HomeMy WebLinkAbout01 - 7.0 - AlternativesSection 7.0
Alternatives to the
SECTION 7.0
ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT
7.1 INTRODUCTION
Sections 15126.6(a) and (b) of the State CEQA Guidelines (14 California Code of Regulations
[CCRj) provide guidance on the scope of alternatives to a proposed project that must be
evaluated. The State CEQA Guidelines state:
(a) Alternatives to the Proposed Project. An EIR shall 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. An EIR need not consider
every conceivable alternative to a project. Rather it must consider a
reasonable range of potentially feasible alternatives that will foster informed
decision making and public participation. An EIR is not required to consider
alternatives, which are infeasible. The lead agency is responsible for
selecting a range of project alternatives for examination and must publicly
disclose its reasoning for selecting those alternatives. There is no ironclad
rule governing the nature or scope of the alternatives to be discussed other
than the rule of reason.
(b) Purpose. Because an EIR must identify ways to mitigate or avoid the
significant effects that a project may have on the environment (Public
Resources Code §21002.1), the discussion of alternatives shall focus on
alternatives to the project or its location which are capable of avoiding or
substantially lessening any significant effects of the project, even if these
alternatives would impede to some degree the attainment of the project
objectives, or would be more costly.
In selecting alternatives to the Newport Banning Ranch Project (proposed Project or Project),
the City of Newport Beach (City), as lead agency, is to consider alternatives that could feasibly
attain most of the basic objectives of the Project and avoid or substantially lessen one or more
of the significant effects.
7.2 SUMMARY OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT
The proposed Project would allow for the development of the 401.1 -acre operating oilfield with
residential, commercial, resort inn, recreational, and open space uses. Because the Project site
is an active oilfield, remediation is required in order to implement the proposed development
Project. The Project proposes 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. Approximately 252 acres (approximately 63 percent) of the
Project site are proposed for natural resources protection in the form of open space and habitat
restoration. Of the 252 acres, approximately 16.5 acres would be used for the consolidation of
oil facility operations in two locations. Once oil operations are completed in the future, the
16.5 acres would be remediated and restored for open space use.
The proposed Project includes a vehicular and a non - vehicular circulation system. Roadways
would be extended through the Project site to provide a north -south connection from West
Coast Highway to 19th Street; additional roadway connections would be provided at 15th Street,
RTrojetMNewpartU015Mrafi EIR7.0 Nt090311.tloc 7 -1 Newport Banning Ranch
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Section 7.0
Alternatives to the
16`h Street, and 17`h Street. These roadways are depicted on the City's Master Plan of Streets
and Highways.
7.3 CRITERIA FOR SELECTING ALTERNATIVES
Several criteria were used to select alternatives to the proposed Project. These criteria are
described below.
7.3.1 ABILITY TO ACHIEVE PROJECT OBJECTIVES
Section 15126.6(f) of the State CEQA Guidelines (14 CCR) states:
The range of alternatives required in an EIR is governed by a `rule of reason' that
requires the EIR to set forth only those alternatives necessary to permit a
reasoned choice. The alternatives shall be limited to ones that would avoid or
substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project. Of those
alternatives, the EIR need examine in detail only the ones that the lead agency
determines could feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the project.
For purposes of the alternative analysis, each alternative assessed in this EIR was evaluated to
determine the extent to which it could attain the basic objectives set forth by the Applicant for
the proposed Project, which are as follows:
Provide a Project that implements the goals and policies that the Newport Beach
General Plan has established for the Bannina 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.
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
pedestrian experience within residential ai
criteria to orient residential buildings to th,
enhances the streetscape scene.
space /habitat areas and that enhances the
;as; and (4) applies architectural design
streets and walkways in a manner that
R:TrojectslNewpartU015Mrafi EIR7.0 Nf 090311.tloc 7 -2 Newport Banning Ranch
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Section 7.0
Alternatives to the
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.
16. Provide compatibility between the Project and existing adjacent land uses.
The ability of each potential alternative to attain most of these objectives was one criterion for
selection and evaluation in this EIR.
7.3.2 ELIMINATION /REDUCTION OF SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS
Section 15126.6(b) of the State CEQA Guidelines (14 CCR) states that "Because an EIR must
identify ways to mitigate or avoid the significant effects that a project may have on the
environment (Public Resources Code Section 21002.1), the discussion of alternatives shall
RTrojetMNewpartU015Mrafi EIR7.0 Nf 090311.tloc 7 -3 Newport Banning Ranch
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Section 7.0
Alternatives to the
focus on alternatives to the project or its location which are capable of avoiding or substantially
lessening any significant effects of the project, even if these alternatives would impede to some
degree the attainment of the project objectives, or would be more costly ".
Therefore, the alternatives evaluated in this EIR have been selected because they are
anticipated to reduce and /or eliminate one or more significant impacts associated with the
proposed Project. Potentially significant environmental impacts that would result from the
Project are evaluated in Sections 4.1 through 4.15 and Section 6.0 of this EIR. With
implementation of the respective Project Design Features (PDFs), standard conditions and
requirements (SCs), and mitigation measures (MMs) identified for each topical issue, many of
the potentially significant impacts resulting from the Project would be reduced to a level
considered less than significant. The proposed Project impacts listed below would remain
significant and unavoidable even after mitigation.
Land Use and Related Planning Programs
• There would be a 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, although mitigation is proposed, noise impacts would remain significant if the
affected 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).
Aesthetic and Visual Resources
The proposed Project 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
Homeowners Association -owned and operated land uses within 100 feet of the Open
Space Preserve.. However, the Project 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 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 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).
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.
R:Troje tMNewpartU015\IOrafi EIR7.0 Nt 090311.tloc 74 Newport Banning Ranch
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Section 7.0
Alternatives to the
Pursuant to Threshold 4.9 -2, the following impacts were identified with the various traffic
scenarios evaluated:
— Existing Plus Project. Intersections identified as deficient are: (1) Newport Boulevard
at Harbor Boulevard; (2) Newport Boulevard at 18th Street/ Rochester Street; and
(3) Superior Ave /17th 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). 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 Street; (7) Superior Avenue and
17th Street; and (8) Newport Boulevard and West Coast Highway.
— Year 2016 With Phase 1 Project TPO. Intersections identified as deficient are:
(1) Newport Boulevard and Harbor Boulevard; (2) Newport Boulevard at
18th Street/Rochester Street; and (3) Newport Boulevard and West Coast Highway.
— 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 Street'; (7) Superior Avenue and 17th Street; and (8) Newport
Boulevard and West Coast Highway.
— 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
19th Street.
Air Quality
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 less than significant, 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
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).
The Project would have cumulatively considerable contributions to regional pollutant
concentrations of ozone (03) (Threshold 4.10 -3).
The Newport Boulevard and 17th 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:TrojeatMNewpartU015Mmft EIR7.0 N6090311.tloc 7 -5 Newport Banning Ranch
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Section 7.0
Alternatives to the
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
The Project 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
threshold. The Project would make a cumulatively considerable contribution to the global
GHG inventory affecting global climate change (Threshold 4.11 -1).
Noise
• For the Existing Plus Project, 2016 with Project, and General Plan Buildout scenarios,
the increased traffic volumes on 171h 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
171h Street west of Monrovia Avenue 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 General Plan's 5 A- weighted
decibels (dBA) significance criterion. 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).
7.3.3 FEASIBILITY
Section 15126.6(f)(1) of the State CEQA Guidelines (14 CCR) states:
Among the factors that may be taken into account when addressing the feasibility
of alternatives are site suitability, economic viability, availability of infrastructure,
general plan consistency, other plans or regulatory limitations, jurisdictional
boundaries (projects with a regionally significant impact should consider the
regional context), and whether the proponent can reasonably acquire, control or
otherwise have access to the alternative site (or the site is already owned by the
proponent). No one of these factors establishes a fixed limit on the scope of
reasonable alternatives (Citizens of Goleta Valley v. Board of Supervisors (1990)
52 Cal.3d 553; see Save Our Residential Environment v. City of West Hollywood
(1992) 9 Cal.AppAth 1745, 1753, fn. 1).
Each alternative was evaluated for its feasibility, its ability to attain most of the proposed
Project's objectives, and its ability to reduce and /or eliminate significant impacts associated with
the Project.
R:TrojectslNewpartU015VOrafi EIR7.0 Nf 090311.tloc 7 -6 Newport Banning Ranch
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Section 7.0
Alternatives to the
7.4 DEVELOPMENT ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED BUT NOT CARRIED FORWARD
The following alternatives have not been carried forward in this EIR because they do not provide
any substantial avoidance or minimization of impacts that are not already accommodated in the
other alternatives being evaluated. 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, the alternatives previously considered as part of the General Plan Update were not
carried forward. It should also be noted that the General Plan Update has also been approved
by a vote of the residents of the City of Newport Beach. The City's General Plan identifies the
Community Park as containing active playfields that may be lighted. The elimination of the night
lighting at the Community Park would substantially lessen but not eliminate one of the impacts
of the Newport Banning Ranch Project. The remainder of the proposed Project has incorporated
a "dark skies' program, which would serve to minimize the night illumination impacts. In
certifying the General Plan Update 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. Based on these findings, a policy decision
was made on the appropriateness of having night lighting at the Community Park, and an
alternative that eliminated the lighting was not carried forward.
The following provides a discussion of other alternatives considered and reasons for not
selecting them for further evaluation.
7.4.1 DEVELOPMENT OF THE PROJECT SITE CONSISTENT WITH THE COUNTY OF
]ft-Al i! :111 I:L\Nawe\r 11101IPi4ilr IV"11 *1 Eel ! /_ \Il !K
Of the 401.1 -acre Project site, 361 acres are located in unincorporated Orange County. The
County of Orange General Plan's Land Use Element (adopted February 2000, as amended
April 2004), "...contains official County policies on the location and character of land uses
necessary for orderly growth and development ". The Land Use Element identifies policies and
programs in other General Plan elements that affect land use and that provide guidance for
future land use planning studies for the unincorporated portion of the County.
The County of Orange General Plan's Land Use Element designates the Project site as "Open
Space (5) ". The County's Land Use Element states, "The Open Space (5) category indicates the
current and near -term use of the land, most of which is zoned agricultural. It is not necessarily
an indication of long -term commitment to open space uses, except where one of the three
overlay categories applies ". No overlay category applies to the Project site.
The zoning for the 361 acres of the Project site within County jurisdiction would allow for
development of up to 2,510 multi - family du, 225 single- family du, 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).
The level of development provided by the County zoning has been assumed in the long -range
planning documents, such as the Orange County Projections and the Master Plan of Arterial
Highways (MPAH). However, to develop the Project consistent with the County zoning and
approvals, a County of Orange General Plan Amendment would be required.
R:TrojectMNewpartU015Mmft EIR7.0 Nt 090311.tloc 7 -7 Newport Banning Ranch
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Section 7.0
Alternatives to the Proposed Project
This Alternative was not retained for detailed evaluation in the EIR for many reasons. First,
development under this Alternative would not reduce identified impacts of the project in any
obvious way. Second, this Alternative use would not achieve these two important project
objectives:
• Objective No. 1: Provide a Project that implements the goals and policies that the
Newport Beach General Plan has established for the Banning Ranch area and
• Objective No. 16: Provide compatibility between the Project and existing adjacent land
uses.
Finally, such development would not be consistent with the planning policies of the County or
the City.
Although the Project site is within the County of Orange's jurisdiction, it has been the County's
policy to encourage annexation of unincorporated areas where land has been designated within
a local city's Sphere of Influence. The County General Plan's Land Use Element Land Use Map
specifically states that "This map is for informational purposes depicting unincorporated areas
within city spheres of influence for which these cities have adopted General Plans. Please refer
to city plans for long -term land uses ". Because the Project site is within the City of Newport
Beach's Sphere of Influence, the "long -term land uses" referenced in the County General Plan
would refer to the land uses designated in the City of Newport Beach's General Plan.
The appropriateness of the development levels allowed by the County of Orange was
considered when the City of Newport Beach updated its General Plan in 2006. The City
determined that the mix of uses and densities were not consistent with their long -range plan for
the Project site. Because the Newport Banning Ranch EIR and development application are
being processed through the City of Newport Beach, with the City as lead agency, the County's
General Plan and zoning designations on the Project site are not the guiding land use
designations for the property.
7.4.2 ALTERNATIVE SITE
Section 15126.6(f)(2) of the State CEQA Guidelines sets forth the following criteria for
determining whether to identify an alternative site because "An EIR need not consider an
alternative whose effect cannot be reasonably ascertained and whose implementation is remote
and speculative" (14 CCR §15126.6[f][3]). Section 15126.6(f)(2) of the State CEQA Guidelines
(14 CCR) states:
(A) Key question. The key question and first step in analysis is whether any of
the significant effects of the project would be avoided or substantially
lessened by putting the project in another location. Only locations that
would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the
project need be considered for inclusion in the EIR.
(B) None feasible. If the lead agency concludes that no feasible alternative
locations exist, it must disclose the reasons for this conclusion, and should
include the reasons in the EIR. For example, in some cases there may be
no feasible alternative locations for a geothermal plant or mining project
which must be in close proximity to natural resources at a given location.
(C) Limited new analysis required. Where a previous document has sufficiently
analyzed a range of reasonable alternative locations and environmental
R:TrojectslNewpartU015Mmft EIR7.0 AU 090311.tloc 7 -8 Newport Banning Ranch
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Section 7.0
Alternatives to the
impacts for projects with the same basic purpose, the lead agency should
review the previous document. The EIR may rely on the previous document
to help it assess the feasibility of potential project alternatives to the extent
the circumstances remain substantially the same as they relate to the
alternative (Citizens of Goleta Valley v. Board of Supervisors [1990] 52
Cal.3d 553, 573).
Development of the Project on an alternative site has been considered and eliminated from
detailed consideration due to the lack of available alternate sites and inability to meet any of the
objectives established for the proposed Project.
As described throughout previous sections of this EIR, Newport Beach is almost fully
developed, with no other unentitled property suitable for supporting a mixed -use project such as
Newport Banning Ranch.
The City underwent a process of evaluating existing and potential future land uses within the
City during the 2006 General Plan Update process. This evaluation process took into account
overall City goals; focused on conserving the existing pattern of land uses; and established
policies for the protection and long -term maintenance of future land uses. The General Plan
notes that there are a number of areas of the City that are not achieving their full potential, and
the General Plan establishes strategies for their enhancement and revitalization.
The General Plan Land Use Element identifies the following areas of the City for additional /new
development and enhanced environments for residents:
• West Newport Corridor: consolidate retail and visitor - serving commercial uses, with
remaining areas developed for residential units.
• West Newport Mesa: re -use underperforming commercial and industrial properties for
offices and other uses that support Hoag Hospital's medical activities; improvement of
remaining industrial properties that adjoin the City of Costa Mesa; accommodation of
non -water marine - related industries; and development of residential areas near jobs and
services.
• Santa Ana Heights: use properties consistent with the adopted Santa Ana Heights
Specific Plan and Redevelopment Plan.
• John Wayne Airport Area: re -use underperforming industrial and office properties and
development of cohesive residential neighborhoods near jobs and services.
• Fashion Island /Newport Center. expand retail uses, hotel rooms, and residential
development near jobs and services, while limiting increases in office development.
• Balboa Peninsula: incorporate more efficient patterns of use that consolidate the
Peninsula's visitor - serving and mixed uses within core commercial districts; encourage
marine - related uses, especially along the bay front; integrate residential with retail and
visitor - serving uses in Lido Village, McFadden Square, Balboa Village, and along
portions of the Harbor frontage; re -use interior parcels in Cannery Village for residential
and limited mixed -use and live /work buildings; and redevelop underperforming
properties outside the core commercial districts along the Balboa Boulevard corridor for
residential.
• Mariners' Mile: re -use of underperforming properties for retail, visitor - serving, and
marine - related uses, which are integrated with residential uses.
R:TrojeatMNewpartU015Mrafi EIR7.0 Nt 090311.tlac 7 -9 Newport Banning Ranch
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Alternatives to the
Corona del Mar: enhance public improvements and parking.
Section 7.0
Although there are no comparably sized parcels (401 acres) of land located within the City or its
Sphere of Influence that have not already been entitled for development. The General Plan
does identify opportunity sites for residential development within the airport area, and this area
could accommodate the additional housing units by intensifying the planned density for the
area. However, for the airport area to absorb the 1,375 housing units identified in the General
Plan (including the Housing Element) for the Newport Banning Ranch site, a General Plan
amendment for the airport area would be required. The City Charter, Section 423 requires a
vote for any General Plan amendment that increases the number of dwelling units in any
statistical area by more than 100, and the airport area is in a different statistical area than
Banning Ranch. Though the residential units may be able to be approved for the airport area,
the airport area would not support the General Plan or Project objectives identified, including
increased public access in the Coastal Zone and restoration of habitat. None of the other
potential development areas within the City are large enough to support a viable mixed -use
development or are located in areas that would allow for the fulfillment of project objectives.
Within the remainder of Orange County, it was determined that no other location exhibited the
basic site characteristics (e.g., size, coastal access, consistency with the applicable
jurisdiction's General Plan land use designation) on which the proposed Project could be
constructed. There are four comparably sized properties within the Coastal Zone of Orange
County that provide a mix of land available for development and habitat protection /restoration:
Hellman Ranch in the City of Seal Beach, Bolsa Chica in the City of Huntington Beach,
Marblehead Coastal in the City of San Clemente, and Dana Point Headlands in the City of Dana
Point. Development has been previously approved on all four properties and all local jurisdiction
and California Coastal Commission (Coastal Commission) approvals have been obtained,
thereby eliminating these properties from further consideration. All four are either completed or
currently under development.
Although there may be sites within the inland areas of Orange County, one of the objectives of
the proposed Project is to facilitate coastal access through the provision of visitor - serving
coastal land uses including but not limited to trails and bikeways, overnight accommodations,
and a pedestrian and bicycle bridge over West Coast Highway. A non - coastal site would not be
able to achieve this objective and would not be able to provide visitor - serving coastal land uses,
which the City established as a goal for buildout of its coastal area. Further, the proposed
Project would allow for the restoration and enhancement of sensitive biological resources,
including wetlands, within the Coastal Zone.
7.4.3 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 would extend south from 19th Street to West Coast Highway, and is proposed
as a part of the Project. The second roadway would extend from 15th Street beyond Bluff Road,
and would connect with West Coast Highway on the western edge of the Project site. These
connections are shown on Exhibit 3 -19, Circulation Element Roadways, in Section 3.0, Project
Description. The need for these two primary roads was based on the environmental baseline
that the 2006 General Plan Update used, which assumes a maximum of 2,735 residential units,
235,600 sf of office, 50,000 sf of commercial, and 164,400 sf of industrial uses on the project
site. However, development on the project site was reduced in intensity as part of the 2006
General Plan Update and currently assumes a maximum of 1,375 residential units, 75,000 sf of
retail commercial, and 75 hotel rooms. Based on this reduced development intensity, the traffic
R:Troj.tMNewpartU015M . ft EIR7.0 Nf 090311.dc 7 -10 Newport Banning Ranch
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Section 7.0
Alternatives to the
analysis for the proposed Project determines that two roads through the project site are not
warranted. The alignment selected for the proposed Project would facilitate connection to West
Coast Highway from both 19th Street and 15u' Street. Refer to Section 4.9, Transportation and
Circulation, for further discussion. Elimination of the second connection to West Coast Highway
reduces impacts because construction of both roadways would require more extensive
development in open space areas.
7.5 ALTERNATIVES FOR ANALYSIS
In accordance with Section 15126.6(a) of the State CEQA Guidelines, the discussion in this
section of the EIR focuses on a reasonable range of alternatives. The analysis provides a
comparison of the alternatives' varying environmental effects and their merits and /or
disadvantages in relation to the proposed Project and to each other; their feasibility and ability to
achieve project objectives are also discussed. The environmentally superior alternative is
identified as required by CEQA.
The following alternatives are analyzed in this EIR
• Alternative A: No Project
• Alternative B: General Plan Open Space Designation
• Alternative C: Proposed Project without North Bluff Road Extension to 19th Street
• Alternative D: Reduced Development and Reduced Development Area (No Resort Inn
and 1,200 units)
• Alternative E: Reduced Development Area (No Resort Inn)
• Alternative F: Increased Open Space /Reduced Development Area
The evaluation of each alternative uses the same thresholds of significance identified in
Sections 4.1 through 4.15. To facilitate the readers' understanding, three tables have been
developed that provide an overview and summary comparison of the alternatives. Table 7 -1
provides a comparison of the acres of development, acres of open space, and the level of
development. Table 7 -2 provides a summary comparison of each of the alternatives to the
proposed Project. The level of comparison in the table is whether an alternative's level of impact
is "less than ", the "same', or "greater than" the proposed Project. The analysis is based on the
level of impact after mitigation. Table 7 -3 is a matrix that provides a comparison of each
alternative's ability to meet the project objectives.
R:TrojectslNewpartU015VDrafI EIR7.0 Nf 090311.tloc 7 -11 Newport Banning Ranch
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Alternatives to the
TABLE 7 -1
CHARACTERISTIC COMPARISON OF THE ALTERNATIVES
Section 7.0
RAProjects04ewpcnU015VDmft EIRM0 Aii -09031 1 doc 7 -12 Newport Banning Ranch
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Alternative C:
Alternative D:
Alternative E:
Alternative F:
Alternative B:
Proposed Project
Reduced
Reduced
Increased Open
General Plan
without North Bluff
Development and
Development
Space /Reduced
Proposed
Alternative A:
Open Space
Road Extension to
Reduced
Area (No Resort
Development
Project
No Project
Designation
191h Street
Development Area
Inn)
Area
Acres of
97 4
Oil extraction
0b
97.2
92.9
92.9
84.0
Development'
only
Acres of Open
Space /Resource
252.3
0
369.8
252.0
269.1
269.1
282.4
Protection°
Acres of Parkland
51.4
0
31.3
51.9'
39.1
39.1
34.7
Number of
11375
0
0
1,375
1,200
1,375
1,375
Residential Units
Square Footage
of Commercial
75,000
0
0
75,000
75,000
75,000
60,000
Use
Number of
Overnight
75 rooms
0
0
75 rooms
0
0
0
Accommodations
In this context, the development area includes urban development (residential, visitor- serving uses, and mixed use) areas. For those alternatives proposing urban uses, roads are
included in the development footprint. The development area does not include parks, oil consolidation areas, or the right -of -way reserve for W Street. This is not intended to
represent the disturbed area, which would include trails and remediation area.
No development is proposed, but there would be public roads within the Open Space /Resource Protection Category.
For all the alternatives, except Alternative A, the interim oil facilities are included in the Open Space /Resource Protection classification because when oil extraction is complete the
ultimate use is to restore the area as open space.
Without the extension of North Bluff Road, the Bluff Park is extended, increasing the acreage in the Bluff Park by 0.5 acre when compared to the proposed Project.
RAProjects04ewpcnU015VDmft EIRM0 Aii -09031 1 doc 7 -12 Newport Banning Ranch
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Proposed
TABLE 7 -2
SUMMARY OF ALTERNATIVE IMPACTS COMPARED TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT
Alternative B:
Alternative A: General Plan Open Space
No Project Designation
Alternative C:
Proposed Project without
North Bluff Road Extension
to 19th Street
Alternative D:
Reduced Development and
Reduced Development Area
Section 7.0
Alternatives to the
Alternative F:
Alternative E: Increased Open
Reduced Development Area Space /Reduced
(No Resort Inn) Development Area
II SECTION 4.1 — LAND USE AND RELATED PLANNING PROGRAMS II
Threshold 4.1 -1:
Would the project physically divide
an established community?
Threshold 4.1.2:
Would the project conflict with any
applicable land use plan, policy, or
regulation of an agency with
jurisdiction over the project
(including, but not limited to the
general plan, specific plan, local
coastal program, or zoning
ordinance) adopted for the
purpose of avoiding or mitigating
an environmental effect.
No Impact — No established
communities are on site. The
Project would not divide an
established community.
Significant and Unavoidable —
Noise and lighting would
potentially result in an
incompatibility with adjacent
land uses.
No Impact — The Project is
consistent with applicable land
use policies.
SECTION 4.2 — AESTHETICS AND VISUAL RESOURCES
Threshold 4.2 -1:
Would the project have a
substantial adverse effect on a
scenic vista?
Threshold 4.2 -2:
Would the project substantially
degrade the existing visual
character or quality of the site and
its surroundings?
No Impact — The City does not
have any designated scenic
vistas on the General Plan and
West Coast Hwy is not a State -
or locally designated scenic
highway.
Less than Significant Impact —
Development of the proposed
Project would alter existing
views of the Project site;
however, the proposed project
would not substantially degrade
aesthetic character.
Same as proposed Project— No Same as proposed Project— Same as proposed Project— Same as proposed Project —
development proposed under this Alternative B would not divide Alternative C would not divide Alternative D would not divide
Alternative. an established community. an established community. an established community.
Less than proposed Project —
Oilfield operations may result in
some incompatibility with
surrounding land uses; however
there would be no change from
existing conditions.
Greater than proposed Project —
Alternative A would not meet all
applicable goals and policies of
the Coastal Act and General
Plan, which both assume either
residential development with
visitor - serving use or preservation
as open space.
Same as proposed Project — The
City does not have any
designated scenic vistas on the
General Plan and West Coast
Hwy is not a State- or locally
designated scenic highway.
Less than proposed Project — No
changes to visual character
would occur. However, no
enhancement or restoration
would be provided and there
would be no public access to the
site.
Same as proposed Project —
Vehicular noise and park lighting
would potentially result in an
incompatibility with adjacent
land uses; however, the
magnitude of the impact would
be less because the park would
be further from the existing
homes and traffic volumes
would be less.
Same as proposed Project —
Alternative B is the primary land
use identified in the General
Plan. This alternative would be
considered consistent with the
Coastal Act and applicable local
land use policies.
Same as proposed Project —
The City does not have any
designated scenic vistas on the
General Plan and West Coast
Hwy is not a State- or locally
designated scenic highway
Less than proposed Project —
Because development would be
limited to a Community Park and
roads, fewer structures would be
built and the open space
character of the site would be
retained.
Same as proposed Project —
Vehicular noise and park
lighting would potentially result
in an incompatibility with
adjacent land uses.
Same as proposed Project —
This alternative would be
consistent with applicable land
use policies.
Same as proposed Project —
The City does not have any
designated scenic vistas on
the General Plan and West
Coast Hwy is not a State- or
locally designated scenic
Less than proposed Project —
Alternative C includes
development of the same land
uses. However, there would
be an incremental reduction in
impacts by not having
roadway through the open
space area.
Same as proposed Project —
Vehicular noise and park lighting
would potentially result in an
incompatibility with adjacent
land uses.
Greater than proposed Project —
Alternative D would generally
meet all applicable goals and
policies. However, without the
overnight accommodations
component, this alternative
would not provide the visitor
services or job opportunities to
the same extent as the
proposed Project.
Same as proposed Project —
The City does not have any
designated scenic vistas on the
General Plan and West Coast
Hwy is not a State- or locally
designated scenic highway.
Less than proposed Project —
Reduction of approximately 11%
of development area and an
incremental reduction in the
amount of development.
Grading is expected to be
reduced by 8 to 10 %. Change in
site character would be the
same. Eliminates the resort inn
and the pedestrian bridge over
West Coast Highway, which
would reduce the change to the
visual character from certain
vantage points.
Same as proposed Project—
Same as proposed Project —
Alternative E would not divide an Alternative F would not divide
established community. an established community.
Same as proposed Project —
Vehicular noise and park lighting
would potentially result in an
incompatibility with adjacent
land uses.
Greater than proposed Project —
Alternative E would generally
meet all applicable goals and
policies. However, without the
overnight accommodations
component, this alternative
would not provide the visitor
services or job opportunities to
the same extent as the
proposed Project.
Same as proposed Project —
The City does not have any
designated scenic vistas on the
General Plan and West Coast
Hwy is not a State- or locally
designated scenic highway
Less than proposed Project —
Reduction of approximately 11 %
of development area and an
incremental reduction in the
amount of development.
Grading is expected to be
reduced by 8 to 10 %. Change in
site character would be the
same. Eliminates the resort inn
and the pedestrian bridge over
West Coast Highway, which
would reduce the change to the
visual character from certain
vantage points.
Same as proposed Project —
Vehicular noise and park
lighting would potentially result
in an incompatibility with
adjacent land uses.
Greater than proposed Project
— Alternative F would generally
meet all applicable goals and
policies. However, without the
overnight accommodations
component, this alternative
would not provide the visitor
services or job opportunities to
the same extent as the
proposed Project.
Same as proposed Project —
The City does not have any
designated scenic vistas on the
General Plan and West Coast
Hwy is not a State- or locally
designated scenic highway
Less than proposed Project —
Reduction of approximately
14% of development area and
an incremental reduction in the
amount of development.
Grading is expected to be
reduced by 25 to 35 %. Change
in site character would be the
same. Eliminates the resort inn
and the pedestrian bridge over
West Coast Highway, which
would reduce the change to the
visual character from certain
vantage points.
R9Proj.WNewpaMJ0151Inreft EIR7.0 AR- 090311 m 7 -13 Newport Banning Ranch
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Threshold 4.2 -3:
Would the project create a new
source of substantial light or glare
which would adversely affect day
or nighttime views in the area?
Threshold 4.2-4:
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?
Significant and Unavoidable —
The proposed Project would
introduce new sources of light
on the Project site.
No Impact — The proposed
Project is considered consistent
with policies of the Newport
Beach General Plan and the
California Coastal Act with
respect to aesthetic resources.
SECTION 4.3 — GEOLOGY AND SOILS
Threshold 4.3 -7:
Would the project expose people
or structures to potential
substantial adverse effects,
including the risk of loss, injury, or
death from rupture of a known
earthquake fault, as delineated on
the most recent Alquist - Priolo
Earthquake Fault Zoning Map
issued by the State Geologist for
the area or based on other
substantial evidence of a known
fault?
Threshold 4.3 -2:
Would the project expose people
or structures to potential
substantial adverse effects,
including the risk of loss, injury, or
death involving strong seismic
ground shaking?
Threshold 4.3 -3:
Would the project expose people
or structures to potential
substantial adverse effects
including the risk of loss, injury, or
death from seismic - related ground
failure, including liquefaction?
Threshold 4.3 -4:
Would the project expose people
or structures to potential
substantial adverse effects
including the risk of loss, injury, or
Less than significant with
mitigation — Although the
Project site is not located within
an Alquist - Priolo Earthquake
Fault Zone, faults within the
proposed development site
could not be proven to be
inactive.
Less than significant with
mitigation — The Project is
required to be consistent with
the applicable codes to protect
against potential seismic - related
ground failure, liquefaction,
lateral spreading, soil collapse,
and landslide impacts.
TABLE 7 -2 (Continued)
SUMMARY OF ALTERNATIVE IMPACTS COMPARED TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT
Alternative A:
No Proiect
Less than proposed Project — No
new nighttime lighting would
occur.
Greater than proposed Project —
Alternative A would not meet the
long -term goals of oilfield
consolidation or enhancement the
public viewsheds. Additionally,
this alternative would not provide
any coastal public access.
Less than proposed Project— No
new structures are proposed
under this Alternative.
Alternative B:
General Plan Open Space
Less than the proposed Project
but still Significant and
Unavoidable — less development
but the active sports park with
night lighting would be further
from the existing residential
uses, though closer to the open
Same as proposed Project —
Alternative B provides open
space and minimizes structures.
Consistent with goals and
policies of the City's General
Plan and the California Coastal
Act.
Less than proposed Project —
limited structures are proposed
under this Alternative and fewer
people would be exposed to
impacts associated with these
thresholds.
Less than proposed Project — No Less than proposed Project —
structures are proposed under Limited facilities are proposed
this Alternative. under this Alternative.
Alternative C:
Proposed Project without
North Bluff Road Extension
to 791" Street
Same as proposed Project —
Alternative C would include
the same land uses as the
proposed Project, including an
active sports park with night
lighting.
Same as proposed Project —
Alternative C would be
consistent with the intent of
the aesthetic resources goals
and policies of the City's
General Plan and the
California Coastal Act.
Same as proposed Project —
Although the Project site is not
located within an Alquist - Priolo
Earthquake Fault Zone, faults
within the proposed
development site could not be
proven to be inactive.
Same as proposed Project —
Development would be
required to be consistent with
the applicable codes to protect
against potential seismic -
related ground failure,
liquefaction, lateral spreading,
soil collapse, and landslide
impacts.
Alternative D:
Reduced Development and
Reduced Development Area
Same as proposed Project —
Alternative D would include the
same land uses as the proposed
Project, including an active
sports park with night lighting.
Same as proposed Project —
Alternative D would be
consistent with the intent of the
aesthetic resources goals and
policies of the City's General
Plan and the California Coastal
Act.
Less than proposed Project —
Although the Project site is not
located within an Alquist- Priolo
Earthquake Fault Zone, faults
within the proposed
development site could not be
proven to be inactive. Though
the nature of the impacts would
be the same, a reduced
footprint, elimination of resort
inn, and reduction in dwelling
units would expose fewer people
and structures to impacts
associated with these
thresholds.
Less than proposed Project —
Development would be required
to be consistent with the
applicable codes to protect
against potential seismic - related
ground failure, liquefaction,
lateral spreading, soil collapse,
and landslide impacts. Reduced
development would expose
fewer people and structures to
impacts associated with these
thresholds.
Alternatives to the
Alternative E:
Reduced Development Area
(No Resort Inn)
Same as proposed Project —
Alternative E would include the
same land uses as the proposed
Project, including an active
sports park with night lighting.
Same as proposed Project —
Alternative E would be
consistent with the intent of the
aesthetic resources goals and
policies of the City's General
Plan and the California Coastal
Act.
Less than proposed Project —
Although the Project site is not
located within an Alquist - Priolo
Earthquake Fault Zone, faults
within the proposed
development site could not be
proven to be inactive. Though
the nature of the impacts would
be the same, a reduced footprint
and elimination of resort inn
would expose fewer people and
structures to impacts associated
with these thresholds.
Less than proposed Project —
Development would be required
to be consistent with the
applicable codes to protect
against potential seismic - related
ground failure, liquefaction,
lateral spreading, soil collapse,
and landslide impacts. Reduced
development would expose
fewer people and structures to
impacts associated with these
thresholds.
Section 7.0
Alternative F:
Increased Open
Space /Reduced
�evelooment Area
Same as proposed Project —
Alternative F would include the
same land uses as the
proposed Project, including an
active sports park with night
lighting.
Same as proposed Project —
Alternative F would be
consistent with the intent of the
aesthetic resources goals and
policies of the City's General
Plan and the California Coastal
Act.
Less than proposed Project —
Although the Project site is not
located within an Alquist - Priolo
Earthquake Fault Zone, faults
within the proposed
development site could not be
proven to be inactive. Though
the nature of the impacts would
be the same, a reduced
footprint and elimination of
resort inn and visitor - serving
commercial would expose fewer
people and structures to
impacts associated with these
thresholds.
Less than proposed Project —
Development would be required
to be consistent with the
applicable codes to protect
against potential seismic -
related ground failure,
liquefaction, lateral spreading,
soil collapse, and landslide
impacts. Reduced development
would expose fewer people and
structures to impacts
associated with these
thresholds.
R: \Projects \Newport\J015 \1Draft EIR\7.0 Alts- 090311.doc 7 -14 Newport Banning Ranch
Draft Environmental Impact Report
death from landslides?
