PK HR-----
-----PM PK MR-----
ZONEUSE
UNITS
IN OUT
TOTAL
IN
OUT
TOTAL
ADT
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
38
4.
Res -Medium (SFA)
103.00
DU
21
62
82
62
41
103
886
38
15.
General Commercial
18.63
TSF
9
7
17
26
30
56
745
38
16.
Comm./Recreation
5.26
ACRE
3
3
5
13
13
26
210
38
18.
Unclassified Comm.
7.57
TSF
1
1
2
2
2
3
3028
38
19,
Restaurant
2.24
TSF
1
0
2
8
4
11
150
38
28.
General Office
12.19
TSF
23
4
27
7
21
28
158
38
29.
Medical Office
0.99
TSF
1
0
1
1
2
3
45
38
TOTAL
68
112
180
153
132
285
5772
39
4.
Res -Medium (SFA)
95.00
DU
19
57
76
57
38
95
817
39
12.
Neighborhood Conn.
37.50
TSF
23
19
41
71
75
146
1688
39
15.
General Commercial
11.67
TSF
6
5
11
16
19
35
467
39
18.
Unclassified Comm.
1.58
TSF
0
0
0
0
0
1
632
39
19.
Restaurant
5.28
TSF
3
1
4
18
8
27
353
39
20.
Fast Food Restaurant
2.12
TSF
9
8
18
11
8
19
301
39
28.
General Office
20.02
TSF
38
6
44
12
34
46
260
39
TOTAL
98
96
194
186
182
369
4518
40
4.
Res -Medium (SFA)
159.00
DU
32
95
127
95
64
159
1367
40
15.
General Commercial
16.70
TSF
8
7
15
23
27
50
668
40
18.
Unclassified Comm.
3.45
TSF
0
0
1
1
1
1
1380
40
19.
Restaurant
35.61
TSF
21
4
25
125
57
182
2382
40
28.
General Office
27.40
TSF
52
8
60
16
47
63
356
40
52.
Auto Parking
2.25
TSF
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
40
53.
Vacant Land
0.16
ACRE
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
40
TOTAL
114
114
228
261
195
455
6154
41
3.
Res -Low (SFD)
20.00
DU
4
14
18
14
8
22
220
41
4.
Res -Medium (SFA)
110.00
DU
22
66
88
66
44
110
946
41
5.
Apartment
5.00
DU
1
2
3
2
2
4
33
41
8.
Mobile Home
58.00
OU
12
23
35
23
17
41
348
41
9.
Motel
3.00
ROOM
1
1
2
1
1
2
30
41
10.
Hotel
22.00
ROOM
13
7
20
9
9
18
231
41
15.
General Commercial
30.00
TSF
15
12
27
42
48
90
1200
41
19.
Restaurant
37.15
TSF
22
4
26
130
59
189
2485
41
20.
Fast Food Restaurant
9.11
TSF
40
36
77
47
33
80
1294
41
28.
General Office
17.35
TSF
33
5
38
10
29
40
226
41
29.
Medical Office
2.00
TSF
1
0
2
2
5
7
90
41
52.
Auto Parking
1.88
TSF
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
41
53.
Vacant Land
0.09
ACRE
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
41
TOTAL
165
170
335
346
256
602
7102
42
15.
General Commercial
67.21
TSF
34
27
60
94
108
202
2688
42
18.
Unclassified Conn.
3.00
TSF
0
0
1
1
1
1
1200
42
19.
Restaurant
40.39
TSF
24
4
28
141
65
206
2702
42
20.
Fast Food Restaurant
7.38
TSF
32
30
62
38
27
65
1048
42
28.
General Office
90.22
TSF
171
27
198
54
153
208
1173
42
36.
Government Office
6.00
TSF
11
2
13
4
10
14
78
42
46.
Youth Ctr/Service
6.00
TSF
1
1
1
1
1
2
24 /► r�
2 f J
42
TOTAL
274
90
364
333
364
697
89100
43
12.
Neighborhood Comm.
73.51
TSF
44
37
81
140
147
287
3308
NBTAM - CITY OF
NEWPORT BEACH 2O10
LAND USE AND
TRIP
GENERATION
-----AM
PK HR-----
-----PM
PK
HR-----
ZONE
USE
UNITS
IN
OUT
TOTAL
IN
OUT
TOTAL
ADT
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
43
15.
General Commercial
9.37
TSF
5
4
8
13
15
28
375
43
19.
Restaurant
7.56
TSF
5
1
5
26
12
39
506
43
26.
Theater
685.00
SEAT
0
0
0
137
0
137
1028
43
28.
General Office
58.23
TSF
Ill
17
128
35
99
134
757
43
29.
Medical Office
1.25
TSF
1
0
1
1
3
4
56
43
36.
Government Office
93.65
TSF
178
28
206
56
159
215
1217
43
44.
Church
17.67
TSF
1
1
2
6
5
11
136
43
TOTAL
344
88
432
414
441
855
7383
44
4.
Res -Medium (SFA)
172.00
DU
34
103
138
103
69
172
1479
44
9.
Motel
16.00
ROOM
6
5
11
5
6
11
162
44
15.
General Commercial
138.48
TSF
69
55
125
194
222
415
5539
44
18.
Unclassified Comm.
17.52
TSF
2
2
4
4
4
7
7008
44
19.
Restaurant
35.67
TSF
21
4
25
125
57
182
2386
44
20,
Fast Food Restaurant
2.28
TSF
10
9
19
12
8
20
324
44
28.
General Office
101.50
TSF
193
30
223
61
173
233
1320
44
46.
Youth Ctr/Service
4.65
TSF
0
0
1
1
1
2
19
44
52.
Auto Parking
119.35
TSF
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
44
53.
vacant Land
0.59
ACRE
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
44
TOTAL
337
209
545
504
539
1043
18236
45
4.
Res -Medium (SFA)
408.00
DU
82
245
326
245
163
408
3509
45
15.
General Commercial
119.84
TSF
60
48
108
168
192
360
4794
45
19.
Restaurant
4.60
TSF
3
0
3
16
7
23
308
45
28.
General, Office
1.00
TSF
2
0
2
1
2
2
13
45
30.
Industrial
38.00
TSF
30
8
38
15
27
42
190
45
TOTAL
177
301
478
444
391
835
8813
46
3.
Res -Low (SFD)
1040.00
OU
208
728
936
728
416
1144
11440
46
4.
Res -Medium (SFA)
102.00
DU
20
61
82
61
41
102
877
46
5.
Apartment
26.00
DU
5
10
16
10
8
18
169
46
22.
Yacht Club
21.00
TSF
17
15
32
29
29
59
1050
46
TOTAL
250
814
1065
829
494
1323
13536
47
3.
Res -Low (SFD)
116.00
DU
23
81
104
81
46
128
1276
47
4.
Res -Medium (SFA)
474.00
OU
95
284
379
284
190
474
4076
47
5.
Apartment
103.00
DU
21
41
fit
41
31
72
670
47
8.
Mobile Home
58.00
DU
12
23
35
23
17
41
348
47
9.
Motel
16.00
ROOM
6
5
11
5
6
11
162
47
15.
General Commercial
11.61
TSF
6
5
10
16
19
35
464
47
20.
Fast Food Restaurant
1.25
TSF
6
5
11
7
5
11
178
47
25.
Marina
58.00
SLIP
0
0
0
0
0
0
29
47
32.
Pre-School/Day Care
13.44
TSF
81
73
153
79
86
165
900
47
33.
Elementary School
389.00
STU
39
0
39
0
0
0
389
47
44.
Church
9.86
TSF
1
0
1
3
3
6
76
47
46.
Youth Ctr/Service
7.70
TSF
1
1
2
2
2
3
31
47
53.
Vacant Land
0.25
ACRE
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
47
TOTAL
289
518
807
542
404
946
8599
48
3.
Res -Low (SFD)
362.00
DU
72
253
326
253
145
398
3982
48
4.
Res -Medium (SFA)
684.00
DU
137
410
547
410
274
684
p
58t O 2 7 V
48
5.
Apartment
173.00
DU
35
69
104
69
52
121
1125
ZONE
48
48
48
48
48
48
48
48
48
48
48
49
49
49
49
49
49
49
49
49
49
49
49
49
49
50
50
50
50
50
50
51
51
51
51
51
51
51
51
51
51
51
52
52
52
52
52
52
52
NBTAM - CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 2O10 LAND USE AND TRIP GENERATION
-----AM
PK HR-----
USE
UNITS
IN
OUT
TOTAL
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
12.
Neighborhood Conn.
11.87
TSF
7
6
13
15.
General Commercial
12.58
TSF
6
5
11
19.
Restaurant
5.29
TSF
3
1
4
20.
Fast Food Restaurant
3.23
TSF
14
13
27
28.
General Office
32.75
TSF
62
10
72
29.
Medical Office
2.71
TSF
2
1
2
38.
Library
4.80
TSF
7
6
13
41.
Fire Station
2.40
TSF
0
0
0
46.
Youth Ctr/Service
4.97
TSF
0
0
1
52.
Auto Parking
2.10
TSF
0
0
0
TOTAL
346
775
1120
3.
Res -Low (SFD)
9.00
DU
2
6
8
4.
Res -Medium (SFA)
131.00
DU
26
79
105
5.
Apartment
69.00
DU
14
28
41
10.
Hotel
34.00
ROOM
20
10
31
15.
General Commercial
86.24
TSF
43
34
78
16.
Comm./Recreation
4.68
ACRE
2
2
5
19.
Restaurant
71.48
TSF
43
7
50
20.
Fast Food Restaurant
12.62
TSF
56
50
106
22.
Yacht Club
0.50
TSF
0
0
1
26.
Theater
440.00
SEAT
0
0
0
28.
General Office
172.47
TSF
328
52
379
39.
Post Office
1.70
TSF
5
4
9
52.
Auto Parking
22.56
TSF
0
0
0
TOTAL
539
274
812
3.
Res -Low (SFD)
592.00
DU
118
414
533
4.
Res -Medium (SFA)
349.00
DU
70
209
Z79
5.
Apartment
69.00
OU
14
28
41
24.
Tennis Club
2.00
CRT
1
1
3
47.
Park
2.50
ACRE
0
0
0
TOTAL
203
653
856
3.
Res -Law (SFD)
246.00
DU
49
172
221
4.
Res -Medium (SFA)
263.00
DU
53
158
210
15.
General Commercial
42.92
TSF
21
17
39
18.
Unclassified Conn.
3.56
TSF
0
0
1
19.
Restaurant
19.03
TSF
11
2
13
22.
Yacht Club
8.29
TSF
7
6
12
25.
Marina
392.00
SLIP
0
0
0
28.
General Office
13.20
TSF
25
4
29
30.
Industrial
5.04
TSF
4
1
5
36.
Government Office
0.60
TSF
1
0
1
TOTAL
172
360
532
5.
Apartment
520.00
OU
104
208
312
12.
Neighborhood Conn.
93.65
TSF
56
47
103
15.
General Commercial
29.60
TSF
15
12
27
18.
Unclassified Comm.
1.20
TSF
0
0
0
19.
Restaurant
20.82
TSF
12
2
15
21.
Auto Dealer
4.12
ACRE
28
38
66
TOTAL
215
307
522
-----PM PK HR-----
IN OUT TOTAL
------------------
23 24 46
18 20 38
19 8 27
17 12 28
20 56 75
2 7 9
17 15 33
0 0 0
1 1 2
0 0 0
849 613 1462
6 4 10
79 52 131
28 21 48
14 14 27
121 138 259
11 12 23
250 114 365
66 45 111
1 1 1
88 0 88
103 293 397
6 6 12
0 0 0
772 699 1471
414 237 651
209 140 349
28 21 48
4 4 8
0 0 0
656 401 1057
172 98 271
158 105 263
60 69 129
1 1 1
67 30 97
12 12 23
0 0 0
8 22 30
2 4 6
0 1 1
479 342 821
208 156 364
178 187 365
41 47 89
0 0 0
73 33 106
23 30 53
523 454 977
ADT
534
503
354
459
426
122
201
0
20
0
13607
99
1127
449
357
3450
187
4782
1792
25
660
2242
148
0
15317
6512
3001
449
89
15
10066
2706
2262
1717
1424
1273
415
196
172
25
8
10197
3380
4214
1184 00277
480
1393
618
11269
NBTAM - CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 2O10 LAND USE AND TRIP GENERATION
-----AM PK
HR-----
-----PM PK
HR-----
ZONE
USE
UNITS
IN
OUT
TOTAL
IN
OUT
TOTAL
ADT
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
53
3.
Res -Low (SFD)
43.00
DU
9
30
39
30
17
47
473
53
4.
Res -Medium (SFA)
3119.00
DU
624
1871
2495
1871
1248
3119
26823
53
7.
Elderly Residential
13.00
DU
1
4
5
4
1
5
52
53
12.
Neighborhood Comm.
7.90
TSF
5
4
9
15
16
31
356
53
15.
General Commercial
63.17
TSF
32
25
57
88
101
190
2527
53
18.
Unclassified Conn.
3.45
TSF
0
0
1
1
1
1
1380
53
19.
Restaurant
16.54
TSF
10
2
12
58
26
84
1107
53
20.
Fast Food Restaurant
5.43
TSF
24
22
46
28
20
48
771
53
28.
General Office
18.37
TSF
35
6
40
11
31
42
239
53
29.
Medical Office
1.75
TSF
1
0
1
1
4
6
79
53
39.
Post Office
1.90
TSF
5
5
10
7
6
13
165
53
41.
Fire Station
1.00
TSF
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
53
44.
Church
3.00
TSF
0
0
0
1
1
2
23
53
47,
Park
1.62
ACRE
0
0
0
0
0
0
10
53
52.
Auto Parking
7.65
TSF
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
53
TOTAL
746
1969
2715
2116
1472
3588
34004
54
B.
Mobile Home
291.00
DU
58
116
175
116
87
204
1746
54
15.
General Commercial
60.63
TSF
30
24
55
85
97
182
2425
54
19.
Restaurant
18.19
TSF
11
2
13
64
29
93
1217
54
25.
Marina
218.00
SLIP
0
0
0
0
0
0
109
54
28.
General Office
30.31
TSF
58
9
67
18
52
70
394
54
TOTAL
157
152
309
283
265
548
5891
55
7.
Elderly Residential
120.00
DU
12
36
48
36
12
48
480
55
10.
Hotel
207.00
ROOM
124
62
186
83
83
166
2174
55
10.
Hotel
478.00
ROOM
287
143
430
191
191
382
5019
55
17.
Resort Commercial
36.00
TSF
18
14
32
50
58
108
1260
55
19.
Restaurant
73.93
TSF
44
7
52
259
118
377
4946
55
24,
Tennis Club
16.00
CRT
11
10
21
34
32
66
709
55
28.
General Office
6.00
TSF
11
2
13
4
10
14
78
55
30.
Industrial
17.23
TSF
14
3
17
7
12
19
86
55
46.
Youth Ctr/Service
2.69
TSF
0
0
1
1
1
1
11
55
50.
Golf Course
9.00
ACRE
2
1
3
1
3
4
54
55
53.
Vacant Land
58.23
ACRE
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
55
54.
Res - Low (SFA)
212.00
DU
42
138
180
138
85
223
2078
55
TOTAL
566
417
983
802
604
1407
16894
56
6.
Park Newport
1306.00
DU
131
392
522
392
261
653
6269
56
TOTAL
131
392
522
392
261
653
6269
57
3.
Res -Low (SFD)
662.00
DU
132
463
596
463
265
728
7282
57
4.
