HomeMy WebLinkAbout01 - 1.0 - Executive SummaryGI0[ _
C O N S U L T I N O ,
DRAFT
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
VOLUME I
NEWPORT BANNING RANCH PROJECT
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
STATE CLEARINGHOUSE NO. 2009031061
Prepared for City of Newport Beach
3300 Newport Boulevard
Newport Beach, California 92663
Prepared by BonTerra Consulting
151 Kalmus Drive, Suite E -200
Costa Mesa, California 92626
T: (714) 444 -9199 F: (714) 444 -9599
September 9, 2011
VOLUME I
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTION PAGE
1.0 Executive Summary ..................................................................... ............................1
-1
1.1
Introduction ....................................................................... ............................1
-1
1.2
Project Location ................................................................ ............................1
-1
1.3
Project Description Summary ........................................... ............................1
-1
1.4
Project Objectives ............................................................. ............................1
-6
1.5
Project Alternatives ........................................................... ............................1
-8
1.5.1 Alternatives Considered But Not Carried Forward .........................1
-8
1.5.2 Alternatives Analyzed ........................................ ............................1
-9
1.6
Summary of Project Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Program ........1
-20
1.6.1 Summary of Effects with No Impact .................. ...........................1
-20
1.6.2 Impacts and mitigation Program summary ....... ...........................1
-21
2.0 Introduction ................................................................................ ...............................
2 -1
2.1
Purpose of the Environmental Impact Report ................... ............................2
-1
2.2
Type of Environmental Impact Report ................................ ..........................
2 -1
2.2.1 Standards of Adequacy Under CEQA ............. ...............................
2 -3
2.2.2 Review of an EIR ............................................... ............................2
-3
2.3
Scope of the Environmental Impact Report ...................... ............................2
-4
2.3.1 Scoping Process ................................................ ............................2
-4
2.3.2 Notice of Preparation ......................................... ............................2
-4
2.3.3 Scoping Meetings .............................................. ............................2
-7
2.4
Areas of Controversy and Issues to Be Addressed in the EIR .....................2
-8
2.4.1 Areas of Controversy ......................................... ............................2
-8
2.4.2 Issues to Be Addressed in the EIR ................... ...........................2
-11
2.5
Project Sponsors and Contact Persons ........................... ...........................2
-11
2.6
Draft EIR Review ............................................................. ...........................2
-12
3.0 Project Description .............................. .....................................................................
3 -1
3.1
Purpose ............................................................................ ............................3
-1
3.2
Project Setting ........................................................... ...................................
3 -1
3.3
Project Summary .............................................................. ............................3
-1
3.4
Existing Site Conditions and Land Uses ........................... ............................3
-2
3.4.1 Physical Site Conditions .................................... ............................3
-2
3.4.2 Surrounding Land Uses ..................................... ............................3
-4
3.4.3 Existing General Plan Land Use Designations .. ............................3
-5
3.4.4 Existing Zoning ............................................... ...............................
3 -7
3.4.5 Oil Operation Regulations .................................. ............................3
-8
3.5
Project Objectives ............................................................. ............................3
-8
3.6
Development Proposal ..................................................... ............................3-9
3.6.1 Oilfield Abandonment, Site Remediation, and Consolidation
of Oil Production Facilities ................................... ...........................3
-10
3.6.2 Proposed Land Uses .................................... ...............................
3 -11
3.6.3 Circulation and Parking ..................................... ...........................3
-17
3.6.4 Land Use Regulations .................................. ...............................
3-23
3.6.5 Infrastructure and Utilities ................................. ...........................3
-29
3.6.6 Habitat Restoration Plan ................................... ...........................3
-31
3.6.7 Fire and Life Safety Program ............................ ...........................3
-31
3.6.8 Green and Sustainable Program .................. ...............................
3 -32
3.6.9 Master Landscape Plan .................................... ...........................3
-34
3.6.10 Master Grading plan ..................................... ...............................
3 -34
RA Projects \Newpon\JD !Draft El RlTable of ContenMd. i Newport Banning Ranch
Draft Environmental Impact Report
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTION PAGE
3.7
Proposed Implementation Plan ....................................... ...........................3
-37
3.8
Project Design Features .................................................. ...........................3
-39
3.9
Components of Newport Banning Ranch Project Application ....................3
-45
3.9.1 General Plan Amendment ................................. ...........................3
-45
3.9.2 Zoning Code Amendment ............................. ...............................
3 -46
3.9.3 Newport Banning Ranch Planned Community
Development Plan (NBR -PC) ........................... ...........................3
-46
3.9.4 Tentative Tract Map No. 17308 .................... ...............................
3 -46
3.9.5 Newport Banning Ranch Master Development Plan ....................
3 -46
3.10
Coastal Development Permit ........................................... ...........................3
-47
3.11
Affordable Housing Implementation Plan ........................ ...........................3
-48
3.12
Pre - Annexation and Development Agreement ................ ...........................3
-49
3.13
Master Plan of Arterial Highways Amendment ................ ...........................3
-49
3.14
Intended Use of the EIR .................................................. ...........................3
-50
3.14.1 City of Newport Beach ...................................... ...........................3
-50
3.14.2 Responsible and Trustee Agencies .................. ...........................3
-51
4.0 Environmental Setting, Thresholds of Significance, Environmental Impacts,
Mitigation
Program and Level of Significance After Mitigation ..... ............................4
-1
4.1
Land Use and Related Planning Programs ..................... ..........................4.1
-1
4.1.1 Introduction .................................................. ...............................
4.1 -1
4.1.2 Methodol ogy ..................................................... ..........................4.1
-1
4.1.3 Environmental Setting ....................................... ..........................4.1
-1
4.1.4 Regulatory Setting ............................................ ..........................4.1
-3
4.1.5 Project Design Features and Standard Conditions ...................
4.1 -13
4.1.6 Threshold Criteria .................. ...................................................
4.1 -14
4.1.7 Environmental Impacts .................................... .........................4.1
-14
4.1.8 Mitigation Program ........................................... .........................4.1
-49
4.1.9 Level of Significance after Mitigation ............... .........................4.1
-49
4.2
Aesthetics and Visual Resources .................................... ..........................4.2
-1
4.2.1 Introduction .................................................. ...............................
4.2 -1
4.2.2 Regulatory Setting ............................................ ..........................4.2
-1
4.2.3 Methodol ogy ..................................................... ..........................4.2
-2
4.2.4 Existing Conditions ........................................... ..........................4.2
-3
4.2.5 Project Design Features and Standard Conditions .....................
4.2 -8
4.2.6 Thresholds of Significance ........................... ...............................
4.2 -9
4.2.7 Environmental Impacts ..................................... ..........................4.2
-9
4.2.8 Mitigation Program ........................................... .........................4.2
-30
4.2.9 Level of Significance After Mitigation ............... .........................4.2
-31
4.3
Geology and Soils ..................................................... ................................
4.3 -1
4.3.1 Introduction .................................................. ...............................
4.3 -1
4.3.2 Regulatory Setting ....................................... ...............................
4.3 -1
4.3.3 Methodology ..................................................... ..........................4.3
-4
4.3.4 Existing Conditions ........................................... ..........................4.3
-5
4.3.5 Project Design Features and Standard Conditions ...................
4.3 -12
4.3.6 Thresholds of Significance ......................... ...............................
4.3 -14
4.3.7 Environmental Impacts .................................... .........................4.3
-14
4.3.8 Mitigation Program ........................................... .........................4.3
-23
4.3.9 Level of Significance After Mitigation .................... ....................
4.3 -24
RA Projects \Newpon\JD !Draft El RlTable of ContenMd. ii Newport Banning Ranch
Draft Environmental Impact Report
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTION
PAGE
4.4
Hydrology and Water Quality ........................................... ..........................4.4
-1
4.4.1
Introduction .................................................. ...............................
4.4 -1
4.4.2
Regulatory setting ............................................. ..........................4.4
-1
4.4.3
Methodol ogy .................................................... .........................4.4
-10
4.4.4
Existing Conditions .......................................... .........................4.4
-10
4.4.5
Project Design Features and Standard Conditions ...................
4.4 -20
4.4.6
Thresholds of Significance ......................... ...............................
4.4 -21
4.4.7
Environmental Impacts .................................... .........................4.4
-22
4.4.8
Mitigation Program ........................................... .........................4.4
-64
4.4.9
Level of Significance After Mitigation ............... .........................4.4
-64
4.5
Hazards
and Hazardous Materials .................................. ..........................4.5
-1
4.5.1
Introduction .................................................. ...............................
4.5 -1
4.5.2
Regulatory Setting ....................................... ...............................
4.5 -1
4.5.3
Methodology ..................................................... ..........................4.5
-4
4.5.4
Existing Conditions ........................................... ..........................4.5
-5
4.5.5
Project Design Features and Standard Conditions ...................
4.5 -14
4.5.6
Thresholds of Significance ......................... ...............................
4.5 -15
4.5.7
Environmental Impacts .................................... .........................4.5
-16
4.5.8
Mitigation Program ........................................... .........................4.5
-28
4.5.9
Level of Significance After Mitigation .................... ................
.... 4.5 -29
4.6
Biological Resources ....................................................... ..........................4.6
-1
4.6.1
Introduction .................................................. ...............................
4.6 -1
4.6.2
Regulatory Setting ............................................ ..........................4.6
-1
4.6.3
Methodology ..................................................... ..........................4.6
-6
4.6.4
Existing Conditions ........................................... ..........................4.6
-8
4.6.5
Project Design Features and Standard Conditions ...................
4.6 -44
4.6.6
Thresholds of Significance ............................... .........................4.6
-44
4.6.7
Environmental Impacts .................................... .........................4.6
-46
4.6.8
Mitigation Program ........................................... .........................4.6
-72
4.6.9
Level of Significance After Mitigation ......... ...............................
4.6 -91
4.7
Population, Housing, and Employment ........................... ..........................4.7
-1
4.7.1
Introduction .................................................. ...............................
4.7 -1
4.7.2
Regulatory Setting ............................................ ..........................4.7
-1
4.7.3
Methodology ..................................................... ..........................4.7
-4
4.7.4
Existing Conditions ........................................... ..........................4.7
-6
4.7.5
Project Design Features and Standard Conditions ...................
4.7 -13
4.7.6
Thresholds of Significance ......................... ...............................
4.7 -14
4.7.7
Environmental Impacts .................................... .........................4.7
-14
4.7.8
Mitigation Program ........................................... .........................4.7
-18
4.7.9
Level of Significance After Mitigation ............... .........................4.7
-18
4.8
Recreation
and Trails ...................................................... ..........................4.8
-1
4.8.1
Introduction .................................................. ...............................
4.8 -1
4.8.2
Regulatory Setting ....................................... ...............................
4.8 -1
4.8.3
Methodology ..................................................... ..........................4.8
-2
4.8.4
Existing Conditions ........................................... ..........................4.8
-3
4.8.5
Project Design Features and Standard Conditions .....................
4.8 -8
4.8.6
Thresholds of Significance ........................... ...............................
4.8 -8
4.8.7
Environmental Impacts ......................... ................. .....................
4.8 -9
4.8.8
Mitigation Program ................................ ................ ....................
4.8 -18
R:\ Projects \Newpon\JD \!Draft El R \Table of ContenMd. iii Newport Banning Ranch
Draft Environmental Impact Report
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTION
PAGE
RA Projects \Newpon\JD !Draft El RlTable of ContenMd. iv Newport Banning Ranch
Draft Environmental Impact Report
4.8.9
Level of Significance After Mitigation ............... .........................4.8
-18
4.9
Transportation and Circulation ........................................ ..........................4.9
-1
4.9.1
Introduction .................................................. ...............................
4.9 -1
4.9.2
Regulatory Setting ............................................ ..........................4.9
-1
4.9.3
Methodology ..................................................... ..........................4.9
-5
4.9.4
Existing Conditions .......................................... .........................4.9
-11
4.9.5
Project Design Features and Standard Conditions ...................
4.9 -19
4.9.6
Thresholds of Significance ............................... .........................4.9
-21
4.9.7
Proposed Project Assumptions .................. ...............................
4.9 -23
4.9.8
Existing Plus Project Impact Analysis .............. .........................4.9
-29
4.9.9
Traffic Phasing Ordinance (TPO) Analysis ...... .........................4.9
-34
4.9.10
Year 2016 Cumulative Impact Analysis ..... ...............................
4.9 -50
4.9.11
General Plan Buildout ...................................... .........................4.9
-74
4.9.12
Site Access and Construction Traffic ......... ...............................
4.9 -87
4.9.13
Parking ............................................................. .........................4.9
-89
4.9.14
Policy Analysis ...................................................... ....................
4.9 -91
4.9.15
Mitigation Program ........................................... .........................4.9
-92
4.9.16
Level of Significance After Mitigation ......... ...............................
4.9 -99
4.9.17
Special Study I ssues ................................... ............................4.9
-114
4.10
Air Quality
........................................ ............................... .........................4.10
-1
4.10.1
Introduction ................................................ ...............................
4.10 -1
4.10.2
Regulatory Setting ..................................... ...............................
4.10 -2
4.10.3
Methodology ..................... ............................... .........................4.10
-5
4.10.4
Existing Conditions ........... ............................... .........................4.10
-9
4.10.5
Project Design Features and Standard Conditions .................4.10
-13
4.10.6
Thresholds of Significance ....................... ...............................
4.10 -17
4.10.7
Environmental Impacts .... ............................... ........................4.10
-18
4.10.8
Mitigation Program ........... ............................... ........................4.10
-33
4.10.9
Level of Significance After Mitigation .............. ........................4.10
-36
4.11
Greenhouse Gas Emissions ............ ............................... .........................4.11
-1
4.11.1
Introduction ................................................ ...............................
4.11 -1
4.11.2
Regulatory Setting ............ ............................... .........................4.11
-1
4.11.3
Methodology .................... ............................... ........................4.11
-12
4.11.4
Existing Conditions .......... ............................... ........................4.11
-13
4.11.5
Project Design Features and Standard Conditions .................4.11
-16
4.11.6
Thresholds of Significance .............................. ........................4.11
-18
4.11.7
Environmental Impacts .... ............................... ........................4.11
-19
4.11.8
Mitigation Program ........... ............................... ........................4.11
-24
4.11.9
Level of Significance After Mitigation .............. ........................4.11
-25
4.12
Noise ...............................................
............................... .........................4.12
-1
4.12.1
Introduction ................................................ ...............................
4.12 -1
4.12.2
Noise Criteria and Definitions .......................... .........................4.12
-1
4.12.3
Regulatory Setting ..................................... ...............................
4.12 -3
4.12.4
Methodol ogy ..................... ............................... .........................4.12
-9
4.12.5
Existing Conditions ........... ............................... .........................4.12
-9
4.12.6
Project Design Features and Standard Conditions .................4.12
-12
4.12.7
Thresholds of Significance ....................... ...............................
4.12 -13
4.12.8
Environmental Impacts ......................... ................. .................
4.12 -14
4.12.9
Mitigation Program ................................ ..................................
4.12 -40
RA Projects \Newpon\JD !Draft El RlTable of ContenMd. iv Newport Banning Ranch
Draft Environmental Impact Report
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTION
PAGE
R:\ Projects \Newpon\JD \!Draft El R \Table of ContenMd. v Newport Banning Ranch
Draft Environmental Impact Report
4.12.10
Level of Significance After Mitigation .............. ........................4.12
-43
4.13
Cultural
and Paleontological Resources ......................... .........................4.13
-1
4.13.1
Introduction ................................................ ...............................
4.13 -1
4.13.2
Regulatory Setting ............ ............................... .........................4.13
-1
4.13.3
Methodology ..................... ............................... .........................4.13
-7
4.13.4
Existing Conditions .......... ............................... ........................4.13
-10
4.13.5
Project Design Features and Standard Conditions .................4.13
-23
4.13.6
Thresholds of Significance .............................. ........................4.13
-23
4.13.7
Environmental Impacts .... ............................... ........................4.13
-23
4.13.8
Mitigation Program ........... ............................... ........................4.13
-26
4.13.9
Level of Significance After Mitigation .............. ........................4.13
-34
4.14
Public Services
and Facilities .......... ............................... .........................4.14
-1
4.14.1
Fire Protection .................. ............................... .........................4.14
-1
4.14.2
Police Protection .............. ............................... ........................4.14
-13
4.14.3
Schools ............................ ............................... ........................4.14
-17
4.14.4
Library Services ............... ............................... ........................4.14
-24
4.14.5
Solid Waste ...................... ............................... ........................4.14
-27
4.14.6
Mitigation Program ........... ............................... ........................4.14
-30
4.14.7
Level of Significance After Mitigation .............. ........................
4.14 -31
4.15
Utilities ................................
.....................................................................
4.15 -1
4.15.1
Water Supply .................... ............................... .........................4.15
-1
4.15.2
Wastewater Facilities ....... ............................... ........................4.15
-26
4.15.3
Energy ..................................................... ...............................
4.15 -30
4.15.4
Mitigation Program ........... ............................... ........................4.15
-40
4.15.5
Level of Significance After Mitigation ....... ...............................
4.15 -40
5.0 Cumulative
Impact Analysis ......................................................... ............................5
-1
5.1
Introduction .................................................................... ...............................
5 -1
5.2
Methodology ..................................................................... ............................5
-1
5.3
Regional
Growth assumptions .......................................... ............................5
-3
5.3.1
SCAG Region . ...............................................................................
5 -3
5.3.2
County of Orange .............................................. ............................5
-4
5.3.3
City of Newport Beach ....................................... ............................5
-6
5.3.4
City of Costa Mesa .......................................... ...............................
5 -7
5.3.5
City of Huntington Beach General Plan ............. ............................5
-8
5.3.6
City of Irvine General Plan .............................. ...............................
5 -8
5.4
Cumulative Impact Analysis ............................................ ...........................5
-23
5.4.1
Land Use and Related Planning Programs ... ...............................
5 -30
5.4.2
Aesthetics and Visual Resources ................. ...............................
5 -34
5.4.3
Geology and Soils ......................................... ...............................
5 -37
5.4.4
Hydrology and Water Quality ........................ ...............................
5 -39
5.4.5
Hazards and Hazardous Materials ................ ...............................
5 -42
5.4.6
Biological Resources .................................... ...............................
5 -48
5.4.7
Population, Housing, and Employment .................................
....... 5 -54
5.4.8
Recreation and Trails ........................................ ...........................5
-56
5.4.9
Transportation and Circulation ...................... ...............................
5 -59
5.4.10
Air Quality ......................................................... ...........................5
-64
5.4.11
Greenhouse Gas Emissions ............................. ...........................5
-68
5.4.12
Noise .................................... ............................... .........................5
-69
5.4.13
Cultural and Paleontological Resources ....... ...............................
5 -72
R:\ Projects \Newpon\JD \!Draft El R \Table of ContenMd. v Newport Banning Ranch
Draft Environmental Impact Report
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTION
PAGE
RA Projects \Newpon\JD !Draft El RlTable of ContenMd. vi Newport Banning Ranch
Draft Environmental Impact Report
5.4.14 Public Services and Facilities ....................... ...............................
5 -74
5.4.15 Utilities .......................................................... ...............................
5 -77
6.0
Long -Term
Implications of the Proposed Project ......................... ............................6
-1
6.1
Any Significant Environmental Effects Which Cannot be Mitigated ..............6
-1
6.2
Significant Irreversible Environmental Changes Which Would
be Caused by the Proposed Project Should it be Implemented ...................6
-4
6.2.1 Commitment of Resources ............................. ...............................
6 -4
6.3
Growth- Inducing Impacts of the Proposed Action ............ ............................6
-4
6.3.1 Introduction ..................................................... ...............................
6 -4
6.3.2 Study Area ...................................................... ...............................
6 -6
6.3.3 Historical Growth Trends ................................... ............................6
-6
6.3.4 Growth Patterns and Trends ........................... ...............................
6 -6
6.3.5 Effects of the Proposed Project ......................... ............................6
-6
7.0
Alternatives
to the Proposed Project ............................................ ............................7
-1
7.1
Introduction .................................................................... ...............................
7 -1
7.2
Summary of the Proposed Project .................................... ............................7
-1
7.3
Criteria for Selecting Alternatives ..................................... ............................7
-2
7.3.1 Ability to Achieve Project Objectives ............... ...............................
7 -2
7.3.2 Elimination /Reduction of Significant Impacts .. ...............................
7 -3
7.3.3 Feasibility ........................................................... ............................7
-6
7.4
Development Alternatives Considered But Not Carried Forward .................7
-7
7.4.1 Development of the Project Site Consistent with the County of
Orange General Plan and Zoning Designations ............................7
-7
7.4.2 Alternative Site ................................................... ............................7
-8
7.4.3 Construction of General Plan Roads ............ ...............................
7 -10
7.5
Alternatives for Analysis .................................................. ...........................7
-11
7.5.1 Alternative A: No Project ............................... ...............................
7 -31
7.5.2 Alternative B: General Plan -Open Space Designation ................
7 -45
7.5.3 Alternative C: Proposed Project Without North Bluff Road
Extension to 19th Street ............................... ...............................
7 -66
7.5.4 Alternative D: Reduced Development and Reduced
Development Area (No Resort Inn and 1,200 Units) .................7
-121
7.5.5 Alternative E: Reduced Development Area (No Resort Inn) ......
7-139
7.5.6 Alternative F: Increased Open Space /Reduced
Development Area ...................................... ...............................
7 -156
7.6
Environmentally Superior Alternative ......................... ..............................7
-173
8.0
List of EIR Preparers and Contributors ........................................ ............................8
-1
8.1
EIR Preparers ................................................................... ............................8
-1
8.1.1 City of Newport Beach (Lead Agency) ............... ............................8
-1
8.1.2 Bon Terra Consulting (EIR Preparation) ............. ............................8
-1
8.2
Contributors ...................................................................... ............................8
-2
8.3
Project Applicant ............................................................... ............................8
-3
9.0
References ................................................................................... ............................9
-1
10.0
Acronyms
and Glossary of Terms ............................................... ...........................10
-1
10.1
Acronyms ......................................................................... ...........................10
-1
10.2
Glossary of Terms .......................................................... . ...........................
10 -9
RA Projects \Newpon\JD !Draft El RlTable of ContenMd. vi Newport Banning Ranch
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Draft Environmental Impact Report
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE
PAGE
1 -1
Newport Banning Ranch Project .................................................. ............................1
-2
1 -2
Summary of Significant Impacts and Mitigation Program ............ ...........................1
-25
3 -1
Newport Banning Ranch Development Summary ....................... ...........................3
-12
3 -2
Master Development Plan Statistical Summary .......................... ...........................3
-25
3 -3
Proposed Implementation Plan ................................................... ...........................3
-38
4.1 -1
NBR -PC allowable Land Uses ................................................... .........................4.1
-17
4.1 -2
SCAG Regional Policy Consistency Analysis ............................ .........................4.1
-50
4.1 -3
City of Newport Beach General Plan Consistency Analysis ....... .........................4.1
-50
4.1-4
California Coastal Act Consistency Analysis .............................. .........................4.1
-61
4.3 -1
Fault Zones in the Vicinity of Newport Banning Ranch ............ .............................
4.3 -7
4.3 -2
Earthwork Quantities .................................................................. .........................4.3
-18
4.3 -3
City of Newport Beach General Plan Consistency Analysis ....... .........................4.3
-25
4.3 -4
California Coastal Act Consistency Analysis .............................. .........................4.3
-27
4.4 -1
Lowland Area and USACE Restored Salt Marsh Basin Existing
Conditions Runoff Volume Summary (HC Events) ..................... .........................4.4
-13
4.4 -2
Semeniuk Slough Existing Condition Runoff Volume (Ev Event) ........................
4.4 -14
4.4 -3
Beneficial Uses of Receiving Waters in Project vicinity .............. .........................4.4
-16
4.4-4
Groundwater Sampling Results .................................................. .........................4.4
-19
4.4 -5
Guidelines for Erosion and Sediment Control Practices ............ .........................4.4
-28
4.4 -6
Construction BMP Implementation ............................................. .........................4.4
-31
4.4 -7
Pollutants of Concern ................................................................. .........................4.4
-34
4.4 -8
On -Site Design and LID BMPs .........................................._........ .........................4.4
-37
4.49
Transitional Area LID Features .................................................. .........................4.4
-38
4.4 -10
Summary of BMP Sizing for Green Street Features .................. .........................4.4
-39
4.4 -11
Site Design BMPs ...................................................................... .........................4.4
-40
4.4 -12
Street Drainage and Parking Area BMPs ....................... .....................................
4.4 -40
4.4 -13
Source - Control (Non - Structural) BMPs ...................................... .........................4.4
-41
4.4 -14
Source - Control Structural BMPs ................................................ .........................4.4
-43
4.4 -15
Water Quality Basins Treatment Summary ................................ .........................4.4
-48
4.4 -16
SubWatershed Drainage Areas .................................................. .........................4.4
-53
4.4 -17
Northern Arroyo Modeling Results for Channel Stability: Proposed
ProjectConditions ...................................................................... .........................4.4
-54
4.4 -18
Southern Arroyo Modeling Results for Channel Stability: Proposed Project.......
4.4 -55
4.4 -19
Semeniuk Slough Existing Condition ......................................... .........................4.4
-57
4.4 -20
Semeniuk Slough Proposed Condition ....................................... .........................4.4
-57
4.4 -21
Lowland and USACE- Restored Salt Marsh Areas Existing Condition
Runoff Volume Summary (HC Events) ....................................... .........................4.4
-59
4.4 -22
Lowland and USACE Restored Salt Marsh Areas Proposed Condition
Runoff Volume Summary (HC Events) ....................................... .........................4.4
-59
4.4 -23
Existing Conditions Peak Flow Rates: Caltrans storm drain ...... .........................4.4
-61
4.4 -24
Project Conditions Peak Flow Rates: Caltrans storm drain ........ .........................4.4
-61
4.4 -25
City of Newport Beach General Plan Consistency Analysis ....... .........................4.4
-65
4.4 -26
California Coastal Act Consistency Analysis .............................. .........................4.4
-72
4.5 -1
Range of Phase II Environmental Assessment Soil Sample Results ....................
4.5 -8
4.5 -2
Range of Phase II Environmental Assessment Groundwater Sample Results.....
4.5 -9
4.5 -3
Summary of Project Site Recognized Environmental Conditions
(RECS) /Potential Environmental Concern (PECS) .................... .........................4.5
-10
4.5 -4
Summary of Historic Cleanup Levels for the Project Site ........... .........................4.5
-23
4.5 -5
City of Newport Beach General Plan Consistency Analysis ....... .........................4.5
-30
RAProje tMNewpoMJ015 \!Draft ElRlTable of CantenMd. vii Newport Banning Ranch
Draft Environmental Impact Report
RAProje tMNewpoMA15Mmft ElR \Table of ContenMd. viii Newport Banning Ranch
Draft Environmental Impact Report
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE
PAGE
4.5 -6
California Coastal Act Consistency Analysis .............................. .........................4.5
-33
4.6 -1
Vegetation Types on the Project Site .......................................... ..........................4.6
-9
4.6 -2
Pools /Ponded Areas on the Project Site .................................... .........................4.6
-16
4.6 -3
Special Status Plant Species Known to Occur in the Project Vicinity .................4.6
-24
4.6 -4
Special Status Wildlife Species Known to Occur in the Project Vicinity ..............4.6
-28
4.6 -5
Vegetation Types and Other Areas Impacted by the Proposed Project ..............4.6
-50
4.6 -6
Jurisdictional Featuresa Impact Summary ................................. .........................4.6
-70
4.6 -7
Habitat Mitigation Summary ....................................................... .........................4.6
-73
4.6 -8
SCAG Regional Policy Consistency Analysis ............................ .........................4.6
-92
4.6 -9
City of Newport Beach General Plan Consistency Analysis ....... .........................4.6
-93
4.6 -10
California Coastal Act Consistency Analysis ......................... ............................4.6
-100
4.7 -1
Newport Beach housing element sites analysis and inventory summary ..............4.7
-5
4.7 -2
SCAG, Orange County, and Newport Beach Population: 1980 -2009 ..................4.7
-6
4.7 -3
SCAG, Orange County, and Newport Beach Population Projections:
2010 -2035 ............................................................................. ...............................
4.7 -7
4.7 -4
SCAG, Orange County, and Newport Beach Housing: 1980- 2009 ......................4.7
-8
4.7 -5
SCAG, Orange County, and Newport Beach Housing Projections: 2010- 2035
...4.7 -8
4.7 -6
City of Newport Beach Housing Stock Composition ................... ..........................4.7
-9
4.7 -7
Regional Housing Needs Allocation Plan: From 2006 to 2014 .. .........................4.7
-11
4.7 -8
SCAG, Orange County, and City of Newport Beach Employment: 1980 - 2009..4.7
-11
4.7 -9
SCAG, Orange County, and Newport Beach Employment Projections:
2010 -2035 ........................................................................... ...............................