Threshold 4.3 -6:
Would the project be located on a
geologic unit or soil that is
unstable, or that would become
unstable as a result of the Project,
and potentially result in on- or off-
site landslide, lateral spreading,
subsidence, liquefaction, or
collapse?
Threshold 4.3 -5:
Would the project result in
substantial soil erosion or the loss
of topsoil?
Threshold 4.3 -7:
Would the project be located on
expansive soil, as defined in Table
18 -1 -8 of the Uniform Building
Code (1994), creating substantial
risks to life or property?
Threshold 4.3 -8:
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?
Less than significant impact —
Project incorporates
construction BMPs.
Less than significant with
mitigation — On -site soils have a
low to medium expansion
potential.
No Impact — The Project is
consistent with applicable plans
and policies.
SECTION 4.4 — HYDROLOGYAND WATER QUALITY
Threshold 4.4 -1:
Would the project violate any
water quality standards or waste
discharge requirements?
Threshold 4.4 -6:
Would the project otherwise
substantially degrade water
quality?
Threshold 4.4 -11: Would the
project result in significant
alteration of receiving water quality
during or following construction?
Threshold 4.4.12: Would the
project result in a potential for
Less than significant impact —
The Project would comply with
the WQMP prepared for the
Project and NPDES permit. In
addition, the Project would
provide for treatment of off -site
runoff.
TABLE 7 -2 (Continued)
SUMMARY OF ALTERNATIVE IMPACTS COMPARED TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT
Alternative A:
No Proiect
Less than proposed Project —
This Alternative would not involve
any construction and associated
potential erosion or loss of
topsoil.
Less than proposed project — No
structures are proposed under
this Alternative.
Same as proposed Project— No
development is proposed that
would conflict with applicable
geotechnical plans and policies.
Greater than proposed Project —
No development is proposed
under this Alternative; however,
there would also be no decrease
of off -site runoff and no natural
treatment of off -site runoff.
Alternative B:
General Plan Open Space
Less than proposed Project —
Total grading would be reduced
This Alternative would
incorporate construction BMPs.
Less than proposed Project —
Proposes less development.
Same as proposed Project —
This Altemative is consistent
with applicable geotechnical
plans and policies.
Greater than proposed Project —
Less grading and less
development would minimize
the amount of impervious soils
and urban pollutants generated
by Alternative B; however, there
would also be no decrease of
off -site runoff and no natural
treatment of off -site runoff.
Alternative C:
Proposed Project without
North Bluff Road Extension
to 191h Street
Same as proposed Project —
Incremental reduction in
grading; but same magnitude
of development. This
Alternative would incorporate
construction BMPs.
Same as proposed Project -
On -site soils have a low to
medium expansion potential.
There would be incrementally
less grading, but the same
magnitude of development
under this Alternative.
Same as proposed Project —
This Alternative is consistent
with applicable geotechnical
plans and policies.
Less than proposed Project —
Incrementally less grading
would be required and
incrementally fewer
impervious surfaces would be
created. Remediation and
construction would be
compliant with the WQMP and
the NPDES permit. Alternative
C would provide for treatment
of off -site runoff.
Alternative D:
Reduced Development and
Reduced Development Area
Less than proposed Project —
Although the nature of the
impacts would be the same,
there would be an incremental
reduction in grading and
magnitude of development. This
Alternative would incorporate
construction BMPs.
Less than proposed Project —
The nature of the impacts would
be the same, but there would be
incrementally less grading and
magnitude of development
under this Alternative.
Same as proposed Project —
This Alternative is consistent
with applicable geotechnical
plans and policies.
Less than proposed Project —
Incrementally less grading would
be required and incrementally
fewer impervious surfaces would
be created. Remediation and
construction would be compliant
with the WQMP and the NPDES
permit. Alternative D would
provide for treatment of off -site
runoff.
Alternatives to the
Alternative E:
Reduced Development Area
(No Resort Inn)
Less than proposed Project —
Although the nature of the
impacts would be the same,
there would be an incremental
reduction in grading, but the
same magnitude of
development. This Alternative
would incorporate construction
BMPs.
Less than proposed Project —
Although the nature of the
impacts would be the same,
there would be incrementally
less grading, but the same
magnitude of development
under this Alternative.
Same as proposed Project —
This Alternative is consistent
with applicable geotechnical
plans and policies
Less than proposed Project —
Incrementally less grading would
be required and incrementally
fewer impervious surfaces would
be created. Remediation and
construction would be compliant
with the WQMP and the NPDES
permit. Alternative E would
provide for treatment of off -site
runoff.
Section 7.0
Alternative F:
Increased Open
Space /Reduced
�evelooment Area
Less than proposed Project —
Although the nature of the
impacts would be the same,
there would be an incremental
reduction in grading, but the
same magnitude of
development. This Alternative
would incorporate construction
BMPs.
Less than proposed Project —
Although the nature of the
impacts would be the same,
there would be incrementally
less grading, but the same
magnitude of development
under this Alternative.
Same as proposed Project —
This Alternative is consistent
with applicable geotechnical
plans and policies
Less than proposed Project —
Incrementally less grading
would be required and
incrementally fewer impervious
surfaces would be created.
Remediation and construction
would be compliant with the
WQMP and the NPDES permit.
Alternative F would provide for
treatment of off -site runoff.
R: \Pro1ects \Newport\J015 \1Draft EIR\7.0 Alts- 090311.doc 7 -15 Newport Banning Ranch
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Alternatives to the
TABLE 7 -2 (Continued)
SUMMARY OF ALTERNATIVE IMPACTS COMPARED TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT
Section 7.0
R: \Projects \Newport\J015 \1Draft EIR\7.0 Alts- 09031 1.doc 7 -16 Newport Banning Ranch
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Alternative C:
Alternative F:
Alternative B:
Proposed Project without
Alternative D:
Alternative E:
Increased Open
Alternative A:
General Plan Open Space
North Bluff Road Extension
Reduced Development and
Reduced Development Area
Space /Reduced
Topic
Proposed Project
No Project
Designation
to 19`h Street
Reduced Development Area
(No Resort Inn)
Development Area
discharge of storm water
pollutants from areas of material
storage, vehicle or equipment
fueling, vehicle or equipment
maintenance (including washing),
waste handling, or storage,
delivery areas, loading docks or
other outdoor work areas?
Threshold 4.4 -13:
Would the project result in the
potential for discharge of storm
water to affect the beneficial uses
of the receiving waters?
Threshold 4.4 -2:
Less than significant impact—
Less than proposed Project—
Less than proposed Project—
Less than proposed Project—
Less than proposed Project—
Less than proposed Project—
Less than proposed Project —
Would the project substantially
The Project incorporates proper
This Alternative would not change
This Alternative would result in
There would be an
There would be an incremental
There would be an incremental
There would be an incremental
deplete groundwater supplies or
design of structural BMPs and
the amount of impervious surface
less impervious surface than the
incremental decrease in the
decrease in the amount of
decrease in the amount of
decrease in the amount of
interfere substantially with
LID features.
compared to existing conditions.
proposed Project.
amount of impervious surface;
impervious surface. The
impervious surface. The
impervious surface. The
groundwater recharge such that
however, overall magnitude is
alternative would incorporate
alternative would incorporate
alternative would incorporate
there would be a net deficit in
comparable. The Alternative
proper design of structural
proper design of structural
proper design of structural
aquifer volume or a lowering of the
would incorporate proper
BMPs and LID features.
BMPs and LID features.
BMPs and LID features.
local groundwater table level (e.g.
design of structural BMPs and
the production rate of pre- existing
LID features.
nearby wells would drop to a level
which would not support existing
land uses or planned uses for
which permits have been
granted)?
Threshold 4.4-3:
Less than significant impact —
Less than proposed Project— No
Less than proposed Project—
Same as proposed Project—
Less than proposed Project—
Less than proposed Project —
Less than proposed Project —
Would the project substantially
The Project would comply with
change to existing drainage
There would be a reduced scale
This Alternative would comply
There would be a reduced scale
There would be a reduced scale
There would be a reduced scale
alter the existing drainage pattern
the General Construction Permit
would occur under Alternative A.
of land development under
with the General Construction
of land development under
of land development under
of land development under
of the site or area, including
and associated NPDES
Alternative B.
Permit and associated NPDES
Alternative D. This Alternative
Alternative E. This Alternative
Alternative F. This Alternative
through the alteration of the
regulations.
regulations.
would comply with the General
would comply with the General
would comply with the General
course of a stream or river, in a
Construction Permit and
Construction Permit and
Construction Permit and
manner which would result in
associated NPDES regulations.
associated NPDES regulations.
associated NPDES regulations.
substantial erosion or siltation on-
or off- site?
Threshold 4.4 -15: Would the
project create significant increases
in erosion of the Project site or
surrounding areas?
Threshold 4.4.4:
Less than significant impact —
Less than proposed Project— No
Less than proposed Project —
Less than proposed Project —
Less than proposed Project—
Less than proposed Project —
Less than proposed Project —
Would the project substantially
The Project incorporates
change to existing drainage
This Alternative would reduce
This Alternative would
Less grading and development
Less grading and development
Less grading and development
alter the existing drainage pattern
provisions of the Runoff
would occur under this
the magnitude of site alteration
incorporate a Runoff
would occur under this
would occur under this
would occur under this
of the site or area, including
Management Plan.
Alternative.
compared to the proposed
Management Plan and would
Alternative. This Alternative
Alternative. This Alternative
Alternative. This Alternative
through the alteration of the
Project.
result in an incremental
would incorporate a Runoff
would incorporate a Runoff
would incorporate a Runoff
course of a stream or river, or
reduction in the area
Management Plan.
Management Plan.
Management Plan.
substantially increase the rate or
disturbed.
amount of surface runoff in a
manner in which would result in
Flooding on- or off -site?
Threshold 4.4 -14: Would the
project create the potential for
significant changes in the Flow
R: \Projects \Newport\J015 \1Draft EIR\7.0 Alts- 09031 1.doc 7 -16 Newport Banning Ranch
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Alternatives to the
TABLE 7 -2 (Continued)
SUMMARY OF ALTERNATIVE IMPACTS COMPARED TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT
Section 7.0
R: \Projects \Newport\J015 \!Draft EIR\7.0 Alts- 09031 1.doc 7 -17 Newport Banning Ranch
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Alternative C:
Alternative F:
Alternative B:
Proposed Project without
Alternative D:
Alternative E:
Increased Open
Alternative A:
General Plan Open Space
North Bluff Road Extension
Reduced Development and
Reduced Development Area
Space /Reduced
Topic
Proposed Project
No Project
Designation
to 19`h Street
Reduced Development Area
(No Resort Inn)
Development Area
velocity or volume of storm water
runoff to cause environmental
harm?
Threshold 4.4 -5:
Less than significant impact—
Greater than proposed Project—
Less than proposed Project—
Less than proposed Project—
Less than proposed Project—
Less than proposed Project—
Less than proposed Project —
Would the project create or
The Project design would
This Alternative would not provide
Less grading and development
Less grading and elimination
Less grading and development
Less grading and development
Less grading and development
contribute runoff water which
reduce flow rates exiting the site
improvements that would reduce
would occur under this
of a segment of roadway
would occur under this
would occur under this
would occur under this
would exceed the capacity of
through sections of the Caltrans
the peak flood flows.
Alternative; this Alternative
would reduce the amount of
Alternative, which would reduce
Alternative; which would reduce
Alternative; which would reduce
existing or planned storm water
RCB.
would not result in substantial
impervious soil associated
the amount of impervious soil
the amount of impervious soil
the amount of impervious soil
drainage systems or provide
water runoff off site.
with Alternative C.
associated with Alternative D.
associated with Alternative E.
associated with Alternative F.
substantial additional sources of
polluted runoff?
Threshold 4.4 -7:
No impact— Project
Same as proposed Project— With
Same as proposed Project—
Same as proposed Project—
Same as proposed Project —
Same as proposed Project—
Same as proposed Project —
Would the project place housing
development would be located
this Alternative, no new structures
With this Alternative, no housing
Development would be
Development would be located
Development would be located
Development would be located
within a 100 -year flood hazard
outside the 100 -year flood
are proposed.
is proposed.
located outside the 100 -year
outside the 100 -year flood
outside the 100 -year flood
outside the 100 -year flood
area as mapped on a federal
hazard area.
flood hazard area.
hazard area.
hazard area.
hazard area.
Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood
Insurance Rate Map or other flood
hazard delineation map?
Threshold 4.4 -8:
Would the project place within a
100 -year flood hazard area
structures which would impede or
redirect flood flows?
Threshold 4.4 -9:
Less than significant impact —
Less than proposed Project — No
Less than proposed Project—
Same as proposed Project—
Same as proposed Project —
Same as proposed Project —
Same as proposed Project —
Would the project expose people
Development would be located
structures are proposed under
Fewer structures are proposed
Development would be
Development would be located
Development would be located
Development would be located
or structures to a significant risk of
above the 100 -year flood
this Alternative.
under this Alternative.
located above the 100 -year
above the 100 -year flood
above the 100 -year flood
above the 100 -year flood
loss, injury or death involving
elevation.
flood elevation.
elevation.
elevation.
elevation.
flooding, including flooding as a
result of the failure of a levee or
dam?
Threshold 4.4 -10: Would the
Less than significant impact —
Less than proposed Project— No
Less than proposed Project—
Same as proposed Project—
Same as proposed Project — No
Same as proposed Project— No
Same as proposed Project — No
project be subject to inundation by
No standing water bodies or
standing water bodies or high
No standing water bodies or
No standing water bodies or
standing water bodies or high
standing water bodies or high
standing water bodies or high
seiche, tsunami, or mudflow?
high slopes exist. The Project
slopes exist, and no structures
high slopes exist, and no
high slopes exist. The Project
slopes exist. The Project site is
slopes exist. The Project site is
slopes exist. The Project site is
site is located at a high
are proposed under this
structures are proposed under
site is located at a high
located at a high elevation, and
located at a high elevation, and
located at a high elevation, and
elevation, and the Project is
Alternative.
this Alternative.
elevation, and this Alternative
this Alternative is consistent with
this Alternative is consistent with
this Alternative is consistent
consistent with City's
is consistent with City's
City's Emergency Management
City's Emergency Management
with City's Emergency
Emergency Management Plan.
Emergency Management
Plan.
Plan.
Management Plan.
Plan.
Threshold 4.4 -16: Would the
No impact— The Project is
Greater than proposed Project —
Same as proposed Project —
Same as proposed Project—
Same as proposed Project—
Same as proposed Project—
Same as proposed Project —
project conflict with any applicable
consistent with applicable plans
This Alternative is inconsistent
This Alternative is consistent
This Alternative is consistent
This Alternative is consistent
This Alternative is consistent
This Alternative is consistent
plan, policy, or regulation of an
and policies.
with the provisions of the General
with applicable plans and
with applicable plans and
with applicable plans and
with applicable plans and
with applicable plans and
agency with jurisdiction over the
Plan regarding clean up of the
policies.
policies.
policies.
policies.
policies.
project (including, but not limited to
oilfield site.
the general plan, specific plan,
local coastal program, or zoning
ordinance) adopted for the
purpose of avoiding or mitigating
an environmental effect?
R: \Projects \Newport\J015 \!Draft EIR\7.0 Alts- 09031 1.doc 7 -17 Newport Banning Ranch
Draft Environmental Impact Report
SECTION 4.5 —HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
Threshold 4.5 -1:
Would the project create a
significant hazard to the public or
the environment through the
routine transport, use, or disposal
of hazardous materials?
Threshold 4.5.2:
Would the project create a
significant hazard to the public or
the environment through
reasonably foreseeable upset and
accident conditions involving the
release of hazardous materials
into the environment?
Threshold 4.5.3:
Would the project emit hazardous
emissions or handle hazardous or
acutely hazardous materials,
substances, or waste within one -
quarter mile of an existing or
proposed school?
Threshold 4.5 -4:
Would the project be located on a
site which is included on a list of
hazardous materials sites
compiled pursuant to Government
Code Section 65962.5 and, as a
result, would it create a significant
hazard to the public or the
environment?
Threshold 4.5 -5:
Would the project conflict with any
applicable land use plan, policy, or
regulation of an agency with
jurisdiction over the project
(including, but not limited to the
general plan, specific plan, local
coastal program, or zoning
ordinance) adopted for the
purpose of avoiding or mitigating
an environmental effect?
Less than significant with
mitigation — The oilfield would
be consolidated, a final RAP
would be implemented and
ACMs and LBP would be
managed in accordance with
applicable State regulations.
Less than significant impact —
The oilfield would be
consolidated, a final RAP would
be implemented, and ACMs and
LBP would be managed in
accordance with applicable
State regulations. The Project
would not result in impacts on
adjacent schools.
No Impact — The Project site is
not identified on the Cortese
List, which is compiled pursuant
to California Government Code,
Section 65962.5.
No impact — The Project is
consistent with applicable plans
and policies.
TABLE 7 -2 (Continued)
SUMMARY OF ALTERNATIVE IMPACTS COMPARED TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT
Alternative A:
No Proiect
Less than proposed Project — No
routine transport, use or disposal
of hazardous materials
associated with construction.
However, this alternative would
not involve oilfield consolidation
or site remediation.
Less than proposed Project — No
change in emissions because of
the continuation of oil extraction.
However, this alternative would
not involve oilfield consolidation
and site remediation.
Same as proposed Project — The
Project site is not identified on the
Cortese List, which is compiled
pursuant to California
Government Code, Section
65962.5.
Greater than proposed Project —
This Alternative would not provide
for the consolidation of oilfield
activities or the remediation of the
site; however, the majority of the
project site would remain as
unincorporated Orange County.
Alternative B:
General Plan Open Space
Less than proposed Project —
The oilfield would be
consolidated, a final RAP would
be implemented, and ACMs and
LBP would be managed in
accordance with applicable
State regulations in order to
develop public open space
uses. There would be less soil
disturbance and potentially less
soil that would have to be
hauled off site because the site
remediation would not have to
comply with residential
standards.
Same as proposed Project — It
would involve less disturbance
of soils that require remediation.
However, there would also be
less opportunity to deep bury
contaminated soils or mix the
soil to uncontaminated soil,
thereby reducing the
concentration of contaminates.
As a result, there is the potential
that greater amounts of soil
would be hauled off site. Haul
routes may pass by schools.
Alternative B would not result in
impacts on adjacent schools.
Same as proposed Project —
The Project site is not identified
on the Cortese List, which is
compiled pursuant to California
Government Code, Section
65962.5.
Same as proposed Project —
This Alternative would be
consistent with applicable plans
and policies.
Alternative C:
Proposed Project without
North Bluff Road Extension
to 19`h Street
Same as proposed Project —
The oilfield would be
consolidated., a final RAP
would be implemented, and
ACMs and LBP would be
managed in accordance with
applicable State regulations.
The absence of a portion of
North Bluff Rd would not affect
the need for, or
implementation of, the RAP.
Same as proposed Project —
The oilfield would be
consolidated, a final RAP
would be implemented in
accordance with applicable
State regulations. Alternative
C would not result in impacts
on adjacent schools.
Same as proposed Project —
The Project site is not
identified on the Cortese List,
which is compiled pursuant to
California Government Code,
Section 65962.5.
Same as proposed Project —
Alternative would be
consistent with applicable
plans and policies.
Alternative D:
Reduced Development and
Reduced Development Area
Same as proposed Project —
The oilfield would be
consolidated, a final RAP would
be implemented, and ACMs and
LBP would be managed in
accordance with applicable
State regulations. The absence
of the resort inn would not affect
the need for, or implementation
of, the RAP.
Less than proposed Project —
The oilfield would be
consolidated, a final RAP would
be implemented, and ACMs and
LBP would be managed in
accordance with applicable
State regulations. The reduction
in the amount of grading would
potentially reduce the amount of
soil that would be hauled off site.
Haul routes may pass by
schools. Alternative D would not
result in impacts on adjacent
schools.
Same as proposed Project —
The Project site is not identified
on the Cortese List, which is
compiled pursuant to California
Government Code, Section
65962.5.
Same as proposed Project —
Alternative would be consistent
with applicable plans and
policies.
Alternatives to the
Alternative E:
Reduced Development Area
(No Resort Inn)
Same as proposed Project —
The oilfield would be
consolidated, a final RAP would
be implemented, and ACMs and
LBP would be managed in
accordance with applicable
State regulations. The reduction
in site development would not
affect the need for, or
implementation of, the RAP.
Less than proposed Project —
The oilfield would be
consolidated, a final RAP would
be implemented, and ACMs and
LBP would be managed in
accordance with applicable
State regulations. The reduction
in the amount of grading would
potentially reduce the amount of
soil that would be hauled off site.
Haul routes may pass by
schools. Alternative E would not
result in impacts on adjacent
schools.
Same as proposed Project —
The Project site is not identified
on the Cortese List which is
compiled pursuant to California
Government Code, Section
65962.5.
Same as proposed Project —
Alternative would be consistent
with applicable plans and
policies.
Section 7.0
Alternative F:
Increased Open
Space /Reduced
�evelooment Area
Same as proposed Project —
The oilfield would be
consolidated, a final RAP would
be implemented, and ACMs
and LBP would be managed in
accordance with applicable
State regulations. The reduction
in site development would not
affect the need for, or
implementation of, the RAP.
Less than proposed Project —
The oilfield would be
consolidated, a final RAP would
be implemented, and ACMs
and LBP would be managed in
accordance with applicable
State regulations. The reduction
in the amount of grading would
potentially reduce the amount of
soil that would be hauled off
site. Haul routes may pass by
schools. Alternative F would not
result in impacts on adjacent
schools.
Same as proposed Project —
The Project site is not identified
on the Cortese List which is
compiled pursuant to California
Government Code, Section
65962.5.
Same as proposed Project —
Alternative would be consistent
with applicable plans and
policies.
R: \Projects \Newport\J015 \1Draft EIR\7.0 Alts- 090311.doc 7 -18 Newport Banning Ranch
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Alternatives to the
TABLE 7 -2 (Continued)
SUMMARY OF ALTERNATIVE IMPACTS COMPARED TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT
Section 7.0
R: \Projects \Newport\J015 \1Draft EIR\7.0 Alts- 09031 1.doc 7 -19 Newport Banning Ranch
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Alternative C:
Alternative F:
Alternative B:
Proposed Project without
Alternative D:
Alternative E:
Increased Open
Alternative A:
General Plan Open Space
North Bluff Road Extension
Reduced Development and
Reduced Development Area
Space /Reduced
Topic
Proposed Project
No Project
Designation
to 19`h Street
Reduced Development Area
(No Resort Inn)
Development Area
SECTION 4.6 –BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Threshold 4.6 -1:
Less than significant with
Short-Term Impacts
Less than proposed Project–
Less than proposed Project–
Less than proposed Project–
Less than proposed Project–
Less than proposed Project –
Would the project have a
mitigation – The Project would
Less than proposed Project– On
Decreased development would
Elimination of the roadway
Decreased development would
Decreased development would
Decreased development would
substantial adverse effect, either
have direct and indirect impacts
a short-term basis, there would
result in less area being
extension would result in more
result in less area being
result in less area being
result in less area being
directly or through habitat
on habitat that supports special
be fewer impacts because there
developed and greater
open space and a greater
developed and a greater
developed and a greater
developed and a greater
modifications, on any species
status species. The restoration
would be less disturbance of the
opportunity for habitat
opportunity for habitat
opportunity for habitat
opportunity for habitat
opportunity for habitat
identified as a candidate,
and Mitigation Program would
site.
restoration.
restoration.
restoration.
restoration.
restoration.
sensitive, or special status species
reduce these impacts to a level
Long-Term Impacts
in local or regional plans, policies,
considered less than significant.
or regulations, or by the California
Greater than proposed Project —
Department of Fish and Game or
On a long -term basis, there would
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
be greater impacts than proposed
Threshold 4.6 -2:
Project because of continued
Would the project have a
degradation of the habitat and
substantial adverse effect on any
because no Mitigation Program
riparian habitat or other sensitive
would be provided.
natural community identified in
local or regional plans, policies,
regulations, or by the
California Department of Fish and
Game or US Fish and Wildlife
Service?
Threshold 4.6 -3:
Less than significant with
Less than proposed Project – No
Less than proposed Project –
Less than proposed Project –
Less than proposed Project –
Less than proposed Project –
Less than proposed Project –
Would the project have a
mitigation – The Project would
impact due to lack of
Decreased development would
Decreased development area
Decreased development area
Decreased development area
Decreased development area
substantial adverse effect on
have direct and indirect impacts
development proposed with this
reduce impacts.
would incrementally reduce
would incrementally reduce
would incrementally reduce
would incrementally reduce
federally protected wetlands as
on protected wetlands. The
Alternative.
impacts.
impacts
impacts.
impacts.
defined by Section 404 of the
Mitigation Program and permit
Clean Water Act (including, but not
requirements would reduce
limited to, marsh, vernal pool,
these impacts.
coastal, etc.) through direct
removal, filling, hydrological
interruption, or other means?
Threshold 4.6 -4:
Less than significant with
Less than proposed Project– No
Less than proposed Project–
Less than proposed Project–
Less than proposed Project–
Less than proposed Project–
Less than proposed Project –
Would the project interfere
mitigation – New development
impacts.
The limited development area
The decreased development
The decreased development
The decreased development
The decreased development
substantially with the movement of
would reduce the habitat
under this Alternative would
area would reduce the amount
area would reduce the amount
area would reduce the amount
area would reduce the amount
any native resident or migratory
available in the wildlife
result in a reduction of impacts.
of lost open space due to
of lost open space due to
of lost open space due to
of lost open space due to
wildlife corridors, or impede the
movement corridor. The
development.
development.
development.
development.
use of native wildlife nursery sites?
restoration and Mitigation
Program would reduce this
impact.
Threshold 4.6 -5: Would the
No impact – The Proposed
Same as proposed Project –
Same as proposed Project –
Same as proposed Project–
Same as proposed Project–
Same as proposed Project–
Same as proposed Project –
project conflict with any local
Project is consistent with the
Alternative A would be consistent
Alternative B would be
Alternative C would be
Alternative D would be
Alternative E would be
Alternative F would be
policies or ordinances protecting
provisions of the applicable
with policies. No habitat
consistent with policies and
consistent with policies and
consistent with policies and
consistent with policies and
consistent with policies and
biological resources, such as a
conservation plan and would
disturbance.
would have incrementally less
would have incrementally less
would have incrementally less
would have incrementally less
would have incrementally less
tree preservation policy or
not conflict with applicable goals
habitat disturbance.
habitat disturbance.
habitat disturbance.
habitat disturbance.
habitat disturbance.
ordinance?
or policies.
Would the project conflict with the
provisions of an adopted Habitat
Conservation Plan, Natural
Community Conservation Plan, or
other approved local, regional, or
state habitat conservation plan?
R: \Projects \Newport\J015 \1Draft EIR\7.0 Alts- 09031 1.doc 7 -19 Newport Banning Ranch
Draft Environmental Impact Report
SECTION 4.7 —POPULATION, HOUSING, AND EMPLOYMENT
Threshold 4.7 -1:
Would the project induce
substantial population growth in an
area, either directly (for example,
by proposed new homes and
businesses) or indirectly (for
example, through extension of
roads or other infrastructure)?
Threshold 4.7 -2:
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?
Less than significant impact —
Population and housing growth
under the proposed Project is
consistent with the General
Plan.
No impact — The Project is
consistent with applicable plans
and policies.
SECTION 4.8 — RECREATION AND TRAILS
Threshold 4.8 -1:
Would the project include
recreational facilities or require the
construction or expansion of
recreational facilities that might
have an adverse physical effect on
the environment?
Threshold 4.8 -2:
Would the project result in
substantial adverse physical
impacts associated with the
provision of new or physically
altered governmental facilities,
need for new or physically altered
governmental facilities, the
construction of which could cause
significant environmental impacts,
in order to maintain acceptable
service ratios or other
performance objectives for parks?
Threshold 4.8 -3:
Would the project increase the use
of the existing neighborhood and
regional parks or other
recreational facilities such that a
substantial physical deterioration
of the facilities would occur or be
accelerated?
Less than significant impact —
Project acreage exceeds local
Quimby Act and City's General
Plan parkland requirements.
Impacts of new park
development are addressed as
component of Project.
Less than significant impact —
The proposed Project provides
parkland in excess of the City's
requirements. The proposed
Project site would provide
parkland that would serve a
broader community than just the
Project residents.
TABLE 7 -2 (Continued)
SUMMARY OF ALTERNATIVE IMPACTS COMPARED TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT
Alternative B:
Alternative A: General Plan Open Space
No Proiect Desianation
Less than proposed Project— No Less than proposed Project —
growth. No growth.
Greater than proposed Project —
Alternative A would not satisfy
any of the City's RHNA goals and
would not provide new visitor
accommodations in the Coastal
Zone. However, it should be
noted that the General Plan does
provide an option that assumes
no development on the Project
site.
Less than proposed Project —
Since there would be no project,
there would be no impacts
associated with construction.
However, no recreational facilities
would be provided.
Less than proposed Project — No
development would occur and no
increase to existing parks and
recreational facilities would occur
Greater than proposed Project —
This Alternative is the preferred
General Plan option. However, it
would not help satisfy any of the
City's RHNA requirements and
would not provide new visitor
accommodations in the Coastal
Zone.
Less than proposed Project —
This Alternative would provide
needed parkland in the West
Newport Beach area. With no
housing development, the
demand for facilities would not
increase.
Less than proposed Project —
This Alternative would result in a
decrease in use of existing
parks through provision of a new
Community Park and no
increase in population.
Alternative C:
Proposed Project without
North Bluff Road Extension
to 19`h Street
Same as proposed Project —
Population and housing
growth under Alternative C
would consistent with the
General Plan.
Same as proposed Project —
Alternative C would be
consistent with applicable
plans and policies.
Same as proposed Project —
Alternative C would provide
new parkland. The impacts
associated with providing the
park are addressed as part of
the impacts of this Alternative.
The parkland acreage
exceeds local Quimby Act and
City's General Plan parkland
requirements.
Same as proposed Project —
Alternative C's parkland
acreage would exceed local
Quimby Act and City's
General Plan parkland
requirements.
Alternative D:
Reduced Development and
Reduced Development Area
Same as proposed Project —
Population would not exceed
population projections.
Greater impact than proposed
Project — Alternative D would be
generally consistent with
applicable plans and policies;
however, since it would provide
fewer housing units, it would
contribute less to meeting RHNA
requirements. It would also not
provide new visitor
accommodations in the Coastal
Zone as called for in the General
Plan.
Same as proposed Project —
Alternative D would provide new
parkland. The impacts
associated with providing the
park are addressed as part of
the impacts of this Alternative.
While this Alternative would
meet local Quimby Act and
City's General Plan parkland
requirements, it would provide
less parkland and recreational
amenities than the proposed
Project.
Same as proposed Project —
Dedicated parkland acreage
under Alternative D would
exceed local Quimby Act
requirements and City's General
Plan parkland requirements.
Alternatives to the
Alternative E:
Reduced Development Area
(No Resort Inn)
Same as proposed Project —
Population would not exceed
population projections.
Greater than proposed Project —
Alternative E would be generally
consistent with applicable plans
and policies, but it would not
provide new visitor
accommodations in the Coastal
Zone as called for in the General
Plan.
Same as proposed Project —
Alternative E would provide new
parkland. The impacts
associated with providing the
park are addressed as part of
the impacts of this Alternative.
While this Alternative would
meet local Quimby Act and
City's General Plan parkland
requirements, it would provide
less parkland and recreational
amenities than the proposed
Project.
Same as proposed Project —
Dedicated parkland acreage
under Alternative E would
exceed local Quimby Act
requirements and City's General
Plan parkland requirements.
Section 7.0
Alternative F:
Increased Open
Space /Reduced
�evelooment Area
Same as proposed Project —
Population would not exceed
population projections. .
Greater than proposed Project
— Alternative F would be
generally consistent with
applicable plans and policies,
but would not provide new
visitor accommodations or other
visitor commercial uses in the
Coastal Zone as called for in
the General Plan.
Same as proposed Project —
Alternative F would provide new
parkland. The impacts
associated with providing the
park are addressed as part of
the impacts of this alternative.
While this alternative would
meet local Quimby Act and
City's General Plan parkland
requirements, it would provide
less parkland and recreational
amenities than the proposed
Project.
Same as proposed Project —
Dedicated parkland acreage
under Alternative F would
exceed local Quimby Act
requirements and City's
General Plan parkland
requirements.
R: \Projects \Newport\J015 \1Draft EIR\7.0 Alts- 090311.doc 7 -20 Newport Banning Ranch
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Threshold 4.8.4:
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?
No impact — The Project is
consistent with applicable plans
and policies.
SECTION 4.9 — TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION
Threshold 4.9 -1:
Would the project cause an
increase in traffic which is
substantial in relation to the
existing traffic load and capacity of
the street system (i.e., result in a
substantial increase in either the
number of vehicle trips, the
volume -to- capacity ratio on roads,
or congestion at intersections)?
Threshold 4.9 -2:
Would the project conflict with an
applicable congestion
management program, including,
but not limited to level of service
standards and travel demand
measures, or other standards
established by the County
congestion management agency
for designated roads or highways?
Significant and unavoidable
impact — The Project would
significantly impact intersections
in the Cities of Newport Beach
and Costa Mesa. The
intersection in Newport Beach
can be mitigated to a less than
significant level. However, the
City of Newport Beach cannot
impose mitigation on another
jurisdiction. Although mitigation
is proposed for the impacted
intersections in Costa Mesa, it is
unknown as to whether these
measures would be imposed by
the City of Costa Mesa.
Therefore, for purposes of
CEQA, these impacts are
considered significant and
unavoidable.
Less than significant impact —
Project would not significantly
impact any CMP intersections in
the traffic study area.
TABLE 7 -2 (Continued)
SUMMARY OF ALTERNATIVE IMPACTS COMPARED TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT
Alternative A:
No Proiect
Greater than proposed Project —
Alternative A would not meet
City's General Plan requirement
for a Community Park.
Less than proposed Project— No
new traffic would be generated by
this Alternative.
Less than proposed Project —
Alternative A would not generate
any new traffic. Therefore, no
CMP intersections in the traffic
study area would be impacted.
Alternative B:
General Plan Open Space
Same as proposed Project —
Alternative B would be
consistent with applicable plans
and policies.
Less than proposed Project —
Alternative B would not result in
significant levels of traffic
associated with a Community
Park. The construction of roads
through the Project site would
allow for the redistribution of
traffic in the area.
Same as proposed Project —
Alternative B would not
significantly impact any CMP
intersections in the traffic study
area.
Alternative C:
Proposed Project without
North Bluff Road Extension
to 191" Street
Same as proposed Project —
Alternative C would be
consistent with applicable
plans and policies.
Greater than proposed Project
(Existing Plus Alternative C
and General Plan Buildout
with Alternative C) —
Alternative C would
significantly impact one more
intersection in Costa Mesa in
the Existing Plus Alternative C
scenario and two more
intersections in the General
Plan Buildout with Alternative
C scenario than the proposed
Project in these time frames.
Less than proposed Project
(Year 2016 With Alternative C
Transportation Phasing
Ordinance and Year 2016
Cumulative With Alternative C)
— Alternative C would
significantly impact two fewer
intersections in Costa Mesa in
the Year 2016 With Alternative
C Transportation Phasing
Ordinance (TPO) scenario and
one fewer intersection with the
Year 2016 Cumulative With
Alternative C scenario than
the proposed Project in these
time frames.