Res -Medium (SFA)
164.00
DU
33
98
131
98
66
164
1410
57
32.
Pre-School/Day Care
15.95
TSF
96
86
182
94
102
196
1069
57
33.
Elementary School
300.00
STU
30
0
30
0
0
0
300
57
34.
Junior/High School
1801.00
STU
360
180
540
180
180
360
2521
57
35.
Private School
189.00
STU
19
0
19
0
0
0
189
57
43.
Nursing/Conv. Home
4.00
PAT
0
0
1
0
1
1
11
57
44.
Church
34.96
TSF
3
1
4
12
10
22
2690 0 f V'
57
46.
Youth Ctr/Service
15.00
TSF
2
2
3
3
3
6
60
57
47.
Park
13.87
ACRE
0
0
0
0
0
0
83
57
TOTAL
675
831
1506
851
627
1478
13195
ZONE
58
58
58
58
58
58
58
59
59
59
61
61
62
62
62
62
62
62
63
63
63
63
63
63
63
63
63
64
64
65
65
66
66
67
67
67
66
68
68
69
69
69
NBTAM - CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 2O10 LAND USE AND TRIP GENERATION
-----AM PK
HR-----
USE
UNITS
IN
OUT
TOTAL
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Res -Low (SFD)
712.00
DU
142
498
641
12. Neighborhood Comm.
76.62
TSF
46
38
84
15. General Commercial
5.58
TSF
3
2
5
18. Unclassified Come.
1.61
TSF
0
0
0
24. Tennis Club
34.00
CRT
24
20
44
28. General Office
11.66
TSF
22
3
26
TOTAL
237
563
800
3. Res -Low (SFD)
456.00
DU
91
319
410
47. Park
1.60
ACRE
0
0
0
TOTAL
91
319
410
5. Apartment
300.00
OU
60
120
180
TOTAL
60
120
180
3. Res -Low (SFD)
159.00
DU
32
111
143
4. Res -Medium (SFA)
120.00
DU
24
72
96
5. Apartment
570.00
DU
114
228
342
15. General Commercial
50.00
TSF
25
20
45
47. Park
14.23
ACRE
0
0
0
TOTAL
195
431
626
15. General Commercial
33.55
TSF
17
13
30
30. Industrial
33.94
TSF
27
7
34
31. R & D
48.68
TSF
49
5
54
35. Private School
52.00
STU
5
0
5
39. Post Office
55.20
TSF
155
138
293
44. Church
88.27
TSF
7
3
10
45. Cemetary/Res/Util
2.27
ACRE
0
0
0
53. Vacant Land
5.83
ACRE
0
0
0
TOTAL
259
166
425
4. Res -Medium (SFA)
227.00
DU
45
136
182
TOTAL
45
136
182
31. R & D
1331.00
TSF
1331
133
1464
TOTAL
1331
133
1464
4. Res -Medium (SFA)
50.00
DU
10
30
40
TOTAL
10
30
40
3. Res -Low (SFD)
92.00
DU
18
64
83
4. Res -Medium (SFA)
54.00
DU
11
32
43
TOTAL
29
97
126
4. Res -Medium (SFA)
144.00
OU
29
86
115
S. Apartment
78.00
OU
16
31
47
TOTAL
44
118
162
3. Res -Low (SFD)
101.00
DU
20
71
91
4. Res -Medium (SFA)
182.00
DU
36
109
146
18. Unclassified Comm.
1.83
TSF
0
0
0
-----PM PK HR-----
IN OUT TOTAL
498 285 783
146 153 299
8 9 17
0 0 1
71 68 139
7 20 27
731 535 1266
319 182 502
0 0 0
319 182 502
120 90 210
120 90 210
ill 64 175
72 48 120
228 171 399
70 80 150
0 0 0
481 363 844
47 54 101
14 24 37
15 54 68
0 0 0
193 1$2 375
30 26 56
0 0 0
0 0 0
298 340 638
136 91 227
136 91 227
399 1464 1863
399 1464 1863
30 20 50
30 20 50
64 37 101
32 22 54
97 58 155
86 58 144
31 23 55
118 81 199
71 40 Ill
109 73 182
0 0 1
ADT
7832
3448
223
644
1506
152
13805
5016
10
5026
1950
1950
1749
1032
3705
2000
85
8571
1342
170
462
52
4791
680
5
0
7502
1952
1952
12645
12645
430
430
1012
464
1476
1238
507
1745QQ279
lilt
1565
732
ZONE
69
69
70
70
70
70
71
71
72
72
72
72
72
72
73
73
73
74
74
74
74
74
74
74
74
74
74
74
75
75
75
75
76
76
77
77
11
78
78
78
78
78
78
NBTAM - CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 2O10 LAND USE AND TRIP GENERATION
-----AM
PK
HR-----
USE
UNITS
IN
OUT
TOTAL
------------------------------------------------
50. Golf Course
144.90
ACRE
29
14
43
TOTAL
86
195
280
3. Res -Low (SFD)
142.00
DU
28
99
128
4. Res -Medium (SFA)
43.00
DU
9
26
34
5. Apartment
74.00
DU
15
30
44
TOTAL
52
155
207
3. Res -Low (SFD)
21.00
DU
4
15
19
TOTAL
4
15
19
10. Hotel
325.00
ROOM
195
98
293
19. Restaurant
5.33
TSF
3
1
4
28. General Office
950.00
TSF
1805
285
2090
47. Park
0.21
ACRE
0
0
0
52. Auto Parking
402.19
TSF
0
0
0
TOTAL
2003
383
2386
14. Regional Commercial
1310.75
TSF
262
131
393
26. Theater
1700.00
SEAT
0
0
0
TOTAL
262
131
393
4. Res -Medium (SFA)
245.00
DU
49
147
196
14. Regional Commercial
30.00
TSF
6
3
9
18. Unclassified Comm.
1.76
TSF
0
0
0
19. Restaurant
13.10
TSF
8
1
9
21. Auto Dealer
1.91
ACRE
13
18
31
28. General Office
863.49
TSF
1641
259
1900
36. Government Office
48.00
TSF
91
14
106
41. Fire Station
13.48
TSF
0
0
0
47. Park
0.07
ACRE
0
0
0
52. Auto Parking
39.20
TSF
0
0
0
TOTAL
1808
443
2250
4. Res -Medium (SFA)
67.00
DU
13
40
54
10. Hotel
611.00
ROOM
367
183
550
28. General Office
11.63
TSF
22
3
26
TOTAL
402
227
629
4. Res -Medium (SFA)
132.00
DU
26
79
106
TOTAL
26
79
106
5. Apartment
228.00
DU
46
91
137
50. Golf Course
128.50
ACRE
26
13
39
TOTAL
71
104
175
15. General Commercial
7.50
TSF
4
3
7
24. Tennis Club
22.00
CRT
15
13
29
28. General Office
137.50
TSF
261
41
303
47. Park
1.51
ACRE
0
0
0
50. Golf Course
3.02
ACRE
1
0
1
TOTAL
281
58
339
-----PM PK MR-----
INOUT TOTAL
------------------
14 43 58
195 157 352
99 57 156
26 17 43
30 22 52
155 96 251
15 8 23
15 8 23
130 130 260
19 9 27
570 1615 2185
0 0 0
0 0 0
719 1754 2472
918 1180 2097
340 0 340
1258 1180 2437
147 98 245
21 27 48
0 0 1
46 21 67
11 14 24
518 1468 1986
29 82 110
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
772 1710 2481
40 27 67
244 244 489
7 20 27
292 291 583
79 53 132
79 53 132
91 68 160
13 39 51
104 107 211
11 12 23
46 44 90
83 234 316
0 0 0
0 1 1
140 291 430
ADT
869
4278
1562
370
481
2413
231
231
3413
357
12350
1
0
16120
28B37
2550
31387
2107
660
704
876
287
11225
624
0
0
0
16484
576
6416
151
7143
1135
1135
1482
771
2253
00280
300
975
1788
9
18
3089
ZONE
79
79
79
79
79
79
79
80
80
80
80
80
80
81
81
81
82
82
82
83
83
83
83
83
83
83
83
83
84
84
84
84
84
85
85
85
85
85
85
85
85
85
85
85
86
86
NBTAM - CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 2O10 LAND USE AND TRIP GENERATION