4.7 -12
4.7 -10
Orange County and Newport Beach: Jobs to Housing Ratios ... .........................4.7
-13
4.7 -11
SCAG Regional Policy Consistency Analysis ............................ .........................4.7
-19
4.7 -12
City of Newport Beach General Plan Consistency Analysis ....... .........................4.7
-19
4.7 -13
California Coastal Act Consistency Analysis .............................. .........................4.7
-25
4.8 -1
Newport Beach Parkland Acreage Needs ................................... ..........................4.8
-7
4.8 -2
Parkland Acreage Requirements ............................................... .........................4.8
-10
4.8 -3
Proposed Newport Banning Ranch Parks .................................. .........................4.8
-11
4.8-4
City of Newport Beach General Plan Consistency Analysis ....... .........................4.8
-19
4.8 -5
California Coastal Act Consistency Analysis .............................. .........................4.8
-24
4.9 -1
Traffic Study Area Intersections .................................................. ..........................4.9
-5
4.9 -2
Local Jurisdiction Level of Service Descriptions ................................. ..................
4.9 -8
4.9 -3
State Highway Facilities Level of Service Descriptions ............... ..........................4.9
-9
4.9 -4
Existing Conditions: Intersection Operations .............................. .........................4.9
-15
4.9 -5
Existing Conditions: State Highway Intersection Operations ..... .........................4.9
-17
4.9 -6
Existing Conditions: Freeway Mainline Segment Operations ..... .........................4.9
-18
4.9 -7
Project Trip Generation .............................................................. .........................4.9
-24
4.9 -8
Existing Plus Project: Intersection Operations ............................... ................ .....
4.9 -30
4.9 -9
City of Newport Beach Committed Projects ............................... .........................4.9
-35
4.9 -10
Year 2016 Traffic Phasing Ordinance One percent Analysis ..... .........................4.9
-36
4.9 -11
Year 2016 Without Project Traffic Phasing Ordinance: Intersection
Operations.................................................................................. .........................4.9
-38
4.9 -12
Year 2016 With Project TPO Analysis: Intersection Operations .........................4.9
-40
4.9 -13
Traffic Phasing Ordinance Phase 1 Trip Generation .................. .........................4.9
-45
4.9 -14
Year 2016 With Phase 1 Project TPO Analysis: Intersection Operations ...........4.9
-47
4.9 -15
Traffic Study Area Cumulative Projects ...................................... .........................4.9
-50
4.9 -16
Cumulative Projects: Trip Generation Summary ........................ .........................4.9
-53
4.9 -17
Year 2016 Cumulative Without Project: Intersection Operations ........................4.9
-55
RAProje tMNewpoMA15Mmft ElR \Table of ContenMd. viii Newport Banning Ranch
Draft Environmental Impact Report
TABLE
4.9 -18 Year 2016 Cumulative Without Project: State Highway Intersection
PAGE
RAProje tMNewpoMA15Mmft ElR \Table of ContenMd. ix Newport Banning Ranch
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Operations.................................................................................. .........................4.9
-57
4.9 -19
Year 2016 Cumulative Without Project: Freeway Mainline Segment
Operations.................................................................................. .........................4.9
-58
4.9 -20
Year 2016 Cumulative With Project: Intersection Operations .... .........................4.9
-60
4.9 -21
Signal Warrant Analysis ............................................................. .........................4.9
-64
4.9 -22
Year 2016 Cumulative With Project: State Highway Intersection Operations .....
4.9-65
4.9 -23
Year 2016 Cumulative With Project: Freeway Mainline Segment Operations ....4.9
-66
4.9 -24
Year 2016 Cumulative With Phase 1 Project: Intersection Operations ...............4.9
-69
4.9 -25
Year 2016 Cumulative With Phase 1 Project: State Highway Intersection
Operations.................................................................................. .........................4.9
-73
4.9 -26
General Plan Buildout Without Project: Intersection Operations ............ .............
4.9 -76
4.9 -27
General Plan Buildout Without Project: State Highway Intersection
Operations.................................................................................. .........................4.9
-79
4.9 -28
General Plan Buildout With Project: Intersection Operations ..... .........................4.9
-81
4.9 -29
General Plan Buildout With Project State Highway Intersection Operations .......
4.9 -85
4.9 -30
SCAG Regional Policy Consistency Analysis ....................... ............................4.9
-102
4.9 -31
City of Newport Beach General Plan Consistency Analysis .. ............................4.9
-103
4.9 -32
California Coastal Act Consistency Analysis ......................... ............................4.9
-113
4.9 -33
Local Street Characteristics .................................................. ............................4.9
-115
4.9 -34
Average Daily Traffic Screenline Analysis Existing Network Conditions ...........
4.9 -116
4.9 -35
Average Daily Traffic Screenline Analysis General Plan Network Conditions ..4.9
-117
4.9 -36
General Plan Buildout With Project Without 19th Street Bridge Intersection
Operations............................................................................. ............................4.9
-118
4.9 -37
General Plan Buildout With Project: Full Circulation Network ...........................4.9
-124
4.10 -1
California and National Ambient Air Quality Standards .............. .........................4.10
-3
4.10 -2
Ambient Air Quality at Costa Mesa and Mission Viejo Monitoring Stations ......4.10
-11
4.10 -3
Attainment Status of Criteria Pollutants in the South Coast Air Basin ...............4.10
-12
4.10 -4
Existing Oilfield Operations Criteria Pollutants Emissions (pounds per day) ....4.10
-12
4.10 -5
Existing Oilfield Operations TAC Emissions .............................. ........................4.10
-14
4.10 -6
SCAQMD Air Quality Significance Thresholds .......................... ........................4.10
-18
4.10 -7
Estimated Maximum Daily Construction Emissions: Unmitigated .....................4.10
-20
4.10 -8
Estimated Maximum Daily Construction Emissions: Mitigated .. ........................4.10
-21
4.10 -9
Local Significance Threshold Construction Emissions for Receptors
at25 Meters ............................................... ............................... ........................4.10
-22
4.10 -10
Year 2017: Estimated Daily Operational Project Emissions (pounds /day) ........
4.10 -24
4.10 -11
Year 2020: Estimated Daily Operational Project Emissions (pounds /day) ........
4.10 -24
4.10 -12
Year 2023: Estimated Daily Operational Project Emissions (pounds /day) ........
4.10 -25
4.10 -13
Estimated Future Consolidated Oilfield Operational Criteria Pollutant
Emissions (pounds/ day) ............................. ............................... ........................4.10
-25
4.10 -14
Year 2020: Combined Future Development and Oilfield Operational
Emissions (pounds/ day) ............................. ............................... ........................4.10
-26
4.10 -15
Year 2023: Total Future Development and Oilfield Operational Emissions
(pounds /day) .............................................. ............................... ........................4.10
-26
4.10 -16
Traffic Volumes at LOS E and F Intersections .......................... ........................4.10
-28
4.10 -17
Tier 1 Human Health Risk Screening Analysis .......................... ........................4.10
-30
4.10 -18
HARP HHRA Acute, Chronic, and Cancer Maximum Incremental Risks ..........
4.10 -31
4.10 -19
SCAG Regional Policy Consistency Analysis ........................... ........................4.10
-37
4.10 -20
City of Newport Beach General Plan Consistency Analysis ...... ........................4.10
-37
RAProje tMNewpoMA15Mmft ElR \Table of ContenMd. ix Newport Banning Ranch
Draft Environmental Impact Report
RAProjectMNewpoMJMSMraft El RlTable of ContenMdoc x Newport Banning Ranch
Draft Environmental Impact Report
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE
PAGE
4.10 -21
California Coastal Act Consistency Analysis .............................. .......................4.10
-39
4.11 -1
AB 32 Scoping Plan Recommended Greenhouse Gas Reduction Measures.....
4.11 -6
4.11 -2
Comparison of Worldwide GHG Emissions ............................... ........................4.11
-16
4.11 -3
Estimated Greenouse Gas Emissions ........ ............................... ........................4.11
-19
4.11 -4
Estimated GreenHouse Gas Emissions ..... ............................... ........................4.11
-20
4.11 -5
Estimated Total Project Annual GHG Emissions ...................... ........................4.11
-20
4.11 -6
SCAG Regional Policy Consistency Analysis ........................... ........................4.11
-26
4.11 -7
City of Newport Beach General Plan Consistency Analysis ...... ........................4.11
-28
4.11 -8
California Coastal Act Consistency Analysis ............................. ........................4.11
-33
4.11 -9
Application of Attorney General's Recommended Greenhouse Gas
Mitigation Measures to the Newport Banning Ranch Project .... ........................4.11
-34
4.12 -1
City of Newport Beach ................................. ............................... .........................4.12
-4
4.12 -2
General Plan Policy N1.8 Significant Noise Impact Criteria for New
Development Impacting Existing Sensitive Uses ....................... .........................4.12
-5
4.12 -3
City of Newport Beach Non - Vehicular ......... ............................... .........................4.12
-7
4.12 -4
Vibration Thresholds for Structural Damage .............................. .........................4.12
-8
4.12 -5
Human Response to Transient Vibration ..... ............................... ........................4.12
-8
4.12 -6
Short-Term Ambient Noise Level Measurements Summary ..... ........................4.12
-11
4.12 -7
24 -Hour Ambient Noise Level Measurements Summary .......... ........................4.12
-12
4.12 -8
Typical Maximum Construction Equipment Noise Levels ......... ........................4.12
-15
4.12 -9
Existing Conditions With and Without Project Traffic Noise Levels: Off -Site
Contributions.............................................. ............................... ........................4.12
-19
4.12 -10
Year 2016 With and Without Project Traffic Noise Levels: Off -Site
Contributions.............................................. ............................... ........................4.12
-20
4.12 -11
General Plan Buildout With and Without Project Traffic Noise Levels:
Off -Site Contributions ................................. ............................... ........................4.12
-21
4.12 -12
Future Noise Levels at Newport Crest Residences: General Plan
Buildout...................................................... ............................... ........................4.12
-24
4.12 -13
Future Noise Levels at Newport Crest Residences With Mitigation:
General Plan Buildout With Project ............ ............................... ........................4.12
-26
4.12 -14
Future Noise Levels at California Seabreeze and Parkview Circle
Homes: 2030 General Plan Buildout .......... ............................... ........................4.12
-28
4.12 -15
North Community Park - Related Noise Level Increases ............ ........................4.12
-36
4.12 -16
Typical Vibration Levels During Construction ............................ ........................4.12
-39
4.12 -17
City of Newport Beach General Plan Consistency Analysis ...... ........................4.12
-45
4.13 -1
On -Site Cultural Resources ........................ ............................... ........................4.13
-15
4.13 -2
Paleontological Sensitivity of the Lithologic Units Underlying the
ProjectSite ................................................. ............................... ........................4.13
-22
4.13 -3
City of Newport Beach General Plan Consistency Analysis ...... ........................4.13
-35
4.13 -4
California Coastal Act Consistency Analysis ............................. ........................4.13
-38
4.14 -1
Newport Beach Fire Station Facilities ......... ............................... .........................4.14
-4
4.14 -2
NMUSD School Capacity and Enrollment for 2010 -2011 ......... ........................4.14
-20
4.14 -3
Available Capacity at Existing Newport-Mesa Unified School District
Schools Nearest to the Project Site ............ ............................... ........................4.14
-21
4.14 -4
Newport-Mesa Unified School District Student Generation Rates ....................4.14
-22
4.14 -5
Newport-Mesa Unified School District Dwelling Units and Students Yield........
4.14 -23
4.14 -6
Existing Library Facilities Near the Project Site ......................... ........................4.14
-25
4.14 -7
Newport Banning Ranch Estimated Solid Waste Generation Without
WasteDiversion ......................................... ............................... ........................4.14
-29
RAProjectMNewpoMJMSMraft El RlTable of ContenMdoc x Newport Banning Ranch
Draft Environmental Impact Report
RA Projects \Newpon\JD !Draft El RlTable of ContenMd. A Newport Banning Ranch
Draft Environmental Impact Report
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE
PAGE
4.14 -8
SCAG Regional Policy Consistency Analysis ........................... ........................4.14
-32
4.14 -9
City of Newport Beach General Plan Consistency Analysis ...... ........................4.14
-33
4.14 -10
California Coastal Act Consistency Analysis ............................. ........................4.14
-35
4.15 -1
City of Newport Beach Historical and Projected Water Demands .....................4.15
-11
4.15 -2
Existing and Projected Supplies ................. ............................... ........................4.15
-17
4.15 -3
Projected Water Demand ........................... ............................... ........................4.15
-22
4.15 -4
Projected Water Demand Comparison to City of Newport Beach 1999
WaterMaster Plan ...................................... ............................... ........................4.15
-23
4.15 -5
Projected Water Supply and Demand (Normal and Dry Year Periods) .............4.15
-24
4.15 -6
Orange County Sanitation District Wastewater Collection and Treatment ........
4.15 -27
4.15 -7
Dry Weather Flow Volumes ........................ ............................... ........................4.15
-29
4.15 -8
Southern California Edison Power Content ............................... ........................4.15
-32
4.15 -9
Estimated Annual Electrical Consumption . ............................... ........................4.15
-37
4.15 -10
Estimated Annual Natural Gas Consumption ............................ ........................4.15
-38
4.15 -11
SCAG Regional Policy Consistency Analysis ........................... ........................4.15
-41
4.15 -12
City of Newport Beach General Plan Consistency Analysis ...... ........................4.15
-43
5 -1
City of Newport Beach General Plan Buildout Land Use Assumptions ....................5
-6
5 -2
Study Area Potential Cumulative Development Projects ............. ............................5
-9
5 -3
Study Area Potential Cumulative Development Projects Impact Summary
Table........................................................................................... ...........................5
-25
5 -4
General Plan Buildout With and Without Project Traffic Noise Levels: Off -Site
Contributions............................................................................... ...........................5
-70
7 -1
Characteristic Comparison of the Alternatives ........................................ ...............
7 -12
7 -2
Summary of Alternative Impacts Compared to the Proposed Project ....................7
-13
7 -3
Compatibility Comparison of Alternatives With Project Objectives ........................7
-30
7 -4
Alternative B: General Plan — Open Space Designation Statistical Summary .......7
-46
7 -5
Alternative B General Plan Buildout: Intersection Operations ..... ...........................7
-55
7 -6
Alternative C Statistical Summary ............................................... ...........................7
-67
7 -7
Vegetation Types on the Project Site — Alternative C Impacts .... ...........................7
-75
7 -8
Existing Plus Alternative C: Intersection Operations ................... ...........................7
-84
7 -9
Year 2016 With Alternative C TPO Analysis: Intersection Operations ... ................
7 -88
7 -10
Year 2016 Cumulative With Alternative C: Intersection Operations .......................7
-93
7 -11
Year 2016 Cumulative With Alternative C: State Highway Operations ..................7
-97
7 -12
Year 2016 Cumulative With Alternative C Freeway Mainline Operations ..............7
-98
7 -13
General Plan Buildout With Alternative C: Intersection Operations .....................7
-101
7 -14
General Plan Buildout With Alternative C: State Highway Intersection
Operations............................................................................. ...............................
7 -105
7 -15
Alternative D Statistical Summary .......................................... ..............................7
-122
7 -16
Alternative D Trip Generation ................................................. ..............................7
-130
7 -17
Alternative E Statistical Summary .......................................... ..............................7
-140
7 -18
Alternative E Trip Generation ................................................. ..............................7
-147
7 -19
Alternative F Statistical Summary .......................................... ..............................7
-157
7 -20
Alternative F Trip Generation ................................................. ..............................7
-165
RA Projects \Newpon\JD !Draft El RlTable of ContenMd. A Newport Banning Ranch
Draft Environmental Impact Report
VOLUME II
LIST OF EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT
3 -1
Regional Location and Local Vicinity ............................................ ............................3
-1
3 -2
Newport Banning Ranch Land Use Plan, .................................................................
3-1
3 -3
Existing Topographic Site Conditions .................. .....................................................
3 -2
3 -4
Oil Operations .............................................................................. ............................3
-4
3 -5
Surrounding Land Uses ................................................................ ............................3
-4
3 -6
Newport Beach General Plan Land Use Designation .................. ............................3
-5
3 -7
County of Orange Land Use Designations ................................... ............................3
-7
3 -8
Existing Zoning ............................................................................. ............................3
-7
3 -9
Master Roadway Plan .................................... ................ ........................................
3 -17
3 -10a
Cross- Sections A -A, B -B, and P- P .............................................. ...........................3
-18
3 -10b
Cross - Sections Q -Q and R- R .................. ................ ...............................................
3 -18
3 -10c
Cross- Sections J -J and M -M ...................................................... . ...........................
3 -18
3 -10d
Cross - Sections C -C, D -D, and E -E ............................................. ...........................3
-18
3-10e
Cross - Sections G -G and H- H ......................... ................ ........................................
3 -18
3 -1 Of
Cross - Sections F -F, 1 -1, and N- N ................................................. ...........................3
-18
3 -10g
Cross - Sections K -K and L- L .......................... ............................... ..........................3
-18
3 -11
15th Street Off -Site Improvements ............................................. . ...........................
3 -20
3 -12
16th Street Off -Site Improvements .............................................. ...........................3
-20
3 -13
North Bluff Road Off -Site Improvements ..................................... ...........................3
-20
3 -14
West Coast Highway Off -Site Improvements .............................. ...........................3
-21
3 -15
Master Development Plan ............................ ............................... ...........................3
-14
3 -16
Soil Disturbance Map .................................................................. ...........................3
-34
3 -17
Cut and Fill Map .......................................................................... ...........................3
-35
3 -18
Proposed Implementation Plan ................................................... ...........................3
-37
3 -19
Circulation Element Roadways ........................................................... ...................
3 -46
3 -20
General Plan Circulation Element Amendment ................................... ...................
3 -46
3 -21
Tentative Tract Map No. 17308 ................................................... ...........................3
-46
4.1 -1
Community Transitions and Interface Key Map ......................... .........................4.1
-28
4.1 -2a
Interface with Lido Sands Community ........................................ .........................4.1
-28
4.1 -2b
Interface with California Seabreeze Community ........................ .........................4.1
-28
4.1 -2c
Interface with Mesa West Bluffs Urban Plan Area ..................... .........................4.1
-28
4.1 -2d
Interface with School District Property ...........................................................
..... 4.1 -28
4.1 -2e
Interface with Carden Hall School .............................................. .........................4.1
-28
4.1 -2f
Northerly Interface with Newport Crest Condominiums ............. .........................4.1
-28
4.1 -2g
Central Community Park Interface with Newport Crest Condominiums ..............
4.1 -28
4.1 -2h
Southern Community Park Interface with Newport Crest Condominiums ...........
4.1 -28
4.1 -2i
Northerly Interface with Newport Shores Community ....................................
..... 4.1 -28
4.1 -2j
Southerly Interface with Newport Shores Community ................ .........................4.1
-28
4.1 -3
Villages and Colonies ................................................................. .........................4.1
-40
4.1 -4
North Family Village Development Plan ..................................... .........................4.1
-41
4.1 -5
North Family Village Edge Section ............................................. .........................4.1
-41
4.1 -6
Consolidated Oil Facilities Interface ........................................... .........................4.1
-42
4.1 -7
South Family Village Development Plan .................................... .........................4.1
-43
4.1 -8
South Family Village Edge Section ............................................ .........................4.1
-43
4.1 -9
Resort Colony Conceptual Development Plan ........................... .........................4.1
-44
4.1 -10
Resort Colony Edge Section ...................................................... .........................4.1
-44
4.1 -11
Urban Colony Conceptual Development Plan ............................ .........................4.1
-45
4.1 -12
Urban Colony Edge Section ....................................................... .........................4.1
-45
RAProjectMNewpo0U015Mmft ElRlTable of ContenMd. xii Newport Banning Ranch
Draft Environmental Impact Report
1I INS Mel a *:4OI11511 V
EXHIBIT
4.2 -1
Coastal Views ................................................. .......................................................
4.2 -2
4.2 -2
Visual Simulations Key Map ........................................................ ..........................4.2
-5
4.2 -3a
View 1 Resort Colony: Resort Inn ........................... ..............................................
4.2 -5
4.2 -3b
View 1 Resort Colony: Resort Flats ............................................ ..........................4.2
-5
4.2 -4
View 2 Pedestrian and Bicycle Bridge ......................................... ..........................4.2
-5
4.2 -5a
View 3 Resort Colony: Resort Flats ............................................ ..........................4.2
-5
4.2 -5b
View 3 Resort Colony: Resort Inn ............................................... ..........................4.2
-5
4.2 -6
View 4 Open Space Preserve and Consolidated Oil Sites Access Road ..............4.2
-5
4.2 -7
View 5 Open Space Preserve and North Family Village ............. ..........................4.2
-5
4.2 -8
View 6 North Bluff Road at 19th Street ....................................... ..........................4.2
-5
4.2 -9
View 7 Urban Colony ................................................................... ..........................4.2
-5
4.2 -10
View 8 Community Park and South Family Village . ..............................................
4.2 -5
4.2 -11a
View 9 From Eastbound West Coast Highway: Resort Flats ...... ..........................4.2
-5
4.2 -11b
View 9 From Eastbound West Coast Highway: Resort Inn ......... ..........................4.2
-5
4.3 -1
Regional Fault Map: Compton Thrust Ramp ............................... ..........................4.3
-6
4.3 -2
Regional Faulting: Newport- Inglewood Fault Zone ..................... ..........................4.3
-6
4.3 -3
Geologic Map .............................................................................. ..........................4.3
-7
4.3-4
Seismic Hazard Zones ................................................................ ..........................4.3
-9
4.3 -5
Fault Setback Zones ................................... ............................... .........................4.3
-16
4.3 -6
Bluff Restoration Plan ................................................................. .........................4.3
-21
4.4 -1
Regional Watersheds ................................................................. .........................4.4
-11
4.4 -2
Existing Site Features ................................................................ .........................4.4
-11
4.4 -3
Existing Watershed .................................................................... .........................4.4
-12
4.4 -4
Flood Hazards ............................................................................ .........................4.4
-15
4.4 -5
Groundwater Monitoring Locations ............................................ .........................4.4
-18
4.4 -6
Master Drainage Plan ................................................................. .........................4.4
-23
4.4 -7
Proposed Sub - Watershed Basins .............................................. .........................4.4
-24
4.4 -8
Water Quality Management Plan ............................................... .........................4.4
-47
4.5 -1
Potential Environmental Concern Location Map ......................... ..........................4.5
-1
4.5 -2
Oil Consolidation Areas ............................................................... ..........................4.5
-8
4.5 -3
Estimated Remedial Action Areas .............................................. .........................4.5
-20
4.6 -1a
Vegetation Types and Other Areas ............................................ .........................4.6
-10
4.6 -1 b
Vegetation Types and Other Areas ............................................ .........................4.6
-10
4.6 -2a
Special Status Species Locations ..................... ..................................................
4.6 -22
4.6 -2b
Special Status Species Locations ........................ ...............................................
4.6 -22
4.6 -3a
USACE Jurisdiction .................................................................... .........................4.6
-43
4.6 -3b
CDFG Jurisdiction ...................................................................... .........................4.6
-43
4.6 -3c
CCC Jurisdiction ......................................................................... .........................4.6
-43
4.6 -4
Newport Banning Ranch Project Impacts ................................... .........................4.6
-46
4.6 -5a
Project Impacts: Vegetation Types and Other Areas ................. .........................4.6
-49
4.6 -5b
Project Impacts: Vegetation Types and Other Areas ................. .........................4.6
-49
4.6 -6a
Project Impacts: Special Status Species Locations ........ ....................................
4.6 -57
4.6 -6b
Project Impacts: Special Status Species Locations ............................... .............
4.6 -57
4.6 -7a
USACE Jurisdictional Impacts .................................................... .........................4.6
-71
4.6 -7b
CDFG Jurisdictional Impacts ................................................. ................ ..............
4.6 -71
4.6 -7c
CCC Jurisdictional Impacts ........................................................ .........................4.6
-71
4.8 -1
City of Newport Beach Bikeways Master Plan ...............................................
....... 4.8 -6
4.8 -2
Parklands ................................................................................... .........................4.8
-10
4.8 -3
North Community Park Development Plan ................................. .........................4.8
-11
RAProje tMNewpoMA15Mmft ElRlTable of ContenMd. xiii Newport Banning Ranch
Draft Environmental Impact Report
IILl Mel a *:4OI11511 V
EXHIBIT
4.8 -4
Central Community Park Development Plan .................. ................ .....................
4.8 -12
4.8 -5
South Community Park Development Plan ................................ .........................4.8
-12
4.8 -6
South Bluff Park Development Plan ........................ ............................................
4.8 -12
4.8 -7
North Bluff Park Development Plan ............................................ .........................4.8
-12
4.8 -8
Nature Center & Vernal Pool Interpretive Area .......................... .........................4.8
-12
4.8 -9
Talbert Trailhead Development Plan .......................................... .........................4.8
-13
4.8 -10
Master Trails and Coastal Access Plan ...................................... .........................4.8
-13
4.8 -11
Multi -Use Trail Cross - Section ..................................................... .........................4.8
-13
4.8 -12
Bluff Park Multi -Use Trail Cross - Section .................................... .........................4.8
-14
4.8 -13
Bluff Park Pedestrian Trail Cross - Section .................................. .........................4.8
-14
4.8 -14
Bluff Toe Multi -Use Trail Cross - Section ..................................... .........................4.8
-14
4.8 -15
Lowland Interpretive Multi -Use Trail Cross - Section ................... .........................4.8
-14
4.8 -16
Upland Interpretive Multi -Use Trail Cross - Section ..................... .........................4.8
-14
4.8 -17
Southern Arroyo Multi -Use Trail Cross - Section ............................. ................
..... 4.8 -14
4.8 -18
Pedestrian and Bicycle Bridge .............................................................. ..............
4.8 -15
4.9 -1
Orange County Master Plan of Arterial Highways ....................... ..........................4.9
-3
4.9 -2
Master Plan of Streets and Highways ......................................... ..........................4.9
-3
4.9 -3
Traffic Study Area ........................................................................ ..........................4.9
-5
4.9 -4
Existing Transit Service ............................... ............................... .........................4.9
-14
4.9 -5a
Traffic Study Area Characteristics .............................................. .........................4.9
-14
4.9 -5b
Traffic Study Area Characteristics .............................................. .........................4.9
-14
4.9 -6
Existing Conditions: Deficient Intersections ............................... .........................4.9
-14
4.9 -7
Project Trip Distribution .............................................................. .........................4.9
-25
4.9 -8
Existing Plus Project: Deficient Intersections ............................. .........................4.9
-29
4.9 -9
Year 2016 Without Project TPO Analysis: Deficient Intersections ......................4.9
-37
4.9 -10
Year 2016 With Project TPO Analysis: Deficient Intersections .. .........................4.9
-44
4.9 -11
Year 2016 With Phase 1 Project: Deficient Intersections ........... .........................4.9
-46
4.9 -12
Cumulative Traffic Study Area Projects ...................................... .........................4.9
-52
4.9 -13
Year 2016 Cumulative Without Project: Deficient Intersections . .........................4.9
-54
4.9 -14
Year 2016 Cumulative With Project: Deficient Intersections ...... .........................4.9
-63
4.9 -15
Year 2016 Cumulative With Phase 1 Project: Deficient Intersections .................