Same as proposed Project —
Alternative C would not
significantly impact any CMP
intersections in the traffic
study area.
Alternative D:
Reduced Development and
Reduced Development Area
Same as proposed Project —
Alternative D would be
consistent with applicable plans
and policies.
Greater than proposed Project —
Although this Alternative would
generate slightly less average
daily traffic and peak hour traffic,
the same intersections as the
proposed Project would be
significantly impacted. The
intersection in Newport Beach
can be mitigated to a less than
significant level. As with the
proposed Project, mitigation for
intersections in Costa Mesa is
proposed but the City cannot
impose mitigation on another
jurisdiction.
Same as proposed Project —
Alternative D would not
significantly impact any CMP
intersections in the traffic study
area.
Alternatives to the
Alternative E:
Reduced Development Area
(No Resort Inn)
Same as proposed Project —
Alternative E would be
consistent with applicable plans
and policies.
Greater than proposed Project —
Although this Alternative would
generate slightly greater
average daily traffic and peak
hour traffic due to the visitor
commercial uses, the same
intersections as the proposed
Project would be significantly
impacted. The intersection in
Newport Beach can be mitigated
to a less than significant level.
As with the proposed Project,
mitigation for intersections in
Costa Mesa is proposed but the
City cannot impose mitigation on
another jurisdiction.
Same as proposed Project —
Alternative E would not
significantly impact any CMP
intersections in the traffic study
area.
Section 7.0
Alternative F:
Increased Open
Space /Reduced
Development Area
Same as proposed Project —
Alternative F would be
consistent with applicable plans
and policies.
Less than proposed Project —
This Alternative would have
incrementally less development
(no resort inn) and would not
propose the visitor commercial
uses, which have a higher
traffic generation rate. Although
there would be fewer trips, the
reduction is not expected to be
sufficient to eliminate the
significant impacts on local
intersections.
Same as proposed Project —
Alternative F would not
significantly impact any CMP
intersections in the traffic study
area.
R: \Projects \Newport\J015 \1Draft EIR\7.0 Alts- 090311.doc 7 -21 Newport Banning Ranch
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Alternatives to the
TABLE 7 -2 (Continued)
SUMMARY OF ALTERNATIVE IMPACTS COMPARED TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT
Section 7.0
R: \Projects \Newport\J015 \!Draft EIR\7.0 Alts- 09031 1.doc 7 -22 Newport Banning Ranch
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Alternative C:
Alternative F:
Alternative B:
Proposed Project without
Alternative D:
Alternative E:
Increased Open
Alternative A:
General Plan Open Space
North Bluff Road Extension
Reduced Development and
Reduced Development Area
Space /Reduced
Topic
Proposed Project
No Project
Designation
to 191h Street
Reduced Development Area
(No Resort Inn)
Development Area
Threshold 4.9 -3:
Less than significant impact —
Less than proposed Project — No
Same as proposed Project —
Same as proposed Project —
Same as proposed Project —
Same as proposed Project —
Same as proposed Project —
Substantially increase hazards
The proposed roadway system
roads would be constructed as a
The proposed roadway system
The Alternative C roadway
The Alternative D roadway
The Alternative E roadway
The Alternative F roadway
due to a design feature (e.g.,
would not create any significant
part of Alternative A.
would not create any significant
system would not create any
system would not create any
system would not create any
system would not create any
sharp curves or dangerous
safety hazards.
safety hazards.
significant safety hazards.
significant safety hazards.
significant safety hazards.
significant safety hazards.
intersections) or incompatible uses
(e.g. farm equipment), or result in
inadequate emergency access?
Threshold 4.9-4:
Less than significant impact
Less than proposed Project— No
Same as proposed Project —
Same as proposed Project—
Same as proposed Project — As
Same as proposed Project — As
Same as proposed Project —As
Result in inadequate parking
with mitigation — The extension
development would occur as a
Replacement parking would be
As with the proposed Project,
with the proposed Project,
with the proposed Project,
with the proposed Project,
capacity?
of 15v St consistent with the
part of this Alternative. No
provided with the extension of
Alternative C would be
Alterative D would be required to
Alternative E would be required
Alternative F would be required
General Plan would displace
parking would be required.
15`" St. The proposed
required to provide adequate
provide adequate on -site
to provide adequate on -site
to provide adequate on -site
parking at an existing office
Community Park would be
on -site parking in compliance
parking in compliance with City
parking in compliance with City
parking in compliance with City
building. Replacement parking
required to provide adequate
with City requirements and the
requirements and the NBR -PC;
requirements and the NBR -PC;
requirements and the NBR -PC;
would be provided. The
on -site parking in compliance
NBR -PC; replacement parking
replacement parking would be
replacement parking would be
replacement parking would be
proposed land uses would be
with City requirements.
would be provided with the
provided with the extension of
provided with the extension of
provided with the extension of
required to provide adequate
extension of 15" St.
15th St.
15th St.
15`h St.
on -site parking in compliance
with City requirements and the
NBR -PC.
Threshold 4.9 -5:
No impact — The proposed
Greater than proposed Project —
Same as proposed Project —
Same as proposed Project—
Same as proposed Project —
Same as proposed Project—
Same as proposed Project —
Conflict with any applicable plan,
Project would be consistent with
This Alternative would not
Alternative B assumes the same
Alternative C would be
Alternative D would be
Alternative E would be
Alternative F would be
policy, or regulation of an agency
the intent of the transportation-
preclude the future
road system as proposed for the
consistent with the intent of
consistent with the intent of the
consistent with the intent of the
consistent with the intent of the
with jurisdiction over the project
related goals and policies of
implementation of the roadway
Project. This Alternative would
the transportation- related
transportation- related goals and
transportation - related goals and
transportation- related goals and
(including, but not limited to the
SCAG, the City of Newport
system through the Project site;
be consistent with the intent of
goals and policies of SCAG,
policies of SCAG, the City of
policies of SCAG, the City of
policies of SCAG, the City of
general plan, specific plan, local
Beach General Plan, and the
however, it would have greater
the transportation - related goals
the City of Newport Beach
Newport Beach General Plan,
Newport Beach General Plan,
Newport Beach General Plan,
coastal program, or zoning
California Coastal Act. The
impacts with policy consistency
and policies of SCAG, the City
General Plan, and the
and the California Coastal Act.
and the California Coastal Act.
and the California Coastal Act.
ordinance) adopted for the
Project is requesting
than the Project, because it would
of Newport Beach General Plan,
California Coastal Act. This
As with the proposed Project,
As with the proposed Project,
As with the proposed Project,
purpose of avoiding or mitigating
modifications to the General
result in substantial delays in the
and the California Coastal Act.
Alternative would construct
Alternative D would modify
Alternative E would modify
Alternative F would modify
an environmental effect. Conflict
Plan Circulation Element Master
implementation of the
North Bluff Rd only to just
roads as set forth in the General
roads as set forth in the General
roads as set forth in the
with adopted policies, plans, or
Plan of Streets and Highways
improvements proposed in
north of 17" St. The Traffic
Plan Circulation Element Master
Plan Circulation Element Master
General Plan Circulation
programs regarding public transit,
and the Orange County MPAH.
circulation planning documents.
Study demonstrates that the
Plan of Streets and Highways
Plan of Streets and Highways
Element Master Plan of Streets
bicycle, or pedestrian facilities or
As amended, the Project would
extension of Bluff Rd is not
and the Orange County MPAH.
and the Orange County MPAH.
and Highways and the Orange
otherwise decrease the
still provide a north -south road
needed for Project traffic This
Alternative D and the proposed
Alternative E and the proposed
County MPAH Alternative F and
performance or safety of such
connection through the Project
Alternative does not propose
Project would still provide a
Project would still provide a
the proposed Project would still
facilities (e.g., bus turnouts,
site, but would delete a second
to delete the segment
north -south road connection
north -south road connection
provide a north -south road
bicycle racks)?
connection to West Coast Hwy.
between 17th St and 19th St
through the Project site but
through the Project site but
connection through the Project
Conflict with an applicable plan,
The Traffic Study demonstrates
from either the Newport Beach
would delete a second
would delete a second
site but would delete a second
ordinance or policy establishing
that the second connection is
General Plan Circulation
connection to West Coast Hwy.
connection to West Coast Hwy.
connection to West Coast Hwy.
measures of effectiveness for the
not needed for the Project or
Element or the Orange County
The Traffic Study demonstrates
The traffic study demonstrates
The Traffic Study demonstrates
performance of the circulation
regional forecasted traffic.
MPAH. As with the proposed
that the second connection is
that the second connection is
that the second connection is
system, taking into account all
Project, Alternative C would
not needed for Alternative D or
not needed for Alternative E or
not needed for Alternative F or
modes of transportation including
require amendments to the
regional forecasted traffic.
regional forecasted traffic.
regional forecasted traffic.
mass transit and non - motorized
General Plan Circulation
travel and relevant components of
Element Master Plan of
the circulation system, including
Streets and Highways and the
but not limited to intersections,
Orange County MPAH to
streets, highways and freeways,
delete a second connection to
pedestrian and bicycle paths, and
West Coast Hwy. The Traffic
mass transit?
Study demonstrates that the
second connection is not
needed for Alternative C or
regional forecasted traffic.
R: \Projects \Newport\J015 \!Draft EIR\7.0 Alts- 09031 1.doc 7 -22 Newport Banning Ranch
Draft Environmental Impact Report
SECTION 4.10 –AIR QUALITY
Threshold 4.10 -1: Conflict with or No impact – The Project does
obstruct implementation of the not exceed the assumptions in
applicable air quality plan? the SCAQMD AQMP.
Threshold 4.10 -2: Violate any air
quality standard or contribute
substantially to an existing or
projected air quality violation?
Threshold 4.10 -3: Result in a
cumulatively considerable net
increase of any criteria pollutant
for which the project region is in
nonattainment under an applicable
NAAQS or CAAQS (including
releasing emissions that exceed
quantitative thresholds for ozone
Threshold 4.10 -4: Expose
sensitive receptors to substantial
pollutant concentrations?
Construction
Significant and unavoidable
impact – 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, 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 a
significant and unavoidable
impact.
Operations
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.
Significant and unavoidable
impact –The Project would have
cumulatively considerable
contributions to regional
pollutant concentrations of 03.
Less than significant impact –
TAC emissions would be less
than thresholds for both off -site
and on -site receptors.
TABLE 7 -2 (Continued)
SUMMARY OF ALTERNATIVE IMPACTS COMPARED TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT
Alternative A:
No Proiect
Same as proposed Project – This
alternative would not exceed the
assumptions in the SCAQMD
AQMP.
Less than proposed Project –
Emissions from any possible
expansion of oilfield activities
would be less than significant.
Less than proposed Project (Less
than significant). Emissions from
possible expansion of oilfield
activities would not be
cumulatively considerable.
Less than proposed Project –
There would be no TAC
emissions from on -site residential
or commercial uses or exposure
of on -site residents to oilfield
emissions.
Alternative B:
General Plan Open Space
Same as proposed Project –
This alternative would not
exceed the assumptions in the
SCAQMD AQMP.
Construction
Less than proposed Project –
Short-term air quality emissions
associated with this alternative
would be less than with the
proposed Project but would be
significant prior to mitigation.
Operations
Less than proposed Project –
Long -term emissions from park
use would be less than
significant.
Less than proposed Project
(Less than significant). Long-
term emissions from park use
would not be cumulatively
considerable.
Less than proposed Project –
There would be no TAC
emissions from on -site
residential or commercial uses
or from exposure of on -site
residents to oilfield emissions.
Alternative C:
Proposed Project without
North Bluff Road Extension
to 191h Street
Same as proposed Project –
This alternative would not
exceed the assumptions in the
SCAQMD AQMP.
Construction
Same as proposed Project.
Operations
Greater than proposed
Project. An increase in VMT
would incrementally increase
pollutant emissions.
Greater than proposed Project
(significant and unavoidable).
Impacts would be
incrementally greater due to
an increase in VMT would
increase pollutant emissions.
Same as proposed Project -
TAC emissions would be less
than thresholds for both off-
site and on -site receptors.
Alternative D:
Reduced Development and
Reduced Development Area
Same as proposed Project –
This alternative would not
exceed the assumptions in the
SCAQMD AQMP.
Construction
Less than proposed Project —
Construction maximum daily
emissions would be essentially
the same as for the proposed
Project, although the
construction duration may be
slightly less.
Operations
Less than proposed Project.
Although there would be an
approximate 1.6% reduction in
VMT, impacts would still be
significant and unavoidable.
Same as proposed Project
(significant and unavoidable).
Impacts would be incrementally
less due to a decrease in VMT
that would result a negligible
decrease pollutant emissions
compared to the proposed
Project.
Same as proposed Project —
TAC emissions would be less
than thresholds for both off -site
and on -site receptors.
Alternative E:
Reduced Development Area
(No Resort Inn)
Same as proposed Project –
This alternative would not
exceed the assumptions in the
SCAQMD AQMP.
Construction
Less than proposed Project —
Construction maximum daily
emissions would be essentially
the same as for the proposed
Project, although the
construction duration may be
slightly less.
Operations
Greater than proposed Project.
There would be an approximate
5.2% increase in VMT with
similar increase in long range
vehicle emissions.
Greater than proposed Project
(Significant and Unavoidable).
Impacts would be incrementally
greater due to an increase in
VMT that would increase
pollutant emissions
Same as proposed Project -
TAC emissions would be less
than thresholds for both off -site
and on -site receptors.
Section 7.0
Alternatives to the
Alternative F:
Increased Open
Space /Reduced
�evelooment Area
Same as proposed Project –
This alternative would not
exceed the assumptions in the
SCAQMD AQMP.
Construction
Less than proposed Project —
Construction maximum daily
emissions would be essentially
the same as for the proposed
Project, although the
construction duration may be
slightly less.
Operations
Less than proposed Project.
Though still Significant and
Unavoidable, Alternative F
would have an approximately
9% reduction in VMT.
Less than proposed Project
(significant and unavoidable).
Impacts would be incrementally
less due to a decrease in VMT
that would decrease pollutant
emissions.
Same as proposed Project -
TAC emissions would be less
than thresholds for both off -site
and on -site receptors.
R: \Projects \Newport\J015 \1Draft EIRV.0 Alts- 090311.doc 7 -23 Newport Banning Ranch
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Alternatives to the
TABLE 7 -2 (Continued)
SUMMARY OF ALTERNATIVE IMPACTS COMPARED TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT
Section 7.0
Threshold 4.10 -5:
Create objectionable odors
affectina a substantial number of
Threshold 4.10 -6: 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?
Less than significant impact -
The proposed Project would not
create odors affecting a
substantial number of people.
No Impact -The Proposed
Project is consistent with
applicable plans and policies.
SECTION 4.11 - GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
Threshold 4.11 -1: Generate
Cumulatively Significant and
greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions,
Alternative C:
either directly or indirectly, that
Project GHG emissions are
may have a significant impact on
Alternative F:
the environment, i.e. emit more
substantially exceeding the
than 6,000 MTCO2e /yr of GHG?
Alternative B:
Proposed Project without
Alternative D:
Alternative E:
Increased Open
Alternative A:
General Plan Open Space
North Bluff Road Extension
Reduced Development and
Reduced Development Area
Space /Reduced
Tonic
Proposed Project
No Proiect
Desianation
to 191" Street
Reduced Development Area
(No Resort Inn)
Development Area
Threshold 4.10 -5:
Create objectionable odors
affectina a substantial number of
Threshold 4.10 -6: 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?
Less than significant impact -
The proposed Project would not
create odors affecting a
substantial number of people.
No Impact -The Proposed
Project is consistent with
applicable plans and policies.
SECTION 4.11 - GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
Threshold 4.11 -1: Generate
Cumulatively Significant and
greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions,
Unavoidable - Long -term
either directly or indirectly, that
Project GHG emissions are
may have a significant impact on
estimated at 19,392 MTCO2e /yr,
the environment, i.e. emit more
substantially exceeding the
than 6,000 MTCO2e /yr of GHG?
6,000 MTCO2e /yr significance
threshold.
Threshold 4.11 -2: Conflict with an
applicable plan, policy, or
regulation adopted for the purpose
of reducing the emissions of
SECTION 4.12 - NOISE
Threshold 4.12 -1: Would the
project expose persons to or
generate noise levels in excess of
standards established in the local
general plan or noise ordinance, or
applicable standards of other
agencies?
Threshold 4.12 -4: Would the
project result in a substantial
permanent increase in ambient
noise levels in the project vicinity
above levels existing without the
project?
No impact - The Project is
consistent with applicable plans
and policies.
Significant and Unavoidable
Impacts
1. Cumulative increase in
traffic noise on 17`" St
2. Cumulative noise increase
at Newport Crest.
Less than Significant with
Mitigation
3. Cumulative increase in
traffic noise on 15" St
4. Internal compatibility of
proposed land uses.
5. Noise impacts from
stationary sources.
Less than Significant
6. Cumulative and Project
traffic noise to California
Seabreeze/ Parkview Circle
and Carden Hall School.
Same as proposed Project - This
Alternative would not create
odors affecting a substantial
number of people.
Same as proposed Project -
Alternative A would be consistent
with applicable plans and
policies.
Less than proposed Project -
This Alternative would allow for
the expansion of oil production
facilities, which would result in
temporary and long -term GHG
emissions. However, emissions
would be substantially less than
6,000 MTCO2e /yr.
Same as proposed Project -
Alternative A would not conflict
with applicable plans and
policies.
Less than proposed Project -
Since there would be no
development, there would be no
increase in noise levels
associated with Alternative A.
Same as proposed Project -
This Alternative would not
create odors affecting a
substantial number of people.
Same as proposed Project -
Alternative B would be
consistent with applicable plans
and policies.
Less than proposed Project -
This Alternative would result in
temporary construction GHG
emissions and long -term GHG
emissions associated with
operation and maintenance of
the park. However, emissions
would be substantially less than
Same as proposed Project. -
Alternative B would be
consistent with applicable plans
and policies.
Less than proposed Project -
Significant and Unavoidable
1. Cumulative traffic noise
increase on 171" St.
2. Cumulative Noise level
approx. 1 dBA less than with
proposed Project at Newport
Crest.
Less than Significant with
Mitigation
3. Cumulative increase in
traffic noise on 15M St
4. Internal compatibility of
proposed land uses.
5. Noise impacts from
stationary sources.
Less than Significant
6. Cumulative and Project
traffic noise to California
Seabreeze/ Parkview Circle
Same as proposed Project -
The proposed Project would
not create odors affecting a
substantial number of people
Same as proposed Project
Alternative C would be
consistent with applicable
plans and policies.
Greater than proposed Project
-This impact would be
significant and unavoidable
and slightly greater than the
proposed Project under this
Alternative. Long -term Project
GHG emissions are estimated
to exceed 6,000 MTCO2e /yr.
Same as proposed Project. -
Alternative C would be
consistent with applicable
plans and policies.
Same as proposed Project -
Significant and Unavoidable
1. Cumulative traffic noise
increase on 17" St.
Greater than proposed
Project -
Significant and Unavoidable
2. Significant and
Unavoidable t at Newport
Crest- noise level
approx. 0.4 dBA greater.
Same as proposed Project -
Less than Significant with
Mitigation
3. Cumulative increase in
traffic noise on 15" St
4. Internal compatibility of
proposed land uses.
5. Noise impacts from
stationary sources.
Same as proposed Project -
The proposed Project would not
create odors affecting a
substantial number of people.
Same as proposed Project -
Alternative D would be
consistent with applicable plans
and policies.
Less than proposed Project -
This impact would be significant
and unavoidable, but slightly
less than the proposed Project
because of the reduced
development. GHG emissions
would substantially exceed
6,000 MTCO2e /yr.
Same as proposed Project. -
Alternative D would be
consistent with applicable plans
and policies.
Same as proposed Project -
Significant and Unavoidable
1. Cumulative traffic noise
increase on 17t" St.
Greater than proposed Project -
Significant and Unavoidable
2. Significant and
Unavoidable at Newport
Crest -noise level less
than 1 dBA greater.
Less than Significant with
Mitigation
3. Cumulative increase in
traffic noise on 15`6 St
slightly greater.
Same as proposed Project -
Less than Significant with
Mitigation
4. Internal compatibility of
proposed land uses.
Same as proposed Project -
The proposed Project would not
create odors affecting a
substantial number of people.
Same as proposed Project -
Alternative E would be
consistent with applicable plans
and policies.
Greater than proposed Project -
This impact would be significant
and unavoidable and greater
than the proposed Project
because of the increased VMT.
Same as proposed Project. -
Alternative E would be
consistent with applicable plans
and policies.
Greater than proposed Project -
Significant and Unavoidable
1. Slight increase in
cumulative traffic noise
increase on 17t" St.
2. Significant and
Unavoidable at Newport
Crest -noise level less
than 1 dBA greater.
Less than Significant with
Mitigation
3. Cumulative increase in
traffic noise on 15`° St
slightly greater.
Same as proposed Project -
Less than Significant with
Mitigation
4. Internal compatibility of
proposed land uses.
5. Noise impacts from
Same as proposed Project -
The proposed Project would not
create odors affecting a
substantial number of people.
Same as proposed Project -
Alternative F would be
consistent with applicable plans
and policies.
Less than proposed Project -
This impact would be significant
and unavoidable, but less than
the proposed Project because
of the reduced development
and reduced VMT. GHG
emissions would substantially
exceed 6,000 MTCO2e /yr.
Same as proposed Project. -
Alternative F would be
consistent with applicable plans
and policies.
Less than proposed Project -
Significant and Unavoidable
1. Slight reduction in
cumulative traffic noise
increase on 17t" St.
2. Slight reduction in traffic
noise at Newport Crest.
Less than Significant with
Mitigation
3. Slight reduction in
cumulative increase in
traffic noise on 15'" St
4. Slight reduction in internal
noise levels.
Same as proposed Project -
Less than Significant with
Mitigation
5. Noise impacts from
stationary sources.
Less than Significant
R: \Projects \Newport\J015 \!Draft EIRV.0 Alts- 09031 1.doc 7 -24 Newport Banning Ranch
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Alternatives to the
TABLE 7 -2 (Continued)
SUMMARY OF ALTERNATIVE IMPACTS COMPARED TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT
Section 7.0
R: \Projects \Newport\J015 \!Draft EIRV.0 Alts- 09031 1.doc 7 -25 Newport Banning Ranch
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Alternative C:
Alternative F:
Alternative B:
Proposed Project without
Alternative D:
Alternative E:
Increased Open
Alternative A:
General Plan Open Space
North Bluff Road Extension
Reduced Development and
Reduced Development Area
Space /Reduced
Topic
Proposed Project
No Project
Designation
to 191" Street
Reduced Development Area
(No Resort Inn)
Development Area
and Carden Hall School.
Less than Significant
5. Noise impacts from
stationary sources.
6. Cumulative and Project
6. Cumulative and Project
stationary sources.
Less than Significant
traffic noise to California
traffic noise to California
Less than Significant
6. Cumulative and Project
Seabreeze/ Parkview Circle
Seabreeze /Parkview
6. Cumulative and Project
traffic noise to California
and Carden Hall School.
Circle and Carden Hall
traffic noise to California
Seabreeze/ Parkview
School.
Seabreeze/ Parkview
Circle and Carden Hall
Circle and Carden Hall
School.
School.
Threshold 4.12 -2: Would the
Significant and Unavoidable
Less than proposed Project—
Less than proposed Project—
Less than proposed Project—
Same as proposed Project—
Same as proposed Project—
Same as proposed Project —
project result in a temporary or
Impact — Construction noise
This alternative would allow for
The impact under this
The impact under this
Construction noise would cause
Construction noise would cause
Construction noise would cause
periodic increase in ambient noise
would cause substantial
expansion of oil production
Alternative would be significant
Alternative would be
substantial temporary noise
substantial temporary noise
substantial temporary noise
levels in the project vicinity above
temporary noise increases at
facilities, which would result in
and unavoidable, but less than
significant and unavoidable
increases at nearby residential
increases in nearby residential
increases in nearby residential
levels existing without the project?
nearby residential and school
periodic noise from drilling and
proposed Project because the
but less than proposed
and school receptors.
and school receptors.
and school receptors.
receptors.
construction. However, noise
duration of impacts would be
Project. Construction noise
levels would be substantially less
less due to less construction.
would cause substantial
than the proposed Project.
temporary noise increases at
nearby residential and school
receptors, but there would be
fewer impacts to receptors
near and north of 17`h St.
Threshold 4.12 -3: Would the
Less than significant with
Less than proposed Project— No
Less than proposed Project—
Same as proposed Project—
Same as proposed Project —
Same as proposed Project—
Same as proposed Project —
project expose people to or
mitigation — Vibration may be
exposure of persons to or
Nature of vibration impacts
Short-term vibration impacts
Short-term vibration impacts
Short-term vibration impacts
Short-term vibration impacts
generate excessive groundborne
noticeable for short periods
generation of noise vibration
would be the same as the
would occur during
would occur during construction
would occur during construction
would occur during construction
vibration or groundborne noise
during construction, but it would
levels in excess of standards.
proposed Project but duration of
construction activities.
activities.
activities.
activities.
levels?
be temporary and periodic and
construction activity would be
would not be excessive.
reduced.
Threshold 4.12 -5: Would the
No Impact — The Project site is
Same as proposed Project — The
Same as proposed Project—
Same as proposed Project—
Same as proposed Project —
Same as proposed Project—
Same as proposed Project —
project be located within an airport
located outside the 60 dBA
Project site is located outside the
The Project site is located
The Project site is located
The Project site is located
The Project site is located
The Project site is located
land use plan or, where such a
CNEL from John Wayne Airport
60 dBA CNEL from John Wayne
outside the 60 dBA CNEL from
outside the 60 dBA CNEL
outside the 60 dBA CNEL from
outside the 60 dBA CNEL from
outside the 60 dBA CNEL from
plan has not been adopted, within
and no significant noise impacts
Airport and no significant noise
John Wayne Airport and no
from John Wayne Airport and
John Wayne Airport and no
John Wayne Airport and no
John Wayne Airport and no
two miles of a public airport or
from aircraft activities would
impacts from aircraft activities
significant noise impacts from
no significant noise impacts
significant noise impacts from
significant noise impacts from
significant noise impacts from
public use airport, expose people
occur.
would occur
aircraft activities would occur
from aircraft activities would
aircraft activities would occur
aircraft activities would occur
aircraft activities would occur
residing or working in the project
occur
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?
Threshold 4.12 -7: Would the
No impact — The Project is
Same as proposed Project—
Same as proposed Project—
Same as proposed Project—
Same as proposed Project —
Same as proposed Project—
Same as proposed Project —
project conflict with any applicable
consistent with the applicable
Alternative A would be consistent
Alternative B would be
Alternative C would be
Alternative D would be
Alternative E would be
Alternative F would be
land use plan, policy, or regulation
plans and policies related to
with applicable plans and
consistent with applicable plans
consistent with applicable
consistent with applicable plans
consistent with applicable plans
consistent with applicable plans
of an agency with jurisdiction over
noise.
policies.
and policies.
plans and policies.
and policies.
and policies.
and policies.
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?
R: \Projects \Newport\J015 \!Draft EIRV.0 Alts- 09031 1.doc 7 -25 Newport Banning Ranch
Draft Environmental Impact Report
TABLE 7 -2 (Continued)
SUMMARY OF ALTERNATIVE IMPACTS COMPARED TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT
Alternative A:
No Proiect
Alternative B:
General Plan Open Space
Alternative C:
Proposed Project without
North Bluff Road Extension
to 191h Street
Alternative D:
Reduced Development and
Reduced Development Area
Alternative E:
Reduced Development Area
(No Resort Inn)
Section 7.0
Alternatives to the
Alternative F:
Increased Open
Space /Reduced
�evelooment Area
SECTION 4.13 — CULTURAL AND PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES II
Threshold 4.13 -1: Would the
project cause a substantial
adverse change in the significance
of a historical resource as defined
in §15064.5?
Threshold 4.13 -2: Would the
project cause a substantial
adverse change in the significance
of an archaeological resource as
defined in §15064.5?
Threshold 4.13 -3: Would the
project directly or indirectly destroy
a unique paleontological resource
or site or unique geologic feature?
Threshold 4.13 -4: Would the
project disturb any human
remains, including those interred
outside of formal cemeteries?
Threshold 4.13 -5: 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?
Less than significant with
mitigation — The Project would
not impact any known historical
resources. If any unknown
resources are identified, the
standard conditions would
require compliance with rules
and regulations.
Less than significant with
mitigation — The Project would
impact known archaeological
resources; however,
compliance with rules and
regulations would reduce
impacts.
Less than significant with
mitigation — Although there are
potential resources on Project
site, compliance with rules and
regulations would reduce
Less than significant with
mitigation — No indication of
burials on site. If discovered
during grading, rules and
regulations would be
implemented.
No impact — The Project is
consistent with applicable plans
and policies.
Less than proposed Project —
Under this Alternative, the Project
site would not be disturbed.
Less than proposed Project —
Under Alternative A, the project
site would not be disturbed.
Less than proposed Project —
Limited site disturbance under
Alternative A would reduce the
potential for impacts to
paleontological resources.
Less than proposed Project —
The decreased land disturbance
under Alternative B would
reduce potential for discovery of
unknown resources.
Less than proposed Project —
Decreased land use
development under Alternative
B would help avoid some
resources. Impacts to sites CA-
ORA -839 and CA- ORA -844B
would be reduced.
Less than proposed Project —
There are potential resources on
Project site, but decreased land
disturbance would reduce
impacts.
Less than proposed Project— Site Less than proposed Project —
would not be disturbed. Decreased land disturbance
would minimize likelihood of
discovery of internment.
Same as proposed Project —
Alternative A would be consistent
with applicable plans and
policies.
Same as proposed Project —
Alternative B would be
consistent with applicable plans
and policies.
Same as proposed Project —
The magnitude of
development under Alternative
C would be similar to the
Project with the potential for
discovery of unknown
resources.
Less than proposed Project —
There would be impacts to
known archaeological
resources under this
Alternative, but CA -ORA -906
would be preserved.
Same as proposed Project —
There are potential resources
on Project site, but compliance
with rules and regulations
would reduce impacts.
Same as proposed Project —
Magnitude of development is
similar.
Same as proposed Project —
Alternative would be
consistent with applicable
plans and policies.
Same as proposed Project —
The general magnitude of
development under Alternative
D would be similar with the
potential for discovery of
unknown resources.
Same as proposed Project —
Alternative D would impact
known archaeological
resources. Compliance with
rules and regulations would
reduce impacts.
Same as proposed Project —
There are potential resources on
Project site, but compliance with
rules and regulations would
reduce impacts.
Same as proposed Project —
Magnitude of development is
similar.
Same as proposed Project —
Alternative would be consistent
with applicable plans and
policies.
Same as proposed Project —
The general magnitude of
development under Alternative E
would be similar with the
potential for discovery of
unknown resources.
Same as proposed Project —
Alternative E would impact
known archaeological
resources. Compliance with
rules and regulations would
reduce impacts.
Same as proposed Project —
There are potential resources on
Project site, but compliance with
rules and regulations would
reduce impacts.
Same as proposed Project —
Magnitude of development is
similar.
Same as proposed Project —
Alternative would be consistent
with applicable plans and
policies.
Same as proposed Project —
The general magnitude of
development under Alternative
F would be similar with the
potential for discovery of
unknown resources.
Same as proposed Project —
Alternative F would impact
known archaeological
resources. Compliance with
rules and regulations would
reduce impacts.
Same as proposed Project —
There are potential resources
on Project site, but compliance
with rules and regulations would
reduce impacts.
Same as proposed Project —
Magnitude of development is
similar.
Same as proposed Project —
Alternative would be consistent
with applicable plans and
policies.
R: \Projects \Newport\J015 \1Draft EIR\7.0 Alts- 090311.doc 7 -26 Newport Banning Ranch
Draft Environmental Impact Report
SECTION 4.14 — PUBLIC SERVICES AND FACILITIES
Fire Protection
Threshold 4.14 -1:
Result in substantial adverse
physical impacts associated with
the provision of new or physically
altered governmental facilities,
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
fire protection.
Police Protection
Threshold 4.14 -3:
Result in substantial adverse
physical impacts associated with
the provision of new or physically
altered governmental facilities,
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
Schools
Threshold 4.14 -5:
Result in substantial adverse
physical impacts associated with
the provision of new or physically
altered school facilities, need for
new or physically altered school
facilities, the construction of which
could cause significant
environmental impacts, in order to
maintain acceptable levels of
service ratios or other
performance objectives for public
school facilities.
Less than significant with
mitigation — Site Planning Area
12b, the northerly block of Site
Planning Area 10a, and the
northerly block of Site Planning
Area 10b cannot be served by
Station Number 2 within the
established response time.
Implementation of the Mitigation
Program would adequately
reduce response times.
Less than significant impact —
Police protection services can
be provided without the need for
new or physically altered
facilities.
Less than significant impact —
Project - generated students
would attend Newport Mesa
Unified School District which
has capacity for all class levels
(K -12).
TABLE 7 -2 (Continued)
SUMMARY OF ALTERNATIVE IMPACTS COMPARED TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT
Alternative A:
No Proiect
Less than proposed Project —
Since there would be no
development on site, the need for
fire protection service would
remain the same as it is currently.
Less than proposed Project —
Since there would be no
development on site, the need for
police protection service would
remain the same as it is currently.
Less than proposed Project —
Since there would be no
development on site, the need for
schools would remain the same
as it is currently.
Alternative B:
General Plan Open Space
Less than proposed Project —
The less intense uses (park and
recreational uses) under
Alternative B would require less
demand for fire protection
services. No physical
improvements would be
required to maintain an
acceptable level of service.
Less than proposed Project —
The less intense uses (park
uses) under Alternative B would
require less demand for police
protection services. No physical
improvements required to
maintain an acceptable level of
service.
Less than proposed Project —
Park uses would not generate
students.
Alternative C:
Proposed Project without
North Bluff Road Extension
to 191h Street
Same as proposed Project —
The same land use areas
would not be able to be served
by Station Number 2 within the
established response time.
Implementation of the
Mitigation Program would
adequately reduce response
times.
Same as proposed Project —
Alternative C proposes the
same land uses as proposed
Project. No physical
improvements would be
required to maintain an
acceptable level of service.
Same as proposed Project —
Alternative C would have the
same student generation as
the proposed Project.
Alternative D:
Reduced Development and
Reduced Development Area
Same as proposed Project —
Incrementally less development
under Alternative D would
reduce the level of demand.
However, the same land use
areas would not be able to be
served by Station Number 2
within the established response
time. Implementation of the
Mitigation Program would
adequately reduce response
times.
Less than proposed Project —
Alternative D would include
fewer dwelling units and no
overnight accommodations,
which would reduce the level of
demand for police protection
services. No physical
improvements would be required
to maintain an acceptable level
of service.
Less than proposed Project —
Fewer dwelling units under
Alternative D would generate
fewer students.
Alternatives to the
Alternative E:
Reduced Development Area
(No Resort Inn)
Same as proposed Project —
Incrementally less development
under Alternative E would
reduce the level of demand.
However, the same land use
areas would not be able to be
served by Station Number 2
within the established response
time. Implementation of the
Mitigation Program would
adequately reduce response
times.