-----AM
PK
HR-----
USE
UNITS
IN
OUT
TOTAL
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
28. General Office
465.34
TSF
884
140
1024
29. Medical Office
351.95
TSF
211
70
282
40. OCTD Facility
2.50
ACRE
0
0
0
47. Park
0.77
ACRE
0
0
0
52. Auto Parking
492.05
TSF
0
0
0
53. Vacant Land
7.44
ACRE
0
0
0
TOTAL
1095
210
1305
15. General Commercial
3.15
TSF
2
1
3
19. Restaurant
14.10
TSF
8
1
10
23. Health Club
16.13
TSF
10
10
19
26. Theater
2150.00
SEAT
0
0
0
28. General Office
442.11
TSF
840
133
973
TOTAL
860
145
1005
28. General Office
347.32
TSF
660
104
764
47. Park
1.51
ACRE
0
0
0
TOTAL
660
104
764
37. Civic Center/Museum
100.00
TSF
250
30
280
38. Library
65.00
TSF
91
85
176
TOTAL
341
115
456
3. Res -Low (SFD)
410.00
DU
82
287
369
4. Res -Medium (SFA)
37.00
DU
7
22
30
5. Apartment
75.00
DU
15
30
45
22. Yacht Club
62.02
TSF
50
43
93
25. Marina
233.00
SLIP
0
0
0
28. General Office
142.39
TSF
271
43
313
36. Government Office
19.30
TSF
37
6
42
45. Cemetary/Res/Util
0.04
ACRE
0
0
0
TOTAL
461
431
892
3. Res -Low (SFD)
244.00
DU
49
171
220
4. Res -Medium (SFA)
387.00
DU
77
232
310
5. Apartment
273.00
DU
55
109
164
25. Marina
18.00
SLIP
0
0
0
TOTAL
181
512
693
3. Res -Low (SFD)
341.00
DU
68
239
307
4. Res -Medium (SFA)
14.00
DU
3
8
11
5. Apartment
47.00
DU
9
19
28
15. General Commercial
78.77
TSF
39
32
71
18. Unclassified Conn.
2.98
TSF
0
0
1
19. Restaurant
9.17
TSF
6
1
6
20. Fast Food Restaurant
0.77
TSF
3
3
6
28. General Office
23.98
TSF
46
7
53
29. Medical Office
4.26
TSF
3
1
3
52. Auto Parking
22.25
TSF
0
0
0
TOTAL
177
310
487
3. Res -Low (SFD)
144.00
DU
29
101
130
TOTAL
29
101
130
-----PM PK HR-----
IN OUT TOTAL
------------------
279 791 1070
282 880 1161
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
561 1671 2232
4 5 9
49 23 72
31 31 61
430 0 430
265 752 1017
780 810 1590
208 590 799
0 0 0
208 590 799
110 260 370
234 208 442
344 468 812
287 164 451
22 15 37
30 23 53
87 87 174
0 0 0
85 242 327
12 33 44
0 0 0
523 563 1086
171 98 268
232 155 387
109 82 191
0 0 0
512 334 847
239 136 375
8 6 14
19 14 33
110 126 236
1 1 1
32 15 47
4 3 7
14 41 55
3 11 14
0 0 0
431 352 782
101 58 158
101 58 158
ADT
6049
15838
0
5
0
0
21892
126
943
645
3225
5747
10687
4515
9
4524
3200
2717
5917
4510
318
488
3101
117
1851
251
0
10635
2684
3328
1775
9
7796
3751
120
306
3151
1192
613
10, 00281
312
192
0
9746
1584
1584
NBTAM - CITY OF
NEWPORT BEACH 2O10
LAND USE AND
TRIP
GENERATION
-----AM
PK HR-----
-----PM
PK HR-----
ZONE
USE
UNITS
IN OUT
TOTAL
IN
OUT
TOTAL
ADT
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
87
3. Res -Low (SFD)
176.00
DU
35
123
158
123
70
194
1936
87
TOTAL
35
123
158
123
70
194
1936
88
3. Res -Low (SFD)
78.00
DU
16
55
70
55
31
86
858
88
4. Res -Medium (SFA)
1034.00
DU
207
620
827
620
414
1034
8892
88
12. Neighborhood Comm.
21.02
TSF
13
11
23
40
42
82
946
88
15. General Commercial
146.92
TSF
73
59
132
206
235
441
5877
88
19. Restaurant
28.80
TSF
17
3
20
101
46
147
1927
88
20. Fast Food Restaurant
1.70
TSF
7
7
14
9
6
15
241
88
26. Theater
500.00
SEAT
0
0
0
100
0
100
750
88
28. General Office
77.28
TSF
147
23
170
46
131
178
1005
88
29, Medical Office
9.18
TSF
6
2
7
7
23
30
413
88
52. Auto Parking
34.34
TSF
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
88
TOTAL
486
779
1265
1184
928
2112
20909
89
4 Res -Medium (SFA)
626.00
DU
125
376
501
376
250
626
5384
89
15. General Comnercial
82.50
TSF
41
33
74
116
132
248
3300
89
18. Unclassified Conn.
3.44,TSF
0
0
1
1
1
1
1376
89
19. Restaurant
6.83
TSF
4
1
5
24
11
35
457
89
20. Fast Food Restaurant
2.30
TSF
10
9
19
12
8
20
327
89
23. Health Club
1.72
TSF
1
1
2
3
3
7
69
89
28. General Office
44.44
TSF
84
13
98
27
76
102
578
89
29. Medical Office
0.97
TSF
1
0
1
1
2
3
44
89
44. Church
12.34
TSF
1
0
1
4
4
8
95
89
TOTAL
268
434
702
563
487
1050
11628
90
3. Res -Low (SFD)
50.00
OU
10
35
45
35
20
55
550
90
4. Res -Medium (SFA)
854.00
DU
171
512
683
512
342
854
7344
90
15. General Commercial
33.38
TSF
17
13
30
47
53
100
1335
90
19. Restaurant
15.41
TSF
9
2
11
54
25
79
1031
90
20. Fast Food Restaurant
0.52
TSF
2
2
4
3
2
5
74
90
28. General Office
40.72
TSF
77
12
90
24
69
94
529
90
29. Medical Office
2.89
TSF
2
1
2
2
7
10
130
90
39. Post Office
5.00
TSF
14
13
27
18
17
34
434
90
41. Fire Station
1.82
TSF
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
90
53. vacant Land
0.33
ACRE
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
90
TOTAL
302
590
892
695
534
1230
11428
91
3. Res -Low (SFD)
163.00
DU
33
114
147
114
65
179
1793
91
4. Res -Medium (SFA)
201.00
DU
40
121
161
121
80
201
1729
91
S. Apartment
6.00
DU
1
2
4
2
2
4
39
91
TOTAL
74
237
311
237
147
385
3561
92
3. Res -Low (SFD)
142.00
DU
28
99
128
99
57
156
1562
92
TOTAL
28
99
128
99
57
156
1562
93
3. Res -Low (SFD)
225.00
DU
45
158
203
158
90
248
2475
93
5. Apartment
120.00
DU
24
48
72
48
36
84
780
93
33. Elementary School
790.00
STU
79
0
79
0
0
0
790
93
46. Youth Ctr/Service
5.60
TSF
1
1
1
1
1
2
22
93
TOTAL
149
206
355
207
127
334
4067
NBTAM - CITY OF
NEWPORT BEACH 2O10
LAND USE AND
TRIP
GENERATION
-----AM
PK HR-----
-----PM PK HR-----
ZONE
USE
UNITS
IN
OUT
TOTAL
IN
OUT
TOTAL
ADT
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
94
3. Res -Low (SFD)
220.00
DU
44
154
198
154
88
242
2420
94
15. General Commercial
70.79
TSF
35
28
64
99
113
212
2832
94
45. Cemetary/Res/Util
2.79
ACRE
0
0
0
0
0
0
6
94
47. Park
8.50
ACRE
0
0
0
0
0
0
51
94
TOTAL
79
182
262
253
201
454
5308
95
4. Res -Medium (SFA)
247.00
DU
49
148
198
148
99
247
2124
95
TOTAL
49
148
198
148
99
247
2124
96
3. Res -Low (SFD)
448.00
DU
90
314
403
314
179
493
4928
96
7. Elderly Residential
100.00
DU
10
30
40
30
10
40
400
96
35. Private School
162.00
STU
16
0
16
0
0
0
162
96
46. Youth Ctr/Service
18.00
TSF
2
2
4
4
4
7
72
96
47. Park
5.97
ACRE
0
0
0
0
0
0
36
96
TOTAL
118
345
463
347
193
540
5598
97
3. Res -Low (SFD)
40.00
DU
8
28
36
28
16
44
440
97
TOTAL
8
28
36
28
16
44
440
98
5. Apartment
388.00
DU
78
155
233
155
116
272
2522
98
32. Pre-School/Day Care
8.40
TSF
5o
45
96
50
54
103
563
98
TOTAL
128
201
329
205
170
375
3085
99
4. Res -Medium (SFA)
94.00
DU
19
56
75
56
38
94
808
99
7. Elderly Residential
100.00
DU
10
30
40
30
10
40
400
99
TOTAL
29
86
115
86
48
134
1208
100
S. Apartment
168.00
DU
34
67
101
67
50
118
1092
100
12. Neighborhood Conn.
69.13
TSF
41
35
76
131
138
270
3111
100
18. Unclassified Comm.
6.53
TSF
1
1
1
1
1
3
2612
100
28. General Office
9.75
TSF
19
3
21
6
17
22
127
100
32. Pre-School/Day Care
36.24
TSF
217
196
413
214
232
446
2428
100
35. Private School
406.00
STU
41
0
41
0
0
0
406
100
44. Church
194.30
TSF
16
6
21
66
58
124
1496
100
46. Youth Ctr/Service
15.99
TSF
2
2
3
3
3
6
64
100
TOTAL
369
308
678
489
500
989
11336
101
3. Res -Low (SFD)
441.00
DU
88
309
397
309
176
485
4851
101
4. Res -Medium (SFA)
172.00
DU
34
103
138
103
69
172
1479
101
47. Park
2.50
ACRE
0
0
0
0
0
0
15
101
TOTAL
123
412
535
412
245
657
6345
102
3. Res -Low (SFD)
475.00
DU
95
333
428
333
190
523
5225
102
33. Elementary School
498.00
STU
50
0
50
0
0
0
498
102
45. Cemetary/Res/Util
0.06
ACRE
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
102
47. Park
20.75
ACRE
0
0
0
0
0
0
125
102
TOTAL
145
333
477
333
190
523
5848
103
3. Res -Low (SFD)
206.00
DU
41
144
185
144
82
227
2266
103
45. Cemetary/Res/Util
12.59
ACRE
0
0
0
0
0
0
25
103
47. Park
7.32
ACRE
0
0
0
0
0
0
44
103
TOTAL
41
144
185
144
82
227
2335
00283
NBTAM - CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 2O10 LAND USE AND TRIP GENERATION
-----AM
PK HR-----
ZONE
USE
UNITS
IN
OUT
TOTAL
-------------------------------------------------------------
104
3. Res -Low (SFD)
616.00
DU
123
431
554
104
TOTAL
123
431
554
105
3. Res -Low (SFD)
119.00
DU
24
83
107
105
4. Res -Medium (SFA)
120.00
DU
24
72
96
105
12. Neighborhood Cann.
95.14
TSF
57
48
105
105
18. Unclassified Comm.
1.40
TSF
0
0
0
105
28. General Office
11.17
TSF
21
3
25
105
TOTAL
126
206
333
-----PM PK MR-----
INOUT TOTAL
431
246
678
431
246
678
83
48
131
72
48
120
181
190
371
0
0
1
7
19
26
343
305
648
ADT
6776
6776
1309
1032
4281
560
145
7328
NBTAM - CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 2O10 LAND USE AND TRIP GENERATION SUMMARY
-----AM PK HR----------PM PK MR-----
USEUNITS IN OUT TOTAL IN OUT TOTAL ADT
1.
Res -Coast Estate
0.00
DU
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2.
Res-Estate/Rural
0.00
DU
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3.
Res -Low (SFO)
13947.00
DU
2789
9763
12552
9763
5579
15342
153417
4.
Res -Medium (SFA)
16137.00
DU
3227
9682
12910
9682
6455
16137
138778
5.
Apartment
6087.00
DU
1217
2435
3652
2435
1826
4261
39566
6.
Park Newport
1306.00
DU
131
392
522
392
261
653
6269
7.
Elderly Residential
481.00
OU
48
144
192
144
48
192
1924
8.
Mobile Home
826.00
DU
165
330
496
330
248
578
4956
9.
Motel
178.00
ROOM
71
53
125
53
71
125
1798
10.
Hotel
3040.00
ROOM
1824
912
2736
1216
1216
2432
31920
11.
Resort Hotel
0.00
ROOM
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
12.
Neighborhood Comm.
630.85
TSF
379
315
694
1199
1262
2460
28388
13.
District Comm.
0.00
TSF
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
14.
Regional Commercial
1340.75
TSF
268
134
402
939
1207
2145
29497
15.
General Commercial
2409.72
TSF
1205
964
2169
3374
3856
7229
96389
16.
Comm./Recreation
9.94
ACRE
5
5
10
24
25
49
398
17.
Resort Commercial
36.00
TSF
18
14
32
50
58
108
1260
18.
Unclassified Comm.
71.09
TSF
7
7
14
14
14
28
28436
19.
Restaurant
848.92
TSF
509
85
594
2971
1358
4329
56793
20.
Fast Food Restaurant
74.07
TSF
326
296
622
385
267
652
10518
21.
Auto Dealer
24.18
ACRE
162
225
387
133
177
310
3627
22.
Yacht Club
94.06
TSF
75
66
141
132
132
263
4703
23.
Health Club
123.42
TSF
74
74
148
234
234
469
4937
24.
Tennis Club
74.00
CRT
52
44
96
155
148
303
3278
25.
Marina
1044.00
SLIP
0
0
0
0
0
0
522
26.
Theater
5565.00
SEAT
0
0
0
1113
0
1113
8348
27.
Newport Dunes
0.00
ACRE
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
28.
General Office
11955.88
TSF
22718
3587
26305
7174
20327
27501
155439
29.
Medical Office
911.97
TSF
547
182
730
730
2280
3010
41039
30.
Industrial
1153.05
TSF
922
231
1153
461
807
1268
5765
31.
R & D
2107.29
TSF
2107
211
2318
632
2318
2950
20019
32.
Pre-School/Day Care
177.91
TSF
1067
961
2028
1050
1139
2188
11920
33.
Elementary School
3049.00
STU
305
0
305
0
0
0
3049
34.
Junior/High School
3985.00
STU
797
399
1196
399
399
797
5579
35.
Private School
1431.00
STU
143
0
143
0
0
0
1431
36.
Government Office
343.76
TSF
653
103
756
206
584
791
4469
37.
Civic Center/Museum
100.00
TSF
250
30
280
110
260
370
3200
38.
Library
77.14
TSF
108
100
208
278
247
525
3224
39.
Post Office
73.70
TSF
206
184
391
258
243
501
6397
40.
OCTD Facility
2.50
ACRE
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
41.
Fire Station
25.16
TSF
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
42.
Hospital
1265.00
BED
886
380
1265
633
1012
1645
14421
43.
Nursing/Conv. Home
592.00
PAT
59
59
118
59
118
178
1598
44.
Church
404.53
TSF
32
12
44
138
121
259
3115
45.
Cemetary/Res/Util
17.91
ACRE
0
0
0
0
0
0
36
46.
Youth Ctr/Service
158.03
TSF
16
16
32
32
32
63
632
47.
Park
107.16
ACRE
0
0
0
0
0
0
643
48.
Regional Park
0.00
ACRE
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
49.
Beach
0.00
UNIT
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
50.
Golf Course
310.42
ACRE
62
31
93
31
93
124
1863
51.
Resort Golf Course
0.00
ACRE
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
52.
Auto Parking
5075.07
TSF
0
0
0
0
0
0
0 p
Q
53.
Vacant Land
137.12
ACRE
0
0
0
0
0
0
0 p
54.
Res - Low (SFA)
363.00
DU
73
236
309
236
145
381
3557
GRAND TOTAL
43506
32663
76169
47164
54565
101729
943117
APPENDIX B
COYOTE EVALUATION
NEWPORTER NORTH SITE
To:
THE IRVINE COMPANY
(IRVINE PACIFIC)
550 Newport Center Drive, Suite 700
P. O. Box I
Newport Beach, CA 92658-8904
Telephone (714) 720-2332
Prepared By:
Dr. Walter E. Howard
! Professor Emeritus Wildlife Biology
and Vertebrate Ecology
University of California
Davis, CA 95616
Telephone (916) 752-2564
June 1992
The information contained in this report represents the best of my knowledge and pertinent
environmental concerns.
2e'LC2 [• 0 /KG'Y-Oc0cC
Walter E. Howard
00287
77
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I.
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
II.
INTRODUCTION
III.
EVALUATION METHODS
A. Site Inspection
B. People Contacted
C. Reports and Literature Reviewed
IV.
PRESERVING NATURAL BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY
A. Plant Communities
B. wildlife Habitats
C. Sensitive Species
1�
V.
IMPORTANCE OF COYOTES
A. Habitat Suitability for Coyotes
B. Potential Impacts of Development
VI.
MITIGATING POTENTIALS
VII.
LITERATURE CITED
I.
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
The following conclusions are based upon a visit to the Newporter North site and the Newport
Beach environs, consulting with six (6) biologists knowledgeable about this area and coyote
behavior, my file of 9 reprint boxes on coyotes, my personal research experience of having
raised about 300 coyotes, and my having had 3 PhD and 3 MS students get their degree studying
coyotes.
The development of only 30 acres of the 77-acre Newporter North site, which actually is a patch
of weeds that must be mowed every year for weed abatement and fire protection, will have
minimal impact on wildlife, as this type of grassland habitat contains mostly exotic weeds that
are abundant in this part of California. It is to be replaced by homes, the landscaping of which
will provide a variety of nectar and berry producing plants. These new habitat conditions will
attract many species of migrant, winter and resident birds that cannot now find adequate food or
nesting sites at this location.
In the Upper Newport Bay environs only one (1) den has been known to have been used recently
by coyotes. Since coyotes usually move their pups to other dens, it is possible that there are
others. A red fox den was not located until Highway 55 was developed.
The proposed Newporter North development will be 80 feet from the above known coyote den
which is located in a small ravine that is not to be altered. The way urban coyotes den in
culverts, barns, and close to houses, and the amount of open space around the Upper Newport
Bay, the proposed development of the site in question should not deter any future coyote from
using this den again or constructing new ones on adjacent bluffs or other open space. If
mitigation is desired, I suggest using a power post hold digger, turned on the horizontal to
construct artificial dens at specified sites on banks. In some of the banks even a hand-held soil
auger could be used. Of course, such action might encourage foxes as well as coyotes.
I can see no way that Newporter North development could adversely impact present or future
coyotes from living in Upper Newport Bay area. If anything, the increase in cats, small dogs,
and the availability of pet food, garbage and vegetables might well enhance the potential food
supply for coyotes.
Encouraging coyotes is not a panacea. They also eat waterfowl, eggs and young birds. Coyotes
are very adaptable to urbanization and can become a problem and danger, especially if people
feed them.
0
INTRODUCTION
I feel quite comfortable analyzing this coyote issue for I have raised over 300 coyotes at the
University of California, Hopland Field Station, near Ukiah, and have had many students who
studied the control and behavior of coyotes, including 3 Ph.D's and 3 with M.S. degrees.
As a professional environmentalist and ecologist, and a highly concerned natural resource
scientist, I was deeply impressed by the proposed agreement for such a generous amount of open
space being planned by the City of Newport Beach and The Irvine Company. The community
is very fortunate to have these invaluable resources made available and protected from future
development. City parks cannot provide equivalent natural wetland, uplands and most natural
communities to those found in these open spaces. -
n
EVALUATION METHODS
A. Site Inspection
Of the eleven (11) proposed land use and open space dedication sites shown to me by
Thomas O. Redwitz of Irvine Pacific, and Sat Tamaribuchi of The Irvine Company, on
May 21, 1992, my major concerns in this report are the Newporter North site, all the
potential corridors for coyote access to Upper Newport Bay's open spaces, and the
availability of potential coyote whelping (denning) sites, including the only one known
to have been recently used by a coyote.
Fortunately, there had been no recent rain so we were able to walk into the site that is
to become the residential development portion of Newport North. It is now a dense stand
of exotic weeds, which are mowed every year for weed abatement and fire protection.
Thomas O. Redwitz and Sat Tamaribuchi gave me a good half -day tour and explanation
of all the sites involved. Others whom I have visited or telephoned that helped me a
great deal include in order contacted: Ron Schonholtz, Biologist at Point Richmond;
Robert A. Hamilton,-LSA, Irvine; Terry Mansfield and Ronald M. Jurek, Department
of Fish and Game; Ronald A. Thompson, ADC -APHIS -USDA; and Richard Zembal,
now with USF&WS, but was at California State University, Long Beach in 1990.
In addition to scientific papers listed in Literature Cited in 'Section VIII, several other
reports were studied. These include the Biological Assessment contained in the proposed
Circulation Improvements and Open Space Agreement, Newport Beach.
In a memorandum to Tom Redwitz from Richard Erickson, October 1, 1990, he'passed
on the following remarks received from Dick Zembal: In the Upper Newport Bay/San
Joaquin Marsh area, San Diego Creek and Bonita Creek are important corridors; the Big
Canyon area appears to support one or two family groups of coyotes. Culverts under
Jamboree Road and MacArthur Boulevard are large and used by coyotes all the way to
Spyglass Hill. It is fortunate that development plans at Newporter North should not
interfere with what Zembal describes as a "magnet" or focal point for coyote use of this
area, undoubtedly due to the coyote den being there.
00290
2
A memorandum to Tom Garlock from Robb Hamilton and Art Homrighausen, titled PA
23 Coyote Surveys -- Results to Date, dated April 30, 1990, was a review of den surveys
and recent station/spotlight surveys. Attaching radio collars to coyotes had not yet been
successful.
I also reviewed pages 201-234 of Biological Resources, Existing Conditions. This was
helpful in providing a broader perspective of the Newport Beach/Costa Mesa coastal
subregion of Orange County. I strongly disagree with the undocumented statement on
p.227, Paragraph 1, that "the loss of upland habitat on the Newporter North site is
considered a significant adverse impact". As I explain elsewhere and in the Summary,
it represents only about 7 percent of the total upland habitat around the bay. Changing
one unnatural habitat to another modification, where natural conditions are not attainable,
is not always a bad thing.