4.9 -68
4.9 -16a
General Plan Lane Configuration and Traffic Control ................ .........................4.9
-74
4.9 -16b
General Plan Lane Configuration and Traffic Control ................ .........................4.9
-74
4.9 -17
General Plan Buildout Without Project: Deficient Intersections .. .........................4.9
-76
4.9 -18
General Plan Buildout With Project: Deficient Intersections ....... .........................4.9
-80
4.9 -19
15th Street Parking ..................................................................... .........................4.9
-90
4.9 -20
Screenline Location for Daily Roadway Analysis .................. ............................4.9
-115
4.9 -21
General Plan Buildout With Project Without 19th Street Bridge:
Deficient Intersections ........................................................... ............................4.9
-119
4.9 -22
MPAH Network Alternative Without 19th Street Bridge:
Deficient Intersections ........................................................... ............................4.9
-123
4.9 -23
MPAH Network Alternative With 19th Street Bridge: Deficient Intersections ....4.9
-123
4.9 -24
MPAH Alternative General Plan Buildout With Project Average Daily Traffic
...4.9 -128
4.9 -25
General Plan Buildout With Proposed Project Average Daily Traffic ................4.9
-128
4.10 -1
2008 Wind Rose for John Wayne Airport .... ............................... .........................4.10
-9
4.10 -2
Sensitive Receptors - Air Quality ............... ............................... ........................4.10
-10
4.12 -1
On -Site Measurement Locations ................. ............................... .........................4.12
-9
4.12 -2
Off -Site Measurement Locations ................. ............................... .........................4.12
-9
4.12 -3
Proposed Site Development and Surrounding Land Uses ........ ........................4.12
-10
RAProje tMNewpoMA15Mmft ElR \Table of ContenMd. xiv Newport Banning Ranch
Draft Environmental Impact Report
II NS Mel a *:4OIIt70r61
EXHIBIT
4.12 -4
Traffic Noise Receptors — Newport Crest ... ............................... ........................4.12
-23
4.12 -5
Traffic Noise Receptors — California Seabreeze and Parkview Circle ..............4.12
-27
4.12 -6
Noise Barrier Locations — Bluff Road Residences .................... ........................4.12
-30
4.14 -1
Community Landscape Zones ..................... ............................... .........................4.14
-8
4.14 -2
School District Boundaries and Schools .... ............................... ........................4.14
-10
4.15 -1
Existing Water Systems ............................. ............................... ........................4.15
-17
4.15 -2
Master Water Plan ...................................... ............................... ........................4.15
-21
4.15 -3
Master Wastewater Plan ............................ ............................... ........................4.15
-27
5 -1
Orange County Cumulative Projects ............................................ ............................5
-8
5 -2
Newport Beach Cumulative Projects ............................................ ............................5
-8
5 -3
Costa Mesa Cumulative Projects ................................................. ............................5
-8
5 -4
Huntington Beach Cumulative Projects ........................................ ............................5
-8
5 -5
Irvine Cumulative Projects ............................................................ ............................5
-8
7 -1
Alternative B: Existing General Plan — Open Space Alternative . ...........................7
-46
7 -2
Alternative C: Proposed Land Use Plan with North Bluff Road to 17th Street .......
7-66
7 -3
Existing Plus Alternative C: Deficient Intersections ..................... ...........................7
-83
7 -4
Year 2016 With Alternative C — TPO Analysis: Deficient Intersections ..................7
-87
7 -5
Year 2016 Cumulative Conditions With Alternative C: Deficient Intersections .......
7-92
7 -6
General Plan Buildout with Alternative C: Deficient Intersections ........................7
-104
7 -7
Alternative D: Reduced Footprint and 1,200 Dwelling Units .. ..............................7
-121
7 -8
Alternative E: Reduced Footprint and 1,375 Dwelling Units ... ..............................7
-139
7 -9
Alternative F: Increased Open Space /Reduced Footprint and 1,375
Dwelling Units, 60,000 SF Commercial .................................. ..............................7
-156
RA Projects \Newpon\JM \!Draft El RlTable of ContenMd. xv Newport Banning Ranch
Draft Environmental Impact Report
LIST OF APPENDICES
VOLUME III
A Notice of Preparation
B Geology and Soils
C Hydrology and Water Quality
D Site Remediation and Hazardous Materials
E Biological Resources
VOLUME IV
F Transportation and Circulation
G Air Quality
H Climate Change
I Noise
J Cultural and Paleontological Resources
K Fire Protection
L Utilities
M Cumulative Projects
RA Projects \Newpon\JD !Draft El RlTable of ContenMd. xvi Newport Banning Ranch
Draft Environmental Impact Report
SECTION 1.0
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
1.1 INTRODUCTION
Section 1.0
Executive Summary
The environmental impact report (EIR) process, as defined by the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA), requires the preparation of an objective, full - disclosure document in order
to (1) inform agency decision makers and the general public of the direct and indirect potentially
significant environmental effects of a proposed action; (2) identify feasible or potentially feasible
mitigation measures to reduce or eliminate potential significant adverse impacts; and (3) identify
and evaluate reasonable alternatives to the proposed project. In accordance with Section 15161
of the State CEQA Guidelines (Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations (CCRi), this is a
Project EIR that addresses the potential environmental impacts associated with the proposed
Project, known as "Newport Banning Ranch ".
1.2 PROJECT LOCATION
The Newport Banning Ranch Project site (Project site) encompasses approximately 401 acres.
Approximately 40 acres of the Project site are located in the incorporated boundary of the City
of Newport Beach (City), and approximately 361 acres are in unincorporated Orange County
(County) within the City's Sphere of Influence, as determined by the Local Agency Formation
Commission (tAFCO) of Orange County. The entire Project site is within the boundary of the
Coastal Zone, as established by the California Coastal Act.
The Project site is generally bound on the north by the County of Orange Talbert Nature
Preserve /Regional Park in the City of Costa Mesa and residential development in the City of
Newport Beach; on the south by West Coast Highway and residential development in the City of
Newport Beach; on the east by residential, light industrial, institutional, and office development
in the Cities of Costa Mesa and Newport Beach; and on the west by the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers (USACE) restored salt marsh basin and the Santa Ana River. The City of Huntington
Beach is west of the Santa Ana River. At its nearest point, the Project site is less than 0.25 mile
inland from the Pacific Ocean. Because the property is an active oilfield, there is no public
access to the Project site. Exhibit 3 -1, Regional Location, and Exhibit 3 -2, Local Vicinity, in
Section 3.0, Project Description, depict the Project site in a regional and local context,
respectively.
1.3 PROJECT DESCRIPTION SUMMARY
The proposed Project would allow for the development of the site with residential, commercial,
resort inn, and park and recreational uses, and would provide open space uses that would
permit the designation of oil use retention and consolidation on a portion of the open space area
of the Project site. A detailed Project Description is provided in Section 3.0 of this EIR. The
proposed Project includes infrastructure to support the proposed land uses, including public
parks and open space to serve future Project residents and the community at large.
Table 1 -1 provides a summary of the proposed land uses. The 401 -acre Project site is proposed
for development with 1,375 residential dwelling units (du); 75,000 square feet (sf) of commercial
uses, and a 75 -room resort inn. Approximately 51.4 gross acres are proposed for active and
passive park uses including a 26.8- gross -acre public Community Park. Approximately
252.3 gross acres (approximately 63 percent) of the 401 -acre site are proposed for natural
resources protection in the form of open space. Of the 252.3 gross acres, approximately
R:TrojectslNewpaTJ 015\1 Draft EIM1.0 E Sum- 090411 .doc 1 -1 Newport Banning Ranch
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Section 1.0
Executive Summary
16.5 gross acres would be used for interim oil operations. Upon the future cessation of oil
operations, these oil consolidation sites would be abandoned and remediated, and the
consolidation sites would be restored as open space. The proposed Project includes the
development of a vehicular and a non - vehicular circulation system for automobiles, bicycles,
and pedestrians, including a proposed pedestrian and bicycle bridge from the Project site
across West Coast Highway. A summary of the significant environmental impacts associated
with the Project, as well as a summary of the Mitigation Program —which includes Project
Design Features (PDFs), Standard Conditions and Requirements (SCs) and Mitigation
Measures (MMs) —are provided in Section 1.7.
TABLE 1 -1
NEWPORT BANNING RANCH PROJECT
PROPOSED LAND USE SUMMARY
The City of Newport Beach General Plan (General Plan) was adopted by the City Council on
July 25, 2006, and approved by the voters on November 6, 2006. The General Plan
(1) establishes criteria and standards for land use development and (2) provides policy and land
use guidance for the City and its Sphere of Influence. A majority of the Project site is located in
the unincorporated Orange County area within the City's Sphere of Influence with a County
General Plan designation of "Open Space ". As a part of the Project, the unincorporated area
within the City's Sphere of Influence is proposed to be annexed to the City.
The Project site has a Newport Beach General Plan land use designation of OS (RV), Open
Space /Residential Village. The OS(RV) land use designation establishes a Primary Use of
Open Space and an Alternative Use of Residential Village for the Project site, as described
below:
Primary Use: Open Space, including significant active community parklands that
serve adjoining residential neighborhoods if the site is acquired through public
funding.
Alternative Use: If not acquired for open space within a time period and
pursuant to terms agreed to by the City and property owner, the site may be
developed as a residential village containing a mix of housing types, limited
supporting retail, visitor accommodations, school, and active community
R:TrojectslNewpan\J015 \I Draft EIR1.0 E Sum- 090411 .doc 1 -2 Newport Banning Ranch
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Planned
Maximum
Maximum
Gross
Dwelling
Square
Resort Inn
Land Use
Acres'
Net Acres
Units
Feet`
Rooms
Open Space
252.3
244.0
—
Public Parks /Recreation
51.4
42.1
—
—
—
Visitor- Serving ResorUResidential
11.3
10.6
87
—
75
Residential
65.2
47.8
558
Mixed - Use /Residential
20.9
18.3
730
75,000
—
Total
401.1
1 362.8
1 1,375
1 75,000
1 75
Gross acres are measured to centerlines of adjacent arterial and collector road rights -of -way where such roads are
shown on Project plans and include right -of -way reservations for future roads.
° Net acres exclude arterial and collector road rights -of -way and the 19" Street right -of -way reservation where such roads
are shown on Project plans. Net acres include local roads and alleys. Net acres are computed to 10 decimal places then
rounded to the nearest 0.10 of an acre.
This category refers to commercial uses that will be included in a mixed -use area.
Source: FORMA 2011.
The City of Newport Beach General Plan (General Plan) was adopted by the City Council on
July 25, 2006, and approved by the voters on November 6, 2006. The General Plan
(1) establishes criteria and standards for land use development and (2) provides policy and land
use guidance for the City and its Sphere of Influence. A majority of the Project site is located in
the unincorporated Orange County area within the City's Sphere of Influence with a County
General Plan designation of "Open Space ". As a part of the Project, the unincorporated area
within the City's Sphere of Influence is proposed to be annexed to the City.
The Project site has a Newport Beach General Plan land use designation of OS (RV), Open
Space /Residential Village. The OS(RV) land use designation establishes a Primary Use of
Open Space and an Alternative Use of Residential Village for the Project site, as described
below:
Primary Use: Open Space, including significant active community parklands that
serve adjoining residential neighborhoods if the site is acquired through public
funding.
Alternative Use: If not acquired for open space within a time period and
pursuant to terms agreed to by the City and property owner, the site may be
developed as a residential village containing a mix of housing types, limited
supporting retail, visitor accommodations, school, and active community
R:TrojectslNewpan\J015 \I Draft EIR1.0 E Sum- 090411 .doc 1 -2 Newport Banning Ranch
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Section 1.0
Executive Summary
parklands, with a majority of the property preserved as open space. The property
owner may pursue entitlement and permits for a residential village during the
time allowed for acquisition as open space.
The City of Newport Beach General Plan's Land Use Element prioritizes the retention of the
Project site for open space. As described in the General Plan, the open space acquisition option
could include consolidation of oilfield operations; restoration of wetlands; and the provision of
nature education and interpretative facilities and an active park containing playfields and other
facilities to serve residents of adjoining neighborhoods.
The General Plan also specifies that, if the property is not acquired for open space within a time
period and pursuant to terms agreed to by both the City and property owner, the Project site
could be developed as a Residential Village (RV) containing a mix of housing types, limited
supporting retail, visitor accommodations, a school, and active community parklands with a
majority of the property preserved as open space. The General Plan identifies the maximum
intensity of development allowed on the property to include up to 1,375 du, 75,000 sf of retail
commercial uses oriented to serve the needs of local and nearby residents, and 75 hotel rooms
in a small boutique hotel or other type of overnight visitor accommodation.
Under both the Primary Use and Alternative Use, roadways would be constructed through the
Project site. Both the Master Plan of Streets and Highways in the City of Newport Beach
General Plan's Circulation Element and the Orange County Master Plan of Arterial Highways
(MPAH) depict roadways through the Project site. Roadways to be constructed as part of the
proposed Project include: (a) Bluff Road, a north - south, four -lane divided road extending from
West Coast Highway to 15th Street; (b) North Bluff Road, which would transition from a four -lane
divided road to a two -lane undivided road extending between 15th Street and 19th Street; (c) an
extension of 15th Street, a four -lane divided road, from its existing western terminus at the
boundary of the Project site and connecting with North Bluff Road; (d) the extension of
16th Street, a two -lane collector roadway, from its existing terminus at the Project site's eastern
boundary to North Bluff Road; and (e) the extension of 17th Street, a four -lane divided primary
roadway from its existing terminus at the Project site's eastern boundary and connecting with
North Bluff Road.
As proposed, the Project requires an amendment to the General Plan Circulation Element to
delete a second road connection to West Coast Highway through the Project site from
15th Street. The traffic analysis done for the Project demonstrates that this roadway is not
needed to serve the traffic demand associated with the proposed Project and subregional
development. Therefore, construction of this second road to West Coast Highway has not been
identified as a component of the Project. For further discussion of the travel demand, please see
Section 4.9, Transportation and Circulation.
An amendment to the Orange County MPAH is also required to delete a second connection to
West Coast Highway and to redesignate North Bluff Road. The Orange County MPAH
designates North Bluff Road as a Primary (four -lane divided) to 17th Street and a Major (six -lane
divided) between 17th Street and 19th Street. An amendment to the Orange County MPAH is
required to change the designation from a Major to a Secondary (four -lane undivided) between
17th Street and 19th Street.
Half -width roadway improvements on North Bluff Road north of 16th Street for approximately
800 feet are proposed on property owned by the Newport-Mesa Unified School District (School
District). The construction of this segment of North Bluff Road would require acquisition by
R:TrojectslNewpart\J015 \I Draft EIR1.0 E Sum- 090411 .doc 1 -3 Newport Banning Ranch
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Section 1.0
Executive Summary
Newport Banning Ranch, LLC (Applicant) or the authorization for use of right -of -way from the
School District.
A Zone Change is being requested to pre -zone the portion of the Project site located within the
City's Sphere of Influence as Planned Community 57 (PC -57), and to amend the boundaries of
PC -25 (located within the City) to remove that portion of the Project site currently located within
PC -25 and change the zoning for this area to PC -57. The boundaries of PC -25 would be revised
to include only the remaining properties owned by the School District and the City. A Zoning
Code Amendment is proposed to adopt the "Newport Banning Ranch Planned Community'
(NBR -PC).
The NBR -PC would serve as the zoning regulations for PC -57, including both the portion of the
Project site located within the City of Newport Beach and the portion of the Project site located
within the County of Orange, but within the City's Sphere of Influence. Following annexation of
the areas located within the Sphere of Influence, the NBR -PC would become effective. The
NBR -PC establishes allowable land uses within each land use district; development regulations
for each land use district; general development regulations applicable to all development within
the Project site; and procedures for implementing and administering the NBR -PC.
The proposed Project includes a request for approval of the Newport Banning Ranch Master
Development Plan (Master Development Plan). Approval of the Master Development Plan
implements the NBR -PC zoning requirements for the Project site by establishing design criteria
for each proposed land use and providing a sufficient level of detail, as determined by the City,
to guide the review of subsequent development approvals. The Master Development Plan
contains Project development plans and preliminary layouts for streets and lotting, pedestrian
and vehicular accessways, open spaces, parks, and other site features for the Project site area.
City approval of the Master Development Plan is required for Project implementation.
The Applicant is also requesting the approval of Tentative Tract Map (TTM) No. 17308, which
(1) establishes lots for public dedication or conveyance; (2) easements for trails and public
utilities; (3) lots for residential development and conveyance to homebuyers; and (4) lots for
financing and conveyance that may be either developed on a residential condominium basis or
which can be further subdivided for purposes of development and conveyance to homebuyers.
Approval of TTM No. 17308 would permit grading, site remediation, habitat restoration,
construction of drainage and water quality improvements, backbone infrastructure, and dry and
wet utilities throughout the Project site. Development of all other proposed facilities and land
uses would require recordation of a final tract map.
A Pre - Annexation and Development Agreement between the Applicant and the City would also
be processed concurrent with other approvals associated with this Project.
Project implementation requires multiple approvals, permits, and /or actions as listed below.
These approvals are addressed in greater detail in Section 3.0, Project Description.
Federal
• USACE: Section 404 permit for impacts to areas determined to be "Waters of the U.S."
• U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service: Section 7 Consultation for potential impacts to federally
listed species.
R:TrojectslNewpart\J015 \!Draft EIM1.0 E Sum- 090411 .doc 14 Newport Banning Ranch
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Section 1.0
Executive Summary
State
• Regional Water Quality Control Board: Water Quality Certification under Section 401
of the Federal Clean Water Act; approval related to oil well /facility abandonment and site
remediation.
• California Department of Fish and Game: Section 1602 Streambed Alteration
Agreement.
• California Coastal Commission: Master Coastal Development Permit, including
approval of the Newport Banning Ranch Master Development Plan and Pre - Annexation
and Development Agreement.
• California Department of Transportation ( Caltrans): Encroachment Permit for
activities in Caltrans' rights -of -way, including modification of the reinforced concrete box
under West Coast Highway and construction of the pedestrian and bicycle bridge.
• California Department of Conservation, Division of Oil, Gas and Geothermal
Resources: Site remediation activities.
Regional and Special Districts
• Local Agency Formation Commission: Annexation approval.
• South Coast Air Quality Management District ( SCAQMD): SCAQMD permits for the
oilfield soil remediation.
County
• Orange County Transportation Authority: Amendment to the Orange County MPAH.
• Orange County Health Care Agency: Approval related to oil well /facility abandonment
and site remediation.
City of Newport Beach
• Certification of the Final EIR
• General Plan Circulation Amendment
• Zoning Code Amendment
• Zone Change
• Newport Banning Ranch Planned Community Development Plan
• Newport Banning Ranch Master Development Plan
• Tentative Tract Map No. 17308
• Affordable Housing Implementation Plan (AHIP)
• Pre - Annexation and Development Agreement
• Traffic Phasing Ordinance Approval
In addition to the approvals identified above, the Project is subject to other discretionary and
ministerial actions by the City as part of Project implementation. Subsequent activities would be
R: \P,.pcts\N..poRU015\1D.fi EIR\1 0 ExSUm- 09041 1.d.r 1 -5 Newport Banning Ranch
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Section 1.0
Executive Summary
examined in light of the Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) to determine whether
additional CEQA documentation would be required pursuant to the requirements of Section
21166 of CEQA (Public Resources Code §21166) and Sections 15162 and 15168 of the State
CEQA Guidelines (14 CCR) for subsequent approvals.
Subsequent City approvals include but are not limited to the following:
• Tentative and Final Tract Maps to further subdivide lots approved as part of the approval
of TTM No. 17308;
• Site Development Review Permits;
• Use Permits;
• Model Home Permits;
• Grading Permits;
• Street Improvement and Pedestrian and Bicycle Bridge Plans;
• Storm Drainage, Sewer, Water, and Dry Utility Plans;
• Landscaping and Park Plans;
• Building Permits;
• Encroachment Permits;
• Acquisition of rights of entry easements and rights -of -way for off -site Project
improvements, as necessary;
• Construction of Public Facilities.
1.4 PROJECT OBJECTIVES
The Applicant has identified the following objectives for the proposed Project.
1. Provide a Project that implements the goals and policies that the Newport Beach
General Plan has established for the Banning Ranch area.
2. Preservation of a minimum of 50 percent of the Project site as open space without the
use of public funds to be used for habitat conservation, interpretive trails, and
development of public parks to meet the recreational needs of the community.
3. Development of a residential village of up to 1,375 residential units, offering a variety of
housing types in a range of housing prices, including the provision of affordable housing
to help meet the City's Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA).
4. Development of up to 75 overnight accommodations in a small resort inn including
ancillary facilities and services such as a spa, meeting rooms, shops, bars, and
restaurants that would be open to the public.
5. Development of up to 75,000 square feet of retail commercial uses oriented to serve the
needs of local residents and visitors utilizing the resort inn and the coastal recreational
opportunities provided as part of the Project.
R:TrojectslNewpart\J015 \!Draft EIM1.0 E Sum- 090411 .doc 1 -6 Newport Banning Ranch
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Section 1.0
Executive Summary
6. Development of a land use plan that (1) provides a comprehensive design for the
community that creates cohesive neighborhoods promoting a sense of identity with a
simple and understandable pattern of streets, a system of pedestrian walkways and
bikeways that connect residential neighborhoods, commercial uses, parks, open space
and resort uses; (2) reduces overall vehicle miles travelled; (3) integrates landscaping
that is compatible with the surrounding open space /habitat areas and that enhances the
pedestrian experience within residential areas; and (4) applies architectural design
criteria to orient residential buildings to the streets and walkways in a manner that
enhances the streetscape scene.
7. Provide for roadway improvements to improve and enhance regional circulation,
minimize impacts of Project development on the existing circulation system, and
enhance public access while not developing more roadways than are needed for
adequate regional circulation and coastal access.
8. Provide enhanced public access in the Coastal Zone through a system of pedestrian
walkways, multi -use trails, and on- street bikeways designed to encourage walking and
biking as an alternative to the use of automobiles by providing connectivity among
residential, commercial, park, open space, and resort uses within the Project site and to
existing adjacent open space, hiking and biking trails, the beach, and the Pacific Ocean.
9. Provide for the consolidation of oil resource extraction and related recovery operations in
locations that minimize impacts to sensitive habitat areas and promote compatibility with
development of the remainder of the property for residential, resort, commercial, park,
and open space uses.
10. Provide for the restoration and permanent preservation of habitat areas through
implementation of a Habitat Restoration Plan (HRP) for the habitat conservation,
restoration, and mitigation areas ( "Habitat Areas ") as depicted on the Master
Development Plan.
11. Provide for long -term preservation and management of the Habitat Areas through the
establishment of a conservation easement or deed restriction and the creation of an
endowment or other funding program.
12. Expand public recreational opportunities within the Coastal Zone through development
of a public community park and associated parking, and through development of publicly
accessible bluff parks, interpretive parks, and trails as part of the Project.
13. Improve the existing arroyo drainage courses located within the Project site to provide
for higher quality habitat conditions than exist prior to the time of Project implementation.
14. Implement a Water Quality Management Program within the Project site that will utilize
existing natural treatment systems and that will improve the quality of urban runoff from
off -site and on -site sources prior to discharging into the Santa Ana River and the
Semeniuk Slough.
15. Implement fire protection management solutions designed to protect development areas
from fire hazards, to preserve sensitive habitat areas, and to create fire- resistant habitat
restoration areas within currently denuded, invasive - species laden, and /or otherwise
degraded areas.
R:TrojectslNewpart\J015 \I Draft EIR1.0 E Sum- 090411 .doc 1 -7 Newport Banning Ranch
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Section 1.0
Executive Summary
16. Provide compatibility between the Project and existing adjacent land uses.
1.5 PROJECT ALTERNATIVES
Section 15126.6(a) of the State CEQA Guidelines requires that "an EIR describe a range of
reasonable alternatives to the project, or to the location of the project, which would feasibly
attain most of the basic objectives of the project but would avoid or substantially lessen any of
the significant effects of the project, and evaluate the comparative merits of the alternatives ". Six
alternatives were evaluated. These alternatives are summarized below and discussed and
depicted graphically in Section 7.0, Alternatives to the Proposed Project, of this EIR. In addition,
to the six alternatives that were carried forward for evaluation in this EIR, three alternatives were
considered but not carried forward.
The alternatives were developed to avoid or minimize impacts associated with implementation
of the proposed Project. Given the nature and scale of the Project, complete avoidance of
significant impacts was not feasible for any alternative other than the No Project Alternative. The
summaries of each alternative provided in Section 1.5.2, Alternatives Analyzed, identifies the
significant unavoidable impacts associated with each alternative. In addition, Table 7 -3,
Summary of Alternative Impacts Compared to the Proposed Project, in Section 7.0 provides an
impact summary for all the alternatives for each threshold.
1.5.1 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED BUT NOT CARRIED FORWARD
Various alternatives were evaluated as part of the City of Newport Beach General Plan Update
process. Since the City of Newport Beach City Council already took action on the General Plan
and provided direction on the development concept for the site, these alternatives were not
carried forward. In addition, as part of this EIR process, three alternatives were considered but
not carried forward. The rationale for not carrying the three alternatives forward is provided in
Section 7.4 and summarized below.
Development of the Project Site Consistent with the County of Orange General Plan and
Zoning Designations
The zoning for the 361 acres of the Project site within the County jurisdiction would allow for
development of up to 2,510 multi - family dwelling units, 225 single - family dwelling units,
50,000 sf of general commercial use, 235,600 sf of general office use, and 164,400 sf of
industrial uses. Overlay zones, including Oil Production, Sign Restriction, and Floodplain Zone 2
apply to portions of the property. Development of property pursuant to the County zoning would
generate approximately 22,075 average daily trips on the circulation network (Newport Beach
2006a, 2006b). This alternative was not retained for detailed evaluation in the EIR because it
would not reduce identified impacts of the project and would not achieve several important
project objectives.
Alternative Site
Development of the Project on an alternative site has been reviewed and eliminated from
detailed consideration due to the lack of available alternate sites meeting the majority of the
objectives established for the proposed Project. Newport Beach is almost fully developed with
no other unentitled property that is suitable for supporting a mixed -use project such as Newport
Banning Ranch.
R:TrojectslNewpart\J015NDmft EIM1.0 E Sum- 090411 .doc 1 -8 Newport Banning Ranch
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Section 1.0
Executive Summary
Construction of General Plan Roads
Both the City of Newport Beach General Plan Master Plan of Streets and Highways and the
Orange County MPAH depict two connections to West Coast Highway through the Project site.
One connection is depicted as extending south from 1 g1h Street to West Coast Highway and the
second roadway would extend from 15th Street past Bluff Road and connect with West Coast
Highway on the western edge of the Project site. The need for these two primary roads was
based on the environmental baseline that the 2006 General Plan Update used, which assumed
more intense development on the Project site. Based on the reduced density being proposed,
only one roadway is needed to serve the travel demand. This alternative would have had more
impacts due to the need for the construction of an additional roadway.
1.5.2 ALTERNATIVES ANALYZED
Alternatives analyzed in this EIR are listed and summarized below.
• Alternative A: No Action /No Development Alternative (Continuation of Existing Land
Uses).
• Alternative B: Newport Beach General Plan /Open Space Designation.
• Alternative C: Proposed Project with Bluff Road Extending to 17`h Street.
• Alternative D: Reduced Development and Development Area.
• Alternative E. Reduced Development Area.
• Alternative F. Increased Open Space /Reduced Development Area.
Alternative A: No Action /No Development Alternative (Continuation of Existing Land
Uses
Alternative A is the "no project" alternative required by the State CEQA Guidelines Section
15126.6(e) which allows the decisionmakers to compare the potential impacts of the proposed
Project with the potential impacts of not approving the proposed Project. Alternative A assumes
existing conditions on the Project site and the continuation and possible expansion of oil
exploration and oil production operations within the constraints of the Project site's existing
California Coastal Act regulatory exemption for petroleum production. No uses other than oil
operations would occur on the Project site. Oil consolidation, clean -up, and remediation would
not occur for the foreseeable future, and public access would not be provided. At the eventual
cessation of oil production operations, well abandonment and removal of certain surface
equipment and pipelines would occur in accordance with applicable State and local regulations.
This alternative would not require an amendment to the City of Newport Beach General Plan or
Orange County MPAH, a zone change, a Coastal Development Permit, or any of the other
actions associated with the Newport Banning Ranch Project. The approximate 361 acres of the
401 -acre site within the City's Sphere of Influence would not be annexed into the City of
Newport Beach.
Alternative A would have greater impacts than the proposed Project when evaluating
consistency with applicable plans and policies. However, since with this alternative the site
would not be annexed into the City of Newport Beach, the City planning programs would not be
applicable to the majority of the site. This alternative would not have any impacts that are
significant and unavoidable, whereas the proposed project would have significant unavoidable
R:TrojectslNewpart\J015 \I Draft EIR1.0 E Sum- 090411 .doc 1 -9 Newport Banning Ranch
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Section 1.0
Executive Summary
impacts associated with land use compatibility (due to noise, and night lighting), aesthetics,
transportation, air quality, greenhouse gas emissions, and noise.
Alternative B: Newport Beach General Plan /Open Space Designation
The Project site is designated as OS(RV) in the City of Newport Beach General Plan's Land
Use Element. The OS(RV) land use designation allows for both a Primary Use (Open Space)
and an Alternative Use (Residential Village) on the Project site. The Land Use Element
prioritizes the retention of the Project site for open space. The Project site would have to be
acquired through public or private funding by an entity capable of restoring and maintaining the
Project site and with the approval of the property owner(s), including the surface rights owners.
As described in the General Plan, the open space acquisition option includes consolidation of oil
operations; wetlands restoration; construction of roadways; and provision of nature education,
interpretative facilities, and an active park that contains lighted playfields and other facilities.
Alternative B would include park and open space uses, including an approximately 31.3- gross-
acre community park in the central portion of the site. Alternative B also assumes consolidation
of the oilfields, remediation of the property, and restoration of habitat including wetlands.