Less than proposed Project —
The fact that there are no
overnight accommodations
under Alternative E would
reduce the level of demand for
police protection services. No
physical improvements would be
required to maintain an
acceptable level of service.
Same as proposed Project —
Alternative E would have the
same student generation as the
proposed Project.
Section 7.0
Alternative F:
Increased Open
Space /Reduced
�evelooment Area
Less than proposed Project —
Incrementally less development
under Alternative F would
reduce the level of demand.
The development area that
could not be served by Station
Number 2 within the established
response time would be
reduced compared to the
proposed Project.
Implementation of the Mitigation
Program would adequately
reduce response times.
Less than proposed Project —
The fact that there are no
overnight accommodations or
visitor- serving commercial
under Alternative F would
reduce the level of demand for
police protection services. No
physical improvements would
be required to maintain an
acceptable level of service.
Same or similar to as proposed
Project — Alternative F would
have the same student
generation as the proposed
Project. Fewer students could
be generated based on the
School District's distinction
between single - family attached
and single - family detached
units.
R: \Projects \NewporW015 \1Draft EIRV.0 Alts- 090311.doc 7 -27 Newport Banning Ranch
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Library Services
Threshold 4.14 -7:
Result in substantial adverse
physical impacts associated with
the provision of new or physically
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.
Solid Waste
Threshold 4.14 -9:
Result in substantial adverse
physical impacts associated with
the provision of new or physically
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.
Thresholds 4.14 -2, 4.14 -4, 4.14-
6, 4.14 -8, and 4.14 -10:
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, orzoning
ordinance) adopted for the
purpose of avoiding or mitigating
an environmental effect?
SECTION 4.15 — UTILITIES
Water Supply
Threshold 4.15 -1:
Require or result in the
construction of new water
treatment facilities or expansion of
existing facilities, the construction
of which could cause significant
environmental effects?
No impact — Project would not
significantly impact library
services or create the need for
new or expanded library
facilities.
Less than significant impact —
The Project would not
significantly impact solid waste
services or create the need for
new or expanded solid waste
facilities.
No impact — The Project is
consistent with applicable plans
and policies.
Less than significant impact —
The Project would provide new
water lines and connections, the
impacts of which are addressed
as part of the development
project. No new or expanded
water treatment facilities would
be required.
TABLE 7 -2 (Continued)
SUMMARY OF ALTERNATIVE IMPACTS COMPARED TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT
Alternative A:
No Proiect
Less than proposed Project —
Since there would be no
development on site, the need for
library services would remain the
same as it is currently.
Less than proposed Project —
Since there would be no
development on site, the need for
solid waste services would
remain the same as it is currently.
Same as proposed Project —The
City General Plan policies would
not be applicable because with
this Alternative the site would not
be annexed into the City.
Less than proposed Project —
Since there would be no
development on site, no new
infrastructure would be required.
Alternative B:
General Plan Open Space
Less than proposed Project —
Park uses would not impact
library services.
Less than proposed Project —
The less intense uses (park
uses) under Alternative B would
generate less demand for solid
waste services.
Same as proposed Project —
Alternative B would be
consistent with applicable plans
and policies.
Less than proposed Project —
Alternative B would have less
intense uses (park and
recreational uses) and would
require less water - related
infrastructure; however,
backbone infrastructure would
still be required.
Alternative C:
Proposed Project without
North Bluff Road Extension
to 191" Street
Same as proposed Project —
Alternative C would have the
same land uses as proposed
Project would have same
demand for library services.
Same as proposed Project —
Alternative C would have the
same land uses as the
proposed Project and would
generate the same amount of
solid waste.
Same as proposed Project —
Alternative C would be
consistent with applicable
plans and policies.
Same as proposed Project —
Alternative C would have the
same land uses as the
proposed Project and would
require the same
infrastructure. Impacts
associated with the provision
of infrastructure have been
included as part of the
analysis for the development.
Alternative D:
Reduced Development and
Reduced Development Area
Less than proposed Project —
Fewer dwelling units under
Alternative D would reduce the
demand on library services.
Less than proposed Project —
Fewer dwelling units and no
overnight accommodations
under Alternative D would create
less demand for solid waste
services.
Same as proposed Project —
Alternative D would be
consistent with applicable plans
and policies.
Same as proposed Project —
Alternative D would have fewer
dwelling units and no overnight
accommodations, which would
reduce the demand for water;
however, impacts related
infrastructure to distribute water
would be similar to the proposed
Project.
Alternatives to the
Alternative E:
Reduced Development Area
(No Resort Inn)
Same as proposed Project —
Alternative E would have the
same number of residential units
as the proposed Project;
therefore, Alternative E would
have same demand for library
services.
Less than proposed Project —
No overnight accommodations
under Alternative E would create
less demand for solid waste
services.
Same as proposed Project —
Alternative E would be
consistent with applicable plans
and policies.
Same as proposed Project —
Since Alternative E would have
no overnight accommodations,
the demand for water would be
reduced; however, impacts
related infrastructure to
distribute water would be similar
to the proposed Project.
Section 7.0
Alternative F:
Increased Open
Space /Reduced
�evelooment Area
Same as proposed Project —
Alternative F would have the
same number of residential
units as proposed Project;
therefore, Alternative F would
have same demand for library
services.
Less than proposed Project —
No overnight accommodations
and visitor - serving commercial
uses under Alternative F would
create less demand for solid
waste services.
Same as proposed Project —
Alternative F would be
consistent with applicable plans
and policies.
Same as proposed Project —
Since Alternative F would have
no overnight accommodations
or visitor - serving commercial,
the demand for water would be
reduced; however, impacts
related infrastructure to
distribute water would be similar
to the proposed Project.
R: \Projects \Newport\J015 \1Draft EIR\7.0 Alts- 090311.doc 7 -28 Newport Banning Ranch
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Alternatives to the
TABLE 7 -2 (Continued)
SUMMARY OF ALTERNATIVE IMPACTS COMPARED TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT
Section 7.0
R: \Projects \Newport\J015 \!Draft EIR\7.0 Alts- 09031 1.doc 7 -29 Newport Banning Ranch
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Alternative C:
Alternative F:
Alternative B:
Proposed Project without
Alternative D:
Alternative E:
Increased Open
Alternative A:
General Plan Open Space
North Bluff Road Extension
Reduced Development and
Reduced Development Area
Space /Reduced
Topic
Proposed Project
No Project
Designation
to 191" Street
Reduced Development Area
(No Resort Inn)
Development Area
Threshold 4.15 -2:
Less than significant impact —
Less than proposed Project —
Less than proposed Project—
Same as proposed Project —
Less than proposed Project —
Less than proposed Project —
Less than proposed Project —
Have insufficient water supplies
The Project would increase
Since there would be no
The less intense uses (park and
Since Alternative C would
Alternative D would have fewer
Since Alternative E would have
Since Alternative F would have
available to serve the project from
demand for water supply, but
development on site, the site's
recreational uses) under
have same land uses as
dwelling units and no overnight
no overnight accommodations,
no overnight accommodations
existing entitlements and
the Water Supply Assessment
current water needs would
Alternative B would result in less
proposed Project, the water
accommodations, which would
the demand for water would be
or visitor - serving commercial,
resources, or are new or
demonstrates that water
remain the same.
water demand than the
demand would be the same as
reduce the demand for water
reduced compared to the
the demand for water would be
expanded entitlements needed?
supplies are sufficient for
proposed Project.
for the proposed Project.
compared to the proposed
proposed Project.
reduced compared to the
Project and other projected
Project.
proposed Project.
growth.
Wastewater Facilities
Less than significant impact—
Less than proposed Project—
Less than proposed Project—
Same as proposed Project—
Less than proposed Project—
Less than proposed Project —
Less than proposed Project —
Threshold 4.15 -4: Exceed
The Project would be subject to
Since there would be no
Since there would be less
Wastewater generation under
Since Alternative D would have
Since Alternative E would have
Since Alternative F would have
wastewater treatment
RWQCB treatment
development on site, the
intense uses (park and
Alternative C would be the
fewer dwelling units and no
no overnight accommodations,
no overnight accommodations
requirements of the applicable
requirements, and Project flows
wastewater needs would remain
recreational uses) there would
same as the proposed Project,
overnight accommodations, the
the demand for wastewater
or visitor - serving commercial,
Regional Water Quality Control
would not exceed the
the same as current conditions.
be less wastewater generated
and Alternative C would be
demand for wastewater
treatment would be reduced
the demand for wastewater
Board?
established wastewater
for treatment, However,
subject to the same
treatment would be reduced
compared to the proposed
treatment would be reduced
Threshold 4.15 -5:
treatment capacity.
Alternative B would be subject
requirements as the proposed
compared to the proposed
Project. However, Alternative E
compared to the proposed
Result in a determination by the
to the same requirements as the
Project.
Project. However, Alternative D
would be subject to the same
Project. However, Alternative F
wastewater treatment provider
proposed Project.
would be subject to the same
requirements as the proposed
would be subject to the same
which serves or may serve the
requirements as the proposed
Project.
requirements as the proposed
project that it has adequate
Project.
Project.
capacity to serve the project's
projected demand in addition to
the provider's existing
commitments?
Energy
Less than significant impact—
Less than proposed Project—
Less than proposed Project—
Same as proposed Project—
Same as proposed Project—
Same as proposed Project—
Same as proposed Project —
Threshold 4.15 -7:
The electrical and natural gas
Since there would be no
Less intense uses (park and
Since Alternative C would
Since Alternative D would have
Since Alternative E would have
Since Alternative F would have
Result in substantial adverse
utility providers have indicated
development on site, the utility
recreational uses) under
have the same land uses as
fewer dwelling units and no
no resort inn, the demand for
no resort inn or visitor - serving
physical impacts associated with
their ability to serve the
service needs would remain the
Alternative B would generate
proposed Project, the same
overnight accommodations, the
electrical and natural gas
commercial, the demand for
the provision of new or physically
proposed Project without
same as current conditions.
less demand for electrical and
demand would result.
demand for electrical and
service would be reduced
electrical and natural gas
altered energy transmission
adversely affecting their ability
natural gas service compared to
natural gas service would be
compared to the proposed
service would be reduced
facilities, the construction of which
to continue serving the Project
the proposed Project.
reduced compared to the
Project. However, the impacts
compared to the proposed
could cause significant
area. Physical impacts related
proposed Project. However, the
associated with provision of
Project. However, the impacts
environmental impacts, in order to
to installation and /or relocation
impacts associated with
energy transmission facilities
associated with provision of
maintain acceptable levels of
of necessary infrastructure
provision of energy transmission
would be the same as the
energy transmission facilities
service?
includes air quality and noise
facilities would be the same as
proposed Project.
would be the same as the
impacts addressed as part of
the proposed Project.
proposed Project.
the Project.
Thresholds 4.15 -3, 4.15 -6, and
No impact — The Project is
Same as proposed Project—
Same as proposed Project—
Same as Proposed Project—
Same as proposed Project—
Same as proposed Project—
Same as proposed Project -
4.15-8:
consistent with applicable plans
Though Alternative A would not
Alternative B would implement
Alternative C would be
Alternative D would be
Alternative E would be
Alternative F would be
Conflict with any applicable plan,
and policies.
implement improvements
the Open Space concept in the
consistent with applicable
consistent with applicable plans
consistent with applicable plans
consistent with applicable plans
policy, or regulation of an agency
identified in the General Plan
General Plan and would be
plans and policies.
and policies.
and policies.
and policies.
with jurisdiction over the project
policies associated with utilities,
consistent with the applicable
(including, but not limited to the
there would be no impact since
policies.
general plan, specific plan, local
this alternative would not involve
coastal program, orzoning
annexation.
ordinance) adopted for the
purpose of avoiding or mitigating
an environmental effect?
BMP: Best Management Practice; WQMP: Water Quality Management Plan; NPDES: National Pollutant Discharge Elimination Systems; LID: Low Impact Development; Caltrans: California Department of Transportation; RCB: reinforced concrete box; RAP: Remedial Action Plan; ACM: asbestos - containing
materials; LBP: lead -based paint; RHNA: Regional Housing Needs Assessment; NBR -PC: Newport Banning Ranch Planned Community Development Plan; SCAG: Southern California Association of Governments; MPAH: Orange County Master Plan of Arterial Highways; SCAQMD: South Coast Air Quality
Management District; AQMP: Air Quality Management Plan; NOx: nitrogen oxide; MM: mitigation measure; VOC: volatile organic compound; CO: carbon monoxide; VMT: vehicle miles traveled;03 ozone; TAC: toxic air contaminants; GHG: greenhouse gas; MTCO2elyr: metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent per
year; dBA: A- weighted decibels; CNEL: Community Noise Equivalent Level; RWQCB: Regional Water Quality Control Board.
R: \Projects \Newport\J015 \!Draft EIR\7.0 Alts- 09031 1.doc 7 -29 Newport Banning Ranch
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Alternatives to the
TABLE 7 -3
COMPATIBILITY COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES WITH PROJECT OBJECTIVES
Section 7.0
R9ProleatslNewpaMJ0151IDreft EIR7.0 AQ - 090311 dac 7 -30 Newport Banning Ranch
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Alternatives
A
B
C
D
E
F
Increased
Open Space &
No North
Reduced
Reduced
Open Space/
Community
Bluff Road
Footprint &
Footprint &
Reduced
Project Objective
Project
No Build
Park
Extension
1,200 DU
1,375 DU
Footprint
1. Provide a Project that implements the goals and policies that the Newport Beach General Plan has established for the Banning Ranch area.
•
O
•
•
•
•
•
2. Preservation of a minimum of 50 percent of the Project site as open space to be used for habitat conservation, interpretive trails, and development
•
O
•
•
•
•
•
of public parks to meet the recreational needs of the community without the use of public funds.
3. Development of a residential village of 1,375 residential units, offering a variety of housing types in a range of housing prices, including provision of
•
O
O
•
•
•
affordable housing to help meet the City's Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA).
4. Development of 75 overnight accommodations in a small resort inn including ancillary facilities and services such as a spa, meeting rooms, shops,
O
O
•
O
O
O
bars, and restaurants that would be open to the public.
5. Development of 75,000 square feet of retail commercial uses oriented to serve the needs of local residents and visitors utilizing the resort inn and
•
O
O
•
•
•
the coastal recreational opportunities provided as part of the Project.
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
•
O
O
•
•
•
•
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
•
O
•
•
•
•
•
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
•
O
•
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
•
O
•
•
•
•
•
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
•
O
•
•
•
•
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
•
O
•
•
•
•
and the creation of an endowment or other funding program.
12. Expand public recreational opportunities within the Coastal Zone, by providing sites suitable for development by the City of a public Community
•
O
•
•
•
•
•
Park and associated parking, and through development of publicly accessible 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
•
O
•
•
•
•
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
•
O
O
•
•
•
•
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
•
O
•
•
•
•
to create fire- resistant habitat restoration areas within currently denuded, invasive - species laden, and /or otherwise degraded areas.
16. Provide compatibility between the Project and existing adjacent land uses.
1 •
O
•
•
•
•
•
Legend:
• = Fully Implements
. = Partially Implements
O = Does Not Implement
R9ProleatslNewpaMJ0151IDreft EIR7.0 AQ - 090311 dac 7 -30 Newport Banning Ranch
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Section 7.0
Alternatives to the
7.5.1 ALTERNATIVE A: NO PROJECT
Description of the Alternative
Section 15126.6(e)(2) of the State CEQA Guidelines (14 CCR) specifies the following:
The "no project" analysis shall discuss the existing conditions at the time the
Notice of Preparation [NOP] is published, at the time environmental analysis is
commenced, as well as what would be reasonably expected to occur in the
foreseeable future if the project were not approved, based on current plans and
consistent with available infrastructure and community services.
Section 15126.6(e)(3)(B) of the State CEQA Guidelines indicates that when the project is not a
land use or regulatory plan, the "no project' alternative
is the circumstance under which the project does not proceed. Here the
discussion would compare the environmental effects of the property remaining in
its existing state against environmental effects which would occur if the project is
approved. If disapproval of the project under consideration would result in
predictable actions by others ... this "no project" consequence should be
discussed.
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 existing
California Coastal Act regulatory exemption for petroleum production.' No uses other than oil
operations would occur on the Project site. Further 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
requirements. This Alternative would not require any of the following: (1) an amendment to the
City of Newport Beach General Plan or Orange County MPAH; (2) a zone change; (3) a Coastal
Development Permit; or (4) any of the other actions associated with the proposed Newport
Banning Ranch Project. Approximately 361 acres of the 401.1 -acre site within the City's Sphere
of Influence would not be annexed into the City of Newport Beach.
The Project site is an active oilfield operation that has been in active operation since the
mid- 1940s. Existing oil operations include 489 oil well sites and related oil facility infrastructure,
including pipelines, storage tanks, power poles, machinery, improved and unimproved
roadways, buildings, and oil processing facilities. Of the approximately 489 oil well sites, the City
operates 16 wells and an oil processing facility near the southwestern boundary of the Project
site, as accessed from West Coast Highway near the southwest corner of the Project site. The
remainder of the oil wells are operated by West Newport Oil Company.
Oil operations are subject to existing Coastal Commission Exemption E- 7 -27 -73 -144. It is
anticipated that oil production would continue on the Project site for an additional 30 to 40 years.
' The majority of the Project site is within the County of Orange jurisdiction, which does not have any restrictions
on expanded oil exploration. With the No Project/No Development Alternative the site would not be annexed into
the City of Newport Beach; therefore, the City restrictions on new oil exploration would not be applicable. New
and replacement wells are drilled, as necessary, as part of ongoing oil operations. Though the precise number
and location of new and replacement wells is not known, it is reasonable to assume that continued drilling would
occur as part of the No Project Alternative within the parameters of the Coastal Development Permit Exemption.
R:TrojectMNewpartU015Mrafi EIR7.0 Nf 090311.tlac 7 -31 Newport Banning Ranch
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Section 7.0
Alternatives to the
It is also assumed that no permits or approvals would be required for this Alternative since it
reflects a continuation of the existing uses.
Comparative Analysis of Environmental Impacts
Land Use and Related Planning Programs
The No Project Alternative (Alternative A) would not create any new development or cause
increases in the resident population of the City. Therefore, there would be no impact associated
with Threshold 4.1 -1, which pertains to physically dividing an established community. As with
the proposed Project, this impact is considered less than significant for Alternative A. However,
this Alternative does avoid the significant and unavoidable land use compatibility impacts
associated noise and night lighting associated with the proposed Project.
Alternative A assumes the 361 acres within County jurisdiction would not be annexed to the City
of Newport Beach. Therefore, the City General Plan policies would not be applicable to the
majority of the Project site. However, since the Project site is within the City's Sphere of
Influence, the City General Plan has been developed with the vision that the Newport Banning
Ranch property would be developed consistent with City land use designations and zoning. Not
annexing the Project site would conflict with applicable land use policies that have assumed that
Newport Banning Ranch would become part of the City. In addition, it would conflict with the
Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) policy that encourages the elimination of
unincorporated islands through annexation. The Project site would not provide for visitor - serving
or recreational land uses that have been assumed in the General Plan. This Alternative would
be inconsistent with the land use policies of the General Plan. For Threshold 4.1 -2, Alternative A
would have greater impacts than the proposed Project.
Aesthetics and Visual Resources
Under the Alternative A scenario, the existing land uses would continue, with 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. The City
does not have any designated scenic vistas, and West Coast Highway is not a State- or locally
designated scenic highway. Therefore, Alternative A would not result in an adverse effect on a
scenic vista (Threshold 4.2 -1). As determined in Section 4.2, Aesthetics, the proposed Project
would have no impact on a scenic vista.
Under this Alternative, the aesthetic character of the Project site would not change substantially.
Alternative A would not result in topographical changes or modifications to the Project site.
There would be fewer visual changes to the Project site than those anticipated to occur under
the proposed Project. While there could be areas that may convert from natural vegetation to oil
exploration /production as a result of ongoing oilfield operations, the overall character of the area
would remain the same. While Alternative A would reduce the change to visual character of the
Project site compared to the proposed Project, the impact for both the proposed Project and
Alternative A would remain less than significant (Threshold 4.2 -2). Additionally, it should be
noted that Alternative A does not provide for enhancement or restoration of the Project site.
Because Alternative A would not involve development of the Project site, no impacts related to
light and glare would occur, and no impacts associated with Threshold 4.2 -3 would occur. The
proposed Project would result in increased lighting on the Project site; this is considered a
significant and unavoidable impact. Since there would be no light or glare introduced as part of
RTrojetMNewpartU015Mrafi EIR7.0 Nt090311.tloc 7 -32 Newport Banning Ranch
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Section 7.0
Alternatives to the
Alternative A, this Alternative would eliminate the significant, unavoidable night lighting impact
associated with the proposed Project.
This Alternative would not meet the goals and policies as well as the proposed Project would.
Though Alternative A would not alter the existing conditions on site, it would not meet the
long -term goals of enhancing the public viewsheds. The site would remain relatively
undeveloped; it would continue to operate as an oilfield, and would not be publically accessible.
Though City General Plan policies would not be applicable to this Alternative because the
majority of the Project site would remain within County jurisdiction, overall it could marginally be
found to be consistent with the intent of the aesthetic resources goals and policies of the City of
Newport Beach General Plan and the California Coastal Act (Threshold 4.2 -4).
Geology and Soils
With Alternative A, some on -site grading would occur associated with ongoing oilfield operations
and potential new drilling. However, substantially less grading would occur under Alternative A
than would be associated with the proposed Project. This Alternative would not expose people
or structures to substantial adverse effects from rupture of a known earthquake fault
(Threshold 4.3 -1); seismic ground shaking (Threshold 4.3 -2); seismic - related ground failure,
including liquefaction (Threshold 4.3 -3); landslides (Threshold 4.3 -4). Additionally, it would not
be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable (Threshold 4.3 -6). Because there would be
limited on -site grading and no new development on the Project site, minimal soil erosion or the
loss of topsoil (Threshold 4.3 -5), except to the extent occasioned by permitted oil operations
and exploration, would be expected. Though the proposed Project would utilize Best
Management Practices (BMPs) to minimize soil erosion and loss of topsoil, Alternative A would
result in less impacts of this nature than the proposed Project.
On -site soils have a low to medium expansion potential; however, because there would be such
limited on -site grading, this Alternative would not create substantial risks to life or property from
expansive soils (Threshold 4.3 -7). Impacts with Alternative A would be less than those
associated with the proposed Project, which would minimize impacts through compliance with
the proposed Mitigation Program.
Though with this alternative scenario, the majority of the Project site would not be within the
jurisdictional boundaries of the City of Newport Beach, to ensure the analysis is comparable to
that done for the other alternatives, a consistency evaluation with applicable General Plan
policies from the Natural Resources Element and Safety Element and the California Coastal Act
was conducted (Threshold 4.3 -8). The applicable policies pertain to requirements associated
with siting new development on the Project site and preserving the site's natural topography and
features as a visual resource. This Alternative would only result in on -site grading associated
with ongoing oilfield operations, and it would not create new development on the Project site.
Both Alternative A and the proposed Project would be consistent with applicable policies.
The geotechnical impacts associated with the proposed Project would be reduced to less than
significant levels; the impacts with Alternative A would be less than with the proposed Project
because no construction activities are proposed.
Hydrology and Water Quality
Alternative A assumes that limited on -site grading would occur associated with ongoing oilfield
operations and potential new drilling. However, substantially less grading would occur under
Alternative A than would be associated with the proposed Project. Although not to the same
RTrojetMNewpartU015VOrafi EIR7.0 NL090311.tloc 7 -33 Newport Banning Ranch
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Section 7.0
Alternatives to the
extent as the proposed Project, there may be an increase in impervious surface or runoff and
the concentration of pollutants in storm water runoff may occur with Alternative A; however, it is
reasonable to assume that source - control and treatment - control BMPs would be required to
reduce impacts. Though Alternative A would result in fewer impacts from disturbance on site, it
would not provide the beneficial effects associated with natural treatment of runoff from off site.
The proposed Project incorporates two water quality basins (one in the Community Park and
one in the Open Space Preserve) to treat off -site urban runoff from Costa Mesa and Newport
Beach, as well as from the Project site (PDF 4.4 -1). As a result, Alternative A would have
greater potential water quality impacts than the proposed Project (Thresholds 4.4 -1, 4.4 -6,
4.4 -11, 4.4 -12, and 4.4 -13).
Although this Alternative would not involve changes to any existing drainage patterns, the
potential for an incremental increase in erosion on the Project site exists due to the additional
on -site grading that would likely be associated with ongoing oilfield operations and potential new
drilling. However, compared to the proposed Project, potential impacts would be less with
Alternative A (Thresholds 4.4 -3 and 4.4 -15).
This Alternative would not create any new development on the Project site; therefore, it would
not deplete groundwater supplies or interfere with groundwater recharge. Though the proposed
Project would not draw on local groundwater, groundwater recharge would decrease under
Project conditions due to a reduction in pervious surface area. Therefore, Alternative A would
have fewer potential impacts than the proposed Project on groundwater levels. Impervious
surfaces may increase as a result of ongoing oilfield operations, which would result in an
increase in peak flow runoff or runoff volumes from the site; however, they would not increase to
the same extent as the proposed Project (Thresholds 4.4 -2, 4.4 -4 and 4.4 -14). This Alternative
would generally maintain the current storm flow conditions and would not create or contribute
runoff water that would affect the capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems.
The proposed Project would implement improvements to the storm drain system. With the
Project, peak flow rates would be less than those in the existing condition and the storm drain
would experience reduced flood loading compared with the existing condition. Therefore, though
the impacts would be less than significant, Alternative A would have greater impacts on the
storm drain system than the proposed Project because it would not provide any improvements
(Threshold 4.4 -5).
The proposed Project housing would be located outside the 100 -year floodplain. Since this
Alternative would not include any new structures, no development or new land uses would be
placed within a 100 -year floodplain. Both the proposed Project and Alternative A would have no
impacts pursuant to Thresholds 4.4 -7 and 4.4 -8.
The Project site is located at the lower end of the watershed and is not located within any dam
inundation areas. As with the proposed Project, this Alternative would not result in development
and /or structures, people, and /or structures would not be exposed to significant risk associated
with the failure of a levee or dam (Threshold 4.4 -9).
There are no permanent standing water bodies in the Upland area, and inundation by tsunami is
not likely because of Project site elevations and the City's existing Emergency Management
Plan. Therefore, this Alternative would not be subject to inundation by seiche, tsunami, or
mudflow. In addition, Alternative A does not propose any structures that would be affected by
inundation or mudflows; therefore, the impacts would be less than the proposed Project
(Threshold 4.4 -10).
R:TrojectslNewpartU015VDrafi EIR7.0 Nf 090311.tloc 7 -34 Newport Banning Ranch
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Section 7.0
Alternatives to the
Alternative A would not implement City policies established to protect water quality of natural
water bodies or promote pollution prevention. However, it should also be noted that, with this
Alternative, the majority of the Project site would continue to be outside the jurisdictional limits of
the City since annexation would not occur. This Alternative would not implement the other
General Plan policies associated with water quality enhancement as outlined in Table 4.4 -25,
City of Newport Beach General Plan Consistency Evaluation, and Table 4.4 -26, California
Coastal Act Consistency Analysis (Threshold 4.4 -16). This Alternative would also continue the
current condition of allowing untreated runoff to enter the Semeniuk Slough and Lowland area.
For this threshold, Alternative A would have greater impacts than the proposed Project.
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Alternative A would allow for minor ground disturbance activities associated with ongoing oilfield
operations; however, potential impacts related to Thresholds 4.5 -1 and 4.5 -2 —which pertain to
the creation of hazards associated with the transport, use, disposal and /or emissions of
hazardous materials and location on an identified hazardous materials site —would be less than
the proposed Project because any increase in operations would be minimal. Alternative A would
not modify ongoing operations, nor would it provide for the consolidation and remediation of a
majority of the site in the near term. However, remediation would be required consistent with
State and local requirements upon the future cessation of oilfield activities. The degree of
cleanup is determined by the future use of a property.
There would be n
existing schools; h
potentially result in
soil disturbance dt
Therefore, this
(Threshold 4.5 -3).
operations, which
> substantial change in emissions or generation of wastes in proximity to
wever, the proposed Project's grading and site remediation processes could
the release of contaminants, predominantly hydrocarbons, into the air during
e to aeration during handling (i.e., earth moving) of the contaminated soils.
Uternative would have fewer impacts than the proposed Project
However, Alternative A would not provide for the consolidation of oil
vould move oil extraction activities further from the existing schools or site
remediation. The Project site is not identified on the Cortese List, which
Section 65962.5 of the California Government Code (Threshold 4.5 -4).
is compiled pursuant to
Threshold 4.5 -5 pertains to consistency with any applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted
for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. The majority of the Project site
would not be within the City's jurisdictional limits because this Alternative does not propose
annexation. The evaluation of consistency with applicable City policies has been prepared to
provide a comparison with the proposed Project. The No Project Alternative would not
implement applicable policies because it would not provide for the consolidation of oilfield
activities for the remediation of the site. The policies, which were outlined in Table 4.5 -5, City of
Newport Beach General Plan Consistency Evaluation, call for (1) the prohibiting new oil and gas
extraction activities; (2) the consolidating and /or relocating existing oil operations; (3) limiting
hazards associated with oil operations; and (4) assessing and, if necessary, remediating soil
and groundwater contamination. This Alternative would be inconsistent with provisions of the
General Plan. For this threshold, Alternative A would have greater impacts than the proposed
Project.
Biological Resources
Alternative A would not result in on -site grading associated with new development and would
not create any new development on the Project site; however, it could include the continuation
and possible expansion of oil exploration and oil production operations consistent with existing
permits and approvals. By not developing the Project site, impacts on special status species
RTrojectMNewpon\JO IDrafi EIR7.0 Nt 090311.tloc 7 -35 Newport Banning Ranch
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Section 7.0
Alternatives to the
would be less than the proposed Project due to the limited nature of site disturbance that would
occur. With Alternative A, there would be no substantial adverse effect on special status species
(Threshold 4.6 -1). However, it cannot be stated that there would be no impacts because the
continuation and possible expansion of oil exploration /production is anticipated to continue to
degrade the existing habitat that supports special status species. These impacts could be
considered significant depending on the extent of unforeseen exploration and production
activities. In addition, the proposed Project includes revegetation of native habitat areas,
including, but not limited to, coastal sage scrub and vernal pools. These habitat types, along
with several others on site, have been impacted on site and throughout their range by invasive
non - native plant species. The proposed Project revegetation has the potential to result in a
higher long -term habitat quality (i.e., invasive species removed, human activity and disturbance
related to oilfield operations removed, and larger blocks of contiguous native habitat). However,
because Alternative A does not provide for any mechanism to require revegetation of native
habitats on site or to remove invasive non - native species, implementation of Alternative A would
allow for the continued decline of the native plant and wildlife species on site due to the lack of
required active resource management. Therefore, in the long -term, this Alternative would have
potentially greater impacts to these resources than would the proposed Project.
Due to the lack of development proposed, Alternative A would not involve a substantial adverse
effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional
plans, policies, regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG), the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), or the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) (Thresholds
4.6 -2 and 4.6 -3). However, as discussed above, the continuation and possible expansion of oil
exploration /production would continue to degrade the existing riparian and sensitive habitat
areas. These impacts could be considered significant depending on the extent of unforeseen
exploration and production activities. However, since impacts to riparian habitat would require
mitigation, it is assumed these impacts would be reduced to less than significant levels.
Presumably, there would be the ability to minimize impacts to riparian habitat with Alternative A
because the oil drilling operations would not require as much site disturbance as the proposed
Project. Therefore, the impacts would be less than those of the proposed Project.
This Alternative would not create any new development on the Project site; therefore, it would
not interfere with the movement of any native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, nor would it
impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites (Threshold 4.6 -4). Therefore, Alternative A would
have fewer impacts than the proposed Project for Thresholds 4.6 -4.
As with the proposed Project, this Alternative would also not conflict with any local policies or
ordinances protecting biological resources or provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation
Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or State habitat
conservation plan (Threshold 4.6 -5).
Population, Housing, and Employment
Alternative A would not (1) create any new jobs; (2) involve the development of additional
housing; or (3) cause increases in the resident population of the City. Therefore, there would be
no impact associated with Threshold 4.7 -1, which pertains to inducing substantial population
growth. This impact is considered less than significant with the proposed Project.
Threshold 4.7 -2 pertains to consistency with any applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted
for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. The General Plan identifies the
Newport Banning Ranch site as a location within the City that can provide opportunities for
residential development. This Alternative would not provide any housing opportunities to assist
RAProjects\Newpan 101SNnrafi EIR7.0 Nt 090311.tloc 7 -36 Newport Banning Ranch
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Section 7.0
Alternatives to the
the City in meeting their Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) goals, whereas the
proposed Project, if approved, would provide housing and has provisions to help to meet the
City's affordable housing requirements.
The General Plan Housing Element identifies several areas where land use changes may be
anticipated over the next 20 years, including new residential opportunities. In addition to the
Newport Banning Ranch site, new residential development is expected to occur as infill housing
and replacement of previously permitted retail and office development capacity. The key
opportunity areas identified in the Housing Element are Newport Banning Ranch, Corona del
Mar, West Newport Mesa, Mariner's Mile, Balboa Peninsula, Dover Drive /Westcliff Drive,
Newport Center, the Balboa Peninsula, and Airport Area. With Alternative A, the City would
need to ensure that these remaining areas (i.e., the above - listed except for Newport Banning
Ranch) provide housing opportunities, including affordable housing. Given the near - built -out
nature of the City, elimination of housing on the Newport Banning Ranch site would require a
greater concentration of housing, including affordable housing, in these locations.
As discussed in Section 4.7 of this EIR, the proposed Project's 1,375 units represent
approximately 36 percent of the City's total new housing between 2010 and 2035 as projected
by California Demographic Research. The Project represents approximately 48 percent of the
City's total new units as projected by the City's General Plan by 2025 (between 2010 and
2025).This could be accommodated only by increasing the density elsewhere in the City.
Increasing density elsewhere may require a General Plan Amendment(s). The City Charter
Section 423 requires a vote if the number of dwelling units in any statistical area is increased by
more than 100. Therefore, Alternative A is not as effective as the proposed Project at meeting
the City RHNA goals if Newport Banning Ranch is not developed with housing.
Alternative A. would not provide the open space and recreational opportunities envisioned by
the Open Space designation on the General Plan and it would not provide the housing and
employment uses envisioned by the Residential Village designation. This Alternative would not
conflict with California Coastal Act provision pertaining to population and housing; however, it
would not provide for any visitor - serving uses. Therefore, Alternative A would have greater
impacts than the proposed Project for Threshold 4.7 -2.
Recreation and Trails
Because Alternative A would not involve the generation of a new residential population, no
impacts to existing recreational facilities would occur. Since this Alternative would not provide
for the development of any recreational facilities, there would be no impacts associated with
Thresholds 4.8 -1, 4.8 -2, and 4.8 -3, which all pertain to physical impacts associated with
construction of recreational facilities or accelerated physical deterioration associated with
increased use of existing facilities. There would be fewer impacts under this Alternative on the
Project site than with the proposed Project, which would result in impacts associated with the
provision of new parkland. However, if this Alternative were selected for implementation, the
housing and population envisioned under the General Plan for the Project site would have to be
located elsewhere in the City. Based upon the Alternative locations discussed above in which
these housing units would be developed (see Population, Housing and Employment discussion
above), the City would be less able to accommodate recreational facilities as compared to the
proposed Project.