IVA
PRESERVING NATURAL BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY
A. Plant Communities
No unique or sensitive plant communities are to be modified. Thirty (30) acres of an
upland weed patch of annuals, a vegetation type common to this part of Orange County,
is to be converted to homes and landscaping.
B. Wildlife Habitats
There may be a loss of some snakes, lizards, small field rodents, and periodic foraging
by some common birds, but there will be an increase of many more birds of other species
of resident and migratory birds that will utilize the nectar and fruit of home landscaping.
Marsh habitat is not considered good coyote habitat, although less than the red fox,
coyotes can be a serious predator of duck hens, eggs and ducklings (Sargeant and Arnold
1984). The whooping crane would become extinct in the U.S. without persistent control
of coyotes in the nesting grounds. In Upper Newport Bay, "the food items identified in
coyote scats indicated minimal use of foods obtained in the marsh" (Zembal 1990),
therefore without a marsh problem, coyotes would be desirable to reduce red fox and
feral cat presence adjacent to marsh habitat.
C. Sensitive SR! fides
No sensitive plants or animals will be displaced. With more homes there could be more
house cats, a potential threat to the endangered clapper rail.
00291
3
V.
IMPORTANCE OF COYOTES
A. Habitat Suitability for Coyotes
I certainly agree with Zembal (1990) and others that the maintenance of Upper Newport
Bay as a functional wetland should be top priority, and any need for additional
management of feral cats and the non-native red foxes should be avoided if possible.
Possibly, when the uplands along the west side and the northern portion of Upper
Newport Bay and adjacent areas have suitable habitats restored, as planned, the Upper
Newport Bay area may then become extensive enough to be able to support a small
"resident" population of coyotes, which it probably is inadequate to do now (Gene 1990).
Quinn (1991) found coyotes frequented urban areas when not too far from open country,
and he speculates that lack of denning sites may limit coyotes in north Seattle.
I do not see any danger, based on the proposed Irvine Company's proposed Circulation
Improvement and Open Space Agreement with City of Newport Beach, that adequate
coyote corridors into the Upper Newport Bay area will not remain permanently. This is
very desirable to help prevent both feral cats and red foxes (Harrison, et al. 1989,
Sargeant and Allen 1989), which are periodically seen there now, from becoming too
abundant (Burkett and Lewis 1992, Jurek 1992). The existing and planned coyote
corridors are sufficient to prevent coyote inbreeding problems. It will not be a closed
island population, and it is doubtful if any coyote will live permanently in the Upper
Newport Bay area. Regular dispersal by coyotes into the bay is still occurring from
larger open space in Orange County to the east, along routes that connect to Big Canyon
and San Diego Creek (Zembal 1990b). From my analysis, viable corridors will always
remain (based on the joint City — Irvine Company proposals). The proposed project
benefits the preservation of a corridor along San Diego Creek by proposing to remove
potential development from the San Diego Creek North site and committing the area
immediately adjacent to the San Diego, Creek for open space including possible habitat
enhancement. Exhibit 6 on Page 21 of the Draft Program Environmental Impact Report
illustrates this proposed use.
Coyotes are most active in early morning, late afternoon and early evening periods
(Andelt and Gipson 1979). They found that "the average distance traveled by coyotes
during 45 24-hour tracking shifts based on the first and last locations — was only 15%
of the total distance traveled — based upon consecutive hourly locations". Later,
Laundre and Keller (1984) reviewed the size of coyote home ranges. They found that
during the pup -rearing season, as few as four or five 24-hour samples of sequential
locations of transmitted coyotes seemed adequate to delineate home ranges of both males
and females. The distances the radio -collared coyotes at Newport Beach traveled,
indicates coyotes may freely travel through existing corridors, even on a daily basis.
Until more of the habitats are restored, the Upper Newport Bay open space is really not
adequate for even one family of coyotes to live there for an entire year.
00292
4
B. Potential Impacts of Development
Coyotes are generalist predators. They modify their hunting to suit local conditions
(Reichel 1991) and have readily adapted to a diverse array of natural habitats including
densely settled urban areas (Atkinson and Shackleton 1991).
Coyotes usually dig dens or modify burrows of other animals, for example of foxes,
badgers, or ground squirrels, but they may den close to human traffic, in culverts (this
occurred this year on the campus of the University of California at Davis), farm
buildings, and pastures (Ryon 1986). A coyote den with 7 pups was recently found under
the concrete at the end of a used runway at Sacramento Airport.
If coyotes become too numerous and troublesome, they will be easier to control than are
high red fox and feral cat populations.
Evidence strongly suggest that wolves can reduce the density of coyotes, and that coyotes
can reduce the number of foxes and house cats present. But, dominant predators do not
eliminate completely all subdominate predators. However, the Upper Newport Bay
region is surrounded by developed areas, which both coyotes and foxes will readily pass
through, but they will seldom establish home sites unless larger open or more wild areas
exist.
To attract a coyote population that would permanently live in the Upper Newport Bay
region and be sufficiently abundant to eliminate house cats is not likely. But, since they
like to feed on cats,+;this does provide another food source. However, it is not likely that
cats will ever be the major food source for coyotes. Once coyotes start feeding mainly
on garbage, cats, small dogs, and vegetable gardens, they then usually become an
unwanted pest and need to be controlled. Unfortunately, there are always some people
who start feeding such coyotes, that is until coyotes take their pets.
Howell (1982), Deputy Agricultural Commissioner, County of Los Angeles, explains how
adaptable coyotes are to urbanization, and why coyotes are often called a commensal
(living with people) predator, like rats, pigeons and sparrows. According to Howell,
"homeowners have reported incidents such as: Coyotes staring through the front
windows with their large yellow eyes glaring at their poodle or house cat; a big mangy
coyote routinely sleeping in the morning upon a chaise lounge on the back porch; a
coyote chasing a small dog through the doggy door into and around the kitchen; a coyote
tight -rope walking a fence rail; a coyote snatching a dog off the leash; a mother coyote
growling at children playing in their back yard ( a den containing two pups being hidden
beneath a shed); a coyote carrying a freshly killed house cat down the street; a coyote
feeding upon a poodle in the street within full view of passing motorists; coyotes with
active dens on the CalTrans freeway raiding nearby properties.... Public awareness and
recognition of the magnitude of the urban coyote problem had its beginning with the first
aggressive coyote behavior noted towards humans when the Glendale City Police reported
in 1975 that a lost two-year old boy was found surrounded by a pack of coyotes (personal
communications 1981). In the following six years at least six additional human attacks
were recorded, mostly small children; and the more recent and most serious attack
resulted in the tragic death of a three-year old Glendale girl". During the 80-day
00293
s
program conducted within a one-half mile radius of where the girl was killed in Glendale,
officials removed the surprising number of 55 coyotes. The above incidence illustrate
how readily coyotes assimilate with urbanization, and how dense they can become as long
as some open space exists like ravines, brushy areas or marshes.
VI.
MMGATING POTENTIALS
Within the Newporter North site, it hardly seems necessary to consider mitigating the loss of the
30 acres of land covered with exotic unnatural, annual weeds. As mentioned in the Summary,
artificial dens could be constructed for coyotes to remodel if it seems advantageous.
VII.
IL lam_ MY_a0
Andeit, W. F., and P. S. Gipson, 1979. "Home -range activity, and daily movements of coyotes".
J. Wildl Manage. 48: 127-139.
Atkinson, K. T, and D. M. Shackleton, 1991. "Coyote, Canis latrans, living in a rural -urban
environment. Canadian Field - Naturalist 105: 49-54.
Burkett, E. E., and J. C. Lewis, 1992. "The spread of the red fox". Outdoor California 53: 1-4
Gese, E. M., D. E. Andersen, and O. J. Rongstad, 1990. "Determining home -range size of
resident coyotes from point and sequential locations". J. Wildl. Manage. 54: 501-506.
Harrison, D. J., J. A. Bissonette, and J. A. Sherburne. 1989. "Spatial relationships between
coyotes and red foxes in eastern Maine". J. Wildl. Manage. 53: 181-185.
Howell, R. G. 1982. "The urban coyote problem in Los Angeles County". Proc. Vertebr. Pest
Conf.10: 21-23.
Jurek, R. M., 1992. "Non-native red foxes in California". Non -game Bird and Mammal
Section Report, 92-04, Calif. Dept. Fish and Game, 16 pp.
Laundre, J. W., and B. L. Keller. 1984. "Home -range size of coyotes: a critical review".
J.Wildl. Manage. 98:127-139
Nelson, S. G. 1992. "Biological assessment, circulation improvement and open space agreement,
Newport Beach, California". STA, Inc., Newport Beach, Calif. Many pages.
Quinn, T. 1991. "Distribution and habitat associations of coyotes in Seattle, Washington. Ia
Wildlife Conservation in Metropolitan Environments, L. W. Adams and D. L. Leady, eds.,
Nat'l. Inst. for Urban Wildlife.
00294
0
Reichel, J. D. 1991. "Relationships among coyote food habits, prey populations, and habitat
use". Northwest Science 65:133-137
Ryon, J. 1986 "Den digging and pup care in captive coyotes ((Lania latran . Can. J. Zool.
64:1582-1585.
Sargeant, A. B., and S. H. Allen. 1989. "Observed interactions between coyotes and red foxes".
J. Mamm. 70:631-633.
Sargeant, A.B., and P. M. Arnold. 1984. "Predator management for ducks on water fowl
production areas in the northern plains". in Proc. Vertebr. Pest Conf. 11:161-167, University
California, Davis.
Shargo, E. S. 1988. "Home range, movements, and activity patterns of coyotes (Canis latran�
in Los Angeles suburbs". Ph.D. thesis, University California, Los Angeles. Not seen or cited.
Zembal, R. 1990a. "Light-footed clapper rail census and study, 1990". Calif. Dept. Fish.and
Game Nongame Bird and Mammal Section Report, 28 pp.
Zembal, Dick. 1990b. "The coyotes of Upper Newport Bay and environs: Activities as of
October 12, 1990." 6 pp.
00295
7
ISA Associates, Ina
4.4.1.1 The No Project Alternative
In response to earlier comments forwarded by the Coastal Commission staff,
the TCA prepared a document titled "SJHTC - TCA Responses to Coastal
Commission's EIR Comments", October, 1991 (Attachment A). As part of the
materials presented in this document, the TCA noted that the transportation
needs addressed by the SJI-ITC would have to be accommodated by other
transportation facilities located within the same service areas E-1, (Attach-
ment A) contains the results of this analysis and concludes that long-term
runoff impacts will be significantly greater (both for Upper Newport Bay and
for coastal zone areas affected by increased traffic on PCH and coastal zone
arterials) without the SJHTC under the No Project Alternative (due to increas-
ed pollutant loadings) than with the SJHTC. Additionally, due to the fact
that increased traffic on other arterials and highways within the Upper New-
port Bay watershed would occur on roadways with older runoff control
systems, the likely level of pollutant impacts themselves would be greater as
compared with the ability to construct state-of-the-art runoff controls as part
of a new facility such as the SJHTC.
4.4.1.2 Cumulative Impacts - The 208 Program for Upper Newport Bay
and the San Diego Creek Master Stormwater Control Plan
Cumulative.impacts of development on the Upper Newport Bay watershed
have been i'addressed through the planning and implementation of two
extraordinary, watershed -level management programs: (a) the 208 Program
for Upper Newport Bay, :and (b) the San Diego Creek Stormwater Control
Plan.
Newport Bay
The San Diego Creek Watershed, from which the runoff discharges into
Upper Newport Bay, has a drainage area of about 118 square miles (75,000
acres). The total drainage area into Newport Bay is about 154 square miles
(98,500 acres).
Newport Bay is one of the few remaining tidal estuaries along the Southern
California coastline. At the time the 208 Plan for the South Coast area was
prepared, Newport Bay consisted of two elements: the lower bay, a lagoon
that had been heavily altered and developed into a small boating harbor, and
the upper bay, dredged and otherwise developed for recreation only in its
lower reaches and salt production in its upper reaches.
In 1975, Upper Newport Bay became an Ecological Reserve (UNBER) under
legislative action, a 752 acre State reserve owned and managed by the Cali-
fornia Department of Fish and Game. In 1976, the Department instituted a
program (Newport Bay Pilot Marsh Restoration Project) of rehabilitating
06/29/92(1--'.TCA9Olf',CDI'OUT.DOC) 8700296
LSA Associates; Ina
portions of the reserve to increase a diversity of habitat that will benefit
marine aquatic organisms and other wildlife that are dependent upon tidal
marshlands for their continued existence.
Historical Perspective
Upper Newport Bay has had a history of changing complexions and condi-
tions. Large amounts of sediment have deposited in Upper Newport Bay in
recent years from upstream lands adversely affecting the reserve.
Prior to agricultural and urban development in the Watershed, storm runoff
spread over large areas because of minimum channelization, resulting in
deposition of the coarse sediment particles on the Tustin Plain. The outlet
of San Diego Creek into Upper Newport Bay was blocked by a swamp area,
which caused further deposition of sediment particles. Major flood flows
upstream during early historical times were largely diverted into the Santa
Ma River to the north of San Diego Creek.
With the advent of agriculture and urban uses in the Watershed, drainage
channels were constructed to carry the accumulated runoff from the Water-
shed without causing frequent major flooding of developed areas. The
channelization of the Watershed provided an efficient transport system to
deliver the sediment produced by the upslope areas. The coarse particles
tended to deposit in channel reaches on the flatter gradients, and the finer
particles te'lided to be carried through the drainage system to be deposited in
Newport Bay. During major flood flows, coarse sediments were carried into
the Bay.
Under 1982 conditions, open space and agricultural land uses produced
most of the sediment in the Watershed (42 percent and 41 percent, respec-
tively), with construction sites contributing approximately 15 percent, and
urbanized lands approximately 2 percent.
Sediment production from the upslope areas did not increase dramatically
over historical time. However, the quantity of sediment transport in the
Watershed greatly increased over this time period until implementation of
the 208 Plan facilities. The accelerated increase in sediment transport into
Upper Newport Bay began in the early 1960s with the construction of an
outlet channel in the lower reach of San Diego Creek, without provision for
sedimentation controls in upstream areas. Siltation has reduced the tidal
influence, increasing the impacts of freshwater flows and thereby affecting
the chemical and physical environment of the Bay.
With continued urban development, there are more impermeable surfaces
that cause increased amounts of runoff. Although this development reduces
the areas susceptible to erosion, the increased runoff increases the potential
for channel erosion, if downstream channels are unprotected.
06/29/92(1:%TCA9011"-.CDPOUT.DOC) 118 00297
MI Amdatcs. Ina
4.4.2 208 Water Quality Planning
4.4.2.1 South Coast Region 208 Plait
The Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972 (PL 92-500)
were enacted to restore and maintain the chemical, physical and biological
integrity of the Nation's waters, by managing and regulating point and non -
point sources of discharge. Section 208 of the Act requires areawide water
quality management planning to address non -point sources of pollution. The
EPA designated the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) as the
State planning agency under Section 208.
The Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) is the agency
designated by the SWRCB to prepare the 208 Areawide Waste Treatment
Management Plan for the South Coast area, which contains Upper Newport
Bay. The Regional Water Quality Control Boards (RWQCBs), created under
the Porter -Cologne Act, are subordinate to the SWRCB, and formulate water
quality control plans for their basins and set requirements for point source
dischargers to navigable waters. Under agreement with SCAG, the Boards
were responsible for portions of the 208 plan, including water quality assess-
ment. Upper Newport Bay is within the Santa Ana RWQCB 208 planning
area.