Additionally, the following roadways would be constructed consistent with the City of Newport
Beach General Plan's Circulation Element: (1) a north -south road with a southern terminus at
West Coast Highway and extending to a northern terminus at 1gth Street (Bluff Road and North
Bluff Road); (2) the extension of 15th Street from its existing terminus to Bluff Road within the
Project site; (3) the extension of 16th Street from its existing terminus to Bluff Road within the
Project site; and (4) the extension of 17th Street from its existing terminus to Bluff Road within
the Project site. As with the proposed Project, Alternative B also assumes the deletion of the
future extension of a second road through the Project site and its connection to West Coast
Highway; this action would require the approval of a General Plan Amendment to the City's
Circulation Element and an amendment to the Orange County MPAH. Consistent with the
roadway assumptions for the proposed Project, North Bluff Road (extending from 17th Street to
1 gth Street) would transition from a four -lane divided to a two -lane undivided road to 1 gth Street.
In addition to, or included in, the costs associated with site acquisition, funds would be required
to initiate the consolidation of oil operations and to address oilfield abandonment and clean -up
of the Project site. Additional funding would be required to implement restoration and long -term
management of sensitive habitats and to construct public infrastructure; park and open space
uses; and roadways. As with the proposed Project, a Coastal Development Permit would be
required to initiate restoration activities and to allow for the future construction of permitted land
uses and roadways through the Project site.
Alternative B would eliminate significant and unavoidable impacts associated with traffic, air
quality, greenhouse gases, and certain noise impacts when compared to the proposed Project;
however, there would still be impacts that could not be reduced to a level considered less than
significant. The following areas would have significant, unavoidable impacts:
• There would be land use incompatibility with respect to night illumination associated with
the Community Park and long -term noise impacts on those Newport Crest residences
immediately contiguous to the Project site. In addition, there would be a potential long -
range noise impacts for residents on 17th Street west of Monrovia Avenue. For noise,
though mitigation is proposed, noise impacts would remain significant if the residents of
Newport Crest elect not to implement the mitigation measures to reduce the increased
interior noise levels and if the City of Costa Mesa does not implement the recommended
measure of resurfacing the street with rubberized asphalt (Threshold 4.1 -1).
RTrojeWNewpon\J015l Draft EIR1.0E Sum- 090411 .doc 1 -10 Newport Banning Ranch
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Section 1.0
Executive Summary
• Alternative B would introduce nighttime lighting into a currently unlit area. The
Community Park is anticipated to have night lighting of active sports fields, which could
result in light spillover onto adjacent properties. The night lighting impacts are
considered significant and unavoidable. The City of Newport Beach General Plan Final
EIR found that the introduction of new sources of lighting associated with development
of the site would be considered significant and unavoidable. In certifying the General
Plan Final EIR and approving the General Plan project, the City approved a Statement of
Overriding Considerations, which notes that there are specific economic, social, and
other public benefits that outweigh the significant and unavoidable impacts associated
with the General Plan project (Threshold 4.2 -3).
• Construction of the roadways and park would cause a substantial temporary increase in
noise levels at residences and schools within 500 feet of the roadway and park
construction because of existing relatively low ambient noise levels. Due to the low
existing ambient noise levels, the proximity of the noise - sensitive receptors, and duration
of construction activities, the temporary noise increases would be significant and
unavoidable (Threshold 4.12 -2).
This alternative is deemed to be potentially feasible. The financial feasibility of this alternative is
dependent upon the ability of a responsible party to obtain sufficient funds to acquire the site
and fund clean -up, restoration, and long -term maintenance of the site. Therefore, the ultimate
determination of feasibility is a consideration for decision makers.
Alternative C: Proposed Project with Bluff Road Extending to 17`h Street
Alternative C assumes the same land uses and same development plan as the proposed
Newport Banning Ranch Project and would require the same approvals from local and regional
agencies. The City of Newport Beach General Plan's Circulation Element and the Orange
County MPAH depict a north -south roadway connection from West Coast Highway to 19th Street
through the Project site. Alternative C would provide the development of a north -south
connection (North Bluff Road /Bluff Road) from West Coast Highway only to 17th Street. As with
the proposed Project, Alternative C assumes an amendment to the Circulation Element to
delete a second road through the Project site and its connection to West Coast Highway. An
amendment to the Orange County MPAH is required for this deletion as well as to downgrade
North Bluff Road from a Major to a Primary. Alternative C is proposed to minimize significant
impacts to sensitive habitat areas and landform alteration associated with the extension of North
Bluff Road from just north of 17th Street to 19th Street.
The following is a summary of the significant, unavoidable impacts associated with Alternative
C:
There would be land use incompatibility with respect to night illumination associated with
the Community Park and long -term noise impacts on those Newport Crest residences
immediately contiguous to the Project site. In addition, there would be a potential long -
range noise impacts for residents on 17th Street west of Monrovia Avenue. For noise,
though mitigation is proposed, noise impacts would remain significant if the residents of
Newport Crest elect not to implement the mitigation measures to reduce the increased
interior noise levels and if the City of Costa Mesa does not implement the
recommended measure of resurfacing the street with rubberized asphalt (Threshold 4.1-
1).
Alternative C would include a "dark sky" lighting regulations in the NBR -PC that would
apply to businesses (e.g., resort inn and neighborhood commercial uses) and
R:TrojectslNewpart\J015 \!Draft EIR1.0 E Sum- 090411 .doc 1 -11 Newport Banning Ranch
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Section 1.0
Executive Summary
Homeowners Association -owned and operated land uses within 100 feet of the Open
Space Preserve. However, Alternative C would introduce nighttime lighting into a
currently unlit area. The Community Park is anticipated to have night lighting of active
sports fields, which could result in light spillover onto adjacent properties. The night
lighting impacts are considered significant and unavoidable. The City of Newport Beach
General Plan Final EIR found that the introduction of new sources of lighting associated
with development of the site would be considered significant and unavoidable. In
certifying the General Plan Final EIR and approving the General Plan project, the City
approved a Statement of Overriding Considerations, which notes that there are specific
economic, social, and other public benefits that outweigh the significant and unavoidable
impacts associated with the General Plan project (Threshold 4.2 -3).
Alternative C would have impacts on intersections in the City of Costa Mesa.
Implementation of MM 4.9 -2 would mitigate the impacts to a level considered less than
significant. However, the City of Newport Beach cannot impose mitigation on another
jurisdiction. Therefore, if the Applicant is unable to reach an agreement with the City of
Costa Mesa that would ensure that Project impacts occurring in Costa Mesa would be
mitigated concurrent with or preceding the impact, for purposes of this EIR, the impacts
to be mitigated by the improvements would remain significant and unavoidable. Pursuant
to Threshold 4.9 -2, the following impacts were identified with the various traffic scenarios
evaluated:
— Existing Plus Alternative C: Alternative C would significantly impact four intersections
in Costa Mesa, whereas the proposed Project would significantly impact three
intersections in Costa Mesa.
— Year 2016 With Alternative C Transportation Phasing Ordinance (TPO). Alternative
C would significantly impact five intersections, compared to seven for the proposed
Project.
— Year 2016 Cumulative With Alternative C. Alternative C would significantly impact six
intersections; the proposed Project would significantly impact seven intersections:
— General Plan Buildout with Alternative C. Alternative C would significantly impact four
intersections compared to the proposed Project would significantly impact two
intersections.
• Without mitigation, regional (mass) emissions of nitrogen oxides (NOx) are forecasted to
exceed applicable thresholds in some construction years. Though MM 4.10 -1 would
reduce the emissions to a less than significant level, the availability of sufficient Tier 4
diesel engine construction equipment cannot be assured. Therefore, for purposes of this
EIR, the impacts are found to be significant and unavoidable impact (Threshold 4.10 -2).
Long -term operational emissions of criteria pollutants would not exceed the SCAQMD
mass emissions thresholds from initial occupancy through 2020. However, as Alternative
C development continues beyond 2020, emissions of volatile organic compounds (VOC)
and carbon monoxide (CO) would exceed the significance thresholds, principally due to
vehicle operations. Therefore, the impacts remain significant and unavoidable
(Threshold 4.10 -2).
• Alternative C would have cumulatively considerable contributions to regional pollutant
concentrations of ozone (03) (Threshold 4.10 -3).
• Alternative C would emit quantities of greenhouse gases (GHGs) that would exceed the
City's 6,000 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent per year (MTCOZe /yr) significance
R:TrojectslNewpart\J015 \I Draft EIR1.0 E Sum- 090411 .doc 1 -12 Newport Banning Ranch
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Section 1.0
Executive Summary
threshold. Development associated with Alternative C would make a cumulatively
considerable contribution to the global GHG inventory affecting global climate change
(Threshold 4.11 -1).
• For the Existing Plus Project, 2016 with Project, and General Plan Buildout scenarios,
the increased traffic volumes on 17th Street west of Monrovia Avenue would expose
sensitive receptors to noise level increases in excess of the City of Newport Beach's
standards for changes to the ambient noise levels. At buildout, noise levels would also
exceed significance thresholds in the City of Costa Mesa. MM 4.12 -5 requires the
Applicant to provide funds to the City of Costa Mesa to resurface the street with
rubberized asphalt; however, the City of Newport Beach has no ability to ensuring that
the mitigation would be implemented. Therefore, the forecasted impact to residents of
17th Street west of Monrovia is considered significant and unavoidable (Threshold 4.12-
2).
• For portions of the Newport Crest development, there would be a significant increase in
the ambient noise level due to the projected traffic volumes in the buildout condition of
Alternative C. MM 4.12 -6 would reduce impacts to levels within the "Clearly Compatible"
or "Normally Compatible" classifications but would remain above the 5 dBA significance
criterion in the General Plan. MM 4.12 -7 would provide interior noise attenuation but
because the City of Newport Beach does not have the authority to mandate the
implementation of mitigation on private property that is not on the Project site, the impact
would be significant and unavoidable (Thresholds 4.12 -4).
• Use of construction equipment would result in a substantial temporary increase in
ambient noise levels to nearby noise - sensitive receptors in the vicinity of the Project.
Due to the low existing ambient noise levels, the proximity of the noise- sensitive
receptors, and duration of construction activities, the temporary noise increases would
be significant and unavoidable (Threshold 4.12 -2).
Alternative D: Reduced Development and Development Area
Alternative D assumes both a reduction in the amount of development that would occur on the
Project site and a reduction in the acreage associated with that development. The roadway
system would be the same as that included in the proposed Project. When compared to the
proposed Project, Alternative D would allow for up to 1,200 du (compared to 1,375 du),
60,000 sf of neighborhood commercial uses (compared to 75,000 sf); 15,000 sf of visitor - serving
commercial uses (compared to a 75 -room resort inn); approximately 39.1 acres of parks
including a 24.8- gross -acre Community Park (compared to approximately 51.4 total acres of
parklands associated with the proposed Project). Alternative D does not include a Nature Center
or interpretive trails. Open space uses would increase from 251.7 gross acres to 269.1 gross
acres. The development area (residential, commercial, and visitor - serving uses) would decrease
from 98 gross acres to 92.9 gross acres. This alternative does not assume a pedestrian and
bicycle bridge spanning West Coast Highway. Alternative D would require the same
discretionary actions as noted for the proposed Project. Alternative D is proposed to reduce
impacts associated with the intensity of development (e.g., vehicle trips, vehicle miles travelled,
noise and air quality impacts) and the footprint of development (e.g., biological resources).
This Alternative does not eliminate any of the significant impacts of the proposed project, but
would substantially lessen the impacts because Alternative D would have a smaller footprint
(approximately 11 percent less acres of developed with urban uses and parkland), involve less
grading, and have less development (no resort inn and a reduction of approximately 13 percent
in the number of units). Construction air emissions would remain significant and unavoidable,
R:TrojectslNewpart\J015 \I Draft EIR1.0 E Sum- 090411 .doc 1 -13 Newport Banning Ranch
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Section 1.0
Executive Summary
but would be lessened. The following is a summary of the significant, unavoidable impacts
associated with Alternative D:
There would be land use incompatibility with respect to night illumination associated with
the Community Park and long -term noise impacts on those Newport Crest residences
immediately contiguous to the Project site. In addition, there would be a potential long -
range noise impacts for residents on 17th Street west of Monrovia Avenue. For noise,
though mitigation is proposed, noise impacts would remain significant if the residents of
Newport Crest elect not to implement the mitigation measures to reduce the increased
interior noise levels and if the City of Costa Mesa does not implement the recommended
measure of resurfacing the street with rubberized asphalt (Threshold 4.1 -1).
Alternative D would include a "dark sky" lighting regulations in the NBR -PC that would
apply to businesses (e.g., visitor- serving commercial and neighborhood commercial
uses) and Homeowners Association -owned and operated land uses within 100 feet of
the Open Space Preserve. However, Alternative D would introduce nighttime lighting into
a currently unlit area. The Community Park is anticipated to have night lighting of active
sports fields, which could result in light spillover onto adjacent properties. The night
lighting impacts are considered significant and unavoidable. The City of Newport Beach
General Plan Final EIR found that the introduction of new sources of lighting associated
with development of the site would be considered significant and unavoidable. In
certifying the General Plan Final EIR and approving the General Plan project, the City
Council approved a Statement of Overriding Considerations, which notes that there are
specific economic, social, and other public benefits that outweigh the significant and
unavoidable impacts associated with the General Plan project (Threshold 4.2 -3).
• When compared to the proposed Project, Alternative D would have a reduction of
average daily trips (ADT) and PM peak hour trips, but an increase in AM peak hour trips.
Based on the lower volume of ADT and PM peak hour volumes, Alternative D would not
create additional roadway or intersection deficiencies. Both Alternative D and the
proposed Project would be expected to result in a significant impact at one intersection
in the City of Newport Beach and seven intersections in the City of Costa Mesa. Impacts
to the intersection of Newport Boulevard at West Coast Highway in the City of Newport
Beach can be mitigated to a level considered less than significant. Alternative D would
impact the following Costa Mesa intersections: Newport Boulevard at 19th Street,
Newport Boulevard at Harbor Boulevard, Newport Boulevard at 18th Street /Rochester,
Newport Boulevard at 17th Street, Monrovia at 19th Street, Pomona Avenue at 17th
Street, and Superior Avenue at 17th Street. Implementation of MM 4.9 -2 would mitigate
the impact to a level considered less than significant. However, the City of Newport
Beach cannot impose mitigation on another jurisdiction. Therefore, if the Applicant is
unable to reach an agreement with the City of Costa Mesa that would ensure that
Alternative D impacts occurring in Costa Mesa would be mitigated concurrent with or
preceding the impact, for purposes of this EIR, the impacts to be would remain
significant and unavoidable (Threshold 4.9 -2).
• Alternative D would have construction - related air quality impacts. During grading, large
and fine particulate matter (PM 10 and PM2.5, respectively) concentrations may exceed
the SCAQMD CEQA significance thresholds at the property lines, but would not be likely
to exceed ambient air quality standards (Threshold 4.10 -2).
• Long -term operational emissions of criteria pollutants would not exceed the SCAQMD
mass emissions thresholds from initial occupancy through 2020. However, as
R:TrojectslNewpaTJ 015\1 Draft EIM1.0 E Sum- 090411 .doc 1 -14 Newport Banning Ranch
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Section 1.0
Executive Summary
development continues beyond 2020, emissions of VOCs, CO, and PM10 would exceed
the significance thresholds, principally due to vehicle operations (Threshold 4.10 -2).
• Alternative D would have a significant cumulative air quality impact because its
contribution to regional pollutant concentrations would be cumulatively considerable
(Threshold 4.10 -3).
• Alternative D would emit quantities of GHGs that would exceed the City's 6,000
MTCO2e /yr significance threshold. Similar to the Project, Alternative D would make a
cumulatively considerable contribution to the global GHG inventory affecting global
climate change (Threshold 4.11 -1).
• The increased traffic volumes on 17`" Street west of Monrovia Avenue would expose
sensitive receptors to noise levels in excess of the City of Newport Beach's standards for
changes to the ambient noise levels. At buildout, noise levels would also exceed
significance thresholds in the City of Costa Mesa (Threshold 4.12 -2).
• For portions of the Newport Crest development, there would be a significant increase in
the ambient noise level due to the projected traffic volumes in the buildout condition. MM
4.12 -6 would reduce impacts to levels within the "Clearly Compatible" or "Normally
Compatible" classifications but would remain above the 5 dBA significance criterion in
the General Plan. MM 4.12 -7 would provide interior noise attenuation but because the
City of Newport Beach does not have the authority to mandate the implementation of
mitigation on private property that is not on the Project site, the impact would be
significant and unavoidable (Threshold 4.12 -4).
• Use of construction equipment would result in a substantial temporary increase in
ambient noise levels to nearby noise - sensitive receptors in the vicinity of the Project.
Due to the low existing ambient noise levels, the proximity of the noise - sensitive
receptors, and duration of construction activities, the temporary noise increases would
be significant and unavoidable (Threshold 4.12 -2).
Alternative E: Reduced Development Area
Alternative E assumes the same number of residential units (1,375 du) as proposed by the
Project within a reduced footprint. The development area (residential, commercial, and
visitor - serving uses) would decrease from 98 gross acres to 92.9 gross acres. Residential units
would be provided at a higher density and on smaller lots than assumed for the proposed
Project. The same roadway system is proposed. As with Alternative D, this alternative does not
include a Nature Center or interpretive trails; it provides 60,000 sf of neighborhood commercial
uses (compared to 75,000 sf); provides 15,000 sf of visitor - serving commercial uses instead of
the resort inn; and provides approximately 39.1 acres of parks, including a 24.8- gross -acre
Community Park (compared to approximately 51.4 total acres of parklands with the Project).'
This alternative does not assume a pedestrian and bicycle bridge spanning West Coast
Highway. Alternative E would require the same discretionary actions as noted for the proposed
Project.
Although with Alternative E there would be incremental reduction in impacts due to the reduction
in development and the area being developed, this alternative would not eliminate any of the
unavoidable significant impacts identified with the proposed Project. This Alternative would
' Alternative E assumes compliance with the Park Dedications and Fees section (Chapter 19.52) of the Newport
Beach Municipal Code, which would require approximately 15 acres of parkland based on 5 acres of park per
1,000 persons; the City assumes 2.19 persons per dwelling unit.
R:TrojectslNewpart\J015l Draft EIR1.0 Exsum- 090411 .doc 1 -15 Newport Banning Ranch
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Section 1.0
Executive Summary
increase the overall VMT; therefore, there would be slightly greater long -term air emissions,
noise, and traffic. The following significant unavoidable impacts would occur with Alternative E:
There would be land use incompatibility with respect to night illumination associated with
the Community Park and long -term noise impacts on those Newport Crest residences
immediately contiguous to the Project site. In addition, there would be a potential long -
range noise impacts for residents on 17th Street west of Monrovia Avenue. For noise,
though mitigation is proposed, noise impacts would remain significant if the residents of
Newport Crest elect not to implement the mitigation measures to reduce the increased
interior noise levels and if the City of Costa Mesa does not implement the recommended
measure of resurfacing the street with rubberized asphalt (Threshold 4.1 -1).
Alternative E would include a "dark sky" fighting regulations in the NBR -PC that would
apply to businesses (e.g., visitor- serving commercial and neighborhood commercial
uses) and Homeowners Association -owned and operated land uses within 100 feet of
the Open Space Preserve. However, Alternative E would introduce nighttime lighting into
a currently unlit area. The Community Park is anticipated to have night lighting of active
sports fields, which could result in light spillover onto adjacent properties. The night
lighting impacts are considered significant and unavoidable. The City of Newport Beach
General Plan Final EIR found that the introduction of new sources of lighting associated
with development of the site would be considered significant and unavoidable. In
certifying the General Plan Final EIR and approving the General Plan project, the City
approved a Statement of Overriding Considerations, which notes that there are specific
economic, social, and other public benefits that outweigh the significant and unavoidable
impacts associated with the General Plan project (Threshold 4.2 -3).
Alternative E is expected to have an increase in ADT and peak hour traffic volumes
when compared to the proposed Project. However, this increase in peak hour volumes is
not anticipated to cause any of the intersections operating at an acceptable level of
service with the Project to operate at an unacceptable level of service this alternative.
Both Alternative E and the proposed Project would be expected to result in deficiencies
at the intersection of Newport Boulevard at West Coast Highway in the City Newport
Beach which can be mitigated to a level considered less than significant. Both
Alternative E and the proposed Project would be expected to significantly impact seven
intersections in Costa Mesa: Newport Boulevard at 19th Street, Newport Boulevard at
Harbor Boulevard, Newport Boulevard at 18th Street/Rochester, Newport Boulevard at
17th Street, Monrovia at 19th Street, Pomona Avenue at 171h Street, and Superior Avenue
at 17th Street. Implementation of MM 4.9 -2 would mitigate the impacts to a level
considered less than significant. However, the City of Newport Beach cannot impose
mitigation on another jurisdiction. Therefore, if the Applicant is unable to reach an
agreement with the City of Costa Mesa that would ensure that Alternative E impacts
occurring in Costa Mesa would be mitigated concurrent with or preceding the impact, for
purposes of this EIR, the impacts to be mitigated by the improvements would remain
significant and unavoidable (Threshold 4.9 -2).
Without mitigation, regional (mass) emissions of NOx are forecasted to exceed
applicable thresholds in some construction years. Though MM 4.10 -1 would reduce the
emissions to less than significant levels, the availability of sufficient Tier 4 diesel engine
construction equipment cannot be assured. Therefore, for purposes of this EIR, the
impacts are found to be significant and unavoidable impact (Threshold 4.10 -2).
Long -term operational emissions of criteria pollutants would not exceed the SCAQMD
mass emissions thresholds from initial occupancy through 2020. However, as Project
R:TrojectslNewpart\J015 \I Draft EIR1.0 E Sum- 090411 .doc 1 -16 Newport Banning Ranch
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Section 1.0
Executive Summary
development continues beyond 2020, emissions of volatile organic compounds (VOCs)
and carbon monoxide (CO) would exceed the significance thresholds, principally due to
vehicle operations. Therefore, the impacts remain significant and unavoidable
(Threshold 4.10 -2).
• Alternative E would have cumulatively considerable contributions to regional pollutant
concentrations of 03 (Threshold 4.10 -3).
• Alternative E would emit quantities of GHGs that would exceed the City's 6,000
MTCO2e /yr significance threshold. Similar to the Project, Alternative E would make a
cumulatively considerable contribution to the global GHG inventory affecting global
climate change (Threshold 4.11 -1).
• For portions of the Newport Crest development, there would be a significant increase in
the ambient noise level due to the projected traffic volumes in the buildout condition. MM
4.12 -6 would reduce impacts to levels within the "Clearly Compatible" or "Normally
Compatible" classifications but would remain above the 5 dBA significance criterion in
the General Plan. MM 4.12 -7 would provide interior noise attenuation but because the
City of Newport Beach does not have the authority to mandate the implementation of
mitigation on private property that is not on the Project site, the impact would be
significant and unavoidable (Threshold 4.12 -2).
• The increased traffic volumes on 17th Street west of Monrovia Avenue would expose
sensitive receptors to noise levels in excess of the City of Costa Mesa's standards.
MM 4.12 -5 requires the Applicant to provide funds to the City of Costa Mesa to resurface
the street with rubberized asphalt; however, the City of Newport Beach has no ability to
assure that the mitigation would be implemented. Therefore, the forecasted impact to
residents of 17th Street west of Monrovia is considered significant and unavoidable
(Threshold 4.12 -4).
• Use of construction equipment would result in a substantial temporary increase in
ambient noise levels to nearby noise - sensitive receptors in the Project vicinity. The
temporary noise increases would be significant and unavoidable due to the low existing
ambient noise levels, the proximity of the noise - sensitive receptors, and duration of
construction activities (Threshold 4.12 -2).
Alternative F: Increased Open Space /Reduced Development Area
Alternative F assumes the same number of residential units (1,375 du) as proposed by the
Project within a reduced footprint. The development area (residential and commercial) would
decrease from 97.4 gross acres to 84.0 gross acres. This alterative does not include a resort inn
or visitor - serving commercial uses. Residential units would be provided at a higher density and
on smaller lots than assumed for the proposed Project. The same roadway system is proposed.
Open space uses would increase from 252.3 gross acres to 282.4 gross acres. This alternative
does not include a Nature Center or interpretive trails; it provides 60,000 sf of neighborhood
commercial uses (compared to 75,000 sf); and includes approximately 34.7 acres of parks,
including a 21.8- gross -acre Community Park (compared to approximately 51.4 total acres of
parklands) .2 This alternative does not assume a pedestrian and bicycle bridge spanning West
Coast Highway. Alternative F would require the same discretionary actions as noted for the
proposed Project.
2 Alternative F assumes compliance with Park Dedications and Fees section of the Municipal Code, Chapter 19.52
which would require approximately 15 acres of parkland based on 5 acres of park per 1,000 persons; the City
assumes 2.19 persons per dwelling unit.
R:Troiects \Newpart\J015l Draft EIR\1.0 E Sum- 090411 .doc 1 -17 Newport Banning Ranch
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Section 1.0
Executive Summary
The following is a summary of the significant, unavoidable impacts associated with
Alternative F:
There would be land use incompatibility with respect to night illumination associated with
the Community Park and long -term noise impacts on those Newport Crest residences
immediately contiguous to the Project site. In addition, there would be a potential long -
range noise impacts for residents on 17th Street west of Monrovia Avenue. For noise,
though mitigation is proposed, noise impacts would remain significant if the residents of
Newport Crest elect not to implement the mitigation measures to reduce the increased
interior noise levels and if the City of Costa Mesa does not implement the recommended
measure of resurfacing the street with rubberized asphalt (Threshold 4.1 -1).
Alternative F would include a "dark sky' lighting regulations in the NBR -PC that would
apply to businesses (e.g., neighborhood commercial uses) and Homeowners
Association -owned and operated land uses within 100 feet of the Open Space Preserve.
However, Alternative F would introduce nighttime lighting into a currently unlit area. The
Community Park is anticipated to have night lighting of active sports fields, which could
result in light spillover onto adjacent properties. The night lighting impacts are
considered significant and unavoidable. The City of Newport Beach General Plan Final
EIR found that the introduction of new sources of lighting associated with development
of the site would be considered significant and unavoidable. In certifying the General
Plan Final EIR and approving the General Plan project, the City approved a Statement of
Overriding Considerations, which notes that there are specific economic, social, and
other public benefits that outweigh the significant and unavoidable impacts associated
with the General Plan project (Threshold 4.2 -3).
Alternative F would be projected to result in a decrease in ADT and peak hour traffic
volumes when compared to the proposed Project. This decrease in peak hour volumes
would not cause any of the intersections operating at an acceptable level of service with
the Project to operate at an unacceptable level of service. Both Alternative F and the
proposed Project would be expected to result in deficiencies at the intersection of
Newport Boulevard at West Coast Highway in the City of Newport Beach which can be
mitigated to a level considered less than significant. Alternative F and the proposed
Project would significantly impact seven intersections in Costa Mesa: Newport Boulevard
at 19th Street, Newport Boulevard at Harbor Boulevard, Newport Boulevard at
18th Street/Rochester, Newport Boulevard at 17th Street, Monrovia at 19th Street,
Pomona Avenue at 17th Street, and Superior Avenue at 17th Street. Implementation of
MM 4.9 -2 would mitigate the impact to a level considered less than significant. However,
the City of Newport Beach cannot impose mitigation on another jurisdiction. Therefore, if
the Applicant is unable to reach an agreement with the City of Costa Mesa that would
ensure that Alternative F impacts occurring in Costa Mesa would be mitigated
concurrent with or preceding the impact, for purposes of this EIR, the impacts to be
mitigated by the improvements would remain significant and unavoidable (Threshold 4.9-
2).
Without mitigation, regional (mass) emissions of NOx are forecasted to exceed
applicable thresholds in some construction years. Though MM 4.10 -1 would reduce the
emissions to less than significant levels, the availability of sufficient Tier 4 diesel engine
construction equipment cannot be assured. Therefore, for purposes of this EIR, the
impacts are found to be significant and unavoidable (Threshold 4.10 -2).
Long -term operational emissions of criteria pollutants would not exceed the SCAQMD
mass emissions thresholds from initial occupancy through 2020. However, as
R:TrojectslNewpan\J015 \IDraft EIR1.0 E Sum- 090411 .doc 1 -18 Newport Banning Ranch
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Section 1.0
Executive Summary
development continues beyond 2020, emissions of VOCs and CO would exceed the
significance thresholds, principally due to vehicle operations (Threshold 4.10 -2).
• Alternative F would have a cumulatively considerable contribution to regional pollutant
concentrations of 03 (Threshold 4.10 -3).