With Alternative A, the Project site would not be annexed into the City. Therefore, the City
policies would not be applicable to the majority of the Project site. The evaluation of policy
consistency (Threshold 4.8 -4) has been provided because the City General Plan has assumed
R:TrojectMNewpartU015VDrafi EIR7.0 Nf 090311.tloc 7 -37 Newport Banning Ranch
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Section 7.0
Alternatives to the
that the property would become part of the City of Newport Beach and function to meet long-
term recreational needs in the City. The General Plan's Land Use Policy 6.5.2 identifies the
need for a Community Park to be located on the Project site, which would not occur under
Alternative A. In addition, by not providing any development, this Alternative would not
implement the other General Plan policies associated with recreational enhancement. The
policies, which were outlined in Table 4.8 -3, City of Newport Beach General Plan Consistency
Evaluation, call for enhancing visitor - serving uses; providing a network of trails to connect
neighborhoods with Community Parklands and natural habitats; and providing improved
recreational facilities within the City. This Alternative would be inconsistent with provisions of the
General Plan. For this threshold, Alternative A would have greater impacts than the proposed
Project.
Transportation and Circulation
Under this scenario, no new traffic would be generated by development of the Project site and
no roads would be constructed through or onto the Project site? With the exception of limited
vehicular trips onto the Project site associated with existing oilfield operations, no vehicular trips
would be generated. There is no public access on the site.
Existing Conditions
Within the traffic study area, all intersections are currently operating at an acceptable level of
service (i.e., level of service [LOS] D or better) except for the three Costa Mesa intersections
listed below (intersections numbered as identified in Section 4.9, Transportation and
Circulation).
26. Newport Boulevard at Victoria Street122nd Street (AM: LOS E)
36. Newport Boulevard at Harbor Boulevard (PM: LOS E)
37. Newport Boulevard at 18th Street/Rochester Street (PM: LOS E)
The Congestion Management Plan (CMP) intersection of Newport Boulevard at West Coast
Highway is operating at LOS D in the AM peak hour and LOS B in the PM peak hour. As such,
this intersection is currently operating at an acceptable level of service based on CMP criteria.
With respect to State Highway intersections in the traffic study area, all intersections are
currently operating at an acceptable level of service (LOS C or better) except for the following
intersection in the City of Costa Mesa:
26. Newport Boulevard at Victoria Street/22nd Street, (AM: LOS D)
Existing Plus Project
With Alternative A, the findings for the Existing Plus Project scenario would be the same as the
Existing Conditions because there no additional traffic would be generated by Alternative A.
With the proposed Project there would be greater impacts because in addition to the existing
deficiencies (Intersections 26, 36, and 37), the Superior Avenue at 17th Street intersection
(Intersection No. 43) declines from an acceptable to an unacceptable LOS.
This assumption is consistent with the definition of a No Project Alternative. Although no roads would be
constructed through or onto the Project site, this Alternative would not preclude future implementation of the
roadways.
R:TroJe tMNewpartU015Mrafi EIR7.0 Nt 090311,dac 7 -38 Newport Banning Ranch
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Alternatives to the
2016 Cumulative
Section 7.0
The intersections listed below are forecasted to operate at deficient levels of service in 2016
without development on the Project site.
City of Newport Beach
9. Newport Boulevard at West Coast Highway (AM: LOS E)
City of Costa Mesa
26. Newport Boulevard at Victoria Street/22nd Street (AM: LOS F)
36. Newport Boulevard at Harbor Boulevard (PM: LOS F)
37. Newport Boulevard at 181h Street/Rochester Street (PM: LOS F)
Because Alternative A would not generate any additional traffic, these deficiencies would not be
associated with implementation of this Alternative. By comparison, with the addition of proposed
Project - related traffic, the following eight intersections would be impacted:
City of Newport Beach
9. Newport Boulevard at West Coast Highway (AM: LOS E)
City of Costa Mesa
28. Monrovia Avenue at 191h Street (AM: LOS E)
34. Newport Boulevard at 19th Street (PM: LOS E)
36. Newport Boulevard at Harbor Boulevard (PM: LOS F)
37. Newport Boulevard at 18th Street /Rochester Street (PM: LOS F)
42. Pomona Avenue at 17th Street (PM: LOS F)
43. Superior Avenue at 17th Street (PM: LOS E)
44. Newport Boulevard at 171h Street (PM: LOS E)
In addition, Newport Boulevard at Victoria Street/22nd Street (intersection 26) would operate at a
deficient LOS; however, this would not be as a result of Project related traffic.
General Plan Buildout
Under the General Plan Buildout scenario for Alternative A, the intersections listed below are
forecasted to operate at a deficient LOS without any new development.
City of Huntington Beach
19. Magnolia Street at Pacific Coast Highway (PM: LOS F, no Project impact)
City of Costa Mesa
34. Newport Boulevard at 191h Street (AM: LOS F, Project Impact: 0.011)
36. Newport Boulevard at Harbor Boulevard (PM: LOS F, Project impact: 0.011)
37. Newport Boulevard at 181h Street/Rochester Street (PM: LOS F, no Project impact)
R:TrojectMNewpartU015Mmft EIR7.0 Nt 090311.doc 7-39 Newport Banning Ranch
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Section 7.0
Alternatives to the
44. Newport Boulevard at 171h Street (PM: LOS E, no Project impact)
48. Irvine Avenue at 171h Street (PM: LOS E, no Project impact)
Since Alternative A would not generate any additional traffic, these impacts would not be
associated with Alternative A. With the addition of Project - related traffic, two of the six
intersections would have Project related impacts: Newport Boulevard at 19th Street and Newport
Boulevard at Harbor Boulevard.
Significant and unavoidable impacts to intersections in the Cities of Newport Beach and Costa
Mesa would not occur under Alternative A because no additional traffic would be generated
from the property. Therefore with respect to Threshold 4.9 -1, no impact would occur associated
with Alternative A.
This Alternative would also not conflict with the CMP (Threshold 4.9 -2). As with the proposed
Project, Alternative A would not substantially increase hazards due to a design feature,
incompatible land uses, or inadequate emergency access (Threshold 4.9 -3). No parking impacts
would occur (Threshold 4.9 -4).
With respect to Threshold 4.9 -5, which addresses consistency with transportation - related plans,
policies, and regulations, Alternative A would not implement the City of Newport Beach General
Plan Circulation Element's Master Plan of Streets and Highways or the Orange County MPAH.
The Master Plan of Streets and Highways and the Orange County MPAH depict a north -south
roadway through the Project site. This road would not be constructed under this Alternative.
15th Street currently terminates at Monrovia Avenue and is designated on the City's General
Plan and the Orange County MPAH as a Primary (four -lane divided) west of Bluff Road.
Between Bluff Road and Monrovia Avenue, the City classifies it as a Primary and the Orange
County MPAH as a Secondary. The City depicts the westerly extension of 15th Street to West
Coast Highway through the Project site. As a part of the proposed Project, the deletion of the
extension of 15th Street from the Master Plan of Streets and Highways is proposed. Under this
Alternative, however, the 15th Street extension would not be constructed. The Project's traffic
analysis (see Section 4.9) has determined that a second road connection through the Project
site to West Coast Highway is not required.
Extending 16th Street from its existing western terminus onto the Project site would not occur as
a part of this Alternative. The proposed Project assumes an amendment to the Orange County
MPAH to delete a second road through the Project site to West Coast Highway. The Orange
County MPAH identifies this second roadway connection from 17th Street westerly to West
Coast Highway. This would not occur under Alternative A.
Because Alternative A does not propose to implement any of the planned facilities, an
amendment to these planning documents is not proposed. This Alternative would not preclude
the future implementation of the roadways. However, it would have greater impacts with policy
consistency than the Project because it would result in substantial delays in the implementation
of the improvements proposed in circulation planning documents.
Air Quality
With Alternative A, because there would be no development, there would be no exceedance of
the assumptions used to develop the SCAQMD Air Quality Management Plans (AQMPs);
Alternative A would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of either the SCAQMD AQMPs
RTrojetMNewpartU015Mrafi EIR7.0 Nt090311.tloc 740 Newport Banning Ranch
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Section 7.0
Alternatives to the
(Threshold 4.10 -1) or other applicable policies of agencies with jurisdiction over the Project
(Threshold 4.10 -6).
Under Alternative A, there would be minimal activities associated with construction equipment
operations or fugitive dust generation; also, there would not be long -term use of natural gas,
consumer products, landscape equipment, or vehicles associated with development of
residential and commercial land uses. The possible expansion of oil exploration and production
could produce both temporary and long -term emissions of pollutants. It would be speculative to
estimate the magnitude of emissions from increased oilfield activities, but it may be assumed
that (1) temporary exploration and installation emissions would be substantially less than the
emissions estimated for constructing the proposed Project, which are provided in Table 4.10 -7,
Estimated Maximum Daily Construction Emissions; Unmitigated; (2) long -term stationary source
emissions would be limited by South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) permit
requirements; and (3) increased long -term mobile source emissions for oilfield operations would
be substantially less than the emissions estimated for vehicles that would operate after
completion of the first phase of the proposed Project, which were found to be less than
significant (Table 4.10 -9).
The impacts for Alternative A pursuant to Thresholds 4.10 -2 and 4.10 -3 would be less than for
the proposed Project. There would be no emissions that would violate any air quality standard
or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation (Threshold 4.10 -2); or
result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the Project
region is in nonattainment under applicable National or California Ambient Air Quality Standards
(NAAQS or CAAQS, respectively) (Threshold 4.10 -3); There would be no significant air quality
impacts under this Alternative, whereas the proposed Project would have significant and
unavoidable impacts during construction (Threshold 4.10 -2) and long -term operation
(Threshold 4.10 -3).
With the proposed Project there would be no toxic air contaminant (TAC) emissions from on -site
commercial activities or exposure of on -site residents to TACs (Threshold 4.10 -4). Since
Alternative A does not propose any development there would be no impacts associated with
TAC. Additionally, neither the proposed Project nor Alternative A would create objectionable
odors affecting a substantial number of people (Threshold 4.10 -5).
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Under Alternative A, there would be no construction activities or associated construction
equipment operations or development of residential, park, and commercial land uses. Thus,
there would be no short-term greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from construction activities or
long -term GHG emissions from vehicles or the consumption of electricity, natural gas, and water
associated with operations of residential, recreational, and commercial land uses. The possible
expansion of oil exploration and production would result in temporary and long -term emissions
of GHGs; these emissions would be substantially less than the threshold of 6,000 metric tons of
carbon dioxide equivalent per year (MTCO2e /yr) and substantially less than the amount
forecasted for the proposed Project (Threshold 4.11 -1). However, it should be noted that the
proposed Project would be providing housing in a jobs -rich area, which would help offset an
incremental portion of the regional emissions. Neither the proposed Project nor Alternative A
would conflict with applicable plans, policies, or regulations adopted for the purpose of reducing
GHG emissions (Threshold 4.11 -2).
R:TrojectslNewpartU015VDrafI EIR7.0 Nf 090311.tloc 741 Newport Banning Ranch
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Alternatives to the
Noise
Section 7.0
With Alternative A, there would be no construction activities or associated construction
equipment operations or development of residential, park, and commercial land uses. Thus,
there would be no construction noise impacts or long -term impacts from vehicles or stationary
sources associated with operation of residential, recreational, and commercial land uses. The
possible expansion of oil exploration and production could cause temporary noise impacts
depending on the location and hours of drilling. Because of the distance from the oilfields to
existing residences and the temporary nature of the drilling, the impacts would be less than
significant. There would be no substantial temporary or permanent increase in noise levels
(Thresholds 4.12 -2 and 4.12 -4) or exposure of persons to or generation of noise or vibration
levels in excess of standards (Thresholds 4.12 -1 and 4.12 -3). Therefore, Alternative A would
have fewer impacts compared to the proposed Project, which would have potential significant
and unavoidable impacts associated with construction and operations.
The Project site is not within an airport land use plan or near a private airstrip; there would be no
impacts from excessive aircraft noise levels (Thresholds 4.12 -5 and 4.12 -6). Alternative A noise
levels would not conflict with policies applicable to the Project (Threshold 4.12 -7). Overall,
impacts of Alternative A related to noise would be less than the proposed Project.
Cultural and Paleontological Resources
Under Alternative A, the Project site would remain in its current condition and no direct or
indirect impacts to surrounding historic resources would occur (Threshold 4.13 -1). Because
Alternative A would not involve excavation or grading activities beyond possible expansion of oil
exploration and oil production operations, the potential to discover previously unidentified
archaeological (Threshold 4.13 -2) or paleontological resources (Threshold 4.13 -3) would be
reduced compared to the proposed Project. For this same reason, Alternative A would have a
reduced potential for disturbance of human remains, including those interred outside formal
cemeteries (Threshold 4.13 -4). The impacts to cultural resources with Alternative A would be
less than that of the proposed Project.
Threshold 4.13 -5 pertains to consistency with any applicable plans, policies, or regulations
adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. Since this Alternative
assumes the Project site would not be annexed, the City's policies would not be applicable.
However, Alternative A would not conflict with applicable land use, historic resource, or natural
resource policies because it would not disturb known cultural resource sites. As a result, similar
to the proposed Project, this Alternative would be consistent with provisions of the General Plan.
Public Services and Facilities
The public services and facilities evaluated in the EIR include the following: Fire Protection,
Police Protection, Schools, Library Services, and Solid Waste. Because Alternative A would not
involve new development, no impacts to these public services and facilities would occur. Since
this Alternative would not provide for the development of any fire protection, police protection,
schools, library services, or solid waste facilities, there would be no impacts associated with
Thresholds 4.14 -1 (fire services), 4.14 -3 (police services), 4.14 -5 (schools), 4.14 -7 (library
services), or 4.14 -9 (solid waste), which all pertain to physical impacts associated with
construction of new public service facilities or accelerated physical deterioration associated with
increased usage of existing facilities. For all services, Alternative A would have less impact than
the proposed Project.
RTrojetMNewpartU015Mrafi EIR7.0 Nt090311.tloc 742 Newport Banning Ranch
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Section 7.0
Alternatives to the
Thresholds 4.14 -2 (fire services), 4.14 -4 (police services), 4.14 -6 (schools), 4.14 -8 (library
services), and 4.14 -10 (solid waste) pertain to consistency with any applicable plan, policy, or
regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect.
Alternative A would not provide the infrastructure, nor would it implement the vision for the site
provided for in the General Plan. However, it would be a continuation of the existing use and
would not generate demand for the additional infrastructure. Continuation of the existing use
does not preclude implementation of service improvements off site (i.e., the site would not be a
missing link to services needed elsewhere in the City). However, the proposed Project would
provide fuel modification on the eastern boundary of the Project site, which would provide
further protection to existing homes in the City of Costa Mesa. However, it is assumed that
adequate protection was incorporated into the design when the existing housing was approved
by the City of Costa Mesa. Though the City General Plan policies would not be applicable to the
majority of the Project site because it would not be annexed into the City, neither the proposed
Project nor Alternative A would not conflict the City's policies with regard to public services and
facilities.
Utilities
The utilities evaluated in the EIR include the following: water, wastewater facilities, and energy
(electricity and natural gas). Because Alternative A would not involve the generation of a new
residential population, no impacts to water, wastewater facilities, or energy would occur. Since
this Alternative would not provide for the development of any water, wastewater facilities, or
energy facilities, there would be no impacts associated with Thresholds 4.15 -1 and 4.15 -7,
which both pertain to physical impacts associated with construction of water and energy
facilities or accelerated physical deterioration associated with increased usage of existing
facilities. In addition, since there would be no generation of a new residential population,
demand for water, wastewater facilities, and energy service would not be required and there
would be no impacts associated with Thresholds 4.15 -2, 4.15 -4, and 4.15 -5 which pertain to
water supplies, wastewater treatment requirements, and infrastructure capacity. The impact
would be less than with the proposed Project, which would generate a need for these resources.
Thresholds 4.15 -3, 4.15 -6, and 4.15 -8 pertain to consistency with any applicable plan, policy, or
regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. This
Alternative assumes the site would not be annexed into the City; therefore, the City's policies
would not be applicable to the majority of the Project site. However, since the General Plan
does assume the Newport Banning Ranch would ultimately be part of the City, a policy
evaluation has been provided for consistency. Alternative A would not implement the policies
identified for the Newport Banning Ranch site; however, the policies pertain to when
development occurs on the site (i.e., implement adequate infrastructure, sustainable
development practices, implement the Sewer System Management Plan and the Sewer Master
Plan). The continuation of the existing uses on the Newport Banning Ranch site would not
adversely affect these goals from being met elsewhere in the City. Therefore, as with the
proposed Project, there would not be an impact associated with policy consistency for
Alternative A or the proposed Project (Thresholds 4.15 -3, 4.15 -6, and 4.15 -8).
Conclusion
Alternative A would have fewer impacts than the proposed Project pertaining to potential
aesthetic impacts, geotechnical constraints, hydrology and water quality, biological impacts,
potential exposure of the public to hazardous materials (construction only), traffic, air quality,
greenhouse gasses, noise, cultural resources, and impacts associated with the construction of
public services, utilities, and recreational facilities. It should be noted that saying Alternative A
R:TrojeatslNewpartU015VOrafi EIR7.0 Nf 090311.tloc 743 Newport Banning Ranch
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Section 7.0
Alternatives to the
would have fewer impacts in these areas than the proposed Project does not imply that these
impacts would be significant and unavoidable for the proposed Project. The City's General Plan
establishes a goal and policies for the Project site to be remediated and recreational
opportunities to be provided, which would not be met with Alternative A. However, as Alternative
A assumes no annexation to the City, the City's General Plan policies would not apply to the
majority of the Project site. Additionally, both local and regional planning programs have
assumed circulation system improvements would be provided on site. This Alternative also does
not provide for fulfillment of housing goals established by RHNA.
Significant and Unavoidable Impacts
The City of Newport Beach has assumed the Project site would ultimately be annexed to the
City and has adopted land uses and policies accordingly. Alternative A would have greater
impacts than the proposed Project when evaluating consistency with City 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 and unavoidable impacts associated with land use
compatibility (due to noise and lighting impacts), aesthetics, transportation, air quality,
cumulative greenhouse gas emissions, and noise. The significant and unavoidable impacts of
the proposed Project are summarized in Section 7.3.2, Elimination /Reduction of Significant
Impacts.
Feasibility and Ability to Meet Project Objectives
In the short-term, Alternative A is potentially feasible, at least from a technological and legal
perspective, as it contemplates the continuation of the existing oil operations. Because the
property is privately owned and the extent of petroleum production activities will eventually
cease when resources are depleted or when it becomes uneconomical to continue extraction
activities with diminishing returns, some form of reuse of the Project site is expected to
ultimately occur. Therefore, long -term economic feasibility of this Alternative is questionable.
When evaluating the desirability and feasibility of an Alternative, it is also important to evaluate
the ability of the Alternative to meet the project objectives. An Alternative does not need to meet
all the project objectives to be considered potentially feasible. As outlined in Table 7 -3,
Comparison of Alternatives with Project Objectives, Alternative A does not meet any of the
project objectives.
R:TrojectslNewpartU015VDrafi EIR7.0 Nf 090311.tloc 744 Newport Banning Ranch
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Section 7.0
Alternatives to the
7.5.2 ALTERNATIVE B: GENERAL PLAN OPEN SPACE DESIGNATION
Description of the Alternative
The Newport Beach General Plan Update was adopted by the City Council on July 25, 2006,
and the land use plan was approved by the voters on November 6, 2006. The City of Newport
Beach General Plan establishes criteria and standards for land use development in the City as
well as its Sphere of Influence. The Project site
Village, OS(RV) (see Exhibit 3 -6, Newport Beach
use designation allows for both a Primary Use (open
village) of the site as described below:
Primary Use:
is designated as Open Space /Residential
Land Use Designations). The OS(RV) land
space) and an Alternative Use (residential
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 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 Land Use Element prioritizes the acquisition of the
Project site for open space. As described in the General Plan, the open space acquisition option
would include consolidation of oil operations; restoration of wetlands; the provision of nature
education and interpretative facilities and an active park containing playfields and other facilities
to serve residents of adjoining neighborhoods; and the construction of the north -south Primary
Road (Bluff Road /North Bluff Road) that extends from West Coast Highway to of 19th Street,
with connections to two east/west arterial roadways (15th Street and 17th Street). With this
Alternative, the City would be responsible for implementing the Community Park, including the
acquisition of the 31.3 acres of land designated for this use. However, the acquisition of the
remaining portion of the site, as well as funding of all remaining improvements and
maintenance, would be the responsibility of a yet unknown third party. In addition to costs
associated with site acquisition, funds would also be required to initiate consolidation of oil
operations and to address oilfield abandonment and clean -up needs as well as acceptance and
mitigation of any long -term liability exposure. Additional funding would be required to implement
restoration and long -term management of sensitive habitats and to construct park(s), roadways,
and other needed infrastructure (including sewer, water, electrical, gas and storm drain facilities)
to support the park(s) and roadways.
For purposes of the CEQA analysis in this EIR, the City has prepared a conceptual plan for
Alternative B to depict how permitted uses could be sited; the conceptual plan is depicted on
Exhibit 7 -1, Alternative B: Open Space Alternative. Table 7 -4 identifies the land uses and
acreage associated with the allowable land uses. The Community Park would have both active
4 Primary Road: A primary road /primary arterial highway is usually a four -lane, divided roadway. A primary arterial
is designed to accommodate 30,000 to 45,000 Average Daily Trips (ADT) with a typical daily capacity of 34,000
vehicles per day (VPD) (Newport Beach 2006).
R:TrojectMNewpartU015Mrafi EIR7.0 Nt 090311.tloc 745 Newport Banning Ranch
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Section 7.0
Alternatives to the
and passive park uses, consistent with the policies of the General Plan. Facilities in the park
could include picnicking; sports fields (soccer, baseball, and softball) and hard courts
(basketball and /or tennis) that are proposed to be lighted; tot lot(s); open play turf areas; a skate
park; picnic facilities; trails, restrooms; and other facilities. Parking would be provided within the
park.
TABLE 7 -4
ALTERNATIVE B: GENERAL PLAN — OPEN SPACE DESIGNATION
STATISTICAL SUMMARY
As noted, this Alternative includes the construction of roadway segments through the Project
site consistent with the City of Newport Beach Circulation Element. These roadways are: (1) a
north -south road with a southern terminus at West Coast Highway and extending to a northern
terminus at 19th Street (Bluff Road and North Bluff Road); (2) the extension of 15th Street from
its existing terminus to Bluff Road within the Project site; and (3) the extension of 17th Street
from its existing terminus to North Bluff Road within the Project site. Consistent with the
roadway assumptions for the proposed Project, North Bluff Road (extending from 17th Street to
19th Street) would transition from a four -lane divided to a two -lane undivided road to 19th Street.
A right -of -way reserve for the extension of 19th Street is assumed as part of the Project;
however, similar to the proposed Project, this segment of 19th Street is assumed to be
constructed at some point in the future.
In light of the traffic analysis prepared for the proposed Project and the limited land uses
associated with this Alternative, Alternative B assumes the deletion of the future extension of a
second road through the Project site and its connection to West Coast Highway. The circulation
network proposed for the Project would also be proposed for Alternative B. This would require
an amendment to the Circulation Element to revise Figure CE1, Master Plan of Streets and
Highways, and an amendment to the Orange County MPAH.
R:TrojectslNewpartU015Vnrafi EIR7.0 Nf 090311.tloc 746 Newport Banning Ranch
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Maximum
Maximum
Planned
Permitted
Resort Inn
Land Use District
Gross Acres'
Dwelling Units
Commercial sf
Rooms
Open Space
LOS
Lowland Open Space'
130.6
—
—
—
LOS
Upland Open Space"'
222.7
—
—
OF
Interim Oil Facilities°
16.5
—
—
—
Subtotal Open Space
369.8
—
—
—
Public Parks /Recreation
CP
I Community Park
31.3
—
—
—
Subtotal Public Parks/Recreation
31.3
—
—
—
Total Project
401.1
0
0
0
sf: square footage
Note: totals are rounded.
Grass acres are measured to centerlines of all public roads where such roads are shown on the plan. Grass acres are
computed using geographic information system (GIS) technology with accuracy to 10 decimal places. Acres are shown
in this table to one decimal place.
The Right -of -Way Reservation for the 1 e St Extension contains approximately 3.1 acres.
Gross acres for the Upland Open Space District may include fuel management zones.
° The Interim Oil Facilities (Open Space Land Use) District includes: (1) the existing oil operations site near West Coast
Highway; (2) the oil consolidation site near the middle of the Lowland; and (3) an oil access road (non- exclusive
easement) connecting the two working sites.
As noted, this Alternative includes the construction of roadway segments through the Project
site consistent with the City of Newport Beach Circulation Element. These roadways are: (1) a
north -south road with a southern terminus at West Coast Highway and extending to a northern
terminus at 19th Street (Bluff Road and North Bluff Road); (2) the extension of 15th Street from
its existing terminus to Bluff Road within the Project site; and (3) the extension of 17th Street
from its existing terminus to North Bluff Road within the Project site. Consistent with the
roadway assumptions for the proposed Project, North Bluff Road (extending from 17th Street to
19th Street) would transition from a four -lane divided to a two -lane undivided road to 19th Street.
A right -of -way reserve for the extension of 19th Street is assumed as part of the Project;
however, similar to the proposed Project, this segment of 19th Street is assumed to be
constructed at some point in the future.
In light of the traffic analysis prepared for the proposed Project and the limited land uses
associated with this Alternative, Alternative B assumes the deletion of the future extension of a
second road through the Project site and its connection to West Coast Highway. The circulation
network proposed for the Project would also be proposed for Alternative B. This would require
an amendment to the Circulation Element to revise Figure CE1, Master Plan of Streets and
Highways, and an amendment to the Orange County MPAH.
R:TrojectslNewpartU015Vnrafi EIR7.0 Nf 090311.tloc 746 Newport Banning Ranch
Draft Environmental Impact Report
B'
flg
1919 Street
-• Rgllof waY Reeer+erkn
� F
/rocl
W
2 /
Q /
Z
19th Street
y
JOS
Po
1
e
€
g
nm street
UPACE OF
Wetlands
u05
U05 Newhall
Street
n
Restoration
Area
`•-� __�•
Y
NMUSO
161, 51reH
ay
Utilities
LEGEND
Yard
0 Project Site Boundary cf
1h
OPEN SPACE
'a
Lowland Open Space (LOS)
w
a UOS
Upland Open Space (UOS)
>
Interim Oil Facilities (OF)
a
PUBLIC PARKS /RECREATION
c
15 street
M Community Park (CP)
and
UOS � UOS
ROADWAYS
v
—4 Arterial Roads
m
'j /f Right-of-Way Reservation for lgth Street
L.F
UOS
co
asr
Sunset Ridge
way Park
e
F
a
H
Source: FORMA 2011
Alternative B: Existing General
Plan
-
Open Space Alternative
Exhibit 7 -1
Newport Banning Ranch EIR
N
wAa
e
ry
T I N G C O N 5 U L T N G
s
(REV 080311 JFG) R. Projects \NewportU015\Graphice \EIR \Ex7-1_ OpenSpDesigAlLpdf
Section 7.0
Alternatives to the
As with the proposed Project, implementation of Alternative B would require a pre- annexation
amendment to the City of Newport Beach General Plan. The following modifications to the
General Plan would also be required in order to conform figures and text to Alternative B, as
described below.
1. Amend the General Plan's Sphere of Influence (SOI) map to modify the City boundary to
include the Newport Banning Ranch site (refer to Figure 12, Sphere of Influence [SOI]).
2. Amend the General Plan to reflect the circulation system. Specifically, amend the Master
Plan of Streets and Highways to delete the segment of 151h Street west of Bluff Road,
which would provide a second arterial through the Project site connecting to West Coast
Highway as shown on General Plan Circulation Element Figure CE1, Master Plan of
Streets and Highways.
Though this Alternative only proposes the development of the Community Park, the area of
impact would also include area for the construction of roadways and oil remediation. As
indicated in Table 7 -4, Alternative B: General Plan — Open Space Designation Statistical
Summary, public roads would be provided for in the Open Space designation. The remediation
of the site would require disturbance throughout the Project site, though these impacts would be
temporary.
Anticipated approvals for implementation of Alternative B would include the actions described
below.
City of Newport Beach
• Approve the General Plan Sphere of Influence (SOI) map and Circulation Element
Amendment.
• Approve infrastructure and utility plans, landscaping and park plans, as well as grading
and building permits for the park uses.
• Review and approve remediation and habitat restoration plans developed by a third
party, and issue grading permits for these activities and for roadway development.
Federal
• Dependent on the precise oil remediation plans and park design, a Section 404 permit
for impacts to "Waters of the U.S." from the USACE and a Section 7 Consultation with
the USFWS for listed species would likely be required with Alternative B.
State
• A Water Quality Certification under Section 401 of the Federal Clean Water Act and
approval for the oil well /facility abandonment and site remediation program would likely
be required.
• A Section 1602 Streambed Alteration Agreement is anticipated for impacts to CDFG
jurisdiction.
• A Coastal Development Permit from the Coastal Commission would be required for
Alternative B to initiate restoration activities, construct roadways and infrastructure, and
develop the Community Park.
R:TrojectslNewpartU015VDrafi EIR7.0 Nf 090311.tloc 7-47 Newport Banning Ranch
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Section 7.0
Alternatives to the
• An Encroachment Permit would be required for activities within the California
Department of Transportation's (Caltrans') right -of -way, including the development the
Bluff Road/West Coast Highway intersection.
• The California Department of Conservation, Division of Oil, Gas and Geothermal
Resources would need to approve site remediation activities.
Regional and Special Districts
The Local Agency Formation Commission would need to approve annexation of the site
into the City of Newport Beach.
County
• The Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) would need to approve the
amendment to the Orange County MPAH.
The Orange County Health Care Agency (OCHCA) would need to approve activities
related to oil well /facility abandonment and site remediation.
Comparative Analysis of Environmental Impacts
Land Use and Related Planning Programs
The General Plan Open Space Designation Alternative would result in new land uses on the
Project site, including nature education and interpretative facilities and an active park containing
playfields and other facilities to serve residents of adjoining neighborhoods. Although the Project
site is surrounded by established communities of residential development, the Project site itself
is an active oilfield and there are no public uses or access to the site. Therefore, there would be
no impact associated with Threshold 4.1 -1, which pertains to physically dividing an established
community; this is the same as the proposed Project.
Threshold 4.1 -1 also evaluates the compatibility of the development with surrounding land uses.
As with the proposed Project, some homes in the Newport Crest development contiguous to the
Project site would be affected by vehicular noise from Bluff Road and night lighting from the
Community Park. Mitigation for the vehicular noise impact is proposed for the Project and would
be applicable to Alternative B. However, as with the proposed Project there would be potential
land use compatibility impacts that would remain significant if the residents of Newport Crest
elect not to have the mitigation measures for vehicular noise impacts implemented. Similar to
the proposed Project, the impact from night lighting at the Community Park would be considered
a significant, unavoidable impact.
Threshold 4.1 -2 pertains to consistency with any applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted
for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. The General Plan contains
land use policies that call for the provision of visitor - serving uses. Although visitor
accommodations in the resort inn would not be provided by this Alternative, this Alternative
would still be considered consistent with the General Plan because the Open Space Alternative
was identified in the General Plan as the preferred land use option. Both the proposed Project
and Alternative B would be considered consistent with General Plan policies and other
applicable planning documents pertaining to land use.
R:TrojectslNewpartU015VDrafi EIR7.0 Nf 090311.tloc 748 Newport Banning Ranch
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Alternatives to the
Aesthetics and Visual Resources
Section 7.0
Under both the proposed Project and Alternative B, no impacts would occur related to degrading
the views from a scenic highway corridor since no scenic highways exist in the Project area. As
with the proposed Project, Alternative B would not result in an adverse effect on a scenic vista
because there are no designated scenic vistas in the General Plan (Threshold 4.2 -1).
Visual changes to the Project site associated with the implementation of Alternative B would be
reduced compared to those anticipated to occur under the proposed Project, due to the absence
of residential and visitor - serving land uses. With the proposed Project, the oil consolidation area
and the resort inn would be prominent visual elements from West Coast Highway, a public
location with views of the Project site. With Alternative B, the oil consolidation area would be
visible, and the resort inn would be eliminated. This would result in an open space visual
character with Alternative B. This would be a reduction in the visual impact associated with
Alternative B compared to the proposed Project.
A majority of the Project site would be preserved as open space. In addition, a 31.3 -acre
Community Park would be located in the center of the site (compared to the proposed Project
where it would be located south of Bluff Road and north and east of North Bluff Road). The
Community Park would offer both active and passive park uses and would provide nighttime
lighting. Under Alternative B, oilfields could be consolidated, potentially resulting in natural
vegetation being converted to oil exploration /production. Because the majority of the Project site
would not be developed, the overall undeveloped character of the site would be similar to
existing conditions. However, the remediation /restoration component of Alternative B would
result in a visually enhanced site. Alternative B would not result in significant topographic or
aesthetic impacts (Threshold 4.2 -2). No significant aesthetic impacts were identified for the
proposed Project, and no significant aesthetic impacts would occur under this Alternative.
The proposed Project would result in increased lighting on the Project site; this is considered a
significant and unavoidable impact. Alternative B would result in less of an impact than the
proposed Project since a majority of the proposed Project would be preserved as open space.
However, similar to the proposed Project, the Community Park is anticipated to have night
lighting of active sports fields which could result in light spillover onto adjacent properties
(Threshold 4.2 -3). While the Community Park is not immediately adjacent to residential uses as
in the proposed Project, Alternative B would result in increased light effects on upland open
space as compared to the proposed Project. Both the proposed Project and Alternative B, the
night lighting impact would remain significant and unavoidable impact. Similar to the proposed
Project, at the time the General Plan was prepared, the City had considered its needs and
determined there was a need for active park and states that ball fields at the Community Park
would be lighted. 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 Consideration 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. Therefore, as with the
proposed Project, the conclusions for Alternative B with respect to night lighting are consistent
with the General Plan Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations.
Like the proposed Project, Alternative B would be consistent with the intent of the aesthetic
resources goals and policies of the City of Newport Beach General Plan and the California
Coastal Act (Threshold 4.2 -4).
R:Trq.tMN..partU015M . ft EIR7.0 Nt 090311.d.c 749 Newport Banning Ranch
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Alternatives to the
Geology and Soils
Section 7.0
The Project footprint for Alternative B, the General Plan -Open Space Designation Alternative,
(allowing for daylight cut and fill slopes along the roads and park area) is approximately
40 percent of the proposed Project footprint. Another consideration is that the Community Park
would not require the same amount of corrective grading (except where structures are
expected) as the proposed Project. A 60 percent reduction in the mass excavation and a
75 percent reduction in the corrective grading quantity would be expected for this Alternative.
As indicated in Section 4.3, Geology and Soils, the Project site is located in a seismically active
area with faults within the proposed development site that could not be proven to be inactive.
Though any development would potentially be exposed to the effects of seismic activity,
development associated with this Alternative would not be located on these fault areas and
would be subject to fault setback zones (Thresholds 4.3 -1 and 4.3 -2). Compared to the
proposed Project, there would be fewer impacts associated with these thresholds because there
would be fewer structures and people on site.