Federal regulations issued by the EPA specify the required contents of 208
plans. These requirements include water quality assessment, segment classifi-
cations, projections, non -point source assessment, water quality standards,
point source load allocations, non -point source control needs, urban and
industrial stormwater system needs, target abatement dates, regulatory pro-
grams and management agencies.
Newport Bay 208 Planning. The SCAG 208 plan (1979) included a priority
program for Newport Bay (Volume 8), focusing on non -point source water
quality problems. Sediment was identified as the primary non -point source
water quality problem and the number one priority water quality problem in
Southern California under the 208 planning program. The 208 plan for
Upper Newport Bay was designed to study the effects of sedimentation in the
Bay and to arrive at a series of solutions for controlling and excavating sedi-
ment, and includes the following programmatic requirements:
Adoption and enforcement of a grading ordinance by each appropri-
ate jurisdiction within the watershed,
Development of best management practices (BMPs) by the County of
Orange to minimize sediment transport from erosion of agricultural
fields,
Construction of flood control facilities,
06/29/92(1:, TG%9011%CD110U rDOC) 89 00298
LYAAs dales, Inc
Construction of downstream sedimentation basins in San Diego
Creek,
Sediment monitoring program to identify sediment sources, transport
and management effectiveness.
The Priority Program for Newport Bay is contained in Volume 8 of the 208
areawide plan and is attached; its components are described below and illus-
trated in Figure 3.17.
Early Action and Interim Plan. The Early Action Plan was implemented in
the 1982/83- rainy season and included two in -channel sedimentation basins
in San Diego Creek between MacArthur Boulevard and 2,000 feet north of
Campus Drive, and excavation of a 50 acre sediment basin in UNBER down-
stream of Jamboree Road. At a cost of $3.2 million, the project removed
500,000 cubic yards of previously deposited sediment from the Bay.
Phase II - 208 Plan Amendment. As an additional component of the Early
Action Plan, Orange County and Lvine, in cooperation with SCAG, conducted
studies on Agricultural BMPs and Construction Management Practices (CMPs)
for the Watershed. The Phase 11 208 Amendments were formally adopted by
SCAG into the 208 Plan for the South Coast Region in October, 1982.
4.4.2.2 San Diego Creek Comprehensive Stortriwater Sedimentation
Control Plan
The San Diego Creek drainage is the major contributor of sediment loads to
the Bay. The cities of Newport Beach and Irvine entered into a Cooperative
Agreement with SCAG (1983) to use 208 Water Quality Planning funds for a
two and one-half year study to develop a Comprehensive Stormwater Sedi-
mentation Control Plan for the San Diego Creek Watershed. The San Diego
Creek Comprehensive Stormwater Sedimentation Control Plan (1983) recom-
mended a two part approach to management of the erosion -siltation problem
in the Bay. The first part is the reduction of erosion at the source through
improved land management practices. This approach entails the identifica-
tion and implementation of agricultural BMPs and CMPs, and the preparation
of Resource Conservation Plans (RCPs) by landowners. The second part of
the plan is to intercept as much of the remaining sediment as possible in
sediment traps in San Diego Creek and in excavated basins in the Bay.
Implementation of the plan consists of: 1) an early action and interim plan;
2) a sedimentation analysis; 3) a comprehensive stormflow sedimentation
control plan (engineering); and 4) a comprehensive stormflow sedimentation
control plan (environmental).
06/29/92(1:••.TCA901 P•.CDPOUTMOC) 90 00299
IM A floret. Ilia
Part 1 - 1983 Cooperative Agreement. A Cooperative Agreement (September,
' 1983) waexecuted by the Department of Fish and Game, City of Newport
Beach, City of Irvine, City of Tustin, County of Orange and The Irvine Com-
pany. The agreement provided that BMPs would be implemented by all of
the agencies and The Irvine Company. An executive committee was also
formed through the Agreement to oversee implementation of BMPs, and to
pursue implementation of the recommended additional sediment control
work in Newport Bay and in the San Diego Creek Watershed outlined in the
Comprehensive Sedimentation Control Plan
The County and the cities of Irvine, Tustin, Newport Beach and Costa Mesa
(jurisdictions within the watershed) have grading ordinances that implement
the BMPs element of the 208 Plan. The County of Orange and the City of
Irvine have adopted ordinances requiring landowners to prepare RCPs. The
Irvine Company has submitted annual reports on the implementation of
RCPs that are being overseen by the County and the RWQCB.
Part 2 - Sediment Reduction. The purpose of the second part of the plan
was to reduce sediment reaching the Bay by 1) using sediment and desilting
basins within tributaries to the Bay using excavated basins in the Bay to trap
sediment, and 2) trapping sediments reaching the Bay in the basins below
Jamboree Road. Excavated basins In the Bay have a two -fold purpose: to
trap sediment, and to enhance available wildlife habitat. These programs
were implemented through agreements (i.e., In -Bay Agreement and In-Chan-
nei Agreement).
Elements A and B of the 1983 208 Plan were implemented through Part 1 of
the Comprehensive Stormwater Sedimentation Control Plan. These pro-
grams have received a positive response from the RWQCB, and both develop.
ers and public agencies have collectively spent millions of dollars on imple-
mentation of construction erosion control programs. Elements C and D
were implemented under the In -Bay and In -Channel Agreement provisions.
Unit !Project. The Unit I project consisted of expanding the sediment basin
created in the Early Action Plan to 85 acres and creating a 300 foot wide and
3,200 foot long outlet channel from the old saltworks downstream to the
main dike. Unit I was completed in November, 1985, with the removal of
890,000 cubic yards of sediment from the Bay. The benefits of this project
were 1) to improve the tidal prism of the Bay by improving the ability of
ocean water to flush pollutants deposited in the Bay by its tributaries, and 2)
to enhance the biological resources of the Bay. At a cost of $3.5 million,
funding was provided through grants from the Energy and Resources Fund,
State Assistance Program and the Department of Fish and Game, with match-
ing funds provided by the cities of Newport Beach and Irvine, the County of
Orange and The Irvine Company.
06/29/92(I:,.TCA901 P.-MIOUTMOC) 92 00300
LSA Associates, Ilia
As part of the design and construction of this project, two islands were
constructed to create habitat for the least tern. The island concept was
intended to protect least tern nests from predators.
Unit II Project - in -Bay Agreement. The Unit II project (completed Decem-
ber, 1986) included excavation of an additional basin at the southerly end of
the Unit I outlet channel and enlargement of the channel in the UNBER be-
tween the main dike and the narrows and dredging down -bay from the
narrows to the ecological reserve boundary. This program was implemented
through the In -Bay Implementation Agreement, administered by the City of
Newport Beach. The In -Bay Agreement, executed in May, 1983, to perform
approximately $5.2 million of the additional excavation and maintenance in
the Upper Newport Bay, was funded by the Department of Fish and Game,
County of Orange, cities of Newport Beach and Irvine and The Irvine Compa-
ny. As of 1988, the City of Newport Beach had contributed approximately
$52,397, the Department of Fish and Game had contributed approximately
$4,000,000, The Irvine Company had contributed approximately $946,000,
the County of Orange had contributed approximately $257,000 and the City
of Irvine had contributed approximately $17,000 to the Unit II project.
In -Channel Agreement. The final structural project Included one in -channel
basin 2,000 feet north of Campus Drive to Michelson Drive. This project was
known as the Enhancement/Sediment Management Project (E/SMP) and was
implemented through the In -Channel Agreement among the cities of Tustin,
Newport Beach and Irvine, the County of Orange and The Irvine Company.
The In -Channel Agreement was established in May, 1983, to implement the
third basin. The E/SMP is designed to restore greater tidal action and
remove sediment from a portion of the Bay just below the salt dike. At the
current time, the headwater and tlilwater portions have been completed;
however, the basin has not yet been constructed. Construction is a coopera-
tive project administered by the County of Orange and funded by the
County, the cities of Tustin, Irvine and Newport Beach and The Irvine Com-
pany for a cost of $800,000.
Sediment Monitoring Program. The sediment monitoring program imple-
ments Element G (sediment monitoring) of the Phase III 208 Plan Amend-
ment. The objectives of the monitoring program are to obtain information
necessary to evaluate: 1) the effectiveness of in -channel facilities, 2) the µ
effectiveness of in -Bay facilities, 3) the transport of sediments to the Lower
Bay/ocean, and 4) the impacts of physical changes in the Watershed.
The program was conducted by the United States Geological Survey (USGS)
through 1984/1985 at a cost of $180,000 (1982 through 1985) and was
funded by the USGS (50 percent) and by the cities of Newport Beach and
Irvine and The Irvine Company (50 percent). The 1985/1986 sediment moni-
toring was administered by the County of Orange at a cost of $30,000, and
00301
O629/92(t:+.TCA9011•.CDP0UT.D0C) 93
LSA As uaft% Ina
was funded under cooperative agreement with the County, the cities of
Irvine, Tustin and Newport Beach, and The Irvine Company.
The cities of Irvine, Newport Beach, and Tustin, the Orange County Flood
Control District and The Irvine Company entered into a Cooperative Agree-
ment on January 9, 1991, to continue the Comprehensive Sediment Monitor-
ing Program for the San Diego Creek Watershed and Newport Bay through
June 30, 1995. The total annual cost of this program to the participating
parties is a not to exceed cost of $44,000.
Maintenance of in -Bay sediment basins is accomplished pursuant to a cooper-
ative agreement and funded by the Department of Fish and Game, County of
Orange, cities of Irvine and Newport Beach, and The Irvine Company. In
1984/1985, 30,000 cubic yards of sediment were removed at a cost of
$46,000; in 1986/1987, 36,000 cubic yards were removed at a cost of
$65,500. In 1984/1985, 160,000 cubic yards were removed from the Upper
Newport Bay basin at a cost of $648,000.
4.4.2.3 Related Projects
Port of Long Beach Restoration Project. In June, 1984, the Port of Long
Beach concurred with a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the
Board of Harbor Commissioners of the City of Long Beach, the California
Department of Fish and Game, the National Marine Fisheries Service and the
U.S. Fish add Wildlife Service to restore tidal influence to supralittoral areas
of the UNBER in order to mitigate adverse impacts on fish and wildlife
resources from Port landfill projects. Completion of this work credited the
Port with certain "habitat credits" that could be "traded off' against anticipat-
ed habitat losses that will occur as a result of certain development projects
within the Port.
The MOU specifies funds ($600,000) paid by the Port to the City of Newport
Beach for use in the restoration of tidal influence in the "old salt ponds"
located in the City.
San Diego Creek Flood Control Master Plan. In 1988, the County of Orange
prepared the San Diego Creek Flood Control Master Plan. The objectives for
implementing the Master Plan focus on providing the regional backbone
system for providing 100-year flood protection as a goal for the San Diego
Creek drainage basin.
The Master Plan was also prepared with the objective of furthering the water-
shed sediment control objectives outlined in the 208 plan. The elements
most affecting the San Diego Watershed that will be implemented with the
Mater Plan are Elements E (channel stabilization) and F (foothill sediment
basins). The improvements identified in the San Diego Creek Flood Control
Master Plan are illustrated in Figure 3.18. and listed below.
00302
06/19/92(1:%TCA903I%CDP0UT.D0C) 94
ISA A=dato; Inc
Project Level Facilities (i.e., designed at an approval level of detail in re-
sponse tb the I-5 widening project and to resolve substandard MCAS, El Toro
facilities) include both upstream retarding basins and associated channel
improvements. These improvements are: freeway drain, Marshburn retard-
ing basin and inlet, Bee Canyon retarding basin and channel, Round Canyon
retarding basin and channel, and Agua Chinon retarding basin and channel.
As part of the Tustin Ranch Road construction project, the Lower Peters
Canyon retarding basin, Peters Canyon channel (north end) and El Modena -
Irvine channel improvements were completed.
The Master Plan Improvements (i.e., improvements identified for future
design) included Peters Canyon channel (south end), Eastfoot retarding basin
and storm drain, Ranch House retarding basin, Orchard Estates retarding
basin and storm drain, Rattlesnake channel, Hicks Canyon retarding basin
and storm drain, East Hicks Canyon retarding basin, Bee Canyon storm drain,
Round Canyon storm drain, Agua Chinon storm drain, Borrego Creek storm
drain and channel, San Diego Creek channel (between I-405 and Culver
Drive, between Jeffrey Road and I-405 and between Serrano Creek conflu-
ence and I-405 and below I-5), Marshburn channel, Bee Canyon storm drain
and Serrano Creek channel. San Diego Creek between Sand Canyon Avenue
and SR 133 has been stabilized, and improvements from 1-405 to the Creek's
confluence with Peters Canyon Wash (east side of channel only) and from
the confluence to Culver Drive have been completed.
San joaqu'in Marsh Wetlands Enhancement Project. The San Joaquin Marsh
is located immediately north of and adjacent to San Diego Creek between
Michelson Drive and MacArthur Boulevard (see Figure 3.19). It was formed
as a result of the accumulation of water in the low flatlands due to San Diego
Creek and its tributaries. Subsurface clay layers reduce seepage or drainage
and, subsequently, marsh vegetation developed. Accumulation of silt and
vegetative debris has diminished the size of wetlands within the area that is
referred to as the San Joaquin Marsh. This area occupies an area of approxi-
mately 500 acres. Prior to construction of the San Diego Creek flood control
channel, a dam was constructed at the southern end of the marsh to prevent
silt from entering the ponds used for salt extraction in the upper reaches of
Upper Newport Bay. Subsequently, dikes were constructed to contain open
water in the ponds, and the water level was maintained by routing San Diego
Creek through a system of pipes and culverts. The marsh property is jointly
owned by the University of California and The Irvine Company.
The San Joaquin Marsh Wetlands Crearibn and Enhancement Project was
developed by The Irvine Company in cooperation with the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, California Department of Fish and Game and the University
of California to create wetlands and improve the quality of the existing fresh-
water marsh, thereby increasing its value as waterfowl and wildlife habitat.
The Irvine Company will dedicate approximately 85 acres to the U.C. Natural
Reserve System. A Memorandum of Understanding was signed by the above
parties in 1988.
06/29/92(:,:•rCA9011,.CDrou•r.DOC) 96
00303
LSA Ax dalv.% Ina
The improved vegetation in the marsh and improved hydraulic system will
likely improve the quality of water discharged from the marsh compared to
existing conditions.
University Drive Deletion. In 1982, the California Coastal Commission ana-
lyzed the extension of University Drive in detail, and required removal of the
planned segment from the Newport Beach Local Coastal Program. In 1985,
the County did not approve the Santa Ana Heights Local, Coastal Program,
principally because it included the extension of University Drive. In 1989,
the County of Orange deleted the segment of University Drive, between
Irvine Avenue in Newport Beach and California Avenue in Irvine, from its
Master Plan of Arterial Highways; an Environmental Impact Report (EIR),
prepared for the segment deletion (PBR, November, 1989), determined that
the proposal would have a beneficial impact on biological resources of the
UNBER.
Circulation Improvement & Open Space Agreement. A draft Circulation Im-
provement & Open Space Agreement between the City of Newport Beach and
The Irvine Company has been prepared and a Draft EIR was prepared on the
Agreement and circulated in June, 1992. The intent In establishing the Agree-
ment was to assemble the remaining Irvine Company owned land in the City
of Newport: Beach into a single development application. The Agreement, as
currently dialled, would 1) vest entitlement for 11 sites consistent with or
less than the intensity of development allowed by the existing Newport
Beach General Plan, 2) identify 140 acres of open space in exceedance of the
General Plan and Park Dedication ordinance requirements of 69.5 acres that
The Irvine Company would dedicate in fee, and 3) take actions related to
circulation system improvements, such as funding early payment of Fair
Share Fees, constructing or posting security for frontage improvements relat-
ed to the 11 sites covered by the Agreement and advancing additional funds
for circulation improvements of benefit to the City (pp. 14 to 18 of the
DEIR). The draft Agreement establishes The Irvine Company's total funding
commitment at $20.6 million for these actions.