Alternative F would emit quantities of GHGs that would exceed the City's 6,000
MTCOze /yr significance threshold. Similar to the Project, Alternative F would make a
cumulatively considerable contribution to the global GHG inventory affecting global
climate change (Threshold 4.11 -1).
The increased traffic volumes on 17th Street west of Monrovia Avenue would expose
sensitive receptors to noise levels in excess of the City of Newport Beach's standards for
changes to the ambient noise levels. At buildout, noise levels would also exceed
significance thresholds in the City of Costa Mesa. MM 4.12 -5 requires the Applicant to
provide funds to the City of Costa Mesa to resurface the street with rubberized asphalt;
however, the City of Newport Beach has no ability to ensuring that the mitigation would
be implemented. Therefore, the forecasted impact to residents of 17th Street west of
Monrovia is considered significant and unavoidable (Threshold 4.12 -2).
For portions of the Newport Crest development, there would be a significant increase in
the ambient noise level due to the projected traffic volumes in the buildout condition. MM
4.12 -6 would reduce impacts to levels within the "Clearly Compatible" or "Normally
Compatible" classifications but would remain above the 5 dBA significance criterion in
the General Plan. MM 4.12 -7 would provide interior noise attenuation but because the
City of Newport Beach does not have the authority to mandate the implementation of
mitigation on private property that is not on the Project site, the impact would be
significant and unavoidable (Threshold 4.12 -4).
• Use of construction equipment would result in a substantial temporary increase in
ambient noise levels to nearby noise - sensitive receptors in the vicinity of the Project.
Due to the low existing ambient noise levels, the proximity of the noise - sensitive
receptors, and duration of construction activities, the temporary noise increases would
be significant and unavoidable (Threshold 4.12 -2).
Environmentally Superior Alternative
CEQA requires the identification of an environmentally superior alternative. Section
15126.6(e)(2) of the State CEQA Guidelines states that if the No Project Alternative is the
environmentally superior alternative, then the EIR shall also identify an environmentally superior
alternative among the other alternatives. Based on the evaluation contained in this EIR,
Alternative B— General Plan Open Space Designation —would be the environmentally superior
alternative because it provides for restoration of the Project site and maintains the greatest
amount of open space. While this alternative would have greater impacts than the No Project
Alternative in the near -term, the long -term benefits associated with site restoration would be
environmentally superior to maintaining the site as an oilfield.
Although Alternative B is the environmentally superior alternative, there are significant
challenges affecting its feasibility. Additionally, Alternative B does not meet a number of the
project objectives. Therefore, an environmentally superior development alternative is also being
identified. Alternative F would provide development that is generally consistent with the General
Plan Residential Village designation and would be able to meet almost of the project objectives.
Although this Alternative does not eliminate any of the significant impacts of the Project, it does
substantially lessen the impacts by reducing the amount of land that would be subject to
R:TrojectslNewpaTJ 015 \I Draft EIM1.0 E Sum- 090411 .doc 1 -19 Newport Banning Ranch
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Section 1.0
Executive Summary
development, and increasing the amount of undeveloped open space by almost 30 acres, it
provides greater protection of the environment. This alternative provides greater protection of
the environment by reducing the area of non -open spaces uses by approximately 20 percent.
1.6 SUMMARY OF PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION
PROGRAM
1.6.1 SUMMARY OF EFFECTS WITH NO IMPACT
Throughout preparation of the EIR, the City of Newport Beach Environmental Checklist was
used to determine the impact categories to evaluate the potentially significant environmental
effects of the proposed Project. The following includes a discussion of the impact categories
where the proposed Project would have "no impact' and a summary discussion of why this
determination was reached. There is no further evaluation of these Environmental Checklist
questions in the EIR.
Agriculture and Forest Resources
The Project site does not contain Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide
Importance. No portion of the Project site is covered by a Williamson Act Contract. Additionally,
the Project site does not include forest resources, including timberlands, and is not zoned for
agriculture. For these reasons, no significant impacts would occur and these topics are not
addressed in the EIR.
Aesthetics and Visual Resources
The State CEQA Guidelines ask for an evaluation of the following: "Would the Project
substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings,
and historic buildings within a State Scenic Highway ?"
The Project area is not adjacent to, nor can it be viewed from a designated State scenic
highway. For this reason, no impact would occur and this topic is not addressed in the EIR.
Geology and Soils
The State CEQA Guidelines ask for an evaluation of the following: "Would the project have soils
incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal
systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water ?"
The proposed Project would not use septic systems or alternative waste water disposal
systems. For this reason, no impact would occur and this topic is not addressed in the EIR.
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
The State CEQA Guidelines ask for an evaluation of the following: "For a project located within
an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a
public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing
or working in the project area ?" The Newport Banning Ranch Project site is not located within an
adopted Airport Land Use Plan. The nearest airport/airstrip is the John Wayne Airport, which is
located approximately four miles northeast of the Project site.
R:TrojectslNewpart\J015 \!Draft EIM1.0 E Sum- 090411 .doc 1 -20 Newport Banning Ranch
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Section 1.0
Executive Summary
The State CEQA Guidelines ask for an evaluation of the following: "For a project within the
vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or
working in the project area ?" A discussion of this topic is not necessary because there is no
private airstrip in proximity to the Project site.
For these reasons, no impacts would occur and these topics are not addressed in the EIR.
Population, Housing, and Employment
The State CEQA Guidelines asks for an evaluation of the following two issues: (1) "Would the
project displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of
replacement housing elsewhere ?" and (2) Would the project displace substantial numbers of
people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere ?"
There are no existing residential units on the Project site. The Project proposes the
development of up to 1,375 du on the Project site. Therefore, the Project would not displace
existing residential units or residents and the Project would not necessitate the need for
replacement housing. For these reasons, this topic is not addressed in the EIR.
1.6.2 SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT UNAVOIDABLE IMPACTS
An impact that remains significant after including all feasible mitigation measures is considered
a significant and unavoidable impact. The impacts discussed below have been identified as
significant and unavoidable for the Project.
Land Use and Related Planning Programs
• There would be land use incompatibility with respect to long -term noise and night
illumination predominately from the Community Park on those Newport Crest residences
immediately contiguous to the Project site. The City of Newport Beach General Plan
Final EIR found that the introduction of new sources of lighting associated with
development of the site would be considered significant and unavoidable. In certifying
the General Plan Final EIR and approving the General Plan project, the City approved a
Statement of Overriding Considerations which notes that there are specific economic,
social, and other public benefits that outweigh the significant unavoidable impacts
associated with the General Plan project. Though mitigation is proposed, noise impacts
would remain significant if the residents of Newport Crest elect not to implement the
mitigation measures to reduce the increased interior noise levels (Threshold 4.1 -1).
Aesthetic and Visual Resources
• The proposed Project would include "dark sky' lighting concept for development areas
adjacent to the Open Space Preserve. However, the Project would introduce nighttime
lighting into a currently unlit area. The Project would result in night lighting impacts that
are considered significant and unavoidable. The City of Newport Beach General Plan
Final EIR found that the introduction of new sources of lighting associated with
development of the site would be considered significant and unavoidable. In certifying
the General Plan Final EIR and approving the General Plan project, the City approved a
Statement of Overriding Considerations which notes that there are specific economic,
social, and other public benefits which outweigh the significant unavoidable impacts
associated with the General Plan project (Threshold 4.2 -3).
R:TrojectslNewpart\J015\IDmft EIR1.0 E Sum- 090411 .doc 1 -21 Newport Banning Ranch
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Section 1.0
Executive Summary
Transportation and Traffic
The Project would have impacts on intersections in the City of Costa Mesa.
Implementation of MM 4.9 -2 would mitigate the Project's impact to a level considered
less than significant. However, the City of Newport Beach cannot impose mitigation on
another jurisdiction. Therefore, if the Applicant is unable to reach an agreement with the
City of Costa Mesa that would ensure that Project impacts occurring in Costa Mesa
would be mitigated concurrent with or preceding the impact, for purposes of this EIR, the
impacts to be mitigated by the improvements would remain significant and unavoidable
(Threshold 4.9 -2). The following impacts were identified with the various traffic scenarios
evaluated:
— Existing Plus Project Scenario — Intersections identified as deficient are (1) Newport
Boulevard at Harbor Boulevard; (2) Newport Boulevard at 181h Street/Rochester
Street; and (3) Superior Ave /171h Street. (This scenario assumes all development
occurs at once, which is not an accurate reflection the timing for development of the
proposed Project.)
— Year 2016 With Project Transportation Phasing Ordinance (TPO) Analysis —
Intersections identified as deficient are (1) Monrovia Avenue and 19th Street;
(2) Newport Boulevard and 191h Street; (3) Newport Boulevard and Harbor
Boulevard; (4) Newport Boulevard at 18th Street/Rochester Street; (5) Pomona
Avenue and 17th Street; (6) Newport Boulevard at 17th Street; and (7) Superior
Avenue and 17th Street.
— Year 2016 With Phase 1 Project TPO Analysis — Intersections identified as deficient
are (1) Newport Boulevard and Harbor Boulevard and (2) Newport Boulevard at
18th Street/Rochester Street.
— Year 2016 Cumulative With Project — Intersections identified as deficient are
(1) Monrovia Avenue and 19th Street; (2) Newport Boulevard and 19th Street;
(3) Newport Boulevard and Harbor Boulevard; (4) Newport Boulevard at
18th Street/Rochester Street; (5) Pomona Avenue and 17th Street; (6) Newport
Boulevard at 17th Street3; and (7) Superior Avenue and 17th Street.
— Year 2016 Cumulative With Phase 1 Project — Intersections identified as deficient are
(1) Newport Boulevard at Harbor Boulevard and (2) Newport Boulevard at
18th Street/Rochester Street.
— General Plan Buildout with Project — Intersections identified as deficient are
(1) Newport Boulevard at Harbor Boulevard and (2) Newport Boulevard at
18th Street/Rochester Street.
Air Quality
Without mitigation, regional (mass) emissions of NOx are forecasted to exceed
applicable thresholds in some construction years. Though MM 4.10 -1 would reduce the
emissions to less than significant levels, the availability of sufficient Tier 4 diesel engine
construction equipment cannot be assured. Therefore, for purposes of this EIR, the
impacts are found to be significant and unavoidable (Threshold 4.10 -2).
3 The Newport Boulevard and 17`h Street intersection has a Project - related impact using the Highway Capacity
Manual (Caltrans methodology), as well as an impact using the Intersection Capacity Utilization methodology.
R:Trojects \Newpart\J015l Draft EIR\1.0 E Sum- 090411 .doc 1 -22 Newport Banning Ranch
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Section 1.0
Executive Summary
• Long -term operational emissions of criteria pollutants would not exceed the SCAQMD
mass emissions thresholds from initial occupancy through 2020. However, as Project
development continues beyond 2020, emissions of VOC and CO would exceed the
significance thresholds, principally due to vehicle operations. Therefore, the impacts
remain significant and unavoidable (Threshold 4.10 -2).
• The Project would have cumulatively considerable contributions to regional pollutant
concentrations of 03 (Threshold 4.10 -3).
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
• The Project would emit quantities of GHGs that would exceed the City's
6,000 MTCO2e /yr significance threshold. The Project would make a cumulatively
considerable contribution to the global GHG inventory affecting global climate change
(Threshold 4.11 -1).
Noise
• The increased traffic volumes on 17th Street west of Monrovia Avenue in Costa Mesa
would expose sensitive receptors to noise levels that would exceed City of Costa Mesa
significance thresholds. MM 4.12 -5 requires the Applicant to provide funds to the City of
Costa Mesa to resurface the street with rubberized asphalt; however, the City of
Newport Beach has no ability to assure that the mitigation would be implemented.
Therefore, the forecasted impact to residents of 17th Street west of Monrovia Avenue is
considered significant and unavoidable (Thresholds 4.12 -1 and 4.12 -2).
• For portions of the Newport Crest development, there would be a significant increase in
the ambient noise level due to the projected traffic volumes in the buildout condition.
MM 4.12 -6 would reduce impacts to levels within the "Clearly Compatible" or "Normally
Compatible" classifications but would remain above the 5 dBA significance criterion in
the General Plan. MM 4.12 -7 would provide interior noise attenuation but because the
City of Newport Beach does not have the authority to mandate the implementation of
mitigation on private property that is not on the Project site, the impact would be
significant and unavoidable (Thresholds 4.12 -1 and 4.12 -4).
• Use of construction equipment would result in a substantial temporary increase in
ambient noise levels to nearby noise - sensitive receptors in the vicinity of the Project.
The temporary noise increases would be significant and unavoidable due to the low
existing ambient noise levels, the proximity of the noise - sensitive receptors, and duration
of construction activities (Threshold 4.12 -2).
1.6.3 IMPACTS AND MITIGATION PROGRAM SUMMARY
Table 1 -2 presents a brief summary of the potential environmental effects of the proposed
Project, the Mitigation Program recommended to ensure that Project impacts are mitigated to
the extent feasible, and the expected status of effects following the implementation of the
Mitigation Program. The Mitigation Program is comprised of PDFs, SCs, and MMs. The
Mitigation Program will serve to preclude, reduce, and /or fully mitigate potential environmental
impacts. The more detailed evaluation of these issues, as well as the full text of the Mitigation
Program, is presented in EIR Sections 4.1 through 4.15.
Given the length of the measures in the Mitigation Program, most measures are only briefly
summarized in the table. Each measure is identified by a number that can be used to reference
R:TrojectslNewpart\J015l Draft EIR1.0 E Sum- 090411 .doc 1 -23 Newport Banning Ranch
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Section 1.0
Executive Summary
the full text of the measure in the applicable EIR Section. Where a measure applies to more
than one topic, it is presented (either summarized or full text) in the primary section to which it
applies. For example, MM 4.10 -9 in Section 4.10, Air Quality, requires that facilities that support
bicycle usage be provided. This measure is also applicable to Section 4.8, Recreation and
Trails. The measure is cross - referenced as being applicable to Recreation and Trails, but in
Table 1 -2, is only summarized under Air Quality. The mitigation measures identify who is
responsible, when the action would be implemented, and who would be the approving authority.
The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program would be developed using the full text of the
Mitigation Program.
R:TrojectslNewpart\J015 \!Draft EIM1.0 E Sum- 090411 .doc 1 -24 Newport Banning Ranch
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Section 1.0
Executive Summary
TABLE 1 -2
SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION PROGRAM
RAProjects\NewpcnU015 \Inraf EIR\1.0 aSum -090411 doc 1 -25 Newport Banning Ranch
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Summary of Mitigation Program:
Level of
Environmental Impacts /Level of
Project Design Features, Standard Conditions, and
Significance
Thresholds Applied
Significance Before Mitigation
Mitigation Measures
After Mitigation
SECTION 4.1 —LAND USE AND RELATED PLANNING PROGRAMS
Threshold 4.1 -1: Would the project
The proposed Project would not
No mitigation is required.
No Impact
physically divide an established
physically divide an established
community?
community. No impact would occur. No
Impact
There would be land use incompatibility
Significant,
Unavoidable
with respect to long -term noise and
Impact
night illumination from the Community
Park on those Newport Crest
residences immediately contiguous to
the Project site. Significant Impact
Threshold 4.1 -2: Would the project
The Project is consistent with applicable
Project Design Features
No Impact
conflict with any applicable land
land use policies. The proposed Project
use plan, policy, or regulation of an
is consistent with the City's General
PDF 4.1 -1 The Project permits a maximum of 1,375 residential
agency with jurisdiction over the
Plan land use designation on the site of
dwelling units and a variety of residential housing types to
project (including, but not limited to
Residential Village. The Project
provide opportunities for a range of lifestyles.
the general plan, specific plan, local
proposes amendments to the City of
PDF 4.1 -2 The Master Development Plan designates areas for
coastal program, or zoning
Newport Beach Circulation Element
a diverse public park system to include active, passive, and
ordinance) adopted for the purpose
Master Plan of Streets and Highways
interpretive recreation opportunities.
of avoiding or mitigating an
and the Orange County MPAH to
environmental effect?
modify the roadway system through the
PDF 4.1 -3 The Master Development Plan designates more
Project site; this is addressed in detail
than 240 gross acres of the Project site as open space, habitat
in Section 4.9, Transportation and
restoration areas, and habitat preservation areas. The area
Circulation. These modifications would
designated for interim use as oil and gas production sites will
not impact existing or proposed land
revert to open space land use at the end of the oilfield's
use. The Project also proposes zoning
economic life.
modifications that would serve to
PDF 4.1.4 The Master Development Plan provides for a public
provide a single Planned Community
Bluff Park as a visual and passive recreational amenity, trail
zoning document for the Project site.
corridor, and a transition between open space and development.
No Impact
PDF 4.1 -5 Proposed uses adjacent to existing Newport Beach
and Costa Mesa residential neighborhoods are limited to either
parks or open space to provide a visual buffer between that
community and Project development areas.
RAProjects\NewpcnU015 \Inraf EIR\1.0 aSum -090411 doc 1 -25 Newport Banning Ranch
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Section 1.0
Executive Summary
TABLE 1 -2 (Continued)
SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION PROGRAM
R:\ Projects \Newp.nUO15 \IDraR EIR \1.0 aSUm -090411.tloc 1 -26 Newport Banning Ranch
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Summary of Mitigation Program:
Level of
Environmental Impactsil-evel of
Project Design Features, Standard Conditions, and
Significance
Thresholds Applied
Significance Before Mitigation
Mitigation Measures
After Mitigation
Standard Conditions and Requirements
SC 4.1 -1 The Project would be required to implement all
applicable provisions of the Newport Beach General Plan;
Newport Banning Ranch Planned Community Development
Plan; all requirements and enactments of federal, State, and
local agency authorities; as well as the requirements of any other
governmental entities.
SECTION 4.2 — AESTHETICS AND VISUAL RESOURCES
Threshold 4.2.1: Would the project
The City does not have any designated
Project Design Features
No Impact
have a substantial adverse effect
scenic vistas and West Coast Highway
PDF 4.1-4 from Section 4.1, Land Use, is applicable.
on a scenic vista?
is not a State- or locally- designated
scenic highway. No Impact
PDF 4.6 -4 from Section 4.6, Biological Resources, is applicable.
Threshold 4.2.2: Would the project
Development of the proposed Project
PDF 4.2 -1 Contour grading will be used to minimize impacts to
Less Than
substantially degrade the existing
would alter existing views of the Project
existing public view points from West Coast Highway.
Significant
visual character or quality of the
site; however, due to extensive site
Impact
p
site and its surroundings?
planning, buffers, landscaping and
PDF 4.2 -2 Habitable structures will be set back at least 60 feet
architectural guidelines, the proposed
from the tops of bluff edges.
project would not result in a significant
PDF 4.2 -3 Landscaping will be provided around the perimeter
topographical or aesthetic impact. The
of buildings that are proposed adjacent to Open Space Preserve
Project would create public views from
areas to provide a transition.
the Project site of on -site and off -site
scenic resources including the Pacific
PDF 4.2-4 Architectural guidelines included in the Master
Ocean that are not currently available
Development Plan provide for a range of housing types and
because of the property's existing
architectural styles and ensure designs that are sensitive to the
oilfield operations. This is considered a
natural resources and compatible with the character of Newport
beneficial impact. Less Than
Beach communities within the Coastal Zone.
Significant Impact.
R:\ Projects \Newp.nUO15 \IDraR EIR \1.0 aSUm -090411.tloc 1 -26 Newport Banning Ranch
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Section 1.0
Executive Summary
TABLE 1 -2 (Continued)
SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION PROGRAM
Thresholds Applied
Environmental Impactsil-evel of
Significance Before Mitigation
Summary of Mitigation Program:
Project Design Features, Standard Conditions, and
Mitigation Measures
Level of
Significance
After Mitigation
Threshold 4.2 -3: Would the project
The proposed Project would include a
Project Design Features
Significant,
create a new source of substantial
"dark sky" lighting concept for
Unavoidable
light or glare which would adversely
development areas adjacent to the
PDF 4.6 -3 from Section 4.6, Biological Resources, is applicable.
Impact
affect day or nighttime views in the
Open Space Preserve. However, the
Mitigation Measures
area?
Project would introduce nighttime
lighting into a currently unlit area.
MM 4.2 -1 Lighting within the development shall be directed
Consistent with the findings of the
and shielded so that light is directed away from the Open Space
General Plan EIR, increased lighting on
Preserve. Final lighting orientation and design shall be to the
the Project site is considered a
satisfaction of the Community Development Director or
Significant, Unavoidable Impact
designee. Prior to final inspection, a photometric field inspection
of the approved lighting system will be performed. Deviations
and /or violations from the approved plan shall be corrected prior
to issuance of certificate of occupancy for the Project.
MM 4.2 -2 The lighting plan for the Community Park shall be
directed and shielded so that light is directed away from the
Open Space Preserve and no skyward- casting lighting shall be
used. Final lighting orientation and design shall be to the
satisfaction of the Community Development Director or
designee. Prior to final inspection, a photometric field inspection
of the approved lighting system will be performed. Deviations
and /or violations from the approved plan shall be corrected prior
to the final inspection for the Project.
Threshold 4.2-4: Would the project
The project is consistent with applicable
No mitigation is required.
No Impact
conflict with any applicable plan,
goals and policies designed to protect
policy, or regulation of an agency
aesthetic and visual resources. No
with jurisdiction over the project
Impact
(including, but not limited to the
general plan, specific plan, local
coastal program, or zoning
ordinance) adopted for the purpose
of avoiding or mitigating an
environmental effect?
RAProJ.WNewp.nU015 \IDraR EIR\1.0 aSUm -090411.tloc 1 -27 Newport Banning Ranch
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Section 1.0
Executive Summary
TABLE 1 -2 (Continued)
SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION PROGRAM
Thresholds Applied
Environmental Impactsil-evel of
Significance Before Mitigation
Summary of Mitigation Program:
Project Design Features, Standard Conditions, and
Mitigation Measures
Level of
Significance
After Mitigation
SECTION 4.3 — GEOLOGYAND SOILS
Threshold 4.3 -1: Would the project
The Project site is in a seismically
Project Design Features
Less Than
expose people or structures to
active area with faults within the
PDF 4.3 -1 Habitable buildings will be set back a minimum of
Significant
potential substantial adverse
proposed development area that could
6Q feet from the tops of bluff edges and will not be constructed
Impact
effects, including the risk of loss,
not be proven to be inactive. Habitable
injury, or death from rupture of a
structures on the Project site near these
within identified fault setback zones.
known earthquake fault, as
faults are subject to fault setback zones
Standard Conditions and Requirements
delineated on the most recent
and seismic design parameters that
Alquist - Priolo Earthquake Fault
would appropriately address seismic
SC 4.3 -1 Prior to the issuance of any grading permits, the
Zoning Map issued by the State
building standards. Impacts associated
City of Newport Beach shall review the grading plan for
Geologist for the area or based on
with surface fault rupture and seismic
conformance with the grading shown on the approved tentative
other substantial evidence of a
shaking would be mitigated to a level
map. The grading plans shall be accompanied by geological and
known fault?
considered less than significant with the
soils engineering reports and shall incorporate all information as
incorporation of fault setback zones
required by the City.
Threshold 4.3 -2: Would the project
expose people or structures to
which may be refined after additional
y
SC Prior to the recordation subdivision map or
potential substantial adverse
trenching data becomes available).
prior r to to t the issuance of any grading permit, mi t, the Applicant shall
effects, including the risk of loss,
Potentially Significant Impact
record a Letter of Consent from an affected property owners
y P p y
injury, or death involving strong
where encroachment permits are required.
seismic ground shaking?
Mitigation Measures
MM 4.3 -1 The Applicant shall submit to the City of Newport
Beach Community Development Department, Building Division
Manager a site - specific, design -level geotechnical investigation
prepared by a registered geotechnical engineer. The
investigation shall comply with all applicable State and local
code requirements.
MM 4.3 -2 Prior to the approval of any applicable final tract
map, the Applicant shall have completed by a qualified geologist,
additional geotechnical trenching and field investigations and
shall provide a supplemental geotechnical report to confirm the
adequacy of Project development fault setback limits.
MM 4.3 -3 Prior to the approval of any applicable final tract
map, development setbacks from the Upland fault segments,
revised as necessary based upon the findings of additional
trenching investigations, shall be incorporated into the Project
consistent with requirements set forth in the California Building
RAProjects\NewpcnU015 \IDraf EIR\1.0 aSum -09W 1.tloc 1 -28 Newport Banning Ranch
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Section 1.0
Executive Summary
TABLE 1 -2 (Continued)
SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION PROGRAM
RAProj.WNewp.nU015 \IDraR EIR\1.0 aS.. -090411.tloc 1 -29 Newport Banning Ranch
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Summary of Mitigation Program:
Level of
Environmental Impacts /Level of
Project Design Features, Standard Conditions, and
Significance
Thresholds Applied
Significance Before Mitigation
Mitigation Measures
After Mitigation
Code and the City of Newport Beach General Plan. Prior to the
preparation of final Project plans and specifications, additional
trenching shall be conducted within the 1,300 -foot gap between
the 2 parts of the existing Fault Setback Zone.
Threshold 4.3 -3: Would the project
Two fault segments on the Project site
Project Design Features
Less Than
expose people or structures to
have not been confirmed as inactive,
Significant
potential substantial adverse
and development setbacks have been
PDF 4.3 -1 is applicable.
Impact
effects including the risk of loss,
incorporated into the Project. The fault
Standard Conditions and Requirements
injury, or death from seismic-
setback zones would reduce the risk of
related ground failure, including
surface fault rupture. Based on the
SC 4.3 -1 is applicable.
liquefaction?
GMU 2010 Report, strengthened
Mitigation Measures
building foundations and structural
W
Threshold 4.3-4: Would the project
design would accommodate strong
MMs 4.3 -1 through 4.3 -3 are applicable.
expose people structures to
seismic shaking on the Project site, and
potential substantial adverse
habitable structures would be restricted
effects i including the risk of loss,
to the Upland area, avoiding soils that
injury, o death from landslides?
may liquefy or undergo lateral
Threshold 4.3 -6: Would the project
spreading. Where necessary, corrective
be located on a geologic unit or soil
grading would ensure all structures are
that is unstable, or that would
Placed on competent foundation
become unstable as a result of the
materials. Potentially Significant
Project, and potentially result in on-
Impact
or off -site landslide, lateral
spreading, subsidence,
liquefaction, or collapse?
Threshold 4.3 -5: Would the project
Grading activities would increase the
Project Design Features
Less Than
result in substantial soil erosion or
potential for soil erosion and loss of top
Significant
the loss of topsoil?
soil. Best Management Practices
PDF 4.3 -2 Drainage devices will be constructed along slopes
Impact
(BMPs) would minimize this impact both
adjacent to the development edge to eliminate surface flow over
during construction and long -term. Less
bluffs to the extent feasible. Landscape and irrigation plans will
Than Significant Impact
be designed to minimize irrigation near natural areas /slopes.
PDF 4.3 -3 Eroded portions of bluff slopes will be repaired and
stabilized. Bluff areas devoid of vegetation after repair and
stabilization efforts will be planted with native vegetation that
does not require permanent irrigation.
RAProj.WNewp.nU015 \IDraR EIR\1.0 aS.. -090411.tloc 1 -29 Newport Banning Ranch
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Section 1.0
Executive Summary
TABLE 1 -2 (Continued)
SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION PROGRAM
R \Proje ts\NewpcnU015 \IDraf EIR\1.0 aSum-09W I A= 1 -30 Newport Banning Ranch
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Summary of Mitigation Program:
Level of
Environmental Impactsil-evel of
Project Design Features, Standard Conditions, and
Significance
Thresholds Applied
Significance Before Mitigation
Mitigation Measures
After Mitigation
Threshold 4.3.7: Would the project
On -site soils have a low to medium
Standard Conditions and Requirements
Less Than
be located on expansive soil, as
expansion potential. Potentially
SCs 4.3 -1 through 4.3 -2 are applicable.
Significant
defined in Table 18 -1 -B of the
Significant Impact
Impact
Uniform Building Code (1994),
Mitigation Measures
creating substantial risks to life or
property?
MMs 4.3 -1 through 4.3 -3 are applicable.
Threshold 4.3 -8: Would the project
The proposed Project would be
No mitigation is required.
No Impact
conflict with any applicable plan,
consistent with the intent of the soils
policy, or regulation of an agency
and geology - related goals and policies
with jurisdiction over the project
of the City of Newport Beach General
(including, but not limited to the
Plan and the California Coastal Act. No
general plan, specific plan, local
Impact
coastal program, or zoning
ordinance) adopted for the purpose
of avoiding or mitigating an
environmental effect?