This Alternative would be located on the Upland, avoiding soils with liquefaction or lateral
spreading potential (Thresholds 4.3 -3 and 4.3 -6). As with the proposed Project, corrective
grading in the Upland area would provide uniform bearing conditions for the proposed park
facilities and would offset the effects of collapsible and compressible soils. Compared to the
proposed Project, there would be fewer impacts associated with these thresholds because there
would be fewer structures and people on site.
As with the proposed Project, Alternative B would be subject to some existing on -site potential
for landslides under dynamic seismic conditions. Consistency with the California Building Code
(CBC), City building code requirements, and General Plan policies along with the incorporation
of bluff setback zones would ensure that impacts associated with on- and off -site landslides
would be less than significant (Threshold 4.3 -4). Because of the smaller development footprint,
there would be fewer impacts under Alternative B associated with this threshold than the
proposed Project.
As with the proposed Project, grading activities associated with Alternative B would increase the
potential for soil erosion and loss of topsoil (Threshold 4.3 -5). With the incorporation of
construction BMPs as described in Section 4.4, Hydrology and Water Quality, impacts on soil
erosion and loss of topsoil would be less than significant. Post- construction, soil erosion and the
loss of topsoil would be minimized through the use of engineered grading, surface drainage
improvements, and landscaping. Impacts associated with the proposed Project and
Alternative B would be less than significant. Because of the smaller development footprint and
less overall grading, Alternative B impacts associated with this threshold would be less than the
proposed Project.
On -site soils have a low to medium expansion potential. As with the proposed Project,
incorporation of standard conditions of approval (SCs) would reduce this Alternative's impacts
from expansive soils to a less than significant level (Threshold 4.3 -7). Because of the smaller
development footprint, Alternative B impacts associated with this threshold would be less than
the proposed Project.
Alternative B, as well as the proposed Project would be consistent with the intent of the soils
and geology - related goals and policies of the City of Newport Beach General Plan and the
California Coastal Act (Threshold 4.3 -8).
RTrojetMNewpartU015Mrafi EIR7.0 Nt090311.tloc 7 -50 Newport Banning Ranch
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Alternatives to the
Hydrology and Water Quality
Section 7.0
Alternative B would result in some on -site grading and development on the Project site. There
would be a less impervious surface with this Alternative than the proposed Project. Therefore,
potential impacts associated with the runoff and the concentration of pollutants in storm water
runoff would be less than significant and less than the proposed Project (Thresholds 4.4 -1,
4.4 -6, 4.4 -11, 4.4 -12, and 4.4 -13). However, the proposed Project proposes to implement a
Water Quality Management Program, which will use existing natural treatment systems, in order
to 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 compared to the existing condition. Therefore,
although Alternative B would not generate the same level of pollutants as the proposed Project,
it would not provide for the cleanup of existing urban runoff from off -site areas, and the
untreated runoff from off -site areas would continue to flow into Semeniuk Slough. Therefore,
Alternative B would not provide the same net benefit to water quality as the proposed Project.
This Alternative would involve changes to the existing drainage patterns; however, with
implementation of BMPs consistent with permit requirements, impacts associated with
increased erosion would be less than significant (Thresholds 4.4.3 and 4.4 -15). Compared to
the proposed Project, Alternative B would result in fewer impacts due to the reduced scale of
land development. As with the proposed Project, these impacts would be less than significant.
This Alternative would result in less impervious surface than the proposed Project. As with the
proposed Project, it is not anticipated that Alternative B would result in significant impacts to
groundwater supplies or interfere with groundwater recharge (Threshold 4.4.2). When compared
to the proposed Project, the level of impact associated with Alternative B would be less because
it includes fewer structures and paved areas. As with the proposed Project, this impact would be
less than significant.
While this Alternative would increase impervious surfaces, impacts to increases in peak flow
runoff and runoff volumes from the site would be less than significant and less than the
proposed Project (Thresholds 4.4 -4 and 4.4 -14). Runoff from this Alternative would not affect
the capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems (Threshold 4.4 -5). When
these impacts are compared to the proposed Project, Alternative B would result in fewer
impacts because less development is proposed. These impacts would be less than significant.
This Alternative would not include housing development, so no housing would be placed within
a 100 -year floodplain (Thresholds 4.4 -7 and 4.4 -8) and there would be no significant risk
associated with the failure of a levee or dam because it is not within an inundation area for such
facilities (Threshold 4.4 -9).
As with the proposed Project, this Alternative would not be subject to inundation by seiche,
tsunami, or mudflow (Threshold 4.4 -10).
Alternative B would not conflict with applicable land use policies (Threshold 4.4 -16). As with the
proposed Project, this Alternative would be consistent with the Harbor and Bay Element, Natural
Resources Element, and Safety Element goals and policies, which were outlined in
Table 4.4 -25, City of Newport Beach General Plan Consistency Evaluation, and the relevant
California Coastal Act policies which were outlined in Table 4.4 -26, California Coastal Act
Consistency Analysis.
R:TrojectslNewpartU015VOrafi EIR7.0 Nf 090311.tlac 7 -51 Newport Banning Ranch
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Alternatives to the
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Section 7.0
As discussed in Section 4.5, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, with implementation of the
identified Mitigation Program, potentially significant impacts related to the historical and
continuing oil operations on the Project site and the potential presence of asbestos - containing
materials (AGMs) and lead -based paint (LBP) in some structures would be reduced to a level
considered less than significant.
Alternative B would result in some on -site grading and development on the Project site and it
would require implementation of a Remedial Action Plan (RAP), which would include
remediation associated with consolidation of oilfield activities. Therefore, like the proposed
Project, with implementation of the Mitigation Program, this Alternative would result in less than
significant impacts related to Thresholds 4.5 -1 and 4.5 -2, which pertain to the creation of
hazards associated with the transport, use, disposal, and /or emissions of hazardous materials
and location on an identified hazardous materials site. However, because the proposed Project
would result in greater development, it would require use of more materials that have been
identified as potentially hazardous. Even though both Alternative B and the proposed Project
would both have less than significant impacts for Thresholds 4.5 -1 and 4.5 -2, the impacts
associated with Alternative B would be incrementally less.
Long -term operations of Alternative B would not emit hazardous emissions within 1/< mile of a
school; however, the Alternative may result in the need to establish off -site haul routes during
on -site remedial activities. Alternative B would involve less disturbance of soils that require
remediation than the proposed Project. However, there would also be less opportunity to deep
bury contaminated soils or mix the soil with uncontaminated soil, thereby reducing the
concentration of contaminates. As a result, there is the potential that greater amounts of soil
would be hauled off site. However, this cannot be known at this time. Implementation of SCs
would provide for impacts to be considered less than significant. This is consistent with the
finding for the proposed Project (Threshold 4.5 -3).
The Project site is not identified on the Cortese List, which is compiled pursuant to
Section 65962.5 of the California Government Code. Therefore, there would be no impact
associated with Threshold 4.5 -4 for either the proposed Project or Alternative B.
Threshold 4.5 -5 pertains to consistency with any applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted
for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. The General Plan -Open Space
Designation Alternative would not conflict with applicable land use, harbor and bay, natural
resource, and safety policies because it would provide for the consolidation of oilfield activities
and remediation of the site, the same as the proposed Project. The policies, which were outlined
in Table 4.5 -5, City of Newport Beach General Plan Consistency Evaluation, call for
(1) prohibiting new oil and gas extraction activities; (2) consolidating and /or relocating existing
oil operations; (2) limiting hazards associated with oil operations; and (4) assessing and, if
necessary, remediating soil and groundwater contamination. This Alternative would be
consistent with provisions of the General Plan. For this threshold, this Alternative and the
proposed Project would have no impacts.
Biological Resources
Although there would be more Open Space associated with this Alternative compared to the
proposed Project, the Open Space Alternative would still result in a substantial amount of
permanent and temporary impacts to biological resources through implementation of parks,
roads, and remediation activities. The Open Space Alternative would result in a substantial
R:TrojectMNewpartU015VDrafi EIR7.0 Nf 090311.tloc 7 -52 Newport Banning Ranch
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Section 7.0
Alternatives to the
adverse effect on special status plant and wildlife species (Threshold 4.6 -1). Although these
impacts are expected to be less than the proposed Project, they are still considered significant.
As discussed in Section 4.6, Biological Resources, with implementation of the identified
mitigation measures, potentially significant impacts to special status species from the Open
Space Alternative would be reduced to a level considered less than significant.
This Alternative would involve a substantial adverse effect on riparian habitat (especially within
Drainages A, B, and C) and other sensitive natural communities (e.g., coastal sage scrub)
(Thresholds 4.6 -2 and 4.6 -3). Although these impacts are expected to be less than the
proposed Project, they are still considered significant. As discussed in Section 4.6, Biological
Resources, with implementation of the identified Mitigation Measures, potentially significant
impacts to special status habitats from the Open Space Alternative would be reduced to a level
considered less than significant.
The General Plan Open Space Designation Alternative would create a limited amount of
permanent new development in the form of on -site roads and active park facilities. This limited
development is not expected to interfere with the movement of any native resident or migratory
wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites (Threshold 4.6 -4). The impact
would be less for Alternative B than for the proposed Project. Similar to the proposed Project,
this Alternative would also not conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological
resources or provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community
Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or State habitat conservation plan
(Threshold 4.6 -5).
Population, Housing, and Employment
The General Plan Open Space Designation Alternative would not create any new jobs; involve
the development of additional housing; or cause an increase in the resident population of the
City. As a result, there would be no impact associated with Threshold 4.7 -1 related to inducing
substantial population growth. There would be fewer impacts with this Alternative than with the
proposed Project.
Because Alternative B does not propose any housing on site, it would not assist the City of
Newport Beach in meeting their RHNA goals. Whereas Alternative B does not propose any
housing units, the proposed Project, if approved, would provide housing, including affordable
housing, that would allow the City to help meet its RHNA requirements. If Alternative B is
selected, this housing would need to be provided elsewhere in the City. The General Plan
identifies other locations within the City that can provide additional opportunities for residential
development. However, the City may need to amend its General Plan to increase the density of
development allowed in these locations, or ensure that these areas provide sufficient housing,
including affordable housing, on a City -wide basis. As a result, this impact is considered greater
with Alternative B than with the proposed Project. This Alternative would be generally consistent
with the California Coastal Act provision pertaining to population, housing, and employment.
Recreation and Trails
This Alternative would not involve the generation of a substantial number of new jobs; it would
not involve the development of additional housing; nor would it cause increases in the resident
population. Therefore, impacts associated with physical impacts to recreational resources
(Thresholds 4.8 -1, 4.8 -2, and 4.8 -3) would be less than the proposed Project.
R:TrojectslNewpartU015VDrafi EIR7.0 Nf 090311.tloc 7 -53 Newport Banning Ranch
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Section 7.0
Alternatives to the
Because Alternative B provides for a Community Park and other recreational facilities, like the
proposed Project, it would be consistent with the intent of the applicable land use goals and
policies of the City of Newport Beach General Plan, which states that additional parkland is
needed within the West Newport Service Area (Threshold 4.8 -4). Specifically, the Newport
Beach General Plan's Land Use Policy 6.5.2, Active Community Park states, "Accommodate a
Community Park of 20 to 30 acres that contains active playfields that may be lighted and is of
sufficient acreage to serve adjoining neighborhoods and residents of Banning Ranch, if
developed" and the Recreation Element's Goal R 1, Provision of Facilities, states, "Provision of
adequate park and recreation facilities that meet the recreational needs of existing and new
residents of the community ".
Transportation and Circulation
Under this Alternative, the only developed land use would be a 31.3 - gross -acre Community
Park. Vehicular access to the park would be provided by roads constructed through the Project
site as previously described for this Alternative. Although this Alternative would not generate a
substantial number of trips, it would modify current traffic patterns in the area. A portion of the
existing traffic in the area, which is currently dependent on Superior Avenue and Newport
Boulevard to get to West Coast Highway, is expected to use roadways through southwest Costa
Mesa to take advantage of the new Bluff Road connection to West Coast Highway.
Intersection Levels of Service: Table 7 -5 identifies the peak hour Intersection Capacity
Utilization (ICU) /delay values and the corresponding levels of service for the traffic study area
intersections at General Plan buildout assuming development of the Project site consistent with
the Open Space (OS) land use designation. The General Plan Buildout peak hour traffic
forecasts were developed by Urban Crossroads using the City's Newport Beach Traffic Model
(NBTM). The model assumes buildout of the area and the region according to the General
Plans of the City of Newport Beach and surrounding jurisdictions. The table shows that, while
there would be no project - related traffic impacts associated with Alternative B, the traffic study
area intersections listed below are forecasted to operate at a deficient LOS:
City of Huntington Beach
19. Magnolia Street at Pacific Coast Highway (PM: LOS F)
City of Costa Mesa
34. Newport Boulevard at 191h Street (AM: LOS F)
36. Newport Boulevard at Harbor Boulevard (PM: LOS F)
37. Newport Boulevard at 181h Street/Rochester Street (PM: LOS F)
44. Newport Boulevard at 171h Street (PM: LOS E)
48. Irvine Avenue at 17th Street (PM: LOS E)
Based on the significance criteria set forth in this EIR, two intersections (Newport Boulevard at
191h Street and Newport Boulevard at Harbor Boulevard) in the City of Costa Mesa would be
significantly impacted by the proposed Project. While Alternative B would result in lower ICU
values as a result of fewer trips generated on the site, this Alternative does not relieve
over - capacity conditions at any of the intersections that are forecasted to be deficient at General
Plan Buildout. However, these deficiencies are not attributable to Alternative B.
R:TrojectslNewpartU015VOrafi EIR7.0 Nf 090311.tloc 7 -54 Newport Banning Ranch
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Section 7.0
Alternatives to the
TABLE 7 -5
ALTERNATIVE B GENERAL PLAN BUILDOUT: INTERSECTION OPERATIONS
RAProjectMNewpcnU015\IDreft EIRV.0 Ali - 090311 doc 7 -55 Newport Banning Ranch
Draft Environmental Impact Report
With No Project
With Alternative B
Alternative B Impact
AM Peak Hour
PM Peak Hour
AM Peak Hour
PM Peak Hour
Change
Significant?
ICU /Delay
LOS
ICU /Delay
LOS
ICU /Delay
LOS
ICU /Delay
LOS
AM
PM
AM
PM
Intersection
Control
1
Monrovia Ave /16'" St
S
0.32
A
0.31
A
0.31
A
0.32
A
-0.013
0.007
No
No
2
Placentia Ave /15'" St
S
0.43
A
0.59
A
0.49
A
0.57
A
0.065
-0.028
No
No
3
Superior Ave /15t" St
S
0.38
A
0.46
A
0.51
A
0.50
A
0.129
0.040
No
No
4
Superior Ave /Placentia
Ave
S
0.65
B
0.61
B
0.60
A
0.49
A
-0.050
-0.113
No
No
5
Newport Blvd /Hospital Rd
S
0.67
B
0.79
C
0.63
B
0.75
C
-0.031
-0.034
No
No
6
Orange StNWest Coast
Hwy
S
0.77
C
0.80
C
0.77
C
0.81
D
0.000
0.002
No
No
m
m
7
Prospect St/West Coast
Hwy
S
0.90
D
0.85
D
0.90
D
0.83
D
0.000
0.023
No
No
0
0L
8
Superior Ave/West Coast
0
Hwy
S
0.85
D
0.81
D
0.89
D
0.80
C
0.040
-0.007
No
No
9
Newport Blvd/West Coast
Hwy
S
0.87
D
0.83
D
0.88
D
0.83
D
0.010
0.003
No
No
Riverside Ave/West
10
Coast Hwy
S
0.72
C
0.87
D
0.73
C
0.88
D
0.008
0.011
No
No
11
Tustin AveANest Coast
Hwy
S
0.59
A
0.82
D
0.60
A
0.83
D
0.010
0.002
No
No
12
Dover Dr/West Coast
Hwy
S
0.78
C
0.90
D
0.78
C
0.90
D
0.005
0.003
No
No
13
Magnolia St/Hamilton Ave
S
0.73
C
0.74
C
0.73
C
0.74
C
0.003
0.004
No
No
14
Bushard SUHamilton Ave
S
0.54
A
0.65
B
0.53
A
0.65
B
-0.010
0.002
No
No
L
15
Brookhurst SUHamilton
Ave (Victoria St)
S
0.59
A
0.83
D
0.60
A
0.89
D
0.019
0.059
No
No
=
16
Magnolia St/Banning Ave
S
0.59
A
0.49
A
0.62
B
0.50
A
0.025
0.012
No
No
17
Bushard St/Banning Ave
S
0.67
B
0.73
C
0.71
C
0.77
C
0.041
0.047
No
No
RAProjectMNewpcnU015\IDreft EIRV.0 Ali - 090311 doc 7 -55 Newport Banning Ranch
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Section 7.0
Alternatives to the
TABLE 7 -5 (Continued)
ALTERNATIVE B GENERAL PLAN BUILDOUT: INTERSECTION OPERATIONS
RAProjecte\NewpcnU015\IDreft EIRV.0 Ali - 090311 doc 7 -56 Newport Banning Ranch
Draft Environmental Impact Report
With No Project
With Alternative B
Alternative B Impact
AM Peak Hour
PM Peak Hour
AM Peak Hour
PM Peak Hour
Change
Significant?
ICU /Delay
LOS
ICU /Delay
LOS
ICU /Delay
LOS
ICU /Delay
LOS
AM
PM
AM
PM
Intersection
Control
18
BreokhurstSt/Banning
S
0.46
A
0.50
A
0.48
A
0.54
A
0.021
0.032
No
No
c
c m
19
Magnolia St /Pacific Coast
S
0.84
D
1.23
F
0.83
D
1.17
F
-0.014
-0.055
No
No
v
S 00
20
Brookhurst St/Bushard St
S
0.40
A
0.42
A
0.38
A
0.38
A
-0.026
-0.038
No
No
=
21
Brookhurst St/Pacific
S
0.77
C
0.90
D
0.76
C
0.89
D
-0.009
-0.008
No
No
Coast Hwy
22
Placentia AveNictoria St
S
0.74
C
0.82
D
0.72
C
0.81
D
-0.023
-0.016
No
No
23
Pomona AveNictoria St
S
0.69
B
0.82
D
0.69
B
0.81
D
0.000
-0.009
No
No
24
Harbor BlvdiVictoria St
S
0.66
B
0.79
C
0.65
B
0.78
C
-0.007
-0.016
No
No
25
Newport BlvdNictoria St
S
0.48
A
0.43
A
0.48
A
0.44
A
-0.003
0.009
No
No
26
Newyort Blvd /Victoria St
S
0.86
D
0.53
A
0.86
D
0.53
A
-0.002
0.003
No
No
(22 St)
27
Whittier Ave /19th St
S
0.64
B
0.73
C
0.52
A
0.55
A
-0.116
-0.177
No
No
28
Monrovia Ave /19th St
S
0.56
A
0.51
A
0.50
A
0.48
A
-0.052
-0.034
No
No
29
Placentia Ave /19th St
S
0.60
A
0.58
A
0.55
A
0.57
A
-0.059
-0.011
No
No
y
30
Pomona Ave /19th St
S
0.57
A
0.73
C
0.57
A
0.73
C
0.005
0.003
No
No
M
31
Anaheim Ave /19th St
S
0.58
A
0.66
B
0.57
A
0.66
B
-0.013
0.003
No
No
N
32
Park Ave /19th St
S
0.53
A
0.59
A
0.53
A
0.59
A
-0.003
0.000
No
No
tai
33
Harbor Blvd /19th St
S
0.50
A
0.63
B
0.49
A
0.62
B
-0.004
-0.004
No
No
34
1 Newport Blvd /19`h St
S
1.07
F
1.01
F
1.06
F
1.01
F
-0.005
0.006
No
No
35
Newport Blvd /Broadway
S
0.69
D
0.69
B
0.85
D
-0.004
-0.002
No
No
36
Newport Blvd /Harbor Blvd
S
0.80
F
0.79
C
1.11
F
-0.010
-0.005
No
No
Newport Blvd /18`" St
37
(Rochester St)
S
0.83
F
0.82
D
1.07
F
-0.004
-0.014
No
No
38
Placentia Ave /181h St
S
0.52
A
A
0.45
A
0.47
A
-0.066
-0.066
No
No
39
Whi ttier Ave /17th St
S
0.18
A
0.35
A
0.41
A
0.169
0.187
No
No
40
Monrovia Ave /17th St
S
0.31
A
0.31
A
0.42
A
-0.002
0.006
No
No
41
Placentia Ave /17th St
S
0.40
A
D.36
A
0.47
A
-0.038
-0.097
No
No
RAProjecte\NewpcnU015\IDreft EIRV.0 Ali - 090311 doc 7 -56 Newport Banning Ranch
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Section 7.0
Alternatives to the
TABLE 7 -5 (Continued)
ALTERNATIVE B GENERAL PLAN BUILDOUT: INTERSECTION OPERATIONS
RAProJ.WNewp.rVu 015\Inreft EIRM0 Alts- 090311 d.c 7 -57 Newport Banning Ranch
Draft Environmental Impact Report
With No Project
With Alternative B
Alternative B Impact
AM Peak Hour
PM Peak Hour
AM Peak Hour
PM Peak Hour
Change
Significant?
ICU /Delay
LOS
ICU /Delay
LOS
ICU /Delay
LOS
ICU /Delay
LOS
AM
PM
AM
PM
Intersection
Control
42
Pomona Ave /17th St
S
0.44
A
0.51
A
0.44
A
0.50
A
-0.007
-0.013
No
No
43
Superior Ave /17`h St
S
0.76
C
0.81
D
0.77
C
0.81
D
0.012
-0.001
No
No
44
Newport Blvd /17`h St
S
0.80
C
0.92
E
0.80
C
0.91
E
0.007
-0.006
No
No
45
Orange Ave /171h St
S
0.41
A
0.62
B
0.42
A
0.61
B
0.012
-0.004
No
No
m
N
46
Santa Ana Ave /171h St
S
0.43
A
0.51
A
0.41
A
0.51
A
-0.022
-0.002
No
No
i
47
Tustin Ave /17`h St
S
0.45
A
0.58
A
0.43
A
0.57
A
-0.022
-0.006
No
No
H
48
Irvine Ave /17th St
S
0.65
B
0.91
E
0.64
B
0.91
E
-0.012
-0.006
No
No
L)
49
Placentia Ave /16th St
S
0.26
A
0.32
A
0.25
A
0.32
A
-0.006
-0.007
No
No
50
Superior Ave /16th St
S
0.55
A
0.51
A
0.55
A
0.49
A
-0.003
-0.021
No
No
51
Newport Blvd /16`" St
S
0.68
B
0.75
C
0.68
B
0.75
C
0.000
-0.002
No
No
52
Bluff RdNictoria St
S
0.65
B
0.68
B
0.71
C
0.71
C
0.062
0.034
No
No
53
Bluff Rd /19th St
S
0.50
A
0.58
A
0.44
A
0.57
A
-0.059
-0.012
No
No
54
Bluff Rd /171h St
S
0.56
A
0.65
0.563
0.651
No
No
"=
55
Bluff Rd /16th St
U
1.90
A
1.90
1.900
1.900
No
No
WA
56
Bluff Rd /15th St
S
0.31
A
0.51
AA
0.312
0.513
No
No
O
57
Bluff Rd/W. Coast Hwy
S
0.72
C
0.82
0.722
0.823
No
No
ICU: Intersection Capacity Utilization; LOS: level of service; S: Signalized; U: Unsignalized
Notes: Bold and shaded values indicate intersections operating at LOS E or F.
Intersection operation is expressed in average seconds of delay per vehicle during the peak hour for unsignalized intersections using the HCM 2000 Methodology and is expressed in volume -to-
capacity (V / C) for signalized intersections using the ICU Methodology.
Source: Kimley -Horn 2011.
RAProJ.WNewp.rVu 015\Inreft EIRM0 Alts- 090311 d.c 7 -57 Newport Banning Ranch
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Section 7.0
Alternatives to the
CMP Intersection: The CMP intersection of Newport Boulevard at West Coast Highway is
forecasted to operate at LOS D without site development. This intersection would continue to
operate at an acceptable LOS. No impact would occur.
Therefore, with respect to Threshold 4.9 -1, no impact would occur associated with Alternative B.
This Alternative would also not conflict with the CMP (Threshold 4.9 -2). As with the proposed
Project, Alternative B would not substantially increase hazards due to a design feature,
incompatible land uses, or inadequate emergency access (Threshold 4.9 -3). The Community
Park would be required to provide adequate on -site parking; no parking impacts would occur
(Threshold 4.9 -4). No mitigation is required for this Alternative.
Alternative B proposes the same General Plan Circulation Element and MPAH Amendment as
the proposed Project. These amendments do not reflect a conflict with the policies and goals of
the applicable programs; rather, they reflect a refinement to the circulation network to reflect the
infrastructure requirements necessary to meet the local and regional mobility goals. With
respect to Threshold 4.9 -5 —which addresses consistency with transportation - related plans,
policies, and regulations —both the proposed Project and Alternative B are considered
consistent with the intent of the transportation - related goals and policies of the Southern
California Association of Governments (SCAG), the City of Newport Beach General Plan, and
the California Coastal Act.
Air Quality
Under Alternative B there would be construction of roadways and parks with associated
construction equipment operations and fugitive dust generation. There would be no long -term
use of natural gas, consumer products, or vehicles associated with development of residential
and commercial land uses. However, the development of parks would result in some trip
generation with associated vehicle use and the use of landscape maintenance equipment.
As with the proposed Project, Alternative B would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of
the SCAQMD AQMPs because development would not exceed the assumptions used to
develop the AQMPs (Threshold 4.10 -1) or other applicable policies of agencies with jurisdiction
over the Project (Threshold 4.10 -6).
Temporary impacts would result from park and roadway construction and the oilfield
remediation activities. The impacts associated with Alternative B would be less than the
proposed Project impacts because the magnitude of development would be substantially less.
Air pollutants would be emitted by off -road and on -road construction equipment and worker
vehicles; fugitive dust would be generated during demolition and grading on the Project site.
Other construction activities that emit pollutants include painting, surface coating, and asphalt
paving operations. Compliance with SCAQMD Rules is required; specifically, construction would
be performed in accordance with Rule 403, Fugitive Dust, which would help minimize impacts.
However, the level of activities required for constructing North Bluff Road and Bluff Road, as
well as construction of a 31.3 acre Community Park would reasonably result in short-term
emissions of NOx that exceeds the SCAQMD CEQA significance threshold (Threshold 4.10 -2).
Compliance with the Mitigation Program identified for the proposed Project would require use of
Tier 3 equipment and Tier 4 equipment, which could reasonably reduce NOx emissions below
the SCAQMD thresholds.
Air emissions associated with the long -term use of the Community Park would be less than the
emissions with proposed Project and less than the SCAQMD CEQA significance threshold
values. Alternative B would not result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria
R:TrojectMNewpoeu015vorafi EiR7.0 ara-osoai l.doc 7 -58 Newport Banning Ranch
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Section 7.0
Alternatives to the
pollutant for which the Project region is in nonattainment under an applicable NAAQS or
CAAQS (Threshold 4.10 -3), whereas for the proposed Project these impacts would be
significant and unavoidable impacts.
As with the proposed Project, for Alternative B there would be no TAC emissions from on -site
activities (Threshold 4.10 -4) and the use of the parks and roads included would not create
objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people (Threshold 4.10 -5).
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Under Alternative B there would be construction of roadways and parks with associated
construction equipment operations. Thus, there would be one -time GHG emissions from
construction activities during the construction years. Long -term GHG emissions from vehicles
and the consumption of electricity, natural gas, and water would occur with operation and
maintenance of the parks. GHG emissions would be less than the threshold of 6,000 MTCOze /yr
and substantially less than the forecasted emissions for the proposed Project
(Threshold 4.11 -1). Neither the proposed Project nor Alternative B would conflict with applicable
plans, policies, or regulations adopted for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions
(Threshold 4.11 -2).
Noise
Under Alternative B roadways and parks would be constructed that would necessitate
associated construction equipment operations. Construction noise could 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. However, the duration
of the impact would be much less than for the proposed Project. Although the impact would be
significant and unavoidable, same as the proposed Project, since the duration would be
relatively short, the impact associated with Alternative B would be less than the proposed
Project (Threshold 4.12 -2).
Forecasted cumulative noise levels on existing roadways at General Plan buildout for
Alternative B would range from a decrease of less than 1 A- weighted decibel (dBA) to an
increase of approximately 3.9 dBA. The noise level changes would be due to a combination of
cumulative growth, a redistribution of traffic resulting from building of the Alternative B roads,
and new trips generated by the development of park uses. The Project's contribution to noise
increases on existing roads would be less than significant (Thresholds 4.12 -1 and 4.12 -4).
With Alternative B at General Plan buildout, future community noise equivalent levels (CNEL) at
the Newport Crest residences facing the Project site would increase from 7 to 15 dBA above
existing noise levels, which would be a significant noise impact. However, the noise increases
would be between 0.5 and 1 dBA CNEL less than with the proposed Project. Noise - abatement
measures could reduce noise to a compatible level, as defined for new development by the
General Plan, but the increase would still exceed the significance criterion. Future noise levels
at the California Seabreeze and Parkview Circle residences facing the Project site would
increase from 0 to 4 dBA CNEL above existing noise levels, which would be a less than
significant noise impact. The noise increases would be between 0.5 and 1 dBA CNEL less than
with the proposed Project. Future noise levels at the Carden Hall School would increase by less
than 1 dBA, which is less than significant and less than the proposed Project (Thresholds 4.12 -1
and 4.12 -4).
R:TrojectslNewpartU015VOrafi EIR7.0 Nf 090311.tloc 7 -59 Newport Banning Ranch
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Section 7.0
Alternatives to the
There would be no noise impacts from stationary sources associated with new residential or
commercial development for the proposed Project. As discussed for the proposed Project, park
design, operating procedures, and noise abatement measures could reduce the noise impact to
a less than significant level. Because the proposed Community Park would be further away from
existing residences with Alternative B than for the proposed Project and traffic noise levels
would be less than those of the proposed Project, and park and open space uses would be
compatible with noise levels allowed by the General Plan (Thresholds 4.12 -1 and 4.12 -4); this
would be the same as the proposed Project.
As with the proposed Project, the consolidation of oil exploration and production could cause
temporary noise impacts depending on the location and hours of drilling. Because of the
distance from the oilfields to existing residences and the temporary nature of the drilling, the
impacts would be less than significant and the same as those for the proposed Project.
However, with the proposed Project there would be greater overall construction noise impacts
because of the amount of development being proposed. The construction noise levels would
also extend over a longer period of time for the proposed Project compared to Alternative B.
Therefore, Alternative B would have less impact than the proposed Project (Threshold 4.12 -2).
The nature of the vibration impacts would be the same as for the proposed Project. However,
due to the limited amount of development proposed with Alternative B, they would be of a much
shorter duration. As a result the impacts for Alternative B would be less than those associated
with the proposed Project. Both the proposed Project and Alternative B would be required to
implement the mitigation measure (MM) limiting the use of heavy equipment if construction is
planned within 25 feet of an existing structure (Threshold 4.12 -3).
The Project site is not within an airport land use plan or near a private airstrip; therefore for both
the proposed Project and Alternative B there would be no impacts from excessive aircraft noise
levels (Thresholds 4.12 -5 and 4.12 -6). Both the proposed Project and Alternative B would be
consistent with the goals and policies of the City of Newport Beach General Plan related to
noise (Threshold 4.12 -7).
Cultural and Paleontological Resources
As with the proposed Project, development under Alternative B would not impact any known
historical resources (Threshold 4.13 -1) from the built environment, but would have the potential
to impact unknown historical resources. However, since less grading would be required for
Alternative B than the proposed Project and less land area would be disturbed, the impacts
would be less with the proposed Project.
Alternative B would involve excavation related to park implementation, road construction, and
the consolidation of oil operations. Therefore, as with the proposed Project, there is potential for
discovery of previously unidentified archaeological (Threshold 4.13 -2) or paleontological
resources (Threshold 4.13 -3). Similar to the historic resources, the impacts would be less with
the proposed Project since Alternative B would disturb less land area.
As a result of oil consolidation activities it is anticipated that Alternative B would impact three
archaeological sites (CA -ORA -839, CA -ORA -8448, and CA -ORA -906) that have been deemed
eligible for listing on the California Register of Historic Resources (CRHR) and National
Resgister of Historic Places (NRHP). CA -ORA -906 would also be disturbed by construction of
North Bluff Road. These sites would also be disturbed with the proposed Project. However,
since Alternative B disturbance of CA -ORA -839, CA- ORA -844B are only associated with oilfield
consolidation activities, there may be greater opportunities to avoid these resources because
R:TrojectslNewpartU015\IDrafi EIR7.0 Nf 090311.tloc 7 -60 Newport Banning Ranch
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Section 7.0
Alternatives to the
mass grading would not be required with implementation of Alternative B. Therefore, the
impacts on cultural resources associated with Alternative B would be less than those associated
with the proposed Project.
Impacts to CA -ORA -906 are expected to be the same with both Alternative B and the proposed
Project. The construction of North Bluff Road would impact the site as the road travels along the
bottom and to the west of the bluffs. Road construction would likely completely destroy this
archaeological site. The mitigation measures for the proposed Project would also be applicable
for Alternative B. Alternative B has the potential for secondary impacts to cultural resources,
same as the proposed Project.
There is no indication that there are burials present on the site. However, as with the proposed
Project, under Alternative B, there is potential for disturbance of human remains, including those
interred outside formal cemeteries (Threshold 4.13 -4). However, given the reduced amount of
ground disturbance, the likelihood of impacts would be reduced.
Threshold 4.13 -5 pertains to consistency with any applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted
for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. Neither the proposed Project
nor Alternative B would conflict with applicable land use, historic resource, or natural resource
policies.
Public Services and Facilities
The public services and facilities evaluated in the EIR are fire protection, police protection,
schools, library services, and solid waste. The General Plan Open Space Designation
Alternative would not create any new jobs; it would not involve the development of additional
housing; nor would it cause increases in the resident population of the City. However, because
this Alternative would create an active park containing playfields and other facilities to serve
residents of adjoining neighborhoods, fire and police protection would be required
(Thresholds 4.14 -1 and 4.14 -3, respectively). Solid waste service would also be required
(Threshold 4.14 -9). When compared to the proposed Project, police and fire protection and solid
waste service demand would be less because park and recreational uses do not require the
same level of service as residential development.
Thresholds 4.14 -1 (fire services), 4.14 -3 (police services), 4.14 -5 (schools), 4.14 -7 (library
services), or 4.14 -9 (solid waste) all pertain to physical impacts associated with construction of
new public service facilities or accelerated physical deterioration associated with increased
usage of existing facilities. As with the proposed Project, under Alternative B the impacts to
Thresholds 4.14 -1, 4.14 -3, and 4.14 -9 would be less than significant while the there would be no
impact to Thresholds 4.14 -5 and 4.14 -7.
Thresholds 4.14 -2 (fire services), 4.14 -4 (police services), 4.14 -6 (schools), 4.14 -8 (library
services), and 4.14 -10 (solid waste) pertain to consistency with any applicable plan, policy, or
regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. The
General Plan Open Space Designation Alternative is the primary land use alternative for the
Newport Banning Ranch site in the General Plan. This Alternative would have limited demand
on services such that it would not diminish the ability of the public service providers in meeting
the demand for expected growth in other areas of the City, nor would it require substantial
resources to be directed to the Project site. Since neither the proposed Project nor Altemative B
would conflict with applicable policies, the impacts are expected to be the same for these
thresholds.