The individual sites containing property that flows into San Diego Creek or
otherwise influences Newport Bay and their locational boundaries are as
follows: San Diego Creek South (San Diego Creek to the north, Bonita
Creek to the east, University Drive to the south, Jamboree Road to the west),
San Diego Creek North (SR-73 ramps to the north and east, San Diego Creek
Channel to the south, Jamboree Road to the north and west), Jambo-
ree/MacArthur (MacArthur Boulevard, to the east, a SR-73 ramp to the south
and southwest, Jamboree Road to the north and northwest), Upper Cast-
aways (Dover Shores residential to the north and northeast, Upper Newport
Bay to the east and southeast, the bluff separating the Upper and Lower Cast-
aways site to the southwest and Dover Drive to the west), Bay View Landing
(Back Bay Drive to the northeast, Jamboree Road to the east, Coast Highway
0629/92(1:•,TCA9011•.CDVOUr.DOC) 90 n J 0 A
LSA A=datos, Ina
to the south and Newport Dunes Aquatic Park to the west), Newporter North
(San Joaquin Hills Road to the north, Jamboree Road to the east, the John
Wayne Tennis Club and John Wayne Gulch to the south and Upper Newport
Bay and Back Bay Drive to the north and west), Newporter Knoll (within the
southwest portion of the Newporter North site, west of John Wayne Gulch),
Newport Resort (Newporter North and Newporter Knoll to the northeast),
Jamboree Road to the east, and Back Bay Drive to the south and west), Block
800 (San Clemente Drive to the north, existing office buildings on Block 800,
Newport Center Drive to the south and east, and Santa Barbara Drive to the
west), Corporate Plaza West (Balboa Bay Tennis Club to the north, Newport
Center Drive to the east, Pacific Coast Highway to the southwest and Club
House Drive to the west) and Freeway Reservation (Ford Road to the north,
existing Harbor View residential to the east, Baywood Apartments to the
south and MacArthur Boulevard to the west) (pp. 48 to 68 of the DEIR).
The Draft EIR determines that construction of the development proposed to
be vested with this Agreement and construction of park Facilities in the open
space areas would result in a potential short-term impact to the quality of
water reaching Newport Bay, due to construction related erosion and sedi-
mentation. However, mitigation measures (construction BMPs, both structur-
al and non-structural) to control this potential impact are proposed to re-
duce the impact to an insignificant level. Thus, in conjunction with the new
NPDES requirements for construction site runoff controls will be enforced on
these properties that drain into Newport Bay.
Upper Newport Bay Regional Park. The County of Orange is currently pro-
posing a General Development Plan (GDP) and Resource Management Plan
(RMP) for the Upper Newport Bay Regional Park. The park includes lands
immediately surrounding the ecological reserve area designated for regional
park uses on the Orange County Master Plan of Regional Parks. A portion of
the proposed park location (approximately 114 acres) known as the West Bay
parcel was private property dedicated by The Irvine Company. The dedica-
tion agreement requires that the park uses be limited to passive recreation
and include the development of a park visitors interpretive center.
The proposed park requires approval by the County Board of Supervisors,
the City of Newport Beach and California Coastal Commission. The approval
process will ensure that the sedimentation and erosion control programs for
activities affecting Newport Bay are complied with.
4.4.3 San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor and 208 Planning
Only a small portion of the Corridor is located within the San Diego Creek
Watershed, which discharges into Newport Bay. The Corridor will bridge
over San Diego Creek within the Coastal Zone. The construction of bridge
fill structures for the Corridor will increase runoff, however, due to the large
06/29/92(1:%TCA9011+CDPOUT.DOC) 990305
15A A=date; Inc
tributary area (approximately 150 square miles) of the Creek, the net increase
will be practically negligible (0.1 percent).
The Corridor will also add urban pollutants into the drainage areas (e.g., oil,
gas, grease, lead, dust), and will increase erosion of exposed slopes during
construction, which could affect the UNBER. Therefore, a Runoff Manage-
ment Plan (RMP) and Sediment Control Plan are specified as mitigation.
The Corridor proposes to realign the Bonita Creek waterway from down-
stream of Bonita Reservoir to upstream of San Diego Creek. The proposed
channel includes a flexible lined channel and a low flow vegetated channel.
This allows attenuation and filtration of stormwater runoff. Therefore,
construction of this channel will have a positive impact of reducing the
channel erosion and sediment transport to Upper Newport Bay.
The RMP (Mitigation Measure 3-9 in the FEIR) is consistent with 208 plan-
ning, in that the plan is required to address the provision and location of
facilities (i.e., detention/settlement basins) to route and detain Corridor
runoff to maintain velocity at or below existing rates and to reduce the
amount of the Corridor pollutants from reaching downstream drainages.
BMPs (e.g., detention ponds, infiltration basins, oil separators, facility mainte-
nance) and a pollutant monitoring program will be considered in developing
the RMP.
The Sediment Control Plan will include measures to trap sediment on site
and proviA immediate hydroseeding and irrigation of slopes and desilting
basins. In addition to these mitigation programs, Corridor mitigation
includes consistency with the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination Sys-
tem (NPDES) program. Refer to subsequent sections for a discussion of the
NPDES.
Without construction and operation of the Corridor (No Build Alternative),
increases in erosion, sedimentation and highway runoff pollutants from the
project would not occur. However, without the Corridor, the effects of
increased traffic volumes on other arterial roadways would incrementally
increase the quantity of runoff pollutant levels in drainages adjacent to those
roadways by not providing the following opportunities provided by the
Corridor: state of the art BMPs and decrease in vehicle time on the roadway
system, and trip reduction corresponding to decrease in total pollutant gen-
eration. The effect of increased traffic would occur on roadways with drain-
age tributary to Upper Newport Bay.
4.4.4 Findings - Coastal Act Sections 30230, 30231 and 30236
The water resources discussion is generally divided into five geographic
corridor segments crossing five major drainage systems (watersheds) tribu-
tary to the Pacific Ocean. Starting at the connection with the existing SR-73
at jamboree/MacArthur Boulevards in the City of Newport Beach and ending
06R9/92(1:%TCA901 P.CDPOUTMOC) 100 00306
O3O6
• `�Sy� P
fJ
1 S
'I v i 9
J
r
L• a \ _i
/su• • S \
f
i'
EWGeneralized Designated Open Space
<mm+ Potential Wildlife Linkages
- O Bridges/Connections Provided by Corridor
Zone Boundary
11/14M1
L
/� SPtliR1!Ci
SA - - - 0 3000 6000
�.
FLyY 4\--•�-<! % �xrvzaNN.,��a /a` ', `' i i �S,
- ,-tea i •- s J �\r F 1
•'-: "ems~
21
f _ _ 4�• Y I /
s
f " {
_'-c 3.s- Lai' � • - • i • _ - n+ ._�-• _ w
=r-��
C' .y r
I 4"•
} - Figure 3.12
00307
Potential Wildlife Connections
DR
y
vo
"dt
N
b ` dt` SAN Dl tZ`1 appt j� I I
j + at V a _ _ �•:
Ile,
WO
lee
G�
I
�►M1l � of I
'A ,G
♦ u - r ar
LEGEND:
1, 2, 3 Early Action Plan
" 4, 5 Unit I Project
6, 7, 8 Unit II Project
6/19/92
L [ r� Seale in Feet
0 2000 4000
(} h F'�'J�l ���,!' ••+ ''t+III.,.^ S3-,.,•(+.
5 ® Bonita,
�. 'Reservoir • ` +
Upper y5;:• ';�
Newpon\Pi�v ,.
.e Bay \• �✓ai{�t'�it�):% \
\N
M • h�l { y��
1 C7 �'y � 1� � • � ti t�s.R
7 o sax—Jl UIN
Ir ti —Y
' G r+
Figure 3.17
003018
Upper Newport Bay
208 Plan Facilities
m
.0000
. PROJECT AREA BOUNDARY
, ` A9us Chinon
• J Hid= Canyon 100 Wash Senraw Creek
/ � Paten ` — Round Canyon _
rz Cannon Ratdeeselre Carryon
'^ Bee Carryon Burrego Caeyan
$ Eww { - Projec Area Boundaries _
aoaa�o��reaaa�v a.w
• nure1q ~w.i� / acc� i * Gam-, Culy datkknt under alisthg conditions
' !/ —
//E,uroa Mca euila,arG<na Bun - - Culverts deficient under existing conditions
•� - 26,•• lF, / aum" � fZ2fE•C ncb n<and upud or anodilled
G ~ riIeNsn 27aewa.. : M= A4: s %n'u`°'"a !"'^ _ oWnman
sru„ aa.` rrc..i= � � _3 -• ,-�x d - �e Open Channel - Project Level FadllUes
.. •� i \.IN=_r.w...+wa O ' •'[t :5 _ �a i s ns�n cn.c
's
•' :i ''o to :�.,rm,i onn i •••• •• t �'+�wtrenp UnderSround Conduit -Project Level Facilities
• - : G 4' -�• N•♦' �O"O=�' �i� i 45— open Channel- Master Plan lmprovemania _-
EE
7. :- - m - MTTLESMKE G•�L •• •y�• �W`�. GG• M1 4 hr�r �•r. Underground Conduit - Master Plan ImpfOVMle1113
i • t r ••
A X j r `• ;� M• San IX. Y= •••`♦Ikuq Cnrna • ✓ '
- ': 9D . - »�• EuSystem s8n9 Drainage Syste(Channels not requiring _
_ _ • ^ • •ad` - •kpy _ .nan. L+:w •'r .18 - " - • - additioradditionalimprovamads)
;• aT -� �.•�'nwa sran Dan.
_ _ _ - . n •• 1- @,• .rm.a.. -'• < •:�� : - ••' cme. Sa. Dian { i { { { i Stream StaWizers • :
- j O • ew!'ep van- - •i - �••> Aaaa -
` 12
,avarE nw S r_ ....• •..
ke ' ''�••••.a.. �B a.raoy r�aaa - -Vic..•- �p �� - i . � -• -
• _
.. .........- DflaN•FL a Sabaa.0 Wwnfwtis =i T '
q,: r - - _ - . rr�� mow. ac QQ- •_ _)
21
F�. -� •:M' � 20 F•e..^Wa-,% _ `._`Lm Zin Gan • +-•V00O 11nM! �i yi V- - . �� t ... ^
EL WOC"- vv,E 24•.aaEDNw�ia•Man •••.•.,iu.� u� �' - �• "- , -i -
CJ1,11a1EL ' 2 '
tC °•hp err -cyir aA- F...ar Gan ,:: nt{
?EE r 28 roeEan` _ °p°°per i4 •i -
�y - • - Kfi - (aww•EL 1 ne°n ••s: -I Raar.ay s,a,n
Y L Gan G • 4 ,
aa1RA AMISWTA FE fXaraEl ...........•• •...CdOCw.•E�«•.•««« --� •.�:• , °y19 _--
- �r _ _ - " wa •••«.•wou -: �_`- 25 •tea � _
Y - . .••.....•• • • - _
-
_ GMNNEL c z u 15 i
. " ;.
RH
�_:- - - y - WMXEe •VEM1E ' __- __ - ' S •• -FF' - ~'- • ' - '[ -
ACC
i i 1<.,. �•- INUW - - - BB•` y • 'b - o • GX s%DF
w
u�Ea ..... . i } AA.^z. �r . Do FrEEe'arDeco
'.-
a
1•~'+ O• •<i T �•NOMON •••
.P N••.. ..•'� r(i 3- f b �� ' - ^
'•-
- s� W • - i...' • 9EE '�y bvo,.e C.rnil.Iwar SW GaI
^ - - aG. a iQ a �`�'- ••Jlvf �'Q- _�". .- _ _
.ems'WOO
{ _ $omccSim Diebo Creek Flood Control Master Plan EIR July 1989. yx-
_ 6/19192` - - - - _ - --' - _ - �. - - " _ l =-- _ - Figure 3.18
�'K- • � 00309
_ sale inFttl San -Diego Creek
L� �� Flood Control Master Plan
G
,�.'"�', • - � ids � __ ..
1 �:�♦CHELSON
C
,ar OR 73)
•� h h.• t4.ht t2 - •� J
t '= •' ` it t Upper i r
a .NewportAV
11
If
�T*� .�Ta� e��?M'W? - `a,` !- ,•-'�:� � ;# 1 "'"fir :
'Keserwlr'• N a;.,i'
J A ;
'7 • =,.. t
vp
` I��1" L+_...��:13 :�'�+i�, � f,�i♦'��T./'� �.-i:•+M1..iJ, �L-G �' ��...�1', `_-• -; ".
. •M�. jy7 \. � ter•`•. .1..:.��`+ .^; _•r t�R'!n..� �•.i,. .�� -�11 7a.`. � L'.+'���sw@
,,' 't~ -•' 1. �. �. \ �. :�• % +gyp •�' - 5•)
i^1{-tti a •1.}ltl, i^�::1,' �' :.air. q. �,.. ;.•.
`•%� • __!_:/_�-�i7-�-i�i-{-:-.• �ti` 'e 5 JOAQUIN �� : r,,,.,+,,�•;%'A,;,
LEGEND: % 1? •
f un_•. an Deletion of University Drive ,"
.4T €
®UPPa Newport Ba} r
Regional path Dahation Area �. Qy S•=' s syY� 5 r-
®San Joaquin Marsh
Habitat Enhancement Program i,. � g
A Least Tem Habitat `•"
Enhancement
.City of Newport Beach Cireulation , �/ / - 'w ° _ .1F�� , H
hnprovement & Open Space Agreement - If
Parcels Containing Open Space
1 JambmwJMacArttmt i. �' ,�`' $/ -.Y '-•i"t .� r'!� .�"- �7^—`.'
2 San Diego Creek North
3 San Diego Creek South qG +: Q t^'�-• Y
4 Freeway Reservation y,�-•�'' .. • _ `�
5 Newporter North ; : . - • - '`
6 Newporter Knolls !`. ;s "•% • -
7 Bayview Landing k-x, ii • "� -
8 Upper Castaways
6/25/92
L ( A Scale in Feet
D 2000 4000
Figure 3.19
00310
Resource Protection Actions
for Upper Newport Bay
I•
I•
1•
10
�0
�+
U
•
IRVINE. RPTMMOSI092L
SOIL -GAS INVESTIGATION
UPPER CASTAWAYS
Newport Beach, California
prepared for
The Irvine Company
Newport Beach, California
prepared by
GeoResearch
a Division of GEOSERVICES
a California Corporation
3960 Gilman Street
Long Beach, California
(310) 597-3977
August 7, 1992
934101100
00312
a
C
1•
le
I*
I*
a
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTION
LIMITS OF LIABILITY AND PROFESSIONAL CERTIFICATION
1.0 INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.0 AGENCY CONTACT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3.0 SOIL -GAS THEORY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
5.0 ANALYTICAL RESULTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
APPENDIX A: FIGURES
APPENDIX B: TABLE 1: SOIL -GAS SAMPLE ANALYTICAL RESULTS
APPENDIX C: SUMMARY OF LABORATORY ANALYTICAL METHODS
APPENDIX D: LABORATORY REPORTS
APPENDIX E: SOIL -GAS THEORY
IRVINE. R-TtM4f0E1092L
PAGE
i
1
1
2
2
2
3
3
4
00313
�•
•
LIMITS OF LIABILITY AND PROFESSIONAL CERTIFICATION
Information contained in this report filed as project number
934101100, is intended for the evaluation of detectable vapor
concentrations of methane and hydrogen sulfide in the soil at the
• specific sampling locations. The professional services provided
herein have been performed in accordance with generally accepted
practices by other geohydrologists and engineers practicing in the
field. No other warranty either expressed or implied, is made.