SECTION 4.4 — HYDROLOGYAND WATER QUALITY
Threshold 4.4 -1: Would the project
Construction and operation of the
Project Design Features
Less Than
violate any water quality standards
proposed Project would have the
Significant
or waste discharge requirements?
potential to adversely impact water
PDF 4.4 -1 Two water quality basins will be constructed to treat
Impact
quality in downstream receiving waters
off -site urban runoff from Costa Mesa and Newport Beach, and
Threshold 4.4 -6: Would the project
through discharge of runoff that
from Project runoff that drains into the Lowland Area.
otherwise substantially degrade
contains various pollutants of concern.
PDF 4.4 -2 A water quality basin and a diffuser basin located
water quality?
However, the Project incorporates J P
within the Open Space Preserve will provide for storm water
Threshold 4.4 -11: Would the
detailed low impact development (LID)
control, energy dissipation, and natural water quality treatment.
project result in significant
features into internal site design and
alteration of receiving water quality
transitional areas for sediment, source,
PDF 4.4 -3 Public arterials and some collector roadways within
during or following construction?
and treatment control. Additional site-
the Project site will be designed with "Green Street' and other
design, structural, source - control, and
LID features. Landscaping along the street edges will be
Threshold 4.4 -12: Would the
treatment - control BMPs would be
selectively used to treat storm water runoff from the streets and
project result in a potential for
incorporated into the Project to
adjacent development areas.
discharge of storm water pollutants
supplement LID features, ensuring
Standard Conditions and Requirements
from areas of material storage,
compliance with the Project Water
vehicle or equipment fueling,
Quality Management Plan and National
SC 4.4 -1 All landscape materials and irrigation systems shall
vehicle or equipment maintenance
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
be maintained in accordance with the approved Landscape Plan.
(including washing), waste
handling, or storage, delivery
(NPDES) permit. The Project has
SC 4.4 -2 The development shall be kept free of litter and
demonstrated on -site ability to treat all
graffiti. The owner or operator shall provide for removal of trash,
R \Proje ts\NewpcnU015 \IDraf EIR\1.0 aSum-09W I A= 1 -30 Newport Banning Ranch
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Section 1.0
Executive Summary
TABLE 1 -2 (Continued)
SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION PROGRAM
R \Proje ts\NewpcnU015 \IDraf EIR\1.0 aSum-09W I A= 1 -31 Newport Banning Ranch
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Summary of Mitigation Program:
Level of
Environmental Impacts /Level of
Project Design Features, Standard Conditions, and
Significance
Thresholds Applied
Significance Before Mitigation
Mitigation Measures
After Mitigation
areas, loading docks or other
runoff treatment volumes that would be
litter, and graffiti from the premises and on abutting sidewalks.
outdoor work areas?
generated from the Project site in
addition to runoff entering the site from
SC 4.4 -3 Prior to the issuance of grading permits, a Storm
Threshold 4.4 -13: Would the
upstream developed areas within Costa
Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) and Notice of Intent
project result in the potential for
Mesa in compliance with regulatory
(NOI) to comply with the General Permit for Construction
discharge of storm water to affect
standards. Less Than Significant
Activities shall be prepared.
the beneficial uses of the receiving
waters?
Impact
SC 4.4 -4 Prior to issuance of grading permits, the Project
Applicant shall prepare and submit a Water Quality Management
Plan (WQMP) for the Project. The WQMP shall include
appropriate BMPs to ensure Project runoff is adequately treated.
SC 4.4 -5 A list of "good housekeeping" practices shall be
incorporated into the long -term post- construction operation of the
site to minimize the likelihood that pollutants could impair water
quality. The WQMP shall list and describe all structural and
non - structural BMPs.
Threshold 4.4 -2: Would the project
Local groundwater is not suitable for
Project Design Features
Less Than
substantially deplete groundwater
use as drinking water; therefore, there
PDF 4.4 -3 is applicable.
Significant
supplies or interfere substantially
would be no Project impact to
Impact
with groundwater recharge such
groundwater table due to drawdown.
PDF 4.4-6 BMPs for erosion control, sediment control, wind
that there would be a net deficit in
Groundwater recharge does occur at
erosion control, storm water and non -storm water management,
aquifer volume or a lowering of the
the Project site and would decrease
and waste management/pollution control will be implemented to
local groundwater table level (e.g.
under Project conditions due to a
ensure that potential effects on local site hydrology, runoff, and
the production rate of pre- existing
reduction in pervious surface area.
water quality remain in compliance with all required permits, City
nearby wells would drop to a level
Infiltration BMPs would be incorporated
policies, and the Project's WQMP, and SWPPP.
which would not support existing
into site design to ensure that site runoff
land uses or planned uses for
continues to infiltrate to the maximum
which permits have been granted)?
extent practicable. Less than
Significant Impact
Threshold 4.4 -3: Would the project
Hydrologic modeling of the Northern
Project Design Features
Less Than
substantially alter the existing
and Southern Arroyos confirms that
Significant
drainage pattern of the site or area,
both channels would remain stable
PDFs 44 -1 and PDF 44 -2 are applicable.
. . pp .
Impact
including through the alteration of
under proposed Project conditions.
PDF 4.4 -5 The Master Development Plan requires
the course of a stream or river, in a
Standard construction practices would
development of a drainage plan to ensure that runoff systems
manner which would result in
reduce erosion potential. Less than
from the Project site to West Coast Highway and the Semeniuk
substantial erosion or siltation on-
Significant Impact
Slough will be stabilized and maintained through the Project's
or off- site?
drainage system.
R \Proje ts\NewpcnU015 \IDraf EIR\1.0 aSum-09W I A= 1 -31 Newport Banning Ranch
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Section 1.0
Executive Summary
TABLE 1 -2 (Continued)
SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION PROGRAM
RAProjects\NewpcnU015 \IDraf EIR\1.0 aSum -09W 1.tloc 1 -32 Newport Banning Ranch
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Summary of Mitigation Program:
Level of
Environmental Impactsil-evel of
Project Design Features, Standard Conditions, and
Significance
Thresholds Applied
Significance Before Mitigation
Mitigation Measures
After Mitigation
Threshold 4.4 -15: Would the
Standard Conditions and Requirements
project create significant increases
SCs 4.4 -3 through 4.4 -5 are applicable.
in erosion of the Project site or
surrounding areas?
Threshold 4.4-4: Would the project
The Project- induced increase in
Project Design Features
Less Than
substantially alter the existing
impervious surfaces would result in an
Significant
drainage pattern of the site or area,
increase in peak flow runoff and runoff
PDF 4.4 -1, PDF 4.4 -2, PDF 4.4 -5, and PDF 4.4 -6 are applicable.
Impact
including through the alteration of
volumes from the site. Project drainage
PDF 4.4-4 The Master Development Plan requires that
the course of a stream or river, or
area modifications would be
arroyos be planted with native riparian vegetation as part of the
substantially increase the rate or
incorporated into a Runoff Management
restoration effort to minimize potential erosion and to enhance
amount of surface runoff in a
Plan to ensure that peak flow rates and
the water - cleansing function.
manner in which would result in
volumes would not result in adverse
flooding on- or off -site?
flooding impacts to downstream
Standard Conditions and Requirements
Threshold 4.4 -14: Would the
systems. Less Than Significant
SC 4.4-4 is applicable.
Impact
project create the potential for
significant changes in the flow
velocity or volume of storm water
runoff to cause environmental
harm?
Threshold 4.4 -5: Would the project
Proposed Project modifications in
Project Design Features
Less Than
create or contribute runoff water
Project drainage patterns and Project
PDF 44 -1 through PDF 44 -3 are applicable.
g pp
Significant
which would exceed the capacity of
drainage features would reduce flow
. . .
Impact
existing or planned storm water
rates through the middle and lower
Standard Conditions and Requirements
drainage systems or provide
sections of the Caltrans reinforced
substantial additional sources of
concrete box from existing conditions.
SCs 4.4 -2 through 4.4 -5 are applicable.
polluted runoff?
Less Than Significant Impact
Threshold 4.4 -7: Would the project
Proposed Project housing would be
No mitigation is required.
No Impact
place housing within a 100 -year
located on the Upland at elevations well
flood hazard area as mapped on a
outside the 100 -year floodplain. No
federal Flood Hazard Boundary or
structures would be built within the
Flood Insurance Rate Map or other
Lowland between sea level and 10 feet
flood hazard delineation map?
above mean sea level. No Impact
Threshold 4.4 -8: Would the project
place within a 100 -year flood
hazard area structures which would
impede or redirect flood flows?
RAProjects\NewpcnU015 \IDraf EIR\1.0 aSum -09W 1.tloc 1 -32 Newport Banning Ranch
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Section 1.0
Executive Summary
TABLE 1 -2 (Continued)
SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION PROGRAM
R Troje ts\NewpcnU015 \IDraf EIR\1.0 aSum-09W I A= 1 -33 Newport Banning Ranch
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Summary of Mitigation Program:
Level of
Environmental Impacts /Level of
Project Design Features, Standard Conditions, and
Significance
Thresholds Applied
Significance Before Mitigation
Mitigation Measures
After Mitigation
Threshold 4.4.9: Would the project
The Project is not located in a dam
No mitigation is required.
Less Than
expose people or structures to a
inundation area. The proposed
Significant
significant risk of loss, injury or
development would be located on the
Impact
death involving flooding, including
Upland above the 100 -year flood
flooding as a result of the failure of
elevation. Less Than Significant
a levee or dam?
Impact
Threshold 4.4 -10: Would the
Inundation of the Project site by seiche
No mitigation is required.
Less Than
project be subject to inundation by
or mudflow is not anticipated as there
Significant
seiche, tsunami, or mudflow?
are no standing water bodies or high
Impact
slopes in the Upland. Inundation by
tsunami is not likely because of Project
site elevations and the City's existing
Emergency Management Plan. Less
than Significant Impact
Threshold 4.4 -16: Would the
The proposed Project would be
No mitigation is required.
No Impact
project conflict with any applicable
consistent with the intent of the
plan, policy, or regulation of an
hydrology- and water quality - related
agency with jurisdiction over the
goals and policies of the City of
project (including, but not limited to
Newport Beach General Plan. No
the general plan, specific plan, local
Impact
coastal program, or zoning
ordinance) adopted for the purpose
of avoiding or mitigating an
environmental effect?
SECTION 4.5 —HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
Threshold 4.5 -1: Would the project
Disturbance of potential hazardous
Project Design Features
Less Than
create a significant hazard to the
materials associated with pass oil
PDF 4.4 -6 from Section 4.4, Hydrology and Water Quality is
Significant
public or the environment through
extraction activities and from demolition
applicable.
Impact
the routine transport, use, or
of existing structures located onsite has
disposal of hazardous materials?
been identified as a potential impact.
Standard Conditions and Requirements
Threshold 4.5 -2: Would the project
Potentially Significant Impact
SC 4.5 -1 Prior to demolition, testing for all structures for
create a significant hazard to the
presence of asbestos and /or lead based paint (LBP) shall be
public or the environment through
completed. All applicable requirements associated with
reasonably foreseeable upset and
asbestos - removal and LBP removal shall be implemented.
accident conditions involving the
Mitigation Measures
release of hazardous materials into
MM 4.5 -1 A comprehensive final Remedial Action Program
R Troje ts\NewpcnU015 \IDraf EIR\1.0 aSum-09W I A= 1 -33 Newport Banning Ranch
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Section 1.0
Executive Summary
TABLE 1 -2 (Continued)
SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION PROGRAM
RAProjects\NewpcnU015 \IDraf EIR\1.0 aSum -090411 doc 1 -34 Newport Banning Ranch
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Summary of Mitigation Program:
Level of
Environmental Impactsil-evel of
Project Design Features, Standard Conditions, and
Significance
Thresholds Applied
Significance Before Mitigation
Mitigation Measures
After Mitigation
the environment?
(final RAP) shall be submitted to and approved by the Regional
Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) and /or the Orange
County Health Care Agency (OCHCA) and initiated for the
oilfield clean -up and remediation prior to the issuance of the first
City- issued permit.
Threshold 4.5 -3: Would the project
There would be a less than significant
Project Design Features
Less Than
emit hazardous emissions or
impact to the existing schools within ' /4-
PDF 4.5 -1 Oil operations will be consolidated into two areas
Significant
handle hazardous or acutely
mile of the Project site and /or from off-
within the Open Space Preserve designated as "Interim Oil
Impact
hazardous materials, substances,
site haul routes during on -site remedial
or waste within one - quarter mile of
activities and proposed Project
Facilities. This use will ultimately revert to an Open Space land
an existing or proposed school?
construction. There would be no impact
use at the end of the oilfield's useful life.
to existing schools within Y< -mile of the
Standard Conditions and Requirements
Project site from proposed Project
operations as continued oil operations
SC 4.5 -2 Any hazardous contaminated soils or other
are proposed to be limited to two
hazardous materials removed from the Project site shall be
consolidated oil facilities located along
transported only by a Licensed Hazardous Waste Hauler to
the southwestern portion of the Project
approved hazardous materials disposal site, who shall be in
site. Less Than Significant Impact
compliance with all applicable State and federal requirements.
Threshold 4.5-4: Would the project
The Project site is not identified on the
No mitigation is required.
No Impact
be located on a site which is
Cortese List which is compiled pursuant
included on a list of hazardous
to Government Code Section 65962.5.
materials sites compiled pursuant
No Impact
to Government Code Section
65962.5 and, as a result, would it
create a significant hazard to the
public or the environment?
Threshold 4.5 -5: Would the project
The proposed Project would not conflict
No mitigation is required.
No Impact
conflict with any applicable land
with any goals or policies of the City of
use plan, policy, or regulation of an
Newport Beach General Plan or the
agency with jurisdiction over the
Coastal Act related to hazards and
project (including, but not limited to
hazardous materials. No Impact
the general plan, specific plan, local
coastal program, or zoning
ordinance) adopted for the purpose
of avoiding or mitigating an
environmental effect?
RAProjects\NewpcnU015 \IDraf EIR\1.0 aSum -090411 doc 1 -34 Newport Banning Ranch
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Section 1.0
Executive Summary
TABLE 1 -2 (Continued)
SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION PROGRAM
Thresholds Applied
Environmental Impactsil-evel of
Significance Before Mitigation
Summary of Mitigation Program:
Project Design Features, Standard Conditions, and
Mitigation Measures
Level of
Significance
After Mitigation
SECTION 4.6 – BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Threshold 4.6 -1: Would the project
The Project would have direct and
Project Design Features
Less Than
have a substantial adverse effect,
indirect impacts on habitat that supports
PDF 4.6 -1 The Master Development Plan designates a
Significant
either directly or through habitat
special status species. The following is
Impact
modifications, on any species
a summary of total acres of habitat
minimum of 220 gross acres of the Project site as wetland
identified as a candidate, sensitive,
affected by the project:
restoration /water quality areas, habitat conservation, and
or special status species in local or
restoration mitigation areas.
regional plans, policies, or
• Coastal sage scrub and disturbed
PDF 4.6 -2 The Master Development Plan includes a Habitat
regulations, or by the California
coastal b 11 23 acres
sage scrub-23.1
Restoration Plan (HRP) for the habitat areas. The HRP includes
Department of Fish and Game or
• Grassland and ruderal- 100.13
provisions for the preservation and long -term maintenance of
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
acres
existing sensitive habitat and habitat created and restored by the
• Grassland depression features—
Project.
0.14 acre
• Marsh -2.45 acres
PDF 4.6 -3 The habitat areas to be restored as project design
• Riparian and disturbed riparian—
features will be subject to the same five -year Maintenance and
12.93 acres
Monitoring Program implemented for areas restored as
Potentially Significant Impact
mitigation.
Mitigation Measures
MM 4.6 -1 Impacts on coastal sage scrub vegetation shall
be mitigated on the Project site through the restoration of
southern coastal bluff scrub and California sagebrush scrub.
Coastal sage scrub restoration and preservation on site would
total 80.05 acres.
MM 4.6 -2 Impacts on non - native grassland and ruderal
vegetation shall be mitigated through restoration and
preservation. The grassland restoration and preservation would
total 70.34 acres.
MM 4.6 -3 Impacts to grassland depression feature and
fairy shrimp habitat shall be mitigated through restoration and
preservation on site. The Project shall provide 3.58 -acre area of
restoration in the vernal pool area. The Applicant shall be
required to plan, implement, monitor, and maintain a vernal pool
preservation /restoration program for the Project.
MM 4.6-4 Impacts to marshes shall be mitigated through
RAProjects\NewpcnU015 \IDraf EIR\1.0 aSum4)90411.tloc 1 -35 Newport Banning Ranch
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Section 1.0
Executive Summary
TABLE 1 -2 (Continued)
SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION PROGRAM
Thresholds Applied
Environmental Impactsil-evel of
Significance Before Mitigation
Summary of Mitigation Program:
Project Design Features, Standard Conditions, and
Mitigation Measures
Level of
Significance
After Mitigation
restoration and preservation on site, for a total of 12.25 acres of
restoration and preservation. The Applicant shall be required to
plan, implement, monitor, and maintain a marsh /meadow
preservation /restoration program for the Project.
MM 4.6 -5 For jurisdictional resources /riparian habitat, the
Applicant shall be obligated to implement/comply with the
mitigation measures required by the resource agencies (USAGE,
CDFG, RWQCB, and CCC) regarding impacts on their
respective jurisdictions. Jurisdictional areas shall be restored on
the Project site or immediately off site. Though the requirements
of the permit will apply, the restoration requirement is expected
to be 15.77 acres. The measure also requires construction
minimization measures, mitigation performance criteria and long-
term monitoring requirements for the restoration and
preservation program.
MM 4.6 -6 Migratory Bird Treaty Act. No vegetation removal
shall occur between February 15 and September 15 unless a
qualified Biologist, surveys the Project's impact area prior to
disturbance to confirm the absence of active nests. If an active
nest is discovered, disturbance within a particular buffer shall be
prohibited until nesting is complete.
MM 4.6 -7 Special Status Plant Species. The Applicant shall
be required to plan, implement, monitor, and maintain a southern
tarplant restoration program for the Project consistent with the
most current technical standards /knowledge regarding southern
tarplantrestoration.
MM 4.6 -8 A focused survey shall be conducted for light -
footed clapper rail, western snowy plover, and Belding's
savannah sparrow in the spring prior to the proposed impact to
determine if these species nest on or immediately adjacent to
the Project site. If any of these species are observed, the
Applicant shall obtain approvals from the resource agencies (i.e.,
the USFWS, the CDFG, and the California Coastal Commission)
prior to any activity that disturbs marsh or mudflat habitat. If any
of these species would be impacted, mitigation for impacts on
these species shall include replacement of marsh and mudflat
R \Projects\NewpcnU015 \IDraf EIR\1.0 EaSum -090411 doc 1 -36 Newport Banning Ranch
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Section 1.0
Executive Summary
TABLE 1 -2 (Continued)
SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION PROGRAM
Thresholds Applied
Environmental Impactsil-evel of
Significance Before Mitigation
Summary of Mitigation Program:
Project Design Features, Standard Conditions, and
Mitigation Measures
Level of
Significance
After Mitigation
habitat as described in MM 4.6 -4.
MM 4.6 -9 Prior to initiation of grading or any activity that
involves the removal /disturbance of coastal sage scrub habitat,
the Applicant shall obtain a Biological Opinion for the California
Gnatcatcher from the USFWS to authorize incidental take.
MM 4.6 -10 If it is determined by the City during the final
grading plan check that impacts on cactus habitat cannot be
avoided, the coastal sage scrub mitigation plan shall incorporate
cactus into the planting palette at no less than a 1:1 ratio for
impacted cactus areas. Mitigation for impacts on the coastal
cactus wren shall include replacement of coastal sage scrub
habitat and implementation of Construction Minimization
Measures as described in MM 4.6 -1.
MM 4.6 -11 Prior to initiation of grading or any activity that
involves the removal/disturbance of riparian habitat the Applicant
shall obtain approvals from the resource agencies (i.e., the
USFWS, the CDFG, and the California Coastal Commission).
Mitigation for impacts on the least Bell's vireo shall include
replacement of riparian and upland scrub and riparian forest
habitat and Construction Minimization Measures, as well as any
additional provisions imposed by the permitting agencies.
MM 4.6 -12 This measure requires avoidance to the maximum
extent practicable, of impacts on known burrowing owl burrows
and surrounding non - native grasslands and pre- construction
surveys for burrowing owl. The measure stipulates requirements
if active burrows are observed. The actions differ if they are
observed during nesting or non - nesting season. Mitigation for
impacts on the burrowing owl also includes restoration of native
grassland habitat as described in MM 4.6 -2.
MM 4.6 -13 Raptor Nesting. To the maximum extent
practicable, habitats that provide potential nest sites for raptors
shall be removed from July 1 through January 31. If Project
construction activities are initiated during the raptor nesting
season, a nesting raptor survey shall be conducted. Any nest
found during survey efforts shall be mapped on the construction
R \Proj.WNewp.nU015 \IDraR EIR\1.0 aS.. -090411.tloc 1 -37 Newport Banning Ranch
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Section 1.0
Executive Summary
TABLE 1 -2 (Continued)
SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION PROGRAM
RAProj.WNewp.nU015 \IDraR EIR\1.0 aS..-09M I d= 1 -38 Newport Banning Ranch
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Summary of Mitigation Program:
Level of
Environmental Impacts /Level of
Project Design Features, Standard Conditions, and
Significance
Thresholds Applied
Significance Before Mitigation
Mitigation Measures
After Mitigation
plans. If nesting activity is present, the active site shall be
protected until nesting activity has ended. During the non - nesting
season, proposed work activities can occur only if a qualified
Biologist has determined that fledglings have left the nest.
MM 4.6 -14 Invasive Exotic Plant Species. The Applicant
shall submit Landscape Plans for review and approval by a
qualified Biologist to ensure that no invasive, exotic plant species
are used in landscaping adjacent to any open space and that
suitable substitutes are provided.
MM 4.6 -15 Human Activity. Prior to issuance of a grading
permit, the Project Applicant shall submit a fencing plan to the
City of Newport Beach for review to demonstrate that access to
the open space within the Lowland shall be limited to designated
access points that link to existing trails.
MM 4.6 -16 Urban Wildlands Interface. To educate residents
of the responsibilities associated with living at the wildland
interface, the Applicant shall develop a wildland interface
brochure. The brochure shall be included as part of the
purchase /rental /lease agreements for the Project residents.
Threshold 4.6 -2: Would the project
Grading activities could impact several
Project Design Features
Less Than
have a substantial adverse effect
sensitive natural communities.
Significant
on any riparian habitat or other
Potentially Significant Impact
PDFs 4.6 -1 through 4.6 -3 would also be applicable.
Impact
sensitive natural community
PDF 4.6-4 The Master Development Plan requires that street
identified in local or regional plans,
lights be utilized only in key intersections and safety areas. The
policies, regulations, or by the
Planned Community Development Plan requires that a "dark
California Department of Fish and
sky" lighting concept be implemented within areas of the Project
Game or US Fish and Wildlife
that adjoin habitat areas. Light fixtures within these areas will be
Service?
designed for "dark sky' applications and adjusted to directireflect
light downward and away from adjacent habitat areas.
Mitigation Measures
MM 4.6 -1 and MMs 4.6 -3 through MM 4.6 -5 are applicable.
Threshold 4.6 -3: Would the project
Grading and oil remediation activities
Project Design Features
Less Than
have a substantial adverse effect
could impact jurisdictional areas as
Significant
on federally protected wetlands as
follows (some jurisdictional areas
s . g. ou also applicable.
PDF 46 -1 through 46 -4 would al be
Impact
RAProj.WNewp.nU015 \IDraR EIR\1.0 aS..-09M I d= 1 -38 Newport Banning Ranch
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Section 1.0
Executive Summary
TABLE 1 -2 (Continued)
SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION PROGRAM
RAProj.WNewp.nU015 \IDraR EIR\1.0 aSUm4)90411.tloc 1 -39 Newport Banning Ranch
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Summary of Mitigation Program:
Level of
Environmental Impacts /Level of
Project Design Features, Standard Conditions, and
Significance
Thresholds Applied
Significance Before Mitigation
Mitigation Measures
After Mitigation
defined by Section 404 of the Clean
overlap):
Mitigation Measures
Water Act (including, but not limited
USACE -0.32 acres permanent/3.93
MMs 4.6 -3 through 4.6 -5 are applicable.
to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.)
acres temporary
through direct removal, filling,
CDFG -1.87 acres permanent/0.05
hydrological interruption, or other
acre temporary
means?
California Coastal Commission -2.47
acres permanent/6.48 acres temporary
Potentially Significant Impact
Threshold 4.6-4: Would the project
The permanent loss of open space
Mitigation Measures
Less Than
interfere substantially with the
would reduce wildlife movement
MMs 4.6 -1 through 4.6 -5 are applicable.
Significant
movement of any native resident or
corridor habitat available for species.
Impact
migratory wildlife corridors, or
Potentially Significant Impact
impede the use of native wildlife
nursery sites?
Threshold 4.6 -5: Would the project
The proposed Project would not conflict
No mitigation is required.
Less Than
conflict with any local policies or
with the Central /Coastal Subregion
Significant
ordinances protecting biological
NCCP /HCP. The proposed Project
Impact
resources, such as a tree
would not conflict with any goals or
preservation policy or ordinance?
policies of SCAG, the City of Newport
Would the project conflict with the
Beach General Plan or Local Coastal
provisions of an adopted Habitat
Plan, or the California Coastal Act. The
Conservation Plan, Natural
proposed Project is considered
Community Conservation Plan, or
consistent with the applicable goals and
other approved local, regional, or
policies. No Impact
state habitat conservation plan?
Would the project conflict with any
applicable plan, policy, or
regulation of an agency with
jurisdiction over the project
(including, but not limited to the
general plan, specific plan, local
coastal program, or zoning
ordinance) adopted for the purpose
of avoiding or mitigating an
environmental effect?
RAProj.WNewp.nU015 \IDraR EIR\1.0 aSUm4)90411.tloc 1 -39 Newport Banning Ranch
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Section 1.0
Executive Summary
TABLE 1 -2 (Continued)
SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION PROGRAM
R \Projec[s\NewpcnU015 \IDraf EIR\1.0 aSum -090411 doc 140 Newport Banning Ranch
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Summary of Mitigation Program:
Level of
Environmental ImpactsiLevel of
Project Design Features, Standard Conditions, and
Significance
Thresholds Applied
Significance Before Mitigation
Mitigation Measures
After Mitigation
SECTION 4.7 —POPULATION, HOUSING, AND EMPLOYMENT
Threshold 4.7 -1: Would the project
While the Project would result in
Project Design Features
Less Than
induce substantial population
population growth in the area through
Significant
growth in an area, either directly
the construction of new residences and
PDF 4.7 -1 The Master Development Plan requires that
Impact
(for example, by proposed new
employment opportunities, the Project
development of the Project include a range of housing types to
homes and businesses) or
would not exceed the growth currently
meet the housing needs of a variety of economic segments of
indirectly (for example, through
projected for the Project site or exceed
the community to be designed to appeal to different age groups
extension of roads or other
regional projections. Less Than
and lifestyles.
infrastructure)?
Significant Impact
Standard Conditions and Requirements
SC 4.7 -2 An Affordable Housing Implementation Plan (AHIP)
is required that specifies how the development will meet the
City's affordable housing goal.
Threshold 4.7 -2: Would the project
The proposed Project would not conflict
No mitigation is required.
No Impact
conflict with any applicable plan,
with any applicable goals or policies of
policy, or regulation of an agency
SCAG, the City of Newport Beach
with jurisdiction over the project
General Plan, or the Coastal Act related
(including, but not limited to the
to population, housing, and
general plan, specific plan, local
employment. No Impact
coastal program, or zoning
ordinance) adopted for the purpose
of avoiding or mitigating an
environmental effect?
SECTION 4.8 —RECREATION AND TRAILS
Threshold 4.8 -1: Would the project
The proposed Project would increase
Project Design Features
Less Than
include recreational facilities or
the demand for park and recreational
Significant
require the construction or
facilities. The Project includes
PDF 4.8 -1 The Master Development Plan and Tentative Tract
Impact
expansion of recreational facilities
approximately 51.4 gross acres of
Map provide for approximately 51 gross acres of public parkland
that might have an adverse
parkland, including 26.8 gross acres for
including a Community Park, 2 bluff parks and 3 interpretive
physical effect on the environment?
a public Community Park, as well as
parks. The acres for the public Community Park exceed the
trails through the Project site that
City's Municipal Code requirement for park dedication for the
Threshold 4.8 -2: Would the project
connect the regional trail system.