R:TrojectMNewpartU015VDrafi EIR7.0 Nf 090311.tloc 7 -61 Newport Banning Ranch
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Alternatives to the
Utilities
Section 7.0
The Utilities evaluated in the EIR include the following: water, wastewater facilities, and energy
(electricity and natural gas). The General Plan Open Space Designation Alternative would not
cause increases in the resident population of the City. However, because this Alternative would
create an active park containing playfields and other facilities to serve residents of adjoining
neighborhoods, wastewater and water services would be required with the provision of
restrooms, irrigation, and potable water. Therefore, there would be minimal impacts associated
with Thresholds 4.15 -2 (water supply), 4.15 -4 (exceeding wastewater treatment requirements),
and 4.15 -5 (wastewater treatment capacity). Lighting associated with the park would also
require electricity (Threshold 4.15 -7). Wastewater, water, and electricity service demands would
be considered less than significant and would be less than with the proposed Project.
Alternative B would not require new facilities (other than distribution lines) related to water,
wastewater, or energy facilities and would not exceed the existing capacity of these services.
Impacts associated with Thresholds 4.15 -1 (construction of new water treatment facilities) and
4.15 -7 (construction of new energy transmission facilities), which both pertain to physical
impacts associated with construction of water and energy facilities or accelerated physical
deterioration associated with increased usage of existing facilities, would be less than
significant. Though the impacts would not be significant for the proposed Project, the impacts
would be less with Alternative B because the overall demand generated would be less, which
would reduce the demand on existing facilities.
Thresholds 4.15 -3 (water), 4.15 -6 (wastewater), and 4.15 -8 (energy) pertain to consistency with
any applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an
environmental effect. The General Plan identifies the Open Space Designation as the primary
use for the Project site. Therefore, this Alternative would be consistent with land use and natural
resource policies; these are outlined in Table 4.15 -11, City of Newport Beach General Plan
Consistency Evaluation, which identifies the use of sustainable development practices, water
conservation, and use of water - conservation devices in the City. Both the proposed Project and
Alternative B would be consistent with the applicable General Plan policies.
Conclusion
Alternative B would have fewer impacts than the proposed Project because it would involve less
grading and site disturbance. This Alternative would have less demand on public services and
utilities. However, this Alternative would not assist the City in meeting its RHNA housing
requirements or implementing the General Plan Housing Element.
Significant and Unavoidable Impacts
Alternative B would able to avoid the significant and unavoidable impacts associated with traffic,
air quality, greenhouse gases, and certain noise impacts, when compared to the proposed
Project. The following topics would have impacts that could not be reduced to a less than
significant level:
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 17`h 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
R:TrojeatslNewpartU015VOrafi EIR7.0 Nf 090311.tloc 7 -62 Newport Banning Ranch
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Section 7.0
Alternatives to the
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 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 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).
• 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).
Feasibility and Ability to Meet Project Objectives
This Alternative is deemed to be potentially feasible. That said, the ultimate determination of
feasibility is a consideration for the decision makers. In this case, 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.
Feasibility is also dependent on the City's ability to construct roadways, infrastructure, and
recreation improvements. In addition, since no mechanism exists to impose consolidation and
clean -up of the oilfield, agreements would have to be negotiated for this to occur.'
The City and others have been investigating potential funding sources; however, to date no
financing has been identified to implement any component of this Alternative despite efforts by
the City to establish a value for the property, efforts to identify sources of funding via open
space acquisition consultants, and the efforts of independent groups.
The General Plan identifies the fiscal constraints associated with implementation of this
Alternative. The acquisition of the property and implementation of Alternative B, which includes
site remediation, would be very expensive. The City has had a pricing study of the Project site
prepared by an appraiser, which concluded in January 2009 that the price of the land could
range from $138,000,000 to $158,000,000, assuming a 25 percent discount if all of the property
were to be acquired at once (Buss - Shelger Associates 2008). These prices do not include the
cost of clean -up and remediation from the oil operations on the property. The City also retained
an open space acquisition consultant, who explored the feasibility of funding for acquisition of
the property as open space. The consultant's report in August 2009 found that, in light of
economic and State fiscal conditions, there is little likelihood of funding from State bonds or
private foundations in the near future. In addition, some agencies felt that the important habitat
areas on Newport Banning Ranch should be preserved through the development entitlement
process, and public funding should not be used for acquisition of the entire property (Resources
Opportunity Group, LLC. 2009). The City's open space acquisition consultant re- contacted State
5 Acquisition of the property does not include acquisition of the underlying mineral rights, which are owned by a
third party.
R:Troj.tMN..partU015M . ft EIR7.0 Nt 090311.d.c 7 -63 Newport Banning Ranch
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Section 7.0
Alternatives to the
funding agencies in July 2010, after some Proposition 84 funds had been released. While some
of those funds were technically "available" and agency staff had been told they may consider
projects again, the practical reality was that any money available was only for projects that have
been on line for two to three years, with appraisals and purchase negotiations completed. As in
2009, the conclusion was that there would not be enough money for an acquisition like Newport
Banning Ranch for open space purposes (Wood 2009).
To date, funds for the acquisition of the site have not been available and a viable funding
program has not been identified. The Renewed Measure M (also known as Measure M2) was
passed in November 2006, to extend the half -cent sales tax for transportation projects from April
2011 through 2041. A component of Measure M2 was the allocation of funds for environmental
mitigation. The Newport Banning Ranch property was one of the initial 14 properties that were
recommended by the OCTA Environmental Oversight Committee (EOC) to be considered for
acquisition as part of the Environmental Mitigation Program (EMP) developed for the Measure
M2. Acquisition properties identified for the EMP were ranked according to their biological
values and those with higher habitat values and willing sellers were subject to appraisals and
further negotiations. At the time, Newport Banning Ranch, LLC indicated it would not provide a
letter indicating intent to sell because the property was in the entitlement process and a Draft
Environmental Impact Report was expected to be issued in 2010 (Ward 2010). Newport
Banning Ranch, LLC indicated that, given the circumstances pertaining to the Newport Banning
Ranch property — including the very high City and Owner land valuations —the admission to the
OCTA Vision 2020 Committee by the EOC that their intention was not to use "highest and best
use" as the standard for appraisal /valuation, as well as concerns related to oil operations clean-
up liabilities, a "willing seller" letter could not be provided.
While EIRs are to focus on environmental impacts, rather than economic considerations, the
financial feasibility of implementing an Alternative is a reasonable consideration under CEQA. If
the resources are not available, the decision makers may be determined that this is not a
feasible Alternative regardless of the potential environmental or other public benefits.
Additionally, this Alternative does not meet the Project objectives as effectively as the proposed
Project. Specifically, this Alternative would not meet the following Project objectives:
• 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 provision of affordable housing to
help meet the City's Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) (Objective 3).
• 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 (Objective 4).
• 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 (Objective 5).
• 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
R:Troj.tMN..partU015M . ft EIR7.0 Nt 090311.tloc 7 -64 Newport Banning Ranch
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Section 7.0
Alternatives to the
criteria to orient residential buildings to the streets and walkways in a manner that
enhances the streetscape scene (Objective 6).
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 (Objective 14).
In addition, the following objectives would only be partially met with Alternative B, assuming that
adequate funding is available:
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
(Objective 8).
• 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 (Objective 10).
• 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 (Objective 11).
• 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
(Objective 13).
• 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 (Objective 15).
Though this Alternative would not meet or would not effectively meet more than half the Project
objectives, the General Plan identifies that the open space land use is the primary land use for
the site with the residential village serving as an alternate, if acquisition for open space is not
feasible. Therefore, Alternative B is considered to be potentially feasible.
R:TrojectslNewpartU015VDrafi EIR7.0 Nf 090311.tloc 7 -65 Newport Banning Ranch
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Section 7.0
Alternatives to the
7.5.3 ALTERNATIVE C: PROPOSED PROJECT WITHOUT NORTH BLUFF ROAD
EXTENSION TO 19TH STREET
Description of the Alternative
Alternative C was developed to provide an incremental reduction in the impacts associated with
the extension of North Bluff Road, north of 17th Street. All other components of the proposed
Project would also be implemented by Alternative C. By removing the extension of this segment
of the roadway, the open space area would not be bisected as a result of this Alternative.
Alternative C does not assume the deletion of North Bluff Road between 17th Street and
19th Street from the City's General Plan Circulation Element Master Plan of Streets and
Highways or the Orange County MPAH. Therefore, although the road would not be constructed
as part of this Alternative, it does not preclude the construction of this roadway segment in the
future. Should the road be constructed in the future, the impacts that are avoided at this time
would be realized. It should be noted that implementation of the segment of roadway between
17th and 19th Streets would be a separate project and would require separate approvals.
However, a General Plan Circulation Amendment and MPAH would still be required for
Alternative C to delete the segment of 151h Street west of Bluff Road, which would provide a
second arterial through the Project site connecting to West Coast Highway.
Alternative C would allow for the development of the 401 -acre site with residential, commercial,
resort inn, recreational and open space uses without the construction of North Bluff Road
between 17th Street and 19th Street. Other than the extension of North Bluff Road, all
components of Alternative C are the same as the proposed Project. Other Project features, such
as the parks, trails, oil remediation, resort inn, and mixed use areas are the same as the
proposed Project. The PDFs, SCs, and MMs identified for the proposed Project would also be
applicable to this Alternative. Alternative C is the same not only with regards to land uses and
amenities, but also includes the same fuel modification and other features such as drainage
improvements. The Mitigation Program (PDFs, SCs, and MMs) outlined for the proposed Project
would also apply to Alternative C, with the exception of providing the northern extension of
North Bluff Road.
Proposed land uses (including proposed land use designations) are depicted on Exhibit 7 -2,
Alternative C: Land Use Plan. Table 7 -6, Alternative C Statistical Summary, shows 1,375 du,
75,000 sf of commercial uses, and a 75 -room resort inn. Approximately 51.9 acres are proposed
for active and passive park uses. Approximately 16.5 acres would be used for the consolidation
of oil facility operations in 2 locations. Once oil operations are completed, this acreage would be
retained in open space use. Alternative C includes a vehicular and a non - vehicular circulation
system similar to that included in the proposed Project, with the exception of North Bluff Road
north of 17th Street.
R:TrojectslNewpartU015VOrafi EIR7.0 Nf 090311.tloc 7 -66 Newport Banning Ranch
Draft Environmental Impact Report
o
z
w
b
N
O
3
z_
2
0
0
2v
m
191e Street
• —:...f ws]eor vrar Raea�amn
W
IF
/k
2
Q
Q
Z
C
18th Street
h
UOS /PTF
BP
LOB/PTF
MUIR
1 _ 1]N Stl4€1
- -
_
In IF
USAGE
Wetlands
OF I���� MUIR
RUM
i�
Restamtlon
(; UOSIPT
/'� q.
_tvevtlausueer- .J
— — _ - -_ - --
Area
® _ J
• - - -• -•
RL
b
U RM RM
4\
NMUSO
15m Sire I
BP —'
��
/._ _
LEGEND
Project Site Boundary
RL � `� RM
.�
/ -City_
UVa,ds
I RM
OPEN SPACE �� U�-
F
I Lowland Open Space I Public Tails & Facilities RL
Upland Open Space / Public Trails & Facilities
Interim Oil Facilities (OF)
PUBLIC PARKS / RECREATION
M Community Park (CP)
UOSIPTF
,�
y RM 15r Ewe,
M Bluff Park (BP)
OF—
® Interpretive Parks(IP)
1 BP —_,
RL e°a° '
VISITOR - SERVING RESORT/ RESIDENTIAL
Visitor - Serving Resort/ Residential(VSR /R)
BOSIPTF
SRIR
RESIDENTIAL
Low Density Residential (L)
Low - Medium Density Residential (LM)
OF
Pmoosed Fromanem
Medium Density Residential (M)
LLL UOSIPTF
CP Ge,m,, .O b Suneel Ridge Perk
- Pedestrian Pasec
west
_UOSIPTF
MIXED - USE /RESIDENTIAL
11 °a
= Mixed - Use / Residential(MU /R)
\, hs"
Sunset Ridge
ROADWAYS
Pr°p°seo
`Pedaelne°e °age
ay Park
Arterial Roads
6
P
Collector Roads
'T
Right-of-Way Reservation for 19th Steel
PACIFIC y
OCEAN
Source: FORMA 2011
Alternative C: Proposed Land Use Plan
with North Bluff Road to
17th Street
Exhibit 7 -2
Newport Banning Ranch EIR
N
WAa
e
ry
C O N 5 U L T T I N N G G
s
(REV 080311JFG)
R: Pmloct NewpoMJ015\ Graphics \EIR \Ex7- 2_NBIufll7Altpdf
Section 7.0
Alternatives to the
TABLE 7 -6
ALTERNATIVE C STATISTICAL SUMMARY
This Alternative would require the same permits and approvals as required for the proposed
Project. In summary, Alternative C would require the approvals listed below.
City of Newport Beach
As with the proposed Project, the following discretionary actions by the City would be required:
RTrojectMNewpartU015Mrafi EIR7.0 Nt 090311,dac 7 -67 Newport Banning Ranch
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Maximum
Planned
Permitted
Maximum
Gross
Dwelling
Commercial
Resort Inn
Land Use District
Acresa
Unit
sf
Room
Open Space
LOS /PTF
Lowland Open Space /Public Trails and Facilities°
130.6
—
—
—
UOS /PTF
Upland Open Space /Public Trails and Facilities°
104.9
—
—
OF
Interim Oil Facilities'
16.5
—
—
—
Subtotal Open Space
252.0
—
—
—
Public Parks /Recreation
CID
Community Park
26.8
—
—
—
BP
Bluff Park'
21.4
—
—
—
IP
Interpretive Parks'
3.7
—
—
—
Subtotal Public Parks/Recreation
51.9
—
—
—
Visitor- Serving Resort/Residential'
VSR/R
Visitor - Serving Resort/Residential
11.3
87
—
75
Subtotal Visitor - Serving Resort/Residential
11.3
87
—
75
Residential'
L
Low Density Residential (up to 8 du /ac)
26.1
167
0
—
LIM
Low - Medium Density Residential (up to 16 du /ac)
11.8
85
0
—
M
Medium Density Residential (up to 24 du /ac)
27.3
306
0
—
Subtotal Residential
65.2
558
0
—
Mixed- Use /Residential'
MU /R
Mixed - Use /Residential (up to 40 du /ac)
20.7
730
75,000
—
Subtota/ Mixed- Use /Residential
20.7
730
75,000
—
Tota/ Project
401.1
1,375
75,000
75
sf: square footage;du /ac: dwelling units per acre
Gross acres are measured to centerlines of all public roads where such roads are shown on the plan. As a result, there are minor
acreage differences with Alternative C compared to the proposed Project. Both scenarios are proposing the same land uses;
however, the deletion of the extension of North Bluff Road results in slightly less acreage in the open space and mixed -use residential
categories and slightly greater acreage in the Bluff Park category. Gross acres are computed using geographic information system
(GIS) technology with accuracy to 10 decimal places. Acres are shown in this table to one decimal place.
The Right -of -Way Reservation for the 19" Street Extension contains approximately 3.2 acres.
The Interim Oil Facilities (Open Space) District includes: (1) the existing oil operations site near West Coast Highway; (2) the oil
consolidation site near the middle of the Lowland; and (3) an oil access road (non - exclusive easement) connecting the two working
sites.
" Gross acres for the Bluff Park District and Interpretive Parks District may include fuel management zones, interpretive trails and
facilities, and landscape focal points and greens.
Gross acres for Residential Districts, the Visitor - Serving Resort/Residential District, and the Mixed - Use /Residential District may
include fuel management zones, privately owned and maintained parks and recreation facilities, and landscape focal points and
greens.
Source: FORMA 2011.
This Alternative would require the same permits and approvals as required for the proposed
Project. In summary, Alternative C would require the approvals listed below.
City of Newport Beach
As with the proposed Project, the following discretionary actions by the City would be required:
RTrojectMNewpartU015Mrafi EIR7.0 Nt 090311,dac 7 -67 Newport Banning Ranch
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Section 7.0
Alternatives to the
• General Plan Sphere of Influence Map and Circulation Element Amendment
• Code Amendment
• Pre - Annexation Zone Change
• Newport Banning Ranch Planned Community Zoning
• Newport Banning Ranch Master Development Plan
• Tentative Tract Map (TTM) No. 17308
• Affordable Housing Implementation Plan (AHIP)
• Pre - Annexation and Development Agreement
• Traffic Phasing Ordinance Approval
Based on more detailed design, the following approvals would be required prior to
implementation of Alternative C:
• Tentative and Final Tract Maps to further subdivide lots approved as part of the approval
of TTM 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;
• Public Facilities Financing and Bond Issuance;
• Encroachment Permits;
• Acquisition of rights of entry easements and right -of -way for off -site Project
improvements, as necessary;
• Construction of Public Facilities.
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 listed species.
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 1600 Streambed Alteration
Agreement.
R:TrojedMNewpartU015M . ft EIR7.0 AIts090311,d.c 7 -68 Newport Banning Ranch
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Section 7.0
Alternatives to the
• California Coastal Commission: Master Coastal Development Permit, including
approval of the Newport Banning Ranch Master Development Plan.
• California Department of Transportation (Ca /trans): Activities located within California
Department of Transportation (Caltrans) right -of -way would require an Encroachment
Permit. An Encroachment Permit would be required for widening and improving West
Coast Highway, modifications to the reinforced concrete box (RCB) culvert in West Coast
Highway, and for constructing a pedestrian and bicycle bridge over West Coast Highway.
All activities must be in compliance with Caltrans' Statewide National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) Permit.
• 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 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.
Comparative Analysis of Environmental Impacts
Land Use and Related Planning Programs
Alternative C assumes the same land uses and same development plan as the proposed
Project without the construction of North Bluff Road between 17th Street and 19th Street. As
described in Section 4.1.7 of Section 4.1, Land Use and Related Planning Programs, the Project
site is generally bound by established development to the north, south, and east. The Santa
Ana River generally borders the Project site to the west with single - family residences west of the
Semeniuk Slough. Although the Project site is surrounded by established communities of
residential development, the Project site itself is an active oilfield and there are no public uses or
public access to the site. Therefore, as with the proposed Project, Alternative C would not
physically divide an established community (Threshold 4.1 -1). However, as with the proposed
Project, some homes in the Newport Crest development would be affected by vehicular noise
from Bluff Road and night lighting associated with the Community Park. The noise impacts
would be potential land use compatibility impacts that would remain significant if the residents of
Newport Crest elect not to have the mitigation measures for vehicular noise impacts
implemented. In addition, as with the proposed Project, there would be a potential long -range
noise impacts for residents on 17th Street west of Monrovia Avenue if the City of Costa Mesa
does not implement the recommended measure of resurfacing the street with rubberized
asphalt.
Threshold 4.1 -2 pertains to consistency with any applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted
for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. As with the proposed Project,
Alternative C would be consistent with applicable the land use policies. For this threshold, both
Alternative C and the proposed Project would have no impacts.
R:TrojectMNewpartU015Mmft EIR7.0 Nt 090311.tloc 7 -69 Newport Banning Ranch
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Alternatives to the
Aesthetics and Visual Resources
Section 7.0
Alternative C includes the development of the same land uses as those under the proposed
Project with the exception of North Bluff Road between 17th Street and 19th Street. The
proposed Project would not substantially degrade the visual character or quality of the site.
Alternative C would result in the same site plan for the southwest portion of the Project site and
would not result in an adverse effect on a scenic vista because the City does not have any
designated scenic vistas and West Coast Highway is not a State- or locally designated scenic
highway (Threshold 4.2 -1).
As discussed in Section 4.2, Aesthetics and Visual Resources, the views of the Project site from
off -site locales (such as from public streets, Talbert Regional Park, and surrounding
development) would generally be the same with Alternative C as with the proposed Project. One
exception would be where the proposed Project would have North Bluff Road intersect
19th Street. Exhibit 4.2 -7, View 6 North Bluff Road at 19th Street, illustrates the Project site from
19th Street at Balboa Street (public streets). As shown in the existing view, aboveground utility
poles and lines can be seen along 19th Street; these transmission lines extend west onto the
Project site. A guardrail is visible along the south side of 19th Street. The Project site is visible
south of 19th Street; Talbert Regional Park is located west of the terminus of 19th Street (on the
right side of the photograph). In this view, the varying topography and on -site vegetation is
visible. Under Alternative C, North Bluff Road would not be extended from 17th Street to 19th
Street. Under Alternative C, the existing guardrail would not be removed and would remain
visible. The existing utility poles currently on the Project site would be relocated and /or placed
underground.
The overall grading of the entire Project site is slightly reduced compared to the proposed
Project because with Alternative C there would be no grading to accommodate the northern
extension of North Bluff Road. The remainder of the Project site would be developed with the
same land uses and site plan as the proposed Project. Section 4.2 of this EIR details the
aesthetic impacts resulting from the proposed Project and determines that there would be less
than significant impacts associated with degrading the visual character. Similar to the proposed
Project, development under Alternative C would alter existing views of the Project site; however,
due to extensive site planning, Alternative C would not degrade the visual character or result in
a significant aesthetic impact (Threshold 4.2 -2).
Because Alternative C would be developed with the same land uses, Alternative C would
introduce new sources of light on the Project site similar to the proposed Project, resulting in
nighttime lighting into a currently unlit area. This increased nighttime lighting on the Project site
is considered a significant and unavoidable impact under the proposed Project and
Alternative C (Threshold 4.2 -3). As previously indicated for the proposed Project,
implementation of the Mitigation Program identified in Section 4.2.8 would reduce potential
nighttime lighting effects; however, the impact would remain significant and unavoidable. The
conclusions for the proposed Project and Alternative C with respect to night lighting are
consistent with the General Plan Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations.
As with the proposed Project, Alternative C would be consistent with the intent of the aesthetic
resources goals and policies of the City of Newport Beach General Plan and the California
Coastal Act (Threshold 4.2 -4).
R:TrojectslNewpartU015Verafi EIR7.0 Nf 090311.tloc 7 -70 Newport Banning Ranch
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Alternatives to the
Geology and Soils
Section 7.0
Alternative C assumes the same land uses and same development plan as the proposed
Project without the construction of North Bluff Road between 17th Street and 19th Street. The
proposed Project would require total excavation of approximately 2,500,000 cubic yards (cy)
including approximately 900,000 cy of cut and fill and 1,455,000 cy of cut and fill corrective
grading. Alternative C would require total excavation of approximately 2,400,000 cy, including
850,000 cy of cut and fill and 1,405,000 cy of cut and fill corrective grading. Overall,
Alternative C would require less grading compared to the proposed Project.
As indicated in Section 4.3, Geology and Soils, the Project site is located in a seismically active
area with faults within the proposed development site that could not be proven to be inactive
(Threshold 4.3 -1). Habitable structures near these faults are subject to fault setback zones and
seismic design parameters that would appropriately address seismic building standards. As with
the proposed Project, Alternative C would result in the potential for impacts associated with
surface fault rupture and seismic shaking (Threshold 4.3 -2). Implementation of the Mitigation
Program in Section 4.3.9 would reduce potential impacts to less than significant. Impacts
associated with these thresholds would be similar for both the proposed Project and
Alternative C.
As indicated in Section 4.3, Geology and Soils, two fault segments on the Project site have not
been confirmed as inactive, and development setbacks have been recommended. The fault
setback zones would reduce the risk of surface fault rupture. As with the proposed Project,
Alternative C would incorporate strengthened building foundations and structural design which
would accommodate strong seismic shaking on the Project site. Habitable structures would be
restricted to the Upland area, avoiding soils that may liquefy or undergo lateral spreading and,
where necessary, corrective grading would ensure all structures are placed on competent
foundation materials. Furthermore, this Alternative would not result in impacts from
seismic - related ground failure, liquefaction, lateral spreading, soil collapse, or landslides
(Thresholds 4.3 -3 and 4.3 -6). Implementation of the Mitigation Program in Section 4.3.9 would
reduce potential impacts to less than significant. Impacts associated with these thresholds
would be similar for both the proposed Project and Alternative C.
As with the proposed Project, Alternative C would be subject to some existing on -site potential
for landslides under dynamic seismic conditions. Consistency with the California Building Code
(CBC), City building code requirements, and General Plan policies along with the incorporation
of bluff setback zones (PDF 4.3 -1) would ensure that impacts associated with on- and off -site
landslides would be less than significant (Threshold 4.3 -4). Impacts associated with this
threshold would be similar for both the proposed Project and Alternative C.
As with the proposed Project, grading activities associated with Alternative C would increase the
potential for soil erosion and loss of topsoil (Threshold 4.3 -5). With the incorporation of
construction BMPs as described in Section 4.4, Hydrology and Water Quality, impacts on soil
erosion and loss of topsoil would be less than significant. Post - construction, soil erosion and the
loss of topsoil would be minimized through the use of engineered grading, surface drainage
improvements, and landscaping (e.g., PDFs 4.3 -2 and 4.3 -3). Impacts associated with the
proposed Project and Alternative C would be similar and less than significant.
On -site soils have a low to medium expansion potential. As with the proposed Project,
incorporation of SCs 4.3 -1 through 4.3 -3 and MMs 4.3 -1 through 4.3 -3, would reduce impacts
from this Alternative associated with expansive soils to a less than significant level
RTrojetMNewpartU015Mrafi EIR7.0 Nt090311.tloc 7 -71 Newport Banning Ranch
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Section 7.0
Alternatives to the
(Threshold 4.3 -7). Impacts associated with this threshold would be similar for both the proposed
Project and Alternative C.
Alternative C and the proposed Project would be consistent with the intent of the soils and
geology - related goals and policies of the City of Newport Beach General Plan and the California
Coastal Act (Threshold 4.3 -8).
Hydrology and Water Quality
Alternative C would result in an increase in impervious surfaces and would increase the amount
of runoff and the concentration of pollutants in storm water runoff as compared to existing
conditions, but would be less than the proposed project (Thresholds 4.4 -1, 4.4 -6, 4.4 -11, 4.4 -12,
and 4.4 -13). Implementation of the Mitigation Program in Section 4.4.7 of the EIR would ensure
that these impacts would be reduced to a less than significant level. When compared to the
proposed Project, Alternative C would result in similar but incrementally less impacts. As with
the proposed Project, these impacts through mitigation would be less than significant.
The proposed Project would result in an increase in impervious surface and would reduce the
potential for groundwater percolation (Threshold 4.4 -2); implementation of treatment - control
BMPs and low- impact development (LID) features would ensure that impacts would be less than
significant. Alternative C would have less impervious surface than the proposed Project;
therefore, potential impacts to groundwater would be incrementally less than the proposed
Project. This impact would be less than significant.
This Alternative would involve changes to existing drainage patterns and would cause increases
in erosion on the Project site and in the surrounding areas (Thresholds 4.4.3 and 4.4 -15).
Implementation of the Mitigation Program in Section 4.4.7 of the EIR would ensure that these
impacts would be reduced to a less than significant level. When these impacts are compared to
the proposed Project, Alternative C would result in similar impacts that would be less than
significant.
Alternative C would result in increased impervious surfaces and in peak flow runoff and runoff
volumes from the site (Thresholds 4.4-4 and 4.4 -14) and would affect the capacity of existing
and planned storm water drainage systems (Threshold 4.4 -5). When compared to the proposed
Project, these impacts would be similar, but incrementally less. These impacts would be less
than significant.
As with the proposed Project, housing associated with Alternative C would be located on the
Upland at elevations well outside the 100 -year floodplain. There would be no impacts to or from
the 100 -year floodplain for both the proposed Project and Alternative C (Thresholds 4.4 -7 and
4.4 -8).
The Project site is located at the lower end of the watershed and is not located within any dam
inundation areas. In addition, development is proposed for the site's Upland area which is
located above the Santa Ana River's 100 -year floodplain. As with the proposed Project, housing
associated with Alternative C would be located on the Upland and people and /or structures
would not be exposed to significant risk associated with the failure of a levee or dam
(Threshold 4.4 -9). Potential impacts associated with Threshold 4.4 -9 would be less than
significant for both the proposed Project and Alternative C.
There are no permanent standing water bodies in the Upland area and inundation by tsunami is
not likely because of Project site elevations and the City's existing Emergency Management
RTrojetMNewpartU015Mrafi EIR7.0 Nt090311.tloc 7 -72 Newport Banning Ranch
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Section 7.0
Alternatives to the
Plan. Therefore, as with the proposed Project, inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow is not
likely for this Alternative (Threshold 4.4 -10).
Alternative C would not conflict with applicable land use policies (Threshold 4.4 -16). As with the
proposed Project, this Alternative would be consistent with the Harbor and Bay Element, Natural
Resources Element, and Safety Element goals and policies, which are outlined in Table 4.4 -25,
City of Newport Beach General Plan Consistency Evaluation and the relevant California Coastal
Act policies which are outlined in Table 4.4 -26, California Coastal Act Consistency Analysis.
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
As discussed in Section 4.5, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, with implementation of the
identified Mitigation Program, potentially significant impacts related to the historical and
continuing oil operations on the Project site and the potential presence of ACMs and LBP in
some structures would be reduced to a level considered less than significant. Alternative C
would result in the same land uses and same development plan as the proposed Project without
the construction of North Bluff Road between 171h Street and 19th Street. The presence or
absence of this portion of North Bluff Road is inconsequential to the need for, or implementation
of, the final RAP identified in the Mitigation Program. Therefore, with implementation of the
Mitigation Program, like the proposed Project, this Alternative would result in less than
significant impacts related to Thresholds 4.5 -1 and 4.5 -2, which pertain to the creation of
hazards associated with the transport, use, disposal, and /or emissions of hazardous materials
and location on an identified hazardous materials site.
Both the construction and operational characteristics of Alternative C are the same as the
proposed Project. The long -term operation of the development would not emit hazardous
emissions within 1/4 mile of a school; however, the remediation activities may establish off -site
haul routes on streets that pass existing schools. Implementation of SCs would provide for
impacts to be considered less than significant. This is consistent with the finding for the
proposed Project (Threshold 4.5 -3).
The Project site is not identified on the Cortese List, which is compiled pursuant to
Section 65962.5 of the California Government Code. Therefore, there would be no impact
associated with Threshold 4.5 -4.
Threshold 4.5 -5 pertains to consistency with any applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted
for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. Alternative C would not conflict
with applicable land use, harbor and bay, natural resource, or safety policies because it would
provide for the consolidation of oilfield activities and remediation of the site, which is same as
the proposed Project. The policies, which were outlined in Table 4.5 -5, City of Newport Beach
General Plan Consistency Evaluation, call for (1) the prohibition of new oil and gas extraction
activities; (2) the consolidation and /or relocation of existing oil operations; (3) limiting hazards
associated with oil operations; and (4) the assessment and, if necessary, remediation of soil and
groundwater contamination. This Alternative would be consistent with provisions of the General
Plan and other applicable policies. For this threshold, this Alternative would have a similar
impact to the proposed Project, and would remain less than significant.
Biological Resources
Alternative C would reduce the impacts to biological resources compared to the proposed
Project. There would be a reduced substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat
modifications, on species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local
R:TrojectslNewpartU015Mrafi EIR7.0 Nf 090311.tloc 7 -73 Newport Banning Ranch
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Section 7.0
Alternatives to the
or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the CDFG or USFWS (Threshold 4.6 -1).
Alternative C's impact and the difference between Alternative C and the proposed Project are
summarized below.
Alternative C and the proposed Project have identical impacts to special status plant
species. Approximately 500 of the tarplant individuals occur within the permanent impact
area, and approximately 4,590 occur within the temporary impact (oil remediation) area.
These impacts would be considered significant; however, with implementation of
identified PDFs and MMs, potentially significant impacts to these resources from
Alternative C would be reduced to a level considered less than significant.
As with the proposed Project, potential impacts from Alternative C on California Native
Plant Society (CNPS) List 4 species are not expected to have a substantial adverse
effect on these species; therefore, the impact would be considered less than significant.
Alternative C and the proposed Project have identical impacts to grassland depression
features and the San Diego fairy shrimp. Alternative C and the proposed Project would
both result in substantial adverse effects on the pool areas supporting San Diego fairy
shrimp; however, with implementation of identified PDFs and MMs, potentially significant
impacts to these resources from Alternative C would be reduced to a level considered
less than significant.
As with the proposed Project, there would be no significant impact to any fish,
amphibian, or reptile species from implementation of Alternative C.
Neither proposed Project nor Alternative C have any significant impacts on the following
special status bird species: American white pelican, California brown pelican,
double- crested cormorant, black skimmer, California least tern, white -faced ibis,
California gull, gull - billed tern, fulvous whistling duck, long -eared owl, and California
black rail. Therefore, mitigation for these species would not be required for either
Alternative C or the proposed Project.
Alternative C would result in similar impacts as those identified by the proposed Project
which include potentially significant impacts for the loss of suitable foraging and /or
nesting habitat for the light- footed clapper rail, western snowy plover, Belding's
savannah sparrow, tricolored blackbird, least bittern, Clark's marsh wren, long- billed
curlew, and large- billed savannah sparrow. With implementation of identified PDFs and
MMs, potentially significant impacts to these resources from Alternative C would be
reduced to a level considered less than significant.
• As with the proposed Project, there would be no significant impact to the western
yellow - billed cuckoo, Vaux's swift, black swift, purple martin, bank swallow, loggerhead
shrike, California horned lark, Southern California rufous - crowned sparrow, grasshopper
sparrow, Bell's sage sparrow, southwestern willow flycatcher, yellow warbler,
yellow- breasted chat, golden eagle, Swainson's hawk, or bald eagle from
implementation of Alternative C. Therefore, no mitigation would be required for either the
proposed Project or Alternative C related to impacts to these sensitive bird species.