This report is issued with the understanding that GeoResearch is
not responsible for ensuring that the information contained in this
• report is brought to the attention of the appropriate regulatory
agency. Recommedations were not part of the scope of this project
and are not contained in this report.
The enclosed report has been reviewed by a geologist who is
registered in the state of California and whose signature and
• license number appear below.
GeoResearch:
I•
Michael M. Mooradian,
Principal Ground -Water
•
I•
IRVINE.RPTMW081092L
00314
I0
1.0 INTRODUCTION
GeoResearch was contracted by the Irvine Ranch Company to complete
a soil -gas survey at the Upper Castaways development in Newport
Beach, California (Figure 11 Appendix A). The objective of this
soil -gas survey was to sample and test for methane and hydrogen
• sulfide gases in the subsurface and, if present, map the
concentration of these compounds. GeoResearch sampled vapors from
the subsurface at eighteen separate locations across the property.
Vapor samples were collected from these locations by installing
probes from five to seven feet below ground surface (bgs). The
field portion of the soil -gas survey was conducted on July 30,
• 1992.
2.0 AGENCY CONTACT
As part of the survey, the Irvine Company authorized GeoResearch to
• contact both the Irvine Fire Department and Southern California Gas
Company to ascertain information on methane gas and hydrogen
sulfide potential on the subject property. GeoResearch contacted
Mr. Ken Fiessel of the Newport Beach Fire Department on July 28,
1992. Mr. Fiessel indicated that the fire department had no record
of methane gas leaks in the area of the property. He referred
• GeoResearch to the Public Works Department.
GeoResearch contacted Mr. Lloyd Dalton of the Newport Beach Public
Works Department on July 28, 1992. Mr. Dalton indicated that a gas
line extends between 16th Street and Cliff Drive which often smells
highly of hydrogen sulfide. He also stated that there are no
• records at the Public Works Department that are not on record at
the Fire Department.
GeoResearch contacted Mr. Vince Morasco of the Southern California
Gas Company on July 28, 1992. Mr. Morasco stated that Southern
California Gas Company had no records of any gas problems or
• testing on or around the upper Castaways property.
GeoResearch contacted Fire Marshal Ray Brown at the Newport Fire
Department on August 10, 1992 to further discuss the potential of
hydrogen sulfide or methane gas on the Upper Castaways site. Mr.
Brown indicated that high concentrations of methane were detected
at 2221 16th Street, at depths of less than three feet below ground
surface along the foundation of the home. This location is
approximately 3 blocks away, but the fire department had no
knowledge of methane or hydrogen sulfide on the Upper Castaways
property. The source of methane on the 2221 16th Street property
was not ascertained.
• IRVINE.RPTMMM081092L
00315
I•
1•
1•
I•
C
3.0 SOIL -GAS THEORY
The soil -gas survey technique is based on the volatile nature of
methane and hydrogen sulfide gas. When these compounds are
released into the subsurface, a portion of the compounds can
volatilize into the pore spaces of the surrounding soil. The vapor
in the soil pores can be collected by vacuum extraction and
quantified by analytical techniques. Soil -gas surveys provide a
quick and efficient method for mapping the relative concentrations
of methane and hydrogen sulfide and their areal extent in the
subsurface.
The soil -gas concentrations detected in the field are influenced by
several variables besides the presence of the volatile organic
compound in the unsaturated zone and in the ground water. These
variables include the physical characteristics of the soil such as
permeability, porosity, fluid saturation, and the sampling and
analytical methods employed.
4.0 SAMPLING METHODOLOGY
4.1 Sampling Procedures
Seventeen sampling locations were selected for vapor collection
form the subsurface (Figure 2, Appendix A). The location of each
sampling point was based on accessibility and the amount of
coverage attainable in a single day. Vapor samples were collected
at a depth of 5 to 7 feet bgs at all of the sampling locations.
Sample depths, vacuum pressures and a summary of laboratory
analytical results are presented in Table 1 (Appendix A).
GeoResearch utilized a Hilte rotohammer to drive a hollow 1/4-inch
internal diameter (I.D.) stainless -steel combination, driving and
sampling rod to the desired depth. A round -head screw was placed
on the bottom of the probe to prevent sediments from clogging the
annulus of the probe. When the proposed sampling interval was
reached, the sampling probe was lifted approximately 0.5 foot to
allow the screw to drop from the bottom of the probe and to create
a cavity at the bottom for vapor sampling. A vacuum pump was
attached to the top of the probe with a clean section of tubing and
a vacuum was produced in the sampling system which forced vapor to
move from the soil into the system. The sampling pump was equipped
with a vacuum pressure gauge to monitor the pressure required to
influence the movement of gases through the subsurface.
Approximately 3.8 liters of air were pumped through the system
prior to collecting each sample. Vacuum pressures did not exceed
2 inches of mercury (in. Hg) during vapor sampling.
IRVINE.RPTMMM081092L
00316
1•
�•
I•
C
C
U1
After the sampling system was pumped for the specified time, a
soil -gas sample was collected with an airtight glass 1.00
cubic -centimeter syringe. The needle of the syringe was inserted
through the tubing and into the probe annulus to provide sampling
of only the subsurface vapor. Each samples were identified with a
unique sample identification number and each location was plotted
on a scale map.
4.2 Analytical Procedures
Upon collection, the soil -gas samples were immediately analyzed on
site using a GEOTEST state certified mobile laboratory for methane
gas. The laboratory is equipped with a laboratory grade gas
chromatograph (GC) configured with a flame ionization detector
(FID). The calibration of the GC was performed using a three-point
curve. A specified volume of soil -gas sample was delivered to the
injection port of the gas chromatograph through direct injection
and the results quantified by comparing to the standard
concentration.
A sample was also collected from each probe and analyzed using a
specific indicator tube for hydrogen sulfide. The tube was placed
in line with the probe and a vacuum applied. The amount of air
flow through the tube coincided with specifications for use of the
tube. Direct measurements of hydrogen sulfide concentration were
then read directly from the tube.
4.3 Quality Assurance/Quality Control Procedures
Before analysis is performed the GC system must be shown to be free
of contamination by injecting a syringe blank of clean nitrogen.
If the syringe blank shows no significant contamination (less than
1/2 the desired detection limit) a standard curve is run.
A standard curve is prepared by purging three different
concentrations. The response factor (Rf) is determined as the area
of the GC peak divided by the concentration of the injected
compound. The relative standard deviation of the Rf for the three
concentrations must not exceed 20 percent. A single standard is
analyzed on a daily basis to show that the three point calibration
is still valid. The values for this standard, calculated using the
Rf from the calibration curve must be within 20 percent of the
known values or a new three point calibration must be generated.
Prior to sample collection, the entire sampling system is washed in
a trisodium phosphate solution, rinsed in distilled water, and
purged with nitrogen gas. A sample of nitrogen purged through the
IRVINE.RPTMM10E1092L
0031'7
I0
I•
C
r
r
I•
U
U
C
sampling system is collected and injected into the GC to provide a
system blank for quality control documentation. A duplicate sample
and an equipment blank are analyzed every 10 samples. A sample
which contains no detectable analytes of interest may be
substituted for the equipment blank. Whenever a sample is analyzed
which contains a high concentration of analyte, a system blank is
analyzed to insure there is no carryover.
5.0 ANALYTICAL RESULTS
Concentrations of methane and hydrogen sulfide were not detected
over the laboratory and detector tubes lower detection limit,
respectively (Appendix A, Table 1).
IRVINEA M4f081092L
00318
I•
APPENDIX A: FIGURES
�0
r:
• IRVINE.RPTMMfOB1092L
00319
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Ne ti'se
iBU
�D�;; oz=� A I � I I
rN111
1
/o '1:IghL\Harbc
`qQ\\\� � Lignlo
33/0
—ou`3gni
5renes
PArk/—-,- ._ �—,z p vW'03(�/oI/Lgl ht
`
BarIt
NORTH
0 1/2 1 MILE
SCALE
REFERENCE:
U.S.G.S. NEWPORT BEACH QUADRANGLE, 1965.
PHOTOREVISED 1961
n
w;_� ,
�Glti •a
GeoResearch
SITE LOCATION
UPPER CASTAWAYS
NEWPORT BEACH, CAUFORNIA
PROJECT NUMBER: 934101100
B 12 CKD BY: FlGURE N0: 1
'GPO DRAWN BY: S.NASH
VU04
C
10
I•
I•
I•
I•
I•
1•
1•
1•
00321
1•
•
•
APPENDIX B: TABLE 1: SOIL -GAS SAMPLE ANALYTICAL RESULTS
•
r
•
• IRVINE.RPTM OB1092L
00322
•
C
I*
10
1•
I•
C7
I•
SOIL -GAS SURVEY
UPPER CASTAWAYS
IRVINE COMPANY
JULY 30,1992
SAMPLELOCAMON
DEPTH
FLOW RAT
VACUUM
METHANE
HYDROGEN SULFIDE
Feet s
Liters/min
Inches cf H
V
V
SG-1
8
7
8
<20
<.5
SG-2
8
6
5
<20
<.5
SG-3
8
6
9
<20
<.5
SG-4
8
4
12
<20
<.5
SG-5
8
6
10
<20
<.5
SG-6
5
5
11
<20
<.5
SG-7
8
8
5
<20
c5
SG-8
8
8
5
<20
2.5
SG-9
8
8
5
<20
<.5
SG-10
8
7
6
<20
<.5
SG-11
8
5
12
<20
<.5
SG-12
8
8
4
<20
<.5
SG-13
8
8
4
<20
<.5
SG-14
8
8
4
<20
<.5
SG-15
8
6
5
<20
<.5
SG-16
8
7
5
<20
<.5
SG-17
8
7
5
<20
<.5
NOTES: b s = below ground surface
m= parts perrrilllon
00323
0
is
ul
i•
�6
10
ri
�0
IN
ul
I•
APPENDIX C: SUMMARY OF LABORATORY ANALYTICAL METHODS
IRVINE.RPTMMMOB1092L
00324
I0
•
•
The following briefly describes laboratory analyses performed on
soil -gas samples.
Methane•
Methane in soil -gas samples are detected utilizing a gas
chromatograph equipped with a flame ionization detector (GC/FID).
The analysis is performed by direct injection of the soil -gas
sample on to a capillary column. Methane is detected by the FID
detector.
•
•
•
•
11
• 1RVINE. RPTM4081092L B-1
00325
•
I•
is
10
�6
�0
�6
�9
I•
U
IRVINE. RPDM0B1092L
APPENDIX D: LABORATORY REPORTS
00326
I0
7
1•
16
I*
19
I•
�q
GEOTEST Post Office Box 90911, Long Beach, California 90809-0911 (310),498-9515 (800) 624-5744
An Environmental Monitoring
and Testing Service
L A 8 0 R A T 0 R Y R E P O R T
GEORESEARCH DATE SAMPLED s 07/30/92
3960 GILMAN STREET DATE RECEIVED: 07/30/92
LONG BEACH, CA 90816 DATE ANALYZED: 07/30/92
SAMPLE MATRIX: VAPOR
ATTENTION: MICHAEL MOORADIAN CLIENT ID .
GEOTEST PROJECT NO.: 93600-10
ANALYSES: METHANE
PROJECT NAMES IRVINE RANCH
16TH STREET AND DOVER DRIVE
NEWPORT BEACH, CA
SAMPLE ID RESULTS DETECTION LIMIT
(PPm v/v) (PPm v/v)
S61-8
ND
20
S62-8
ND
20
SG3-8
ND
20
SG4-8
NO
20
565-8
NO
20
S66-8
ND
20
S67-8
NO
20
SG8-8
NO
20
SG9-8
ND
20
S610-8
ND
20
SG11-8
NO
20
S612-8
ND
20
SG13-8
ND
20
5614-8
ND
20
SG15-8
ND
20
$616-8
ND
20
S617-8
ND
20
ND — Not detected below indicated limit of detection.
Analyst: TF Reviewed and Approved:
Report date: J `�
This report pertains only to the samples investlgated and does not
necessarily apply to other apparently identical or similar materials.
This report is submitted for the exclusive use of the client to whom it
is addressed.
00327
0 GEOTEST is a division of GEOSERVICES, a California corporation.
ORIGINAL
1•
I•
I•
�•
•
I•
I•
GEOTEST Post Office Box 90911, Lon Beach, California 90809-0911 310 498.9515 800 624-5744
An Environmental Monitoring 9 � � � )
and Testing Service
QUALITY ASSURANCE/QUALITY CONTROL SUMMARY
ANALYSIS OF METHANE BY GC/FID
GEOTEST CLIENT NAME: GEORESEARCH ELAP Certification #1216
GEOTEST PROJECT NO: 93500-10 Analyses prep method:6030
GEOTEST PROJECT NAME: IRVINE RANCH Analyses method:DHS TPH—G
DATE ANALYZED:07/38/92
SAMPLE MATRIX:VAPOR
WWYWtlMntlW�InbumnYYmeNWmWdbWMtluNitlYYnLwaryWIYNM1UImnmuYYWW4YniPNWunArWunnWwuMobnnMNNnYtltlniM1MiM1nnmWiNwmntlluW WNM1iW40nuupNNutlnlilWYWM1nmLWtlYYumwlNMlmmniWulauYNX M,umYlnYn MlY
METHOD BLANK
CONCENTRATION
(ppm v/v)
ND
DETECTION LIMIT
(ppm V/v)
20
ACCURACY ACCEPTABLE RANGE
LABORATORY CONTROL STANDARD 86 70 — 130
MATRIX SPIKE
MATRIX SPIKE DUPLICATE
Checked and Approved:
Report Date:
RECOVERY ACCEPTABLE RANGE
85
REPRODUCIBILITY
S
97
rimm
70 — 130
ACCEPTABLE RANGE
70 — 130
00328
•
GEOTEST is a division of GEOSERVICES, a California corporation. ORIGINAL
. y
L
• GEOTEST
AnEnvironmental Monitoring Post Office Box 90911, Long Beach, California 90B09-Ml l (310) 498-9515 (800) 624-5744
and Testing Service 4:
1.
L A B O R A T
O R Y R E P O R T
GEORESEARCH
DATE SAMPLED
07/30/92
3960 GILMAN
STREEI
DATE RECEIVED:
07/30/92
LONG BEACH,
CA 90815
DATE ANALYZED:
07/30/92
SAMPLE MAIRIX:
VAPOR
AI'•IENIION:
MICHAEL MOORADIAN
CLIENT ID
GEOIESI PROJECI NO.:
93500-10
ANALYSES:
MEIHANE
PROJECT NAME:
IRVINE RANCH
16TH STREEI AND
DOVER DRIVE
NEWPORT BEACH,
CA
...............,,...,,.,....,.w,..,,,,�.,,.„w„µ.,�N.,.m,,....,.,.A.�,p„L"y"�Y,�,..,0.),.,,,,.�t"I'HA'N"'E.._,g.�,.•.,.d,.�..�.h,�.,�..