1,375 -unit Project, which is approximately 15 acres.
result in substantial adverse
physical impacts associated with
This acre age exceeds local Quimby Act
a
PDF 4.8 -2 The Master Development Plan provides a system
the provision of new or physically
and General Plan parkland
of bicycle, pedestrian, and interpretive trails.
requirements. The physical impacts of
altered governmental facilities,
implementing park and recreational
PDF 4.8 -3 If permitted by all applicable agencies, a pedestrian
need for new or physically altered
facilities, including the pedestrian and
and bicycle bridge over West Coast Highway will be provided
R \Projec[s\NewpcnU015 \IDraf EIR\1.0 aSum -090411 doc 140 Newport Banning Ranch
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Section 1.0
Executive Summary
TABLE 1 -2 (Continued)
SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION PROGRAM
R Trojects\Newpertl015 \IDraf EIR\1.0 EzSum -090411.doc 141 Newport Banning Ranch
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Summary of Mitigation Program:
Level of
Environmental Impacts /Level of
Project Design Features, Standard Conditions, and
Significance
Thresholds Applied
Significance Before Mitigation
Mitigation Measures
After Mitigation
governmental facilities, the
bicycle bridge, are evaluated as part of
from the Project site to a location south of West Coast Highway.
construction of which could cause
the overall development Project. Less
significant environmental impacts,
than Significant Impact
Standard Conditions and Requirements
in order to maintain acceptable
SC 4.8 -1 The Applicant shall comply with the City of Newport
service ratios or other performance
Beach Park Dedication and Fees Ordinance.
objectives for parks?
Threshold 4.8 -3: Would the project
The proposed Project would increase
Project Design Features
Less Than
increase the use of the existing
the demand for park and recreational
Significant
neighborhood and regional parks or
facilities; however, since the new
PDF 4.8 -1 through 4.8 -3 are applicable.
Impact
other recreational facilities such
recreational facilities provided by the
Mitigation Measures
that a substantial physical
Project exceed City standards, it would
deterioration of the facilities would
prevent the overuse of existing local
MM 4.10 -9 from Section 4.10, Air Quality, is applicable.
occur or be accelerated?
recreational facilities. Less than
Significant Impact
Threshold 4.8-4: Would the project
The proposed Project would not conflict
No mitigation is required.
No Impact
conflict with any applicable plan,
with any goals or policies of the City of
policy, or regulation of an agency
Newport Beach General Plan or the
with jurisdiction over the project
California Coastal Act related to
(including, but not limited to the
recreational resources. No Impact
general plan, specific plan, local
coastal program, or zoning
ordinance) adopted for the purpose
of avoiding or mitigating an
environmental effect?
SECTION 4.9 — TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION
Threshold 4.9 -1: Would the project
Multiple traffic scenarios were
Project Design Features
For all traffic
cause an increase in traffic which is
evaluated. The following summarizes
PDF 4.9 -1 In addition to mitigating traffic impacts of the
scenarios,
substantial in relation to the existing
the significant impacts. Unless
implementation
traffic load and capacity of the
mentioned, the impacts are less than
Project, the transportation improvements included in the Master
of MM 4.9 -1 and
street system (i.e., result in a
significant prior to mitigation:
Develop highway provide arterial hi ca needed to acit
ment Plan p g y p y
MM 4.9 -2 would
substantial increase in either the
address existing demand as well as for planned growth in the
reduce impacts
number of vehicle trips, the volume-
Existing Plus Project — The Project is
region through implementing portions of the City's General Plan
Less Than
to- capacity ratio on roads, or
forecasted to significantly impact three
and the County's Master Plan of Arterial Highways.
Si
Significant.
congestion at intersections)?
intersections in Costa Mesa.
PDF 4.9 -2 The arterial roadway improvements and
However, the
Threshold 4.9 -2: Would the project
Year 2016 With Project Traffic Phasing
contributions toward off -site improvements will be provided
City of Newport
conflict with an applicable
Ordinance (TPO) Analysis — The
earlier in the development phasing program than needed to
Beach cannot
Project would significantly impact seven
mitigate Project traffic impacts and requires that contributions
impose
R Trojects\Newpertl015 \IDraf EIR\1.0 EzSum -090411.doc 141 Newport Banning Ranch
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Section 1.0
Executive Summary
TABLE 1 -2 (Continued)
SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION PROGRAM
Thresholds Applied
Environmental Impacts /Level of
Significance Before Mitigation
Summary of Mitigation Program:
Project Design Features, Standard Conditions, and
Mitigation Measures
Level of
Significance
After Mitigation
congestion management program,
intersections in Costa Mesa.
toward off -site improvements be provided early relative to the
mitigation (MM
including, but not limited to level of
development phasing.
4.9 -2) on
service standards and travel
Year 2016 With Phase 1 Project TPO
another
demand measures, or other
Analysis — The Project would
PDF 4.9-3 The Master Development Plan includes a new
m
jurisdiction.
standards established by the
significantly impact to two intersections
arterial connection between West Coast Highway and 19 Street
Therefore, for
County congestion management
in Costa Mesa.
that will provide enhanced access to and from southwest Costa
purposes of this
agency for designated roads or
Year 2016 Cumulative With Project —
Mesa which will contribute to the mitigation of the impacts of
EIR, the impacts
highways?
The Project would significantly impact
projected regional growth.
in Costa Mesa
seven intersections in Costa Mesa.
Standard Conditions and Requirements
are assumed to
2016 Cumulative With Phase 1 Project—
SC 4.9 -2 The Applicant shall be responsible for the payment
remain
Significant and
The Project would significantly impact
of fair share traffic fees or right -of -way dedication or traffic
Unavoidable.
to two intersections in Costa Mesa.
improvements.
General Plan Buildout — The Project
SC 4.9 -3 Prior to issuance of any grading permit, the
would significantly impact to two
Applicant shall prepare for City of Newport Beach Traffic
intersections in Costa Mesa.
Engineer review and approval a Construction Area Traffic
Management Plan for the Project for the issuance of a Haul
Route Permit. The Applicant shall ensure that construction
activities requiring more than 16 truck (i.e., multiple axle vehicle)
trips per hour on West Coast Highway, such as excavation and
concrete pours, shall be prohibited between June 1 and
September 1. At all other times, such activities shall be limited to
25 truck (i.e., multiple axle vehicle) trips per hour on West Coast
Highway unless otherwise approved by the City of Newport
Beach Traffic Engineer. Haul operations shall be monitored by
the City of Newport Beach Public Works Department, and
additional restrictions may be applied if traffic congestion
problems arise. A staging area shall be designated on site for
construction equipment and supplies to be stored during
construction. No construction vehicles shall be allowed to stage
on off -site roads during the grading and construction period.
Mitigation Measures
MM 4.9 -1 This measure identifies the City of Newport Beach
transportation improvement program proposed as mitigation for
the Project. The Applicant shall be responsible for the
construction of the required improvements in lieu of the payment
of fees. The improvements shall be completed during the 60
R \Proj.WNewp.nU015 \IDraR EIR\1.0 aS.. -090411.tloc 142 Newport Banning Ranch
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Section 1.0
Executive Summary
TABLE 1 -2 (Continued)
SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION PROGRAM
RAProjects\NewpcnU015 \IDraf EIR\1.0 aSum -09M 1.tloc 143 Newport Banning Ranch
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Summary of Mitigation Program:
Level of
Environmental Impactsil-evel of
Project Design Features, Standard Conditions, and
Significance
Thresholds Applied
Significance Before Mitigation
Mitigation Measures
After Mitigation
months immediately after receipt of all permits.
MM 4.9 -2 This measure identifies the City of Costa Mesa
transportation improvement program proposed as mitigation for
the Project. The Applicant shall be responsible for the payment
of fees and /or the construction of the required improvements in
lieu of the payment of fees to be negotiated with the City of
Costa Mesa. The payment of fees and /or the completion of the
improvements shall be completed during the 60 months
immediately after the receipt of all permits.
Threshold 4.9 -3: Would the project
Implementation of the proposed Project
Standard Conditions and Requirements
Less Than
substantially increase hazards due
would not result in any significant
SC 49 -1 Sight distance at the Project's access point shall
. g p
Significant
to a design feature (e.g., sharp
impacts related to circulation or access,
comply with City of Newport Beach standards.
Impact
curves or dangerous intersections)
and therefore would not significantly
or incompatible uses (e.g., farm
impact any emergency response
SC 4.9 -3 is applicable.
equipment), or result in inadequate
evacuation plans. To facilitate the
emergency access?
movement of construction traffic and to
Mitigation Measures
minimize potential disruptions, standard
MM 4.9 -3 Prior to the introduction of combustible materials on
conditions and mitigation, would be
the Project site, emergency fire access to the site shall be
applicable to the proposed Project.
approved by the City of Newport Beach's Public Works and Fire
Less Than Significant Impact
Departments.
MM 4.9-4 Prior to the start of grading, the Applicant shall
demonstrate to the City of Newport Beach Fire Department that
all existing and new access roads surrounding the Project site
are designated as fire lanes, and no parking shall be permitted
unless the accessway meets minimum width requirements of the
Public Works and Fire Departments.
Threshold 4.9-4: Would the project
The NBR -PC includes regulations that
Mitigation Measures
Less Than
result in inadequate parking
require adequate parking for new uses
1h
MM 4.9 -5 Prior to the displacement of any private parking
Significant
capacity?
in the Project. The extension
Street consistent with the General al 15 Plan
spaces associated with improvements to 1 5t Street, the
Impact
would displace parking at an existing
Applicant shall be responsible for the construction of
office building. Potentially Significant
replacement parking on the Project site within the Community
Impact
Park site or in a location immediately proximate to the existing
parking lot.
RAProjects\NewpcnU015 \IDraf EIR\1.0 aSum -09M 1.tloc 143 Newport Banning Ranch
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Section 1.0
Executive Summary
TABLE 1 -2 (Continued)
SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION PROGRAM
RAProjects\NewpcnU015 \IDraf EIR\1.0 aSum -090411 doc 144 Newport Banning Ranch
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Summary of Mitigation Program:
Level of
Environmental Impacts /Level of
Project Design Features, Standard Conditions, and
Significance
Thresholds Applied
Significance Before Mitigation
Mitigation Measures
After Mitigation
Threshold 4.9.5: Would the project
The proposed Project would amend the
Project Design Features
No Impact
conflict with any applicable plan,
Circulation Element of the General Plan
PDF 4.8 -2 and 4.8 -3 in Sections 4.8, Recreation and Trails; PDF
policy, or regulation of an agency
and the MPAH. By taking this action,
4 10 -1 and 4.10 -2 in Section 4.10, Air Quality; and PDF 4.11 -3 in
with jurisdiction over the project
the Project would be consistent with the
Section 4.11, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, are also applicable.
(including, but not limited to the
Master Plan of Streets and Highways
general plan, specific plan, local
and the MPAH maps. The Project is
coastal program, or zoning
consistent with the intent of the
ordinance) adopted for the purpose
transportation- related goals and policies
of avoiding or mitigating an
of SCAG, the City of Newport Beach
environmental effect?
General Plan, and the California
Coastal Act. No Impact
Would the project conflict with
adopted policies, plans, or
programs regarding public transit,
bicycle, or pedestrian facilities or
otherwise decrease the
performance or safety of such
facilities (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle
racks)?
Would the project conflict with an
applicable plan, ordinance or policy
establishing measures of
effectiveness for the performance
of the circulation system, taking into
account all modes of transportation
including mass transit and non -
motorized travel and relevant
components of the circulation
system, including but not limited to
intersections, streets, highways and
freeways, pedestrian and bicycle
paths, and mass transit?
SECTION 4.10 —AIR QUALITY
Threshold 4.10 -1: Would the
The AQMP provides controls sufficient
No mitigation is required.
No Impact
project conflict with or obstruct
to attain the national ozone standards
implementation of the applicable air
based on the long -range growth
quality plan?
projections for the region. The Project
RAProjects\NewpcnU015 \IDraf EIR\1.0 aSum -090411 doc 144 Newport Banning Ranch
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Section 1.0
Executive Summary
TABLE 1 -2 (Continued)
SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION PROGRAM
Thresholds Applied
Environmental Impactsil-evel of
Significance Before Mitigation
Summary of Mitigation Program:
Project Design Features, Standard Conditions, and
Mitigation Measures
Level of
Significance
After Mitigation
does not exceed the assumptions in the
AQMP. Therefore, the Project is in
conformance with the AQMP. No
Impact
Threshold 4.10 -2: Would the
Without mitigation, regional (mass)
Project Design Features
Though MM
project violate any air quality
emissions of NOx are forecasted to
PDF 4. provides for Plan 10 -1 The Master Develop p
4.10 -1 would
standard or contribute substantially
exceed applicable thresholds in some
reduce the
to an existing or projected air
construction years. Potentially
i d Vi
th U l ti an Visitor- /R
uses, n e Mixed-Use/Residential it
commercial Mi d
emissions to
quality violation?
Significant
Serving Resort/Residential Land Use Districts, within walking
less than
distance of the proposed residential neighborhoods and nearby
significant, the
residential areas to reduce vehicle trips and vehicle miles
availability of
traveled.
sufficient Tier 4
PDF 4.10 -2 The Master Development Plan provides a network
diesel engine
of public pedestrian and bicycle trails to reduce auto -
construction
dependency by connecting proposed residential neighborhoods
equipment
to parks and open space within the Project site and to off -site
cannot be
recreational amenities, such as the beach and regional parks
assured.
and trails.
Therefore, for
purposes of this
PDF 4.8 -3 from Section 4.8, Recreation and Trails, and PDFs
EIR, the impacts
4.11 -1 through 4.11 -5 from Section 4.11, Greenhouse Gas
are found to be
Emissions are applicable.
Significant and
Standard Conditions and Requirements
Unavoidable
Localized concentrations of CO, NO2,
SC 4.10 -1 During construction of the proposed Project, the
Less Than
PM10, and PM2.5 due to construction
Project Developer shall require all construction contractors to
Significant
activities would not exceed the
comply with South Coast Air Quality Management District's
Impact
applicable CEQA thresholds. Less
(SCAQMD's) Rules 402 and 403 in order to minimize short-term
Than Significant Impact
emissions of dust and particulates.
Significant,
Long -term operational emissions of
SC 4.10 -2 Architectural coatings shall be selected so that the
Unavoidable
criteria pollutants would not exceed the
VOC content of the coatings is compliant with SCAQMD Rule
Impact
SCAQMD mass emissions thresholds
1113.
from initial occupancy through 2020.
SC 4.11 -1 from Section 4.11, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, is
However, as Project development
applicable.
continues beyond 2020, emissions of
VOC and CO would exceed the
Mitigation Measures
significance thresholds, principally due
MM 4.10 -1 This measure requires the construction contractors
R \Proj.WNewp.nU015 \IDraR EIR\1.0 aS..-09W I A= 145 Newport Banning Ranch
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Section 1.0
Executive Summary
TABLE 1 -2 (Continued)
SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION PROGRAM
Thresholds Applied
Environmental Impactsil-evel of
Significance Before Mitigation
Summary of Mitigation Program:
Project Design Features, Standard Conditions, and
Mitigation Measures
Level of
Significance
After Mitigation
to vehicle operations. Significant
to implement measures that would reduce NOx emissions.
Impact
These measures principally require efficient construction traffic
operations.
Localized concentrations of CO at
MM 4 -10 -2 This measure requires the construction contractors
Less Than
congested intersections would not
to implement measures that would reduce emissions by utilizing
Significant
exceed ambient air quality standards or
efficient construction methods.
Impact
CEQA significance thresholds. Less
MM 4.10 -3 This measure requires the construction contractors
Than Significant Impact
to implement measures that would reduce emissions by reducing
idling times and properly maintaining construction equipment.
MM 4.10 -4 This measure requires the construction contractors
to encourage ridesharing and transit incentives for the
construction crews.
MM 4.10 -5 This measure requires the construction contractors
to incorporate additional dust control measures to minimize
fugitive dust, PM10, and PM2.5 emissions.
MM 4.10 -6 This measure requires the construction and paving
of Bluff Road as early as feasible to minimize dust generation.
MM 4.10 -7 This measure requires the construction contractors
to sweep paved roads within and adjacent to the Project site if
visible soil materials are carried to the streets.
MM 4.10 -8 The Landowner /Master Developer shall distribute a
notice to all residents, schools, and other facilities within 100 feet
of the Project site that states "the environmental analysis
identifies a potential for excess dust pollution for short periods
during heavy grading. Extra measures shall be taken to prevent
the dust from leaving the Project site, but persons should be
aware of the potential for pollution ".
MM 4.10 -9 The Landowner /Master Developer shall appoint a
person as a contact for complaints relative to construction
impacts to the adjacent neighborhoods. A contact telephone
number and email address shall be posted on signs at the
construction site and shall be provided by mail to all residents
within 500 feet of the Project site. Upon receipt of a complaint,
RAProj.WNewp.nU015 \IDraR EIR\1.0 aSUm -090411.tloc 146 Newport Banning Ranch
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Section 1.0
Executive Summary
TABLE 1 -2 (Continued)
SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION PROGRAM
Thresholds Applied
Environmental Impactsil-evel of
Significance Before Mitigation
Summary of Mitigation Program:
Project Design Features, Standard Conditions, and
Mitigation Measures
Level of
Significance
After Mitigation
the designated contact person shall investigate the complaint
and shall develop corrective action, if needed.
MM 4.10 -10 Bicycle Facilities. Prior to the issuance of building
permits for the following specific components of the Project, the
Applicant shall demonstrate to the City of Newport Beach that
adequate bicycle facilities are provided (measure outlines
requirements).
MM 4.10 -11 Conservation Education — Mobile Sources. The
future homeowners associations shall be required to provide
educational information on mobile source emission reduction
techniques) to all homeowners as part of purchase closing
documents for the purchase of a property and annually after the
close of escrow.
MM 4.10.12 Conservation Education — Consumer Products.
The future homeowners associations shall be required to provide
educational information on the positive benefits of using
consumer products with low or no- volatile organic compounds
(VOCs) (such as paint thinners and solvents) to all homeowners
as part of purchase closing documents for the purchase of a
property and annually after the close of escrow.
Threshold 4.10 -3: Would the
The Project would have cumulatively
Project Design Features
Significant,
project result in a cumulatively
considerable contributions to regional
PDF 4.8 -3 from Section 4.8, Recreation and Trails, is applicable
Unavoidable
considerable net increase of any
pollutant concentrations of 03.
PDFs 4.10 -1 and 4.10 -2 are applicable.
Impact
criteria pollutant for which the
Significant Impact
project region is in nonattainment
PDF 4.11 -2 through PDF 4.11 -4 from Section 4.11, Greenhouse
under an applicable NAAQS or
Gas Emissions, are applicable.
CAAQS (including releasing
Standard Conditions and Requirements
emissions that exceed quantitative
thresholds for ozone precursors)?
SC 4.11 -1 from Section 4.11, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, is
applicable.
Mitigation Measures
MM 4.10 -9 and MM 4.10 -11 are applicable.
RAProj.WNewp.nU015 \IDraR EIR\1.0 aS.. -090411.tloc 147 Newport Banning Ranch
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Section 1.0
Executive Summary
TABLE 1 -2 (Continued)
SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION PROGRAM
R \Proje ts\NewpcnU015 \IDraf EIR\1.0 aSum-09W I A= 148 Newport Banning Ranch
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Summary of Mitigation Program:
Level of
Environmental Impactsil-evel of
Project Design Features, Standard Conditions, and
Significance
Thresholds Applied
Significance Before Mitigation
Mitigation Measures
After Mitigation
Threshold 4.10 -4: Would the
Health risk associated with Toxic Air
No mitigation is required.
Less Than
project expose sensitive receptors
Contaminants to both off -site and on-
Significant
to substantial pollutant
site receptors found the cancer risk, the
Impact
concentrations?
cancer burden, the chronic hazard risk
and the acute hazard risk are all below
the SCAQMD thresholds. Less Than
Significant Impact
Threshold 4.10 -5: Would the
Odors may be perceived from both
No mitigation is required.
Less Than
project create objectionable odors
construction and long -term operations,
Significant
affecting a substantial number of
but these odors would be typical for the
Impact
people?
land use and operations. Odors from
the oilfields are not anticipated to be
perceptible at nearby developed sites.
Less Than Significant Impact
Threshold 4.10 -6: Would the
The proposed Project would not conflict
No mitigation is required.
No Impact
project conflict with any applicable
with the intent of applicable goals or
plan, policy, or regulation of an
policies adopted to avoid or mitigate
agency with jurisdiction over the
impacts related to air quality. No
project (including, but not limited to
Impact
the general plan, specific plan, local
coastal program, or zoning
ordinance) adopted for the purpose
of avoiding or mitigating an
environmental effect?
SECTION 4.11 —GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
Threshold 4.11 -1: Would the
The Project would emit quantities of
Project Design Features
Cumulatively
project generate greenhouse gas
GHGs that would exceed the City's
Significant,
emissions, either directly or
6,000 MTCO2e /yr significance
PDF 4.11 -1 The Project will be consistent with a recognized
Unavoidable
indirectly, that may have a
threshold. The Project would make a
green building program that exists at the time of final Project
Emissions
significant impact on the
cumulatively considerable contribution
approval.
Impact
environment?
to the global GHG inventory.
PDF 4.11 -2 The Project will exceed adopted 2008 Title 24
Cumulatively Significant Impact
energy requirements by a minimum of 5 percent.
PDF 4.11 -3 The Master Development Plan and the Newport
Banning Ranch Planned Community Development Plan require
the Project to be coordinated with Orange County Transportation
Authority (OCTA) to allow for a transit routing through the
R \Proje ts\NewpcnU015 \IDraf EIR\1.0 aSum-09W I A= 148 Newport Banning Ranch
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Section 1.0
Executive Summary
TABLE 1 -2 (Continued)
SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION PROGRAM
Thresholds Applied
Environmental Impacts /Level of
Significance Before Mitigation
Summary of Mitigation Program:
Project Design Features, Standard Conditions, and
Mitigation Measures
Level of
Significance
After Mitigation
community, and will provide bus stops and /or shelters as needed
in the community to accommodate the bus routing needed by
OCTA.
PDF 4.11 -4 The Newport Banning Ranch Planned Community
Development Plan and the Master Development Plan require
that all residential development will incorporate the measures
that increase energy efficiency (measures identified in PDF),
which will be reflected on and incorporated into every application
for a subdivision map that creates residential lots.
PDF 4.11 -5 This PDF identifies measures to be implemented
during grading activities that would reduce emissions associated
with construction equipment and minimize the amount of the
amount of construction solid waste disposed offsite (measures
identified in PDF).
PDF 4.8 -3, from Section 4.8, Recreation and Trails, is
applicable.
PDFs 4.10 -1 and 4.10 -2 from Section 4.10, Air Quality, are
applicable.
Standard Conditions and Requirements
SC 4.11 -1 Energy Efficiency Standards. The Project shall
be built in accordance with the California 2008 Building Energy
Efficiency Standards for Residential and Nonresidential
Buildings, commonly identified as the "2008 Title 24 Energy
Efficiency Standards" or the version of these standards current
at the time of the issuance of each building permit.
Mitigation Measures
MM 4.11 -1 Prior to the issuance of each occupancy permit, the
Permit Applicant shall demonstrate the plan for the applicable
future homeowners association to provide educational
information to all homeowners on measures to reduce GHG.
This will be done prior to individual purchase of property and
again annually.
MM 4.11 -2 Prior to the issuance of the building permit for the
R \ProJ.WNewp.nU015 \IDraR EIR\1.0 aSUm -090411 d.o 149 Newport Banning Ranch
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Section 1.0
Executive Summary
TABLE 1 -2 (Continued)
SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION PROGRAM
Thresholds Applied
Environmental Impactsil-evel of
Significance Before Mitigation
Summary of Mitigation Program:
Project Design Features, Standard Conditions, and
Mitigation Measures
Level of
Significance
After Mitigation
hotel and each building permit for a multi - family complex with a
swimming pool or spa, the Developer shall demonstrate that the
plans incorporate energy efficient heating, pumps and motors.
MM 4.11 -3 Prior to the issuance of each building permit, the
Developer shall demonstrate that light emitting diode (LED)
lights will be used for traffic lights and LED or similar energy
efficient lighting will be used for street lights and other outdoor
lighting.
MM 4.11 -4 Prior to the issuance of each building permit for
multi - family buildings, parks, and other public spaces, the
Developer shall demonstrate that the plans include the
installation of facilities for the collection of recyclable materials
consistent with the recycle requirements of the City and the local
waste collection contractor.
MM 4.11 -5 Prior to the issuance of each building permit for
multi - family buildings and the resort hotel, the Developer shall
demonstrate that the plans include the installation of facilities for
electric vehicle recharging.
MM 4.11.6 Prior to the issuance of each building permit for
multi - family buildings, commercial building, park, and other
public space, the Developer shall demonstrate that the plans
include the installation of bicycle parking spaces at each facility.
Threshold 4.11 -2: Would the
The proposed Project would be
No mitigation is required.
Less Than
project conflict with an applicable
consistent with applicable SCAG, City
Significant
plan, policy, or regulation adopted
of Newport Beach General Plan, and
Impact
for the purpose of reducing the
Coastal Act policies, and with measures
emissions of greenhouse gases?
recommended by the California
Attorney General to reduce GHG
emissions that would result in
minimization of GHG emissions. No
Impact
RAProjects\NewpcnU015 \IDraf EIR\1.0 aSum -090411 doc 1 -50 Newport Banning Ranch
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Section 1.0
Executive Summary
TABLE 1 -2 (Continued)
SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION PROGRAM
Thresholds Applied
Environmental Impactsil-evel of
Significance Before Mitigation
Summary of Mitigation Program:
Project Design Features, Standard Conditions, and
Mitigation Measures
Level of
Significance
After Mitigation
SECTION 4.12 —NOISE
Threshold 4.12 -1: Would the
These thresholds were evaluated for
Standard Conditions and Requirements
Construction:
project expose persons to or
the various phases of the Project. The
No Impact
generate noise levels in excess of
evaluation for construction and long-
SC 4.12 -1 Project construction activities shall comply with the
standards established in the local
term use of the site considered different
Newport Beach Noise Ordinance, which restricts hours of
Long -Term:
general plan or noise ordinance, or
factors. For long term operations, only
operation.
17th Street- MM
applicable standards of other
those locations where impacts are
SC 4.12 -2 HVAC units shall be designed and installed in
4.12 -5 would
agencies?
identified are listed. The EIR section
accordance with the Newport Beach Noise Ordinance.
reduce impacts
to Less Than
evaluates additional locations where
Threshold 4.12 -4: Would the
less than significant impacts are
SC 4.12 -3 All residential and hotel units shall be designed to
Significant.
project result in a substantial
identified.
ensure that interior noise levels in habitable rooms from exterior
However, the
permanent increase in ambient
transportation sources shall not exceed 45 dBA CNEL.
City of Newport
noise levels in the project vicinity
Construction Activities
Beach cannot
above levels existing without the
Construction activities would generate
SC 4.12 -4 In accordance with City of Newport Beach
impose
project?
loud noises; however, all construction
standards, rubberized asphalt or pavements offering equivalent
mitigation on
activities would be in compliance with
or better acoustical properties shall be used to pave all public
another
the established standards. No Impact
roads on the Project site and all off -site City of Newport Beach
jurisdiction.
roads where improvements would be provided as a part of the
Therefore, for
Long -Term Operations
Project.
purposes of this
The increased traffic volumes on 17th
EIR, the impacts
Street, west of Monrovia Avenue would
Mitigation Measures
in Costa Mesa
expose sensitive receptors to noise
MM 4.12 -5 Prior to the issuance of the first building permit, the
are assumed to
levels in excess of City of Newport
Applicant shall provide evidence to the City of Newport Beach
remain
Beach's standards for changes to the
that funds have been deposited with the City of Costa Mesa
Significant and
ambient noise levels. At buildout, noise
associated with the cost of one -time resurfacing 17'h Street west
Unavoidable
levels would also exceed significance
of Monrovia Avenue with rubberized asphalt.
thresholds in the City of Costa Mesa.
Newport Crest -
Significant Impact
MM 4.12 -6 The grading plans for Bluff Road and 15`h Street
MM 4.12 -6
shall require the construction and installation of a noise barrier to
would reduce
For portions of the Newport Crest
reduce future traffic noise from the Bluff Road and 151h Street to
impacts to
development, there would be a
the Newport Crest residences.
levels within the
significant increase in the ambient noise
"Clearly
level due to the projected traffic
MM 4.12 -7 Concurrent with the grading permit for Bluff Road,
Compatible" or
volumes in the buildout condition.
the Applicant shall provide written notice of an offer of installing
"Normally
Significant Impact
dual pane windows /sliding doors on the fagade facing the
Compatible"
Newport Banning Ranch property. The offer shall apply to the
Without attenuation, residential uses
owners of the residences (Owners) directly adjacent to the
classifications
internal to the Project would be
Newport Banning Ranch property in the western and northern
but would
exposed to noise levels in excess of
boundaries of Newport Crest Condominiums impacted by
remain above
the 5 dBA
R \Proj.WNewp.nU015 \IDraR EIR\1.0 aSUm -090411 d.o 1 -51 Newport Banning Ranch
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Section 1.0
Executive Summary
TABLE 1 -2 (Continued)
SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION PROGRAM
Thresholds Applied
Environmental Impactsil-evel of
Significance Before Mitigation
Summary of Mitigation Program:
Project Design Features, Standard Conditions, and
Mitigation Measures
Level of
Significance
After Mitigation
applicable standards. Significant
significant noise levels (significant being a cumulative increase
significance
Impact
over existing conditions of greater than 5 dBA) associated with
criterion in the
the Project.