R:TrojectslNewpartU015VOrafi EIR7.0 Nf 090311.tlac 7 -74 Newport Banning Ranch
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Alternatives to the
TABLE 7 -7
VEGETATION TYPES ON THE PROJECT SITE - ALTERNATIVE C IMPACTS
Section 7.0
Vegetation Type
Existing
(Acres)
Permanent
Impacts
(Acres)
Temporary
Impacts
(Acres)
Temporary
Impacts: Pipe
Removal
(Acres)
Total
Temporary
Impacts
(Acres)
Total Impacts
(Acres)
Area Not
Affected
(Acreage)
Coastal Sage Scrub
37.63
7.66
0.44
1.17
1.61
9.27
28.36
Southern Coastal Bluff Scrub
9.21
3.02
0.02
0.04
0.06
3.08
6.13
California Sagebrush Scrub
0.29
0.29
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.29
0.00
Encelia Scrub
15.73
3.43
0.20
0.68
0.88
4.31
11.42
Coyote Brush Scrub
0.33
0.04
0.01
0.00
0.01
0.05
0.28
Coyote Brush Scrub /Mule Fat Scrub
0.06
0.06
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.06
0.00
Goldenbush Scrub
0.87
0.01
0.12
0.01
0.13
0.14
0.73
Southern Cactus Scrub
8.91
0.72
0.03
0.41
0.44
1.16
7.75
Southern Cactus Scrub /Encelia Scrub
2.17
0.03
0.06
0.03
0.09
0.12
2.05
Saltbush Scrub
0.06
0.06
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.06
0.00
Disturbed Coastal Sage Scrub
20.64
9.20
1.10
0.65
1.75
10.95
9.69
Disturbed Southern Coastal Bluff
Scrub
5.66
1.43
0.68
0.39
1.07
2.50
3.16
Disturbed Sage Scrub
0.30
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.30
Disturbed Encelia Scrub /Mule Fat
Scrub
0.49
0.04
0.03
0.01
0.04
0.08
0.41
Disturbed Encelia Scrub
4.33
2.76
0.06
0.02
0.08
2.84
1.49
Disturbed Goldenbush Scrub
1.19
0.00
0.07
0.12
0.19
0.19
1.00
Disturbed Goldenbush Scrub /Mule Fat
Scrub/ Salt Marsh
1.06
0.01
0.21
0.00
0.21
0.22
0.84
Disturbed Southern Cactus Scrub
1.04
1.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
1.00
0.04
Disturbed Southern Cactus
Scrub /Encelia Scrub
0.78
0.36
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.36
0.42
Ruderal /Disturbed Encelia Scrub
0.80
0.80
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.80
0.00
Ruderal /Disturbed Encelia
Scrub /Disturbed Mule Fat Scrub
2.74
2.74
0.00
0.00
0.00
2.74
0.00
Ornamental /Disturbed Southern
Coastal Bluff Scrub
2.25
0.06
0.05
0.11
0.16
0.22
2.03
RAProjecte\NewpcnU015\IDmft EIRV.0 Ali -09031 1 doc 7 -75 Newport Banning Ranch
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Alternatives to the
TABLE 7 -7 (Continued)
VEGETATION TYPES ON THE PROJECT SITE - ALTERNATIVE C IMPACTS
Section 7.0
Vegetation Type
Existing
(Acres)
Permanent
Impacts
(Acres)
Temporary
Impacts
(Acres)
Temporary
Impacts: Pipe
Removal
(Acres)
Total
Temporary
Impacts
(Acres)
Total Impacts
(Acres)
Area Not
Affected
(Acreage)
Grassland and Ruderal
120.40
95.76
2.16
0.75
2.91
98.67
21.73
Non - Native Grassland
85.76
78.71
0.36
0.14
0.50
79.21
6.55
Non - Native Grassland /Ruderal
6.51
6.07
0.44
0.00
0.44
6.51
0.00
Ruderal
28.13
10.98
1.36
0.61
1.97
12.95
15.18
Grassland Depression Features
0.40
0.07
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.13
0.27
Vernal Pool
0.33
0.00
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.06
0.27
Ephemeral Pool
0.07
0.07
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.07
0.00
Marshes and Mudflats
31.45
0.10
0.82
1.60
2.42
2.52
28.93
Freshwater Marsh
0.50
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.50
Alkali Meadow
20.39
0.07
0.36
1.14
1.50
1.57
18.82
Disturbed Alkali Meadow
2.42
0.00
0.06
0.13
0.19
0.19
2.23
Salt Marsh
6.01
0.03
0.29
0.32
0.61
0.64
5.37
Disturbed Salt Marsh
0.26
0.00
0.03
0.00
0.03
0.03
0.23
Mudflat
0.43
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.43
Open Water
1.44
0.00
0.08
0.01
0.09
0.09
1.35
Riparian Scrub/Forest
21.71
1.62
0.25
0.55
0.80
2.42
19.29
Mule Fat Scrub
3.32
0.20
0.10
1 0.11
0.21
0.41
2.91
Willow Scrub
1.14
0.08
0.01
0.10
0.11
0.19
0.95
Willow Riparian Forest
17.25
1.34
0.14
0.34
0.48
1.82
15.43
Disturbed Riparian Scrub /Forest
38.87
4.64
2.98
2.33
5.31
9.95
28.92
Disturbed Mule Fat Scrub
28.87
4.26
2.55
1.56
4.11
8.37
20.50
Disturbed Mule Fat Scrub /Ruderal
0.88
0.00
0.10
0.09
0.19
0.19
0.69
Disturbed Mule Fat Scrub /Goldenbush
Scrub
2.03
0.35
0.21
0.10
0.31
0.66
1.37
Disturbed Willow Scrub
1.03
0.03
0.00
0.08
0.08
0.11
0.92
Disturbed Willow Riparian Forest
6.06
0.00
0.12
0.50
0.62
0.62
5.44
RAProjecte\NewpcnU015\IDmft EIRV.0 Ali -09031 1 doc 7 -76 Newport Banning Ranch
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Alternatives to the
TABLE 7 -7 (Continued)
VEGETATION TYPES ON THE PROJECT SITE - ALTERNATIVE C IMPACTS
Section 7.0
Vegetation Type
Existing
(Acres)
Permanent
Impacts
(Acres)
Temporary
Impacts
(Acres)
Temporary
Impacts: Pipe
Removal
(Acres)
Total
Temporary
Impacts
(Acres)
Total Impacts
(Acres)
Area Not
Affected
(Acreage)
Other Areas
133.15
78.69
14.81
216
16.97
95.66
37.49
Giant Reed
0.39
0.00
0.00
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.37
Cliff
0.10
0.03
0.00
0.02
0.02
0.05
0.05
Ornamental
23.05
14.41
0.30
0.31
0.61
15.02
8.03
Disturbed
85.59
46.51
13.97
1.42
15.39
61.90
23.69
Disturbed /Developed
24.02
17.74
0.54
0.39
0.93
18.67
5.35
Total
404.25
197.74
22.58
9.25
31.83
229.57
174.68
RAProjecte\NewpcnU015\IDmft EIRV.0 Ali -09031 1 doc 7 -77 Newport Banning Ranch
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Section 7.0
Alternatives to the
• A total of 17 territories (16 pairs and 1 solitary male) of the federally listed Threatened
coastal California gnatcatcher were observed during 2009 focused surveys.
Alternative C would impact approximately 20.22 acres of coastal sage scrub vegetation
types that provide potential habitat for this species (Table 7 -7). This is approximately
2.89 fewer coastal sage scrub acres than anticipated impacts from the proposed Project.
Three of the territories identified would be impacted to a lesser extent by Alternative C
than that of the proposed Project. Even with the reduction in impacts to coastal sage
scrub and gnatcatcher habitat, these impact areas are still considered significant and
require mitigation, as outlined for the proposed Project's PDFs and MMs. As with the
proposed Project, with mitigation these impacts would be less than significant.
• Alternative C would result in similar impacts as those identified for the proposed Project,
which include potentially significant impacts on the coastal cactus wren. Alternative C
would impact 2.64 acres of habitat for this species, which is 0.28 acre less than the
proposed Project (2.92 acres). Both the proposed Project and Alternative C would
significantly impact this species. As discussed in Section 4.6, Biological Resources, with
implementation of the identified PDFs and MMs, potentially significant impacts to the
cactus wren and their habitat from Alternative C would be reduced to a level considered
less than significant.
• Two least Bell's vireo territories (both solitary males) were observed during the 2009
focused surveys. Alternative C and the proposed Project would result in the loss of
approximately 2.74 acres of potential riparian habitat for the least Bell's vireo. These
impacts are considered significant; however, implementation of MMs and PDFs would
reduce impacts on this species to less than significant levels.
• Although suitable foraging and nesting habitat is present on the Project site for the
burrowing owl, it is only expected to winter on the Project site based on the results of
focused surveys. Alternative C would result in the loss of approximately 98.67 acres of
potential habitat for this species. This is 1.46 acres less than the proposed Project
(100.13 acres). These impacts on occupied and potential habitat for this species would
be considered significant. Implementation of MMs and PDFs would reduce impacts on
this species to less than significant levels.
• Suitable foraging /perching habitat is present for a variety of raptor species (including
Cooper's hawk, sharp- shinned hawk, ferruginous hawk, northern harrier, white - tailed
kite, merlin, prairie falcon, American peregrine falcon, short-eared owl, and osprey) on
the Project site. Alternative C would result in the loss of approximately 119.05 acres of
habitat for these species. This is 5.78 acres less than the proposed Project
(124.83 acres). This impact would be considered significant. However, implementation of
MMs and PDFs would reduce impacts on these species to less than significant levels.
• Cooper's hawk, northern harrier, and white - tailed kite have the potential to nest on the
Project site. The loss of an active nest of these species, or any common raptor species,
by Alternative C or the proposed Project would be considered a violation of
Sections 3503, 3503.5, and 3513 of the California Fish and Game Code. Therefore, the
loss of any active raptor nest would be considered significant. Impacts on active raptor
nests would be reduced to less than significant levels with implementation of MMs and
PDFs.
• As with the proposed Project, there would be no significant impact to the Southern
California saltmarsh shrew, south coast marsh vole, Mexican long- tongued bat,
Townsend's big -eared bat, western mastiff bat, Pacific pocket mouse, San Diego desert
woodrat, southern grasshopper mouse, or American badger from implementation of
R:TrojectslNewpartU015VDrafi EIR7.0 Nf 090311.tlac 7 -78 Newport Banning Ranch
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Section 7.0
Alternatives to the
Alternative C. Therefore, no mitigation would be required for either the proposed Project
or Alternative C.
• Alternative C would impact approximately 133.96 acres of suitable or potentially suitable
foraging and /or roosting habitat for the pallid bat, hoary bat, western yellow bat,
pocketed free - tailed bat, and big free - tailed bat. This is approximately 4.87 acres less
than impacts from the proposed Project (138.83 acres). This impact would be
considered significant. However, implementation of MMs and PDFs would reduce
impacts on these species to less than significant levels.
• Alternative C would have similar indirect impacts related to disturbance from
construction (such as noise, dust, and urban pollutants) and long -term use of the Project
site and its effect on the adjacent habitat areas as those anticipated for the proposed
Project. Indirect impacts found to be potentially significant for both Alternative C and the
proposed Project include (a) invasion of native areas by Project ornamental landscape
species, (b) water quality impacts on biological resources, (c) night lighting, and
(d) increased human disturbance. As discussed in Section 4.6, Biological Resources,
with implementation of the identified PDFs and MMs, potentially significant indirect
impacts from implementation of Alternative C would be reduced to a level considered
less than significant.
• The proposed Project, with Bluff Road terminating at 19th Street, would result in
significant future traffic noise impacts on sensitive biological resources (i.e., least Bell's
vireo, coastal California gnatcatcher). Alternative C would significantly reduce vehicle
traffic noise in the areas north of 171h Street, reducing this impact to a less than
significant level. No mitigation would therefore be required for Alternative C for indirect
noise impacts.
This Alternative would involve a substantial adverse effect on riparian habitat and other
sensitive natural communities (Thresholds 4.6 -2 and 4.6 -3). The amount of impact to sensitive
natural communities by Alternative C and the difference between Alternative C and the
proposed Project is summarized below.
• Alternative C would impact approximately 13.95 acres of special status riparian habitat.
This represents 0.49 acre less than the proposed Project (14.44 acres). Although
Alternative C impacts to special status riparian habitat are less than the proposed
Project, they are still considered significant. As discussed in Section 4.6, Biological
Resources, with implementation of the identified PDFs and MMs, potentially significant
impacts to special status riparian habitats from Alternative C would be reduced to a level
considered less than significant.
• Alternative C would result in the loss of 11.71 acres of coastal sage scrub designated as
special status. This is 2.47 acres less than the proposed Project (14.18 acres). Although
Alternative C impacts to special status sage scrub habitat are less than the proposed
Project, they are still considered significant. As discussed in Section 4.6, Biological
Resources, with implementation of the identified PDFs and MMs, potentially significant
impacts to special status sage scrub habitats from Alternative C would be reduced to a
level considered less than significant.
• Alternative C would result in the loss of approximately 98.67 acres of grassland and
ruderal vegetation. This is 1.46 acres less than the proposed Project (100.13 acres).
Although these areas generally have low biological value, these areas may provide
suitable foraging habitat for a variety of raptor species, including wintering burrowing
owls. The loss of grassland function for foraging raptors is considered significant for
R:Troj.tMN..partU015M . ft EIR7.0 Nt 090311.tloc 7 -79 Newport Banning Ranch
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Section 7.0
Alternatives to the
Alternative C. With implementation of identified PDFs and MMs, potentially significant
impacts to these resources from Alternative C would be reduced to a level considered
less than significant.
• Alternative C and the proposed Project have identical impacts to grassland depression
features. Alternative C and the proposed Project would both result in 0.06 acre of
temporary impacts and 0.07 acre of grassland depression features. These impacts
would be considered significant; however, with implementation of identified PDFs and
MMs, potentially significant impacts to these resources from Alternative C would be
reduced to a level considered less than significant.
• Alternative C would impact 4.22 acres of "Waters of the U.S." and USACE wetlands,
1.25 acres under the jurisdiction of the CDFG, and 8.49 acres under the jurisdiction of
the Coastal Commission. By eliminating the northern portion of Bluff Road, Alternative C
reduces impacts to these jurisdictional resources by the following amounts compared to
the proposed Project: reduction of 0.03 acres of "Waters of the U.S." and USACE
wetlands; 0.67 acre under the jurisdiction of the CDFG; and 0.51 acre under the
jurisdiction of the Coastal Commission. Although reduced from the proposed Project,
these impacts are still considered significant. As with the proposed Project,
implementation of identified PDFs and MMs would reduce these impacts to a level
considered less than significant.
Because Alternative C would reduce the impacts to biological resources, the amount of acreage
that would be restored in compliance with mitigation measures imposed on the Project as
conditions of approvals and permits within the Lowland Open Space Preserve would be
expected to be less than the proposed Project. Any acreage to be restored after fulfilling
mitigation requirements and requiring restoration would be placed in a reserve area (mitigation
bank) or similar mechanism and may be made available to third parties seeking off -site areas in
which to fulfill their respective mitigation obligations. The area would be restored in accordance
with the Habitat Restoration Plan. One area that is contemplated for inclusion in a mitigation
bank is the land proposed for use for the consolidated oil operations. Upon cessation of oil
production operations, these two Oil Consolidation sites would be remediated and could be
available in a reserve area.
Because Alternative C assumes the same land uses and same development plan as the
proposed Project, just without the construction of North Bluff Road between 17th Street and
19th Street, this Alternative would result in similar impacts to the movement of any native
resident or migratory wildlife corridors and use of native wildlife nursery sites as compared to
the proposed Project (Threshold 4.6 -4).
Alternative C would permanently reduce the size of coastal open space (all vegetation types
except ornamental disturbed and disturbed /developed) by approximately 133.98 acres. This
would be approximately 4.87 less acres than the proposed Project. Although Alternative C
would reduce the fragmentation on site by not extending North Bluff Road through to 19th Street,
impacts resulting from habitat loss and reduced movement opportunities would still remain
significant with Alternative C. However, as discussed in Section 4.6, Biological Resources, with
implementation of the identified PDFs and MMs, these potentially significant impacts would be
reduced to a level considered less than significant.
As with the proposed Project, this Alternative would also not conflict with any local policies or
ordinances protecting biological resources or provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation
Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or State habitat
conservation plan (Threshold 4.6 -5).
R:TrojectMNewpartU015\IOrafi EIR7.0 Nf 090311.tloc 7 -80 Newport Banning Ranch
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Alternatives to the
Population, Housing, and Employment
Section 7.0
Alternative C assumes the same land uses and same development plan as the proposed
Project without the construction of North Bluff Road between 171h Street and 19th Street. As a
result, Alternative C would have the same residential population as the proposed Project, and
would not induce substantial growth (Threshold 4.7 -1). Similar to the proposed Project, this
Alternative would create long -term employment opportunities and would help balance the
employment demands associated with the City's population. With Alternative C, approximately
36 percent of the projected population growth and 25 percent of the projected employment
growth in the City for the 25 -year period between 2010 and 2035 would be accommodated on
the Newport Banning Ranch site. As with the proposed Project, less than significant impacts
would result with respect to consistency with population projections.
This Alternative would provide the same commitment to affordable housing as the proposed
Project. The draft Newport Banning Ranch Affordable Housing Implementation Plan (AHIP)
proposes the construction of a minimum of 50 percent of its required affordable housing
obligation on the Project site. The remaining affordable housing obligation would be met through
the payment of in -lieu fees, land dedication, or a combination thereof. Alternative C would
implement the same program, thereby assisting the City in meeting the RHNA requirements. As
with the proposed Project, Alternative C would be consistent with applicable plans and policies
(Threshold 4.7 -2). This Alternative would be consistent with the California Coastal Act provision
pertaining to population, housing, and employment.
Recreation and Trails
Alternative C assumes the same land uses and same development plan as the proposed
Project without construction of North Bluff Road between 17th Street and 19th Street.
Alternative C would therefore increase the demand for park and recreational facilities similar to
that of the proposed Project, and would provide the same parks and trails as the proposed
Project. As with the proposed Project, the Community Park would be constructed by the
Applicant as part of this Alternative; it would be offered for dedication to the City; and, upon
acceptance, it would be maintained by the City. As with the proposed Project, less than
significant impacts would result with respect to recreation (Thresholds 4.8 -1, 4.8 -2, and 4.8 -3).
As identified in Tables 4.8 -4 and 4.8 -5, the proposed Project would not conflict with any goals or
policies of the City of Newport Beach General Plan or the California Coastal Act related to
recreational resources. Because Alternative C provides for park and recreational facilities similar
to that of the proposed Project, it would be consistent with the intent of the applicable land use
goals and policies of the City of Newport Beach General Plan (Threshold 4.8 -4).
Transportation and Circulation
Alternative C assumes the same land uses and amount of development as the proposed
Project. Because the only difference for this Alternative is the termination of North Bluff Road
just north of 17th Street, the trip generation estimates and underlying methodology set forth for
the proposed Project also apply to this Alternative. Both Alternative C and the proposed Project
are estimated to generate 14,989 average daily trips (ADT) with 906 trips in the AM peak hour
and 1,430 trips in the PM peak hour (see Section 4.9, Table 4.9 -7). Vehicular trips that were
assigned to the northern segments of North Bluff Road were reassigned to remaining available
paths along 17th, 16th and 15th Streets, and West Coast Highway for Alternative C. In this
scenario, Project - related peak hour traffic volumes are added to existing traffic volumes.
RTrojetMNewpartU015Mrafi EIR7.0 Nt090311.tloc 7 -81 Newport Banning Ranch
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Alternatives to the
The following analysis addresses Thresholds 4.9 -1 and 4.9 -2.
Existing Conditions
Section 7.0
Intersection Levels of Service: Within the traffic study area, all intersections are operating at
an acceptable LOS (i.e., LOS D or better) except for the three Costa Mesa intersections listed
below (intersections numbered as identified in Section 4.9, Transportation and Circulation).
City of Costa Mesa
26. Newport Boulevard at Victoria Street/22nd Street (AM: LOS E)
36. Newport Boulevard at Harbor Boulevard (PM: LOS E)
37. Newport Boulevard at 181h Street/Rochester Street (PM: LOS E)
CMP Intersection: The CMP intersection of Newport Boulevard at West Coast Highway is
operating at LOS D in the AM peak hour and LOS B in the PM peak hour. As such, this
intersection is operating at an acceptable level of service based on CMP criteria.
State Highway Intersections: This Traffic Impact Analysis assumes that a significant project
impact occurs at a State Highway study intersection when the addition of Project - generated trips
causes the study intersection's peak hour LOS to change from acceptable operations (LOS A,
B, or C) to deficient operations (LOS D, E, or F). Where the intersection is currently operating at
a deficient LOS, the existing level of service is to be maintained. The evaluation used the
Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) methodology to calculate LOS at State intersections. All traffic
study area intersections are currently operating at an acceptable LOS (LOS C or better) except
for the following intersection in the City of Costa Mesa:
City of Costa Mesa
26. Newport Boulevard at Victoria Street/22nd Street, (AM: LOS D).
Existing Plus Alternative C Analysis
This is a hypothetical scenario in which a project would be fully implemented at the present
time. This analysis, required by CEQA, isolates the potential impact of Alternative C from other
projects and circulation system improvements, and assumes full development of Alternative C
and full absorption of the Alternative's traffic on the existing highway system (i.e., adding all
Alternative C- related trips to existing traffic volumes). The Existing Plus Alternative C scenario
does not account for future population growth that is projected in the City and in adjacent
jurisdictions within the traffic study area, with or without the Alternative. Further, it does not
account for other future land use projects that would also be conditioned to provide for or
contribute to needed traffic improvements to the traffic study area or other anticipated circulation
improvements. Lastly, the circulation system is projected to change over time, with or without
the Alternative. These circulation system changes include road and intersection improvements.
R:TrojectslNewpartU015VDrafi EIR7.0 Nf 090311,dac 7 -82 Newport Banning Ranch
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Section 7.0
Alternatives to the
Intersection Levels of Service: Alternative C trips were added to existing traffic volumes at the
traffic study area intersections. Table 7 -8 identifies the peak hour ICU /delay values and the
corresponding levels of service for the traffic study area intersections for the Existing Plus
Alternative C scenario. With the elimination of the segment of North Bluff Road between
17th Street and 19th Street, some of the traffic would distribute differently, and some of the
impact would shift from 19th Street to 17th Street.
As identified in the table, all but five intersections are forecasted to operate at an acceptable
LOS. Three of these are City of Costa Mesa intersections (intersection 26, 36, and 37), which
are currently (i.e., under Existing Conditions) operating at a deficient LOS. Three intersections
(intersections 36, 37, and 43) are forecasted to be impacted by the proposed Project, whereas 4
intersections (intersections 36, 37, 42, and 43) would be impacted with Alternative C.
The deficient traffic study area intersections are shown on Exhibit 7 -3, Existing Plus Alternative
C: Deficient Intersections, and listed below.
26. Newport Boulevard at Victoria Street/22nd Street, (AM: LOS D; No Project impact).
36. Newport Boulevard at Harbor Boulevard which would decline from LOS E to LOS F;
37. Newport Boulevard at 18th Street /Rochester Street which would decline from LOS E to
LOS F;
42. Pomona Avenue at 17th Street, which would decline from LOS B to LOS E;
43. Superior Avenue at 17th Street, which would decline from LOS C to LOS E)
City of Costa Mesa
26. Newport Boulevard at Victoria Street/22nd Street (AM: LOS E, no impact)
36. Newport Boulevard at Harbor Boulevard (PM: LOS F, Alternative C impact: 0.099)
37. Newport Boulevard at 18th Street/Rochester Street (PM: LOS F, Alternative C impact:
0.101)
42. Pomona Avenue at 17th Street (PM: LOS E, Alternative C impact at unsignalized
intersection)
43. Superior Avenue at 17th Street (PM: LOSE, Alternative C impact 0.196)
CMP Intersection: The intersection of Newport Boulevard at West Coast Highway is the only
CMP intersection within the traffic study area. As with the proposed Project, this intersection
would continue to operate at an acceptable level of service under Alternative C. No significant
impact would occur with Alternative C or the proposed Project.
R:TrojectslNewpartU015VOrafi EIR7.0 Nf 090311,dac 7 -83 Newport Banning Ranch
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Victoria St
Hamilton Ave
r
Costa i
Q
Q
>
>
y
Huntington Q
Mesa Q
Q
Q
2
,a
a
S Beach
/
a
0
u
m
o
E
.� Q
m
`0
��
m
0
E
0� ¢
P� �m
f
a
o°
Q a
=
�•¢ cam <,aP
?2'a
Banning Ave
19th St
Q <m P PAe j
`Sr
I
c�
18th St
<m
r�
e
Project
�
17th St
fgfbs
p
d0fr
Site
r
aak-
o
i
N¢
CO�r
\
16th St
heyf es
@ ^S
f
15th St
LEGEND:
F
® = LOS E -AM PEAK
I
.¢<P
as
Newport
® = LOS E - PM PEAK
f
R¢ <� Hospital Rd
o
Beach
= LOSE • AM /PM PEAK
J
5
3Q
H� P
= LOS F - AM PEAK
0 = LOS F - PM PEAK
• = LOS F - AM /PM PEAK
W. Coast Hwy
SIGNIFICANT
D
INDI TTES
¢
O
t
w
a
to
Source: Kimley -Horn and Associates, Inc. 2011
Existing
Plus Alternative C: Deficient Intersections
Exhibit 7 -3
Newport Banning Ranch EIR
N
Gn
e
C O N S U L T I N G
s
(REV 080311 JFG) R:lProjectslNe porYJ015IGmphic IEIRIEz7 -3 Deflnf.pdf
Alternatives to the
TABLE 7 -8
EXISTING PLUS ALTERNATIVE C: INTERSECTION OPERATIONS
Section 7.0
Intersection
Control
No Project Development
With Project (Alternative C)
Alternative C Impact
AM Peak Hour
PM Peak Hour
AM Peak Hour
PM Peak Hour
Change
Significant?
ICU'
Delay
LOS
ICU/
Delay
LOS
ICU/
Delay
LOS
ICU/
Delay
LOS
AM
PM
AM
PM
1
Monrovia Ave /161M1 St
U
8.80
A
8.20
A
10.90
B
10.50
B
2.100
2.300
No
No
2
Placentia Ave /15th St
S
0.45
A
0.34
A
0.59
A
0.49
A
0.140
0.144
No
No
3
Superior Ave /151hSt
U
19.60
C
22.90
C
21.00
C
25.80
D
1.400
2.900
No
No
4
Superior Ave /Placentia Ave
S
0.50
A
0.57
A
0.49
A
0.52
A
-0.016
-0.053
No
No
v
5
Newport Blvd /Hospital Rd
S
0.49
A
0.58
A
0.49
A
0.58
A
0.000
0.000
No
No
m
6
Orange St/West Coast Hwy
S
0.73
C
0.66
B
0.74
C
0.68
B
0.011
0.028
No
No
`o
7
Prospect St/West Coast Hwy
S
0.72
C
0.66
B
0.74
C
0.69
B
0.011
0.028
No
No
3
8
Superior Ave /West Coast Hwy
S
0.65
B
0.65
B
0.66
B
0.60
A
0.012
-0.053
No
No
z
9
Newport Blvd /West Coast Hwy
S
0.83
D
0.64
B
0.85
D
0.66
B
0.021
0.021
No
No
10
Riverside Ave/West Coast Hwy
S
0.65
B
0.71
C
0.67
B
0.74
C
0.017
0.027
No
No
11
Tustin Ave/West Coast Hwy
S
0.65
B
0.58
A
0.67
B
0.62
B
0.017
0.040
No
No
12
Dover DrM/est Coast Hwy
S
0.63
B
0.71
C
0.64
B
0.72
C
0.008
0.013
No
No
58
Monrovia Ave /151" Street
U
7.50
A
7.40
A
9.20
A
9.30
A
1.700
1.900
No
No
13
Magnolia St/Hamilton Ave
S
0.53
A
0.54
A
0.55
A
0.56
A
0.020
0.024
No
No
14
Bushard St/Hamilton Ave
S
0.42
A
0.53
A
0.43
A
0.54
A
0.003
0.008
U
15
Brookhurst SUHamilton Ave (Victoria St)
S
0.67
B
0.64
B
0.68
B
0.64
B
0.003
0.006
m
16
Magnolia SUBanning Ave
S
0.23
A
0.27
A
0.25
A
0.28
A
0.016
0.011
c
.2
17
Bushard St/Banning Ave
U
9.90
A
9.00
A
9.90
A
9.00
A
0.000
0.000
VNN
rn
.c
18
Brookhurst St/Banning Ave
S
0.25
A
0.24
A
0.26
A
0.25
A
0.005
0.012
2
19
Magnolia St/Pacific Coast Hwy
S
0.48
A
0.58
A
0.48
A
0.58
A
0.007
0.007
20
Brookhurst SUBushard St
S
0.32
A
0.32
A
0:32
A
0.34
A
0.005
0.016
21
Brookhurst St/Pacific Coast Hwy
S
0.56
A
0.65
B
0.57
A
0.68
B
0.013
0.028
1 No
No
R:\ Projects \Newport1015\!D.ft EIRV.O AIi - 990311 tloc 7 -84 Newport Banning Ranch
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Alternatives to the
TABLE 7 -8 (Continued)
EXISTING PLUS ALTERNATIVE C: INTERSECTION OPERATIONS
Section 7.0
Intersection
Control
No Project Development
With Project (Alternative C)
Alternative C Impact
AM Peak Hour
PM Peak Hour
AM Peak Hour
PM Peak Hour
Change
Significant?
ICU'
Delay
LOS
ICU/
Delay
LOS
ICU/
Delay
LOS
ICU/
Delay
LOS
AM
PM
AM
PM
22
Placentia Ave /Victoria St
S
0.74
C
0.79
C
0.75
C
0.81
D
0.004
0.016
No
No
23
Pomona AveNictoria St
S
0.63
B
0.66
B
0.63
B
0.66
B
0.000
0.000
No
No
24
Harbor Blvd/Victoria St
S
0.70
B
0.78
C
0.71
C
0.79
C
0.006
0.014
No
No
25
Newport BlvdNictoria St
S
0.55
A
0.45
A
0.55
A
0.45
A
0.000
0.000
No
No
26
Newport BlvdNictoria St (22nd St)
S
0.96
E;.
0.57
A
0.96
E
0.57
A
0.000
0.000
No
No
27
Whittier Ave /19th St
U
9.90
A
9.00
A
9.90
A
9.00
A
0.000
0.000
No
No
28
Monrovia Ave /191h St
U
16.90
C
13.00
B
16.90
C
13.00
B
0.000
0.000
No
No
29
Placentia Ave /19th St
S
0.48
A
0.68
B
0.49
A
0.70
B
0.006
0.016
No
No
30
Pomona Ave /19t° St
S
0.47
A
0.57
A
0.47
A
0.57
A
0.004
0.004
No
No
31
Anaheim Ave /191h St
S
0.47
A
0.55
A
0.47
A
0.55
A
0.004
0.003
No
No
32
Park Ave /19' St
S
0.44
A
0.54
A
0.45
A
0.55
A
0.004
0.003
No
No
M
N
33
Harbor Blvd /19`" St
S
0.40
A
0.56
A
0.40
A
0.58
A
0.003
0.024
No
No
2
34
Newport Blvd /19th St
S
0.80
C
0.77
C
0.84
D
0.81
D
0.048
0.041
No
No
M
35
1 Newport Blvd /Broadway
S
1 0.58
A
0.72
C
0.60
A
0.80
C
0.023
0.081
No
No
u
36
Newport Blvd /Harbor Blvd
S
0.70
B
0.97
E
0.73
C
1.07
F
0.031
0.099
No
Yes
37
Newport Blvd /18th St (Rochester St)
S
0.73
C
0.97
E
0.77
C
1.07
F
0.045
0.101
No
Yes
38
Placentia Ave /18th St
S
0.44
A
0.47
A
0.45
A
0.53
A
0.011
0.061
No
No
39
Whittier Ave /17th St
U
7.40
A
7.30
A
10.20
B
12.10
B
2.800
4.800
No
No
40
Monrovia Ave /17th St
U
9.50
A
8.80
A
13.90
B
16.00
C
4.400
7.200
No
No
41
Placentia Ave /17`" St
S
0.41
A
0.52
A
0.46
A
0.67
B
0.052
0.147
No
No
42
Pomona Ave /17`h St
U
13.40
B
13.90
B
20.80
C
39.00
E
7.400
2 010
No
Yes
43
Superior Ave /17th St
S
0.65
B
0.75
C
0.77
C
0.94
E
0.123
0.196
No
Yes
44
Newport Blvd /17th St
S
0.74
C
0.81
D
0.80
C
0.86
D
0.058
0.053
No
No
45
Orange Ave /17t" St
S
0.42
A
0.61
B
0.44
A
0.64
B
0.024
0.031
No
No
46
Santa Ana Ave /17th St
S
0.39
A
0.60.
A
0.42
A
0.63
B
0.024
0.031
No
No
R:\ Projects \NewponUO15\!Dreft EIRV.O AOS- 990311 doc 7 -85 Newport Banning Ranch
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Alternatives to the
TABLE 7 -8 (Continued)
EXISTING PLUS ALTERNATIVE C: INTERSECTION OPERATIONS
Section 7.0
RAPrq.WNewportl015VD.ft EIRM0 Al S- 090311 d.c 7 -86 Newport Banning Ranch
Draft Environmental Impact Report
No Project Development
With Project (Alternative C)
Alternative C Impact
AM Peak Hour
PM Peak Hour
AM Peak Hour
PM Peak Hour
Change
Significant?
ICU'
ICU/
ICU/
ICU/
Intersection
Control
Delay
LOS
Delay
LOS
Delay
LOS
Delay
LOS
AM
PM
AM
PM
47
Tustin Avail 7'r St
S
0.47
A
0.64
B
0.50
A
0.67
B
0.023
0.030
No
No
m
w
48
Irvine Ave /171° St
S
0.49
A
0.63
B
0.51
A
0.65
B
0.024
0.020
No
No
i
49
Placentia Ave /16t° St
S
0.32
A
0.29
A
0.36
A
0.40
A
0.042
0.109
No
No
w
50
Superior Avail 6' "St
S
0.47
A
0.43
A
0.57
A
0.57
A.
0.095
0.145
No
No
U
51
Newport Blvd /16"' St
S
0.49
A
0.54
A
0.51
1 A
0.56
A
0.017
0.018
No
1 No
52
Bluff Rd /Victoria St
S
Future Intersection
Future Intersection
N/A
N/A
53
Bluff Rd /19th St
S
Future
Intersection
N/A
N/A
54
Bluff Rd /17" St
S
A
0.15
A
0.133
0.154
No
No
2
55
Bluff Rd /16 1n St
U
14.60
19.00
in
Future Intersections
14.60
B
19.00
C
0
0
No
No
O
56
Bluff Rd /15" St
S
0.18
A
0.28
A
0.18
0.276
No
No
57
Bluff Rd /West Coast Hwy
S
0.61
B
0.76
C
0.606
0.763
No
No
ICU: Intersection Capacity Utilization; LOS: level of service; S: Signalized; U: Unsignalized; N /A: not applicable
Notes: Bold and shaded values indicate intersections operating at LOS E or F.
Intersection operation is expressed in average seconds of delay per vehicle during the peak hour for unsignalized intersections using the HCM 2000 Methodology and is expressed in volume -
to- capacity (vlc) for signalized intersections using the ICU Methodology.
Source: Kimley -Horn 2011.
RAPrq.WNewportl015VD.ft EIRM0 Al S- 090311 d.c 7 -86 Newport Banning Ranch
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Alternatives to the
Traffic Phasing Ordinance Analysis
Year 2016 Without Alternative C Traffic Phasing Ordinance Analysis
Section 7.0
Three intersections that are currently operating at a deficient LOS under Existing Conditions are
forecasted to continue to operate at deficient levels of service in Year 2016 without development
of the Project site:
City of Costa Mesa
26. Newport Boulevard at Victoria Street/22nd Street (AM: LOS F)
36. Newport Boulevard at Harbor Boulevard (PM: LOS F)
37. Newport Boulevard at 181h Street /Rochester Street (PM: LOS F)
Year 2016 With Alternative C Traffic Phasing Ordinance Analysis
This scenario includes completion of all Alternative C development by 2016, even though
buildout is not anticipated in this timeframe. This analysis is needed to make the findings
required for project approval set forth in Section 15.040.030(B)(2)(d) of the Traffic Phasing
Ordinance (TPO). These findings relate to "project trips" rather than trips from "that portion of
the project reasonably expected to be constructed and ready for occupancy within sixty (60)
months of project approval'. "Project trips" refers to all trips generated by a proposed project.
Intersection Levels of