,..,....,,...,., �,_,..w.....,,.,t.,...,,„.,_,.,...,..,,.
SAMPLE ID
RESULIS
(ppm v/v)
DETECTION _LIMIT
(ppm v/v)
li• SG1-S NO 20
SG2-8 NO 20
SG3-8 ND 20
SG4-8 ND '20
SG5-8 ND 20
.SG6-8 ND 20
• SG7-8 ND 20
SGB-8 ND 20
S09-8 NO 20
SG10-B ND 20
SG11-8 ND G0
ND 20
r.. SG12-8 _
• SG13-8 ND 20
SG14-8 ND 20
SG15-8 NO 20
SG'16-8 ND 20
SG17-8 ND 20
• NO - Not detected below indicated limit of detection. — Analyst: T'F Reviewed and Appr-oved:
Report date: /" 5 _—
-i.n,..ins ------ o._..nly
1`Fiis report--'perta= to the samples-•`investiga>red and-`d'oe's not
• necessarily apply to other apparently identical or similar materials:
This report is submitted for the exclusive use of the client to whom it
is addressed.
- 00329
i
A
•
GEOTEST is a division of GEOSERVICES, a California corporation.
DUPLICATE
GEOTEST
An Environmental Monitoring
and Testing Service
0
t..
�0
Post Office Box 90911, Long Beach, California 90809-0911 (310) 498-9515 (800) 624-5744
QUALITY ASSURANCE/QUA'LITY• CONTROL SUMMARY
ANALYSIS OF METHANE BY GC/FID
A
GEOTEST CLIENT NAME:
GEORESEARCH
ELAP Certification #1216
GEOTEST PROJECT N0:
93500-10
Analyses
prep method:5030
GEOTEST PROJECT NAME:
IRVINE RANCH
Analyses
method:DHS TPH—G
DATE ANALYZED:07/30/92
SAMPLE MATRIX:VAPOR
mum
CONCENTRATION
DETECTION LIMIT
(ppm v/v)
(ppm v/v)
METHOD BLANK' ND Ge
,...,...�.,...,,.,, W.... ACCURACY ACCEPTABLE RANGE
r
LABURATORY CONTROL STANDARD 66 70 — ISO
RECOVERY ACCtP'fAbLt RFlNGE
a �
MATRIX SPIKE
MATRIX SPIKE DUPLICATE
Checked and Approved:
Report Date:
85
REPRODUCIBILITY
97
70 — 130
ACCEPTABLE RANGE 1
70 — 130
GEOTEST is a division of GEOSERVICES, a California corporation. DUPLICATE
i•
A
�•
�6
U
�0
L
U
IRVINE.RPTMMMOS1092L
APPENDIX E: SOIL -GAS THEORY
00331
11
{•
C
C
I•
I0
I0
I6
I•
•
SOIL -GAS THEORY
The soil -gas survey technique is based on the volatile nature of
Methane. When methane is released into the subsurface, it migrates
through the pore spaces of the surrounding soil. The vapor in the
soil pores can be collected by vacuum extraction and quantified by
analytical techniques. Soil -gas surveys provide a quick and
efficient method for mapping the relative concentrations of methane
in the subsurface.
The soil -gas concentrations detected in the field are influenced by
several variables besides the presence of the volatile organic
compound in the unsaturated zone and in the ground water. These
variables include the physical characteristics of the soil such as
permeability, porosity, fluid saturation, and the sampling and
analytical methods employed.
SAMPLING METHODOLOGY
Sampling Procedures
GeoResearch utilized a Hilte rotohammer to drive a hollow 1/4-inch
I.D. stainless -steel combination, driving and sampling rod to the
desired depth. A round -head screw is placed on the bottom of the
probe to prevent sediments from clogging the annulus of the probe.
When the proposed sampling interval is reached, the sampling probe
is lifted approximately 0.5 foot to allow the screw to drop from
the bottom of the probe and to create a cavity at the bottom for
vapor sampling. A vacuum pump is attached to the top of the probe
with a clean section of tubing and a vacuum is produced in the
sampling system which forced vapor to move from the soil into the
system. The sampling pump is equipped with a vacuum pressure gauge
to monitor the pressure required to influence the movement of gases
through the subsurface.
After the sampling system is pumped for the specified time to
evacuate a consistent volume of soil gas, a soil -gas sample is
collected with an airtight glass 1.00 cubic -centimeter syringe.
The needle of the syringe is inserted through the tubing and into
the probe annulus to provide sampling of only the subsurface vapor.
Each sample is identified with a unique sample identification
number and each location is plotted on a scale map.
IRVINE. RPTMbMO81092L
00332
I0
E.
r1
►,J
TO: CITY COUNCIL
March 25, 1991
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
ITEM NO.
FROM: Air Quality Management Plan Coordination Committee
SUBJECT: TRANSPORTATION DEMAND MANAGEMENT ORDINANCE
RECOMMENDATION
Introduce an Ordinance, adding Chapter 20.08 of the Municipal
Code, establishing Transportation Demand Management requirements
for certain new development.
DISCUSSION
The City Council reviewed the proposed Transportation Demand
Management Ordinance during the Study Session of March 11, 1991.
Minor revisions were made to the draft Ordinance in response to
comments by Council -members.
The Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Ordinance is a
required element of the City's Congestion Management Program
(CMP) and must be adopted by the end of April 1991. The City
must have a CMP in order to�be eligible for the new gas tax
revenues approved by the voters in June 1990.
The ordinance requires new, non-residential development expected
to have 100 or more employees to provide on -site facilities to
promote alternate forms of commuting.
1 OF 2
00334
R•
I
u
TRANSPORTATION DEMAND MANAGEMENT ORDINANCE
The facilities may include carpool parking, bicycle lockers,
showers, clothes lockers, rideshare information, vehicle loading
areas and, where appropriate, bus facilities.
The Ordinance is structured to be flexible in the requirements if
the developer can demonstrate the effectiveness of alternative
facilities.
ON BEHALF OF THE COMMITTEE:
John Cox, Chairman
Evelyn Hart
Jean Watt a
BY:
Richard
Edmonston
Traffic
Engineer
RME:bb
WP:TDMORD.CC
2 OF 2
u
00335
March 11, 1991
STUDY SESSION AGENDA
ITEM NO. 11
TO: CITY COUNCIL
FROM: Air Quality Management Plan Coordination Committee
SUBJECT: PROPOSED TRANSPORTATION DEMAND MANAGEMENT ORDINANCE
The City must adopt a Congestion Management Program (CMP) in
order to be eligible for the additional gas tax revenues approved
by the voters in June 1990. One element of that program is a
Transportation Demand Management (TDM) ordinance. The State
legislation is not specific on what must be included in such an
ordinance but a Model Ordinance has been developed for use in
orange County.
The attached Draft Ordinance was prepared by staff based upon the
Model Ordinance and contains requirements for new development
within the City that represent a modest TDM approach. The City
has the option of adopting a much more aggressive ordinance up to
and including its own version of AQMD Regulation XV which would
apply to all employers of a minimum size within the city
boundaries.
The proposed ordinance would require new development to provide
amenities to promote alternate forms of commuting. The amenities
would include preferential parking for carpools, bicycle lockers,
showers and lockers,, a rideshare information program, vehicle
loading areas and bus stop facilities where appropriate. The
ordinance provides flexibility by allowing a developer to
demonstrate to staff the effectiveness of alternative
combinations of amenities.
One of the options discussed by the Committee as a possible
addition to the Draft ordinance would be the requirement for new
businesses resulting from development to join the appropriate
Transportation Management Agency (TMA). Currently Centeride
serves Newport Center and Coastal Motion serves the rest of the
coastal portion of the city. Efforts are still being made to
form a TMA in the airport area.
1 of 2
00336
C
Y'
The chief benefits of requiring membership would be to enhance
businesses ability to reduce commute traffic and to provide the
ridesharing services of the TMA at a lower per capita cost.
The City Council must adopt a TDM ordinance by the end of April
to comply with the County's deadline. A final version of the
ordinance will be written based upon comments by Councilmembers
and will be ready for introduction at the Council meet;nn nfi
Mai
r
RiG
Tra
WP\
I
W
ORDINANCE NO. 91- 16
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
ADDING CHAPTER 20.08 TO THE NEWPORT BEACH
MUNICIPAL CODE ESTABLISHING
TRANSPORTATION DEMAND MANAGEMENT
REQUIREMENTS FOR CERTAIN NEW DEVELOPMENT.
The City Council of the City of Newport Beach does
ordain as follows:
SECTION.1. Chapter 20.08 is hereby added to the
Newport Beach Municipal Code to read as follows:
"CHAPTER 20.08
TRANSPORTATION DEMAND MANAGEMENT ORDINANCE
Sections
20.08.010
Findings
20.08.020
Purpose
20.08.030
Definitions
120.08.040
Transportation Demand Management Requirements
20.08,050
Applicability
20.08.060
Employment Generation Factors
20.08.070
Site Development Requirements
20.08.080
Equivalent Facilities or Measures
20.08.090
Appeal
20.08.010 Findings. The City Council -of the City of
Newport Beach finds that, generally, increased traffic
congestion contributes to deterioration in air quality,
inefficient use of energy resources, and adversely impacts
public and private sector economics due to reduced
productivity of the work force. The City Council further
finds that Transportation Demand Management (TOM) strategies
can be effective in reducing traffic congestion and should be
implemented by local government as part of the region -wide
efforts to improve air quality, conserve energy and enhance
the effectiveness of existing transportation facilities.
20.08.020 Purpose. The City -council of the City of
Newport Beach declares that this Ordinance is intended to
meet the requirements of Government Code Section 65089
(b)(3), which requires development of a trip reduction
ordinance and travel demand element to the Congestion
Management Program, and Government Code Section 65089.3(b),
which requires adoption and implementation of a Trip
Reduction and Travel Demand Ordinance.
20.08.030 Definitions. For purposes of this Ordinance,
the definitions for the following terms shall apply:
(A) "Alternative Transportation Modes" means any mode of
travel that serves as an alternative to the single occupant
vehicle. This can include all forms of ridesharing, such as
carpooling or vanpooling, as well as public transit,
bicycling or walking.
00300
(B) "New Development Project" means any non-residential
project being processed where some level of discretionary
action'by a decision -making body is required.
20.08,040 Transportation Demand Management Requirements.
No building or grading permit shall be issued, and no
construction shall commence, for any project covered by this
Chapter until the Planning Commission or City Council, on
appeal or review, makes written findings that Transportation
Demand Management program has been developed which,will:
(i) reduce the number of peak -period vehicle trips
generated in association with the additional development;
and,
(ii) promote and encourage the use of alternative
transportation modes, such as ridesharing, carpools,
vanpools, public transit, bicycles and walking; and,
(iii) provide those facilities that support such
alternate modes.
20.08.050 Applicability. This Chapter shall apply to
all new, non-residential development projects that are
estimated to employ a total of 100 or more persons, or the
current limit set forth by the South Coast Air Quality
Management District in Regulation XV, whichever is lower at
the time of project submittal. For the purposes of this
section, the effective date of project submittal shall be
that date upon' which the Planning Department accepts the
application as complete.
20.08.060 Employment Generation Factors. The following
generation factors are the basis for determining employment
projections in the absence of more specific information:
Land Use Category Gross Scuare Feet/Emplovee
Retail
500
Office/Professional
250
Industrial
525
Hotel
1.0/room
Employment projections shall be developed by the project
applicant, subject to approval by the City.
20.08.070 Site Development Requirements. All
developments shall be subject to the following site
Development Requirements of this Chapter:
(i) A parking space shall be reserved and
designated for each identified carpool. carpool spaces shall
only be used by carpool vehicles and shall be located near
the employee entrance or at other preferential locations, as
approved by the city Traffic Engineer. A minimum of five
percent (5t) of the provided parking shall be reserved for
carpools. Additional spaces shall be designated for each new
carpool which forms.
(ii) 'Bicycle lockers shall be provided for use by
employees or tenants who commute by bicycle. A minimum of
two lockers per 100 employees shall be provided. Additional
lockers shall be provided at such time as employees or
tenants, demonstrate demand and may be installed in designated
vehicle parking spaces at the ratio of three lockers for each
space. Demand shall be deemed to have been demonstrated when
an employee or tenant commits"to riding an average of two
days per week. _
00339
(iii) Lockers and showers:
A minimum 02 one
ns
all
Pr'
shower and two lockers shall be provided- ersonsswithinha e
lnsta made for
at such time shower as four ora more
lockers to be
d . as a result of
indicate wa king, or otherscommute mode hower likely to
one -hour perio
bicycling, running,
result in such a need.
Information on transportation
acnern
one iorsmore
(iv) ees or
commuter information area shall be p
central areas that are accessible to allublio mtransi.0,
tenants. inf°rmat o shall andincludschedulesbufor o P be limited to,
current maps, atch lists; available °OMM supplied uter incentives
ntc mmuter-
ridesharing promotional material.
ridesharing P
oriented organizations. area: A rideshare
(v) Rideshare vehicle loading
at a location
areas shall
vehicle loading area shall be
approved by the City ftwoTrafficEngineer.
evehicleshfor the first
oars feet of development, plus one for reach 50,000
accommodate a minimum of two passenger
25,000 square
square feet of additional development or tihetion design thereof. Of all
(vi) Vanpool accessibi"tyl provisions for access
lsions I a minimum
parking facilities shall incorp the spaces
and parking ,f vanpool vehicles. Wherbe e vided and
7,-211 vertical clearance the employee entrance oYTroth r
as -may be approved by the city
affic
shall be located near
preferential location,
Engineer. A vanpool space i atathe site served and designate
for each identified vanpimprovethe si bus stop improvements,
(vii) $°s stop bus pads, and right -Of -Way
for bus
including
bus pullouts, required for developments
arterials where public transit exists 0r s
benches and shelters shall be re ears. Improvements
located along
anticipated to exist within rati five (5 Y
act of stopped busses on other traffic -
shall be developed in consideration of the level
appropriatetans
ridership and the imp
All such improvements shall be reviewed byThe
public transit agencies. or Measures.
u ale t Facilities of deleting or
20.0_-0 0 applicant shall have the OptionRequirements if
project aPP or all of the site Development rovided. The
modifying any measures are p proposed
equivalency of the
equivalent facilities °T the City Traffic Engineer
applicant must demonstrateIon theof eq Commission.
measures t0 the satisfae the Planning
prior to consideration by The determination Of the
A an
7.0.0_._ 80990 ea ( ) other person pursuant to the
planning Commission shall be final unless there shall
appeal re
by the applicant or an ort Beach
Such appeal shall be limited the planning
vidence
procedure set forth in Section 20.80.070 of the
Municipal Code. and the findings
presented before,
Commission. et
(B) The city Council shall havthe Newport Beach Municipht of Review as al
f20
orth i limited ecionabove �� 075 of
If any section or portion of this
SECTION 2. the remaining sections or
Chapter is declared invalid,
portions are to be considered valid. hall be published
SECTION 3. This ordinance
o nce sCity and shall be
30 days after the date of its ad.ption.
once in the official newspaP
effective thirty ( ) _
3
00340
This Ordinance was introduced at a regular meeting of the
City Council of the City of Newport Beach held on the 8th day
of April, 1991, and adopted on the 22nd day of
April , 1991, by the following vote, to -wit:
AYES, COUNCILMEMBERS HEDGES, WATT,
SANSONE, HART, COX, PLUMMER
NOES,
ABSTAINED,
MAYOR
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK
RME:bb
WP:DEMAND.ORD
n
NONE
TURNER
00341