General Plan.
MM 4.12 -8 Prior to tract map approval for the residential areas
w 4.12 -7
o
would provide
adjacent to Bluff Road and North Bluff Road, the Applicant shall
interior
provide an acoustical analysis prepared by a qualified Acoustical
attenuation but
Engineer that demonstrates residential exterior living areas
because the
would be exposed to noise levels below 65 dBA CNEL.
City of Newport
MM 4.12 -9 Truck deliveries and loading dock activities in
Beach does not
commercial areas of the Project shall be restricted to between
have the
the hours of 7:00 AM and 10:00 PM on weekdays and Saturdays
authority to
and shall be restricted to between the hours of 9:00 AM and
mandate the
10:00 PM on Sundays and federal holidays.
implementation
of mitigation on
MM 4.12.10 If loading docks or truck driveways are proposed as
private property
part of the Project's commercial areas within 200 feet of an
that is not on
existing home, an 8- foot -high screening wall shall be constructed
the Project site,
to reduce potential noise impacts.
the impact
MM 4.12 -11 Prior to the approval of a permit for the drilling of
would be
replacement oil wells in the Consolidated Oil Facility, the
Significant and
Applicant shall provide to the City of Newport Beach descriptions
Unavoidable.
of the noise reduction methods to be used to minimize drilling
Internal
activity noise.
development -
With SC 4.12 -2
through SC
4.12 -4 and MM
4.12 -8, through
MM 4 -12 -12
Less Than
Significant
Impact.
Threshold 4.12 -2: Would the
Construction equipment would result in
Mitigation Measures
Significant,
project result in a temporary or
a substantial temporary increase in
MM 4.12 -1 Grading plans and specifications shall include
Unavoidable
periodic increase in ambient noise
ambient noise levels to nearby noise
temporary noise barriers for all grading, hauling, and other heavy
Impact
levels in the project vicinity above
sensitive receptors in the vicinity of the
equipment operations that would occur within 300 feet of
levels existing without the project?
Project. Due to the low existing ambient
sensitive off -site receptors and would occur for more than 20
R \Projecte\NewpcnU015 \IDraf EIR\1.0 aSum -09W 1.tloc 1 -52 Newport Banning Ranch
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Section 1.0
Executive Summary
TABLE 1 -2 (Continued)
SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION PROGRAM
RAProje WNewponU015 \IDraf EIR\1.0 aSum -09M 1.tloc 1 -53 Newport Banning Ranch
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Summary of Mitigation Program:
Level of
Environmental Impactsil-evel of
Project Design Features, Standard Conditions, and
Significance
Thresholds Applied
Significance Before Mitigation
Mitigation Measures
After Mitigation
noise levels, the proximity of the noise-
days.
sensitive receptors, and duration of
MM 4.12 -2 Prior to the start of grading, the Construction
construction activities, the temporary
noise increases would be significant.
Manager shall provide evidence acceptable to the Public Works
Significant Impact
Director and /or Community Development Director, that best
practices to minimize noise during construction are in place.
MM 4.12 -3 At least two weeks prior to the start of any grading
operation or similar noise generating activities within 300 feet of
residences or the Carden Hall school, the contractor shall notify
affected residents and the school of the planned start date,
duration, nature of the construction activity, and noise abatement
measures to be provided.
Threshold 4.12 -3: Would the
Vibration may be noticeable for short
Mitigation Measures
Less Than
project expose people to or
periods during construction, but it would
Significant
generate excessive groundborne
be temporary and periodic. Generally,
MM 4.12 -4 During construction, the operation of large
Impact
vibration or groundborne noise
the impact would not be excessive;
bulldozers, vibratory rollers, and similar heavy equipment shall
levels?
however, if large construction
be prohibited within 25 feet of any existing off -site residence.
equipment is within 10 feet of older
residences, there could be potential
impacts. Potentially Significant
Impact
Threshold 4.12 -5: Would the
The Project site is not near a private
No mitigation required.
No Impact
project be located within an airport
airstrip and is outside of the limits of the
land use plan or, where such a plan
Airport Land Use Plan for John Wayne
has not been adopted, within two
Airport (JWA), which is approximately 4
miles of a public airport or public
miles to the northeast of the Project
use airport, expose people residing
site. No Impact
or working in the project area to
excessive noise levels?
Threshold 4.12 -6: Would the
project be within the vicinity of a
private airstrip and expose people
residing or working in the project
area to excessive noise levels?
RAProje WNewponU015 \IDraf EIR\1.0 aSum -09M 1.tloc 1 -53 Newport Banning Ranch
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Section 1.0
Executive Summary
TABLE 1 -2 (Continued)
SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION PROGRAM
R \Projects \Newp.nUO15 \IDraR EIR \1.0 aSUm -090411 d.o 1 -54 Newport Banning Ranch
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Summary of Mitigation Program:
Level of
Environmental Impactsil-evel of
Project Design Features, Standard Conditions, and
Significance
Thresholds Applied
Significance Before Mitigation
Mitigation Measures
After Mitigation
Threshold 4.12 -7: Would the
The proposed Project is consistent with
No mitigation is required.
No Impact
project conflict with any applicable
the goals and policies of the City of
land use plan, policy, or regulation
Newport Beach General Plan related to
of an agency with jurisdiction over
noise. No Impact
the project (including, but not
limited to the general plan, specific
plan, local coastal program, or
zoning ordinance) adapted for the
purpose of avoiding or mitigating an
environmental effect?
SECTION 4.13 — CULTURAL AND PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Threshold 4.13 -1: Would the
The Project would not impact any
Mitigation Measures
Less Than
project cause a substantial adverse
known historical resources. However,
o
MM 4.13 -1 A qualified Archaeologist shall be retained to
Significant
change in the significance of a
grading and excavation could impact
observe grading activities and salvage and catalogue
Impact
historical resource as defined in
§15064.5?
unknown historical resources.
Potentially Significant Impact
resources, as necessary. The Archaeologist shall be resent at
the pre -grade conference; shall establish procedures for
archaeological resource surveillance; and shall establish,
procedures for temporarily halting or redirecting work to permit
the sampling, identification, and evaluation of the artifacts, as
appropriate.
Threshold 4.13 -2: Would the
The Project would impact known
Mitigation Measures
Less Than
project cause a substantial adverse
archaeological resources. Three
MM 413 -1 would be applicable.
. u pp .
Significant
change in the significance of an
archaeological sites (CA -ORA -839, CA-
Impact
archaeological resource as defined
ORA -8448, and CA -ORA -906) are
MM 4.13 -2 Mitigation programs for each of the three sites
in §15064.5?
deemed eligible for listing on California
known to be eligible for the CRHR and the NRHP have been
Register of Historic Resources (CRHR)
proposed. The programs involve measures to preserve the sites,
and the National Register of Historic
to the extent feasible and take actions to protect the resources in
Properties (NRHP). Disturbance
place. However, where disturbance would occur due to
activities could also impact unknown
development and site remediation data recovery programs are
resources. Potentially Significant
identified. The measure has specific recommendations for each
Impact
site.
Threshold 4.13 -3: Would the
There are three mapped lithologic units
Mitigation Measures
Less Than
project directly or indirectly destroy
that underlie the Project site. The San
MM 413 -3 A qualified Paleontologist shall be retained to
. q g
Significant
a unique paleontological resource
Pedro Sand and Palos Verdes Sand
observe grading activities and to conduct salvage excavation of
Impact
or site or unique geologic feature?
have high paleontological sensitivity.
paleontological resources, as necessary. The Paleontologist
R \Projects \Newp.nUO15 \IDraR EIR \1.0 aSUm -090411 d.o 1 -54 Newport Banning Ranch
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Section 1.0
Executive Summary
TABLE 1 -2 (Continued)
SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION PROGRAM
RAProjects\NewpcnU015 \IDraf EIR\1.0 aSum -09M 1.tloc 1 -55 Newport Banning Ranch
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Summary of Mitigation Program:
Level of
Environmental Impactsil-evel of
Project Design Features, Standard Conditions, and
Significance
Thresholds Applied
Significance Before Mitigation
Mitigation Measures
After Mitigation
Grading activities could impact
shall establish procedures for paleontological resources
significant paleontological resources.
surveillance and procedures for temporarily halting or redirecting
Potentially Significant Impact
work to permit the sampling, identification, and evaluation of the
fossils as appropriate.
MM 4.13 -4 Prior to the issuance of the first grading permit
and /or action that would allow for Project site disturbance, a
paleontological survey shall be conducted to record all
paleontological resources present at the surface for those
portions of the Project site where grading would occur that will
affect Quaternary San Pedro Sand and Quaternary Palos
Verdes Sand.
Threshold 4.13 -4: Would the
There is no indication of burials present
Standard Conditions and Requirements
Less Than
project disturb any human remains,
on the Project site. Grading activities
Significant
including those interred outside of
could impact unknown human remains.
SC 4.13 -1 If human remains are found, the County Coroner
Impact
formal cemeteries?
Potentially Significant Impact
shall be notified within 24 hours of the discovery. No further
excavation or disturbance of the site or any nearby area
reasonably suspected to overlie adjacent remains shall occur
until the County Coroner has determined the appropriate
treatment and disposition of the human remains. If the County
Coroner determines that the remains are or believed to be
Native American, s /he shall notify the Native American Heritage
Commission (NAHC), who will notify those persons it believes to
be the most likely descended from the deceased Native
American.
Threshold 4.13 -5: Would the
The proposed Project would not conflict
No mitigation is required.
No Impact
project conflict with any applicable
with any goals or policies of the City of
plan, policy, or regulation of an
Newport Beach General Plan or the
agency with jurisdiction over the
Coastal Act related to historic,
project (including, but not limited to
archaeological, and paleontological
the general plan, specific plan, local
resources. No Impact
coastal program, or zoning
ordinance) adopted for the purpose
of avoiding or mitigating an
environmental effect?
RAProjects\NewpcnU015 \IDraf EIR\1.0 aSum -09M 1.tloc 1 -55 Newport Banning Ranch
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Section 1.0
Executive Summary
TABLE 1 -2 (Continued)
SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION PROGRAM
Thresholds Applied
Environmental Impacts /Level of
Significance Before Mitigation
Summary of Mitigation Program:
Project Design Features, Standard Conditions, and
Mitigation Measures
Level of
Significance
After Mitigation
SECTION 4.14 —PUBLIC SERVICES AND FACILITIES
Fire Protection
Site Planning Area 12b, the northerly
Project Design Features
Less Than
Threshold 4.14 -1: Would the
block of Site Planning Area 10a, and
PDF 4.14 -1 The Master Development Plan requires that the
Significant
project result in substantial adverse
the northerly block of Site Planning
Project be designed to provide fire- resistant construction for all
Impact
h sical impacts associated with
y p
Area 10b cannot be served by Station
structures adjoining natural open space, including utilizing fire-
the he provision of new or physically
Number 2 within the established
resistant building materials and sprinklers.
altered governmental facilities,
response time. Less Than Significant
need for new or physically altered
Impact with Mitigation
Standard Conditions and Requirements
governmental facilities, the
SC 4.14 -1 The Applicant shall pay the required Property
construction of which could cause
Excise Tax to the City of Newport Beach, for public
significant environmental impacts,
improvements and facilities associated with the City of Newport
in order to maintain acceptable
Beach Fire Department, City of Newport Beach Public Library,
service ratios, response times or
and City of Newport Beach public parks.
other performance objectives for
fire protection?
SC 4.14 -2 Prior to City approval of individual development
plans for the Project, the Applicant shall obtain Fire Department
review and approval of the site plan in order to ensure adequate
access to the Project site.
SC 4.14 -3 Prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy,
fuel modification shall be installed, completed, and inspected by
the Fire Department.
Mitigation Measures
MM 4.14 -1 Certificates of occupancy shall not be issued for
any residential unit, the resort inn, or any commercial structure in
Site Planning Areas 10a (northerly block only), 10b (northerly
block only), and 12b until Fire Station Number 2 is rebuilt at a
location that the Newport Beach Fire Department has
determined is sufficient to provide fire response within the Fire
Department's established response time standards.
MM 4.14 -2 The Applicant shall pay the City of Newport Beach
a fire facilities impact fee equal to its fair share of the need for a
relocated Fire Station Number 2.
MM 4.14.3 Should a replacement station for Fire Station 2 not
be constructed prior to the development of residential units, the
RAProj.WNewp.nU015 \IDraR EIR\1.0 aSUm -090411 d.o 1 -56 Newport Banning Ranch
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Section 1.0
Executive Summary
TABLE 1 -2 (Continued)
SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION PROGRAM
RAProjects\NewpcnU015 \IDraf EIR\1.0 aSum -09W 1.tloc 1 -57 Newport Banning Ranch
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Summary of Mitigation Program:
Level of
Environmental Impactsil-evel of
Project Design Features, Standard Conditions, and
Significance
Thresholds Applied
Significance Before Mitigation
Mitigation Measures
After Mitigation
resort inn, or any commercial structure in Site Planning Areas
10a (northerly block only), 10b (northerly block only), and 121b,
the Applicant shall provide shall provide and improve a site
within the Project site boundaries for a temporary facility of
sufficient size to accommodate one engine company and one
paramedic ambulance of at least nine firefighters on a 7- day /24-
hour schedule prior to the issuance of certificates of occupancy
for any development in the said Planning Areas. The site shall
be within the Project limits of disturbance approved as a part of
the Project such that no new environmental effects would occur.
Threshold 4.14 -2: Would the
The Project would not conflict with any
No mitigation required.
No Impact
project conflict with any applicable
goals or policies of SCAG, the City of
plan, policy, or regulation of an
Newport Beach General Plan, or the
agency with jurisdiction over the
Coastal Act related to the provision of
project (including, but not limited to
fire protection services. No Impact
the general plan, specific plan, local
coastal program, or zoning
ordinance) adopted for the purpose
of avoiding or mitigating an
environmental effect?
Police Protection
Police protection services can be
Standard Conditions and Requirements
Less Than
Threshold 4.14 -3: Would the
provided to the Project site without
SC 4.14 -4 Prior issuance of building permits, the City of
Significant
project result in substantial adverse
significantly impacting existing and
g y p g g
Newport Beach Police Department shall review development
of
Impact
p
physical impacts associated with
planned development within the City
plans for the incorporation of defensible space concepts to
the provision of new or physically
p p y y
and without the need for new facilities.
reduce demands on police services. The Applicant shall prepare
altered governmental facilities,
Less Than Significant Impact
g P
a list of project features and design components that
need for new or physically altered
demonstrate responsiveness to defensible space design
governmental facilities, the
concepts.
construction of which could cause
significant environmental impacts,
SC 4.14 -5 Prior to the issuance of the first grading permit
in order to maintain acceptable
and /or action that would permit Project site disturbance, the
service ratios, response times or
Applicant shall provide evidence to the City of Newport Beach
other performance objectives for
Police Department that a construction security service or
police protection?
equivalent service shall be established at the construction site
along with other measures, as identified by the Police
Department and the Public Works Department.
RAProjects\NewpcnU015 \IDraf EIR\1.0 aSum -09W 1.tloc 1 -57 Newport Banning Ranch
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Section 1.0
Executive Summary
TABLE 1 -2 (Continued)
SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION PROGRAM
RAProje WNewpcnU015 \IDraf EIR\1.0 aSum-09W IA= 1 -58 Newport Banning Ranch
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Summary of Mitigation Program:
Level of
Environmental Impactsil-evel of
Project Design Features, Standard Conditions, and
Significance
Thresholds Applied
Significance Before Mitigation
Mitigation Measures
After Mitigation
Threshold 4.14 -4: Would the
The proposed Project would not conflict
No mitigation is required.
Less Than
project conflict with any applicable
with any goals or policies of SCAG, the
Significant
plan, policy, or regulation of an
City of Newport Beach General Plan, or
Impact
agency with jurisdiction over the
the Coastal Act related to the provision
project (including, but not limited to
of police protection services. Less
the general plan, specific plan, local
Than Significant Impact
coastal program, or zoning
ordinance) adopted for the purpose
of avoiding or mitigating an
environmental effect?
Schools
There is capacity within the NMUSD to
Standard Conditions and Requirements
Less Than
Threshold 4.14 -5: Would the
accommodate the expected number of
SC 4.14 -6 Pursuant to Section 65995 of the California
Significant
project result in substantial adverse
students from the Project. Less Than
Government Code, the Applicant shall pay developer fees at the
Impact
physical impacts associated with
Significant Impact
time building permits are issued to the Newport-Mesa Unified
the provision of new or physically
School District; payment of the adopted fees would provide full
altered school facilities, need for
and complete mitigation of school impacts.
new or physically altered school
facilities, the construction of which
SC 4.14 -7 New development within the Project site shall be
could cause significant
subject to the same General Obligation bond tax rate as already
environmental impacts, in order to
applied to other properties within the Newport-Mesa Unified
maintain acceptable levels of
School District for Measure F (approved in 2005) and Measure A
service ratios or other performance
(approved in 2000) based upon assessed value of the residential
objectives for public school
and commercial uses.
facilities?
Threshold 4.14 -6: Would the
The proposed Project would not conflict
No mitigation is required.
No Impact
project conflict with any applicable
with any goals or policies of SCAG, the
plan, policy, or regulation of an
City of Newport Beach General Plan, or
agency with jurisdiction over the
the Coastal Act related to the provision
project (including, but not limited to
of public school services. No Impact
the general plan, specific plan,
local coastal program, or zoning
ordinance) adopted for the purpose
of avoiding or mitigating an
environmental effect?
Library Services
Library services can be provided to the
Standard Conditions and Requirements
No Impact
Threshold 4.14 -7: Would the
Project site without significantly
SC 4.14 -1 is applicable.
project result in substantial adverse
impacting existing and planned
RAProje WNewpcnU015 \IDraf EIR\1.0 aSum-09W IA= 1 -58 Newport Banning Ranch
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Section 1.0
Executive Summary
TABLE 1 -2 (Continued)
SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION PROGRAM
RAProjects\NewpcnU015 \IDraf EIR\1.0 aSum -09M 1.tloc 1 -59 Newport Banning Ranch
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Summary of Mitigation Program:
Level of
Environmental Impacts /Level of
Project Design Features, Standard Conditions, and
Significance
Thresholds Applied
Significance Before Mitigation
Mitigation Measures
After Mitigation
physical impacts associated with
development within the City and without
the provision of new or physically
the need for new facilities. No Impact
altered governmental facilities, or
need for new or physically altered
governmental facilities, the
construction of which could cause
significant environmental impacts,
in order to maintain acceptable
service ratios, response times or
other performance objectives for
library services?
Threshold 4.14 -8: Would the
The proposed Project would not conflict
No mitigation is required.
Less Than
project conflict with any applicable
with any goals or policies of SCAG, the
Significant
plan, policy, or regulation of an
City of Newport Beach General Plan, or
Impact
agency with jurisdiction over the
the Coastal Act related to the provision
project (including, but not limited to
of public library services. No Impact
the general plan, specific plan, local
coastal program, or zoning
ordinance) adopted for the purpose
of avoiding or mitigating an
environmental effect?
Solid Waste
Solid waste services can be provided to
Project Design Features
Less Than
Threshold 4.14 -9: Would the
the Project without significantly
PDF 4.11 -5 from Section 4.11, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, is
Significant
project result in substantial adverse
impacting existing and planned
applicable.
Impact
physical impacts associated with
facilities. Less Than Significant
the provision of new or physically
Impact
altered governmental facilities, or
need for new or physically altered
governmental facilities, the
construction of which could cause
significant environmental impacts,
in order to maintain acceptable
service ratios, response times or
other performance objectives for
solid waste services?
RAProjects\NewpcnU015 \IDraf EIR\1.0 aSum -09M 1.tloc 1 -59 Newport Banning Ranch
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Section 1.0
Executive Summary
TABLE 1 -2 (Continued)
SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION PROGRAM
R \Proj.WNewp.nU015 \IDraR EIR\1.0 aS.. -090411.tloc 1 -60 Newport Banning Ranch
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Summary of Mitigation Program:
Level of
Environmental Impactsil-evel of
Project Design Features, Standard Conditions, and
Significance
Thresholds Applied
Significance Before Mitigation
Mitigation Measures
After Mitigation
Threshold 4.14.10: Would the
The proposed Project would not conflict
No mitigation is required.
Less Than
project conflict with any applicable
with any goals or policies of SCAG, the
Significant
plan, policy, or regulation of an
City of Newport Beach General Plan, or
Impact
agency with jurisdiction over the
the Coastal Act related to the provision
project (including, but not limited to
of solid waste disposal services. No
the general plan, specific plan,
Impact
local coastal program, or zoning
ordinance) adopted for the purpose
of avoiding or mitigating an
environmental effect?
SECTION 4.15 — UTILITIES
Water Supply
Implementation of the Project would
Project Design Features
Less Than
Threshold 4.15 -1: Would the
increase demand for water supply, but
PDF 4.15 -1 The Newport Banning Ranch Planned Community
Significant
project require or result in the
q
would not require new water treatment
Development Plan and the Master Development Plan require the
Impact
construction of new water treatment
facilities. Anticipated water demand
p
use of native and /or drought - tolerant landscaping in public
facilities expansion of existing
'Would require construction water
common areas to reduce water consumption.
th
facilities, the construction of which
distribution facilities, the maj ority of
could cause significant
which would occur within the Project's
PDF 4.15 -2 The Newport Banning Ranch Planned Community
environmental effects?
development footprint. Less Than
Development Plan and the Master Development Plan require the
Significant Impact
use of Smart Controller irrigation systems in all public and
common area landscaping.
PDF 4.15 -3 The Newport Banning Ranch Planned Community
Development Plan and the Master Development Plan include a
plan for a domestic water system designed to take advantage of
existing water transmission facilities to minimize off -site impacts.
PDF 4.15 -4 The Newport Banning Ranch Planned Community
Development Plan and the Master Development Plan include a
plan for the Project's water system to provide a level of
redundancy by making a connection between the City of
Newport Beach Zone 1 and Zone 2 water lines.
PDF 4.11 -1 and PDF 4.11 -4 from Section 4.11, Greenhouse Gas
Emissions, are applicable.
Standard Conditions and Requirements
SC 4.15 -1 The City of Newport Beach Municipal Code
R \Proj.WNewp.nU015 \IDraR EIR\1.0 aS.. -090411.tloc 1 -60 Newport Banning Ranch
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Section 1.0
Executive Summary
TABLE 1 -2 (Continued)
SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION PROGRAM
RAProjects\NewpcnU015 \IDraf EIR\1.0 aSum -09W 1.tloc 1 -61 Newport Banning Ranch
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Summary of Mitigation Program:
Level of
Environmental Impactsil-evel of
Project Design Features, Standard Conditions, and
Significance
Thresholds Applied
Significance Before Mitigation
Mitigation Measures
After Mitigation
establishes mandatory permanent water conservation
requirements.
SC 4.15 -2 The City of Newport Beach Municipal Code
establishes four levels of water supply shortage response
actions to be implemented during times of declared water
shortages.
Threshold 4.15 -2: Would the
Implementation of the Project would not
No mitigation is required.
Less Than
project have insufficient water
exceed available water supply
Significant
supplies available to serve the
according to the Water Supply
Impact
project from existing entitlements
Assessment. Less Than Significant
and resources, or are new or
Impact
expanded entitlements needed?
Threshold 4.15,3: Would the
The proposed Project would be
No mitigation is required.
No Impact
project conflict with any applicable
consistent with the intent of the water
plan, policy, or regulation of an
supply goals and policies of SCAG and
agency with jurisdiction over the
the City of Newport Beach General
project (including, but not limited to
Plan. No Impact
the general plan, specific plan, local
coastal program, or zoning
ordinance) adopted for the purpose
of avoiding or mitigating an
environmental effect?
Wastewater Facilities
Implementation of the Project would
No mitigation is required.
Less Than
Threshold 4.15 -4: Would the
increase generation of wastewater;
Significant
project exceed wastewater
however, wastewater flows from the
Impact
treatment requirements of the
Project site would not exceed the
applicable Regional Water Quality
capacity of the existing treatment
Control Board?
facilities. Therefore, treatment would be
in accordance to treatment
Threshold 4.15 -5: Would the
requirements set forth by the RWQCB.
project result in a determination by
Less Than Significant Impact
the wastewater treatment provider
which serves or may serve the
project that it has adequate
capacity to serve the project's
projected demand in addition to the
provider's existing commitments?
RAProjects\NewpcnU015 \IDraf EIR\1.0 aSum -09W 1.tloc 1 -61 Newport Banning Ranch
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Section 1.0
Executive Summary
TABLE 1 -2 (Continued)
SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION PROGRAM
Thresholds Applied
Environmental Impacts /Level of
Significance Before Mitigation
Summary of Mitigation Program:
Project Design Features, Standard Conditions, and
Mitigation Measures
Level of
Significance
After Mitigation
Threshold 4.15 -8: Would the
The proposed Project would be
No mitigation is required.
No Impact
project conflict with any applicable
consistent with the intent of wastewater -
plan, policy, or regulation of an
related goals and policies of SCAG and
agency with jurisdiction over the
the City of Newport Beach General
project (including, but not limited to
Plan. No Impact
the general plan, specific plan, local
coastal program, or zoning
ordinance) adopted for the purpose
of avoiding or mitigating an
environmental effect?
Energy
There are existing electrical and natural
Project Design Features
Less Than
Threshold 4.15 -7: Would the
gas facilities within and adjacent to the
PDF 4.6 -4 from Section 4.6, Biological Resources and PDFs
Significant
project result in substantial adverse
Project site. All utility providers have
indicated their ability to serve the
4.11 -1, 4.11 -2, and 4.11 -4 and PDF 4.11 -5 from Section 4.11,
Impact
physical impacts associated with
proposed Project. Physical impacts,
Greenhouse Gas Emissions are applicable.
the provision of new or physically
altered energy transmission
and associated minimization measures,
Standard Conditions and Requirements
facilities, the construction of which
related to installation and /or relocation
could cause significant
of necessary infrastructure are
SC 4.10 -1 in Section 4.10, Air Quality and SC 4.12 -1 in Section
environmental impacts, in order to
addressed as part of the proposed
4.12, Noise would be applicable to reduce construction - related
maintain acceptable levels of
Project analyzed throughout this EIR.
impacts.
service?
Less Than Significant Impact
SC 4.15 -3 The proposed Project shall meet or exceed all
State Energy Insulation Standards and City of Newport Beach
codes in effect at the time of application for building permits.
Mitigation Measures
MMs 4.10 -1, 4.10 -2, and 4.10 -4 through 4.10 -8 in Section 4.10,
Air Quality and MM 4.12 -1 through MM 4.12 -5 in Section 4.12,
Noise would be applicable to minimize construction - related
impacts.
RAProJ.WNewp.nU015 \IDraR EIR\1.0 aSUm -090411.tloc 1 -62 Newport Banning Ranch
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Section 1.0
Executive Summary
TABLE 1 -2 (Continued)
SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION PROGRAM
Thresholds Applied
Environmental Impactsil-evel of
Significance Before Mitigation
Summary of Mitigation Program:
Project Design Features, Standard Conditions, and
Mitigation Measures
Level of
Significance
After Mitigation
Threshold 4.15 -8: Would the
The proposed Project would be
No mitigation is required.
No Impact
project conflict with any applicable
consistent with the intent of the energy -
plan, policy, or regulation of an
related goals and policies SCAG and of
agency with jurisdiction over the
the City of Newport Beach General
project (including, but not limited to
Plan. No Impact
the general plan, specific plan, local
coastal program, or zoning
ordinance) adopted for the purpose
of avoiding or mitigating an
environmental effect?
RAProjects\NewpcnU015 \IDraf EIR\1.0 aSum -09M 1.tloc 1 -63 Newport Banning Ranch
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Section 1.0
Executive Summary
This page intentionally left blank
R:TrojectslNewpart\J015NDmft EIM1.0 E Sum- 090411 .doc 1 -64 Newport Banning Ranch
Draft Environmental Impact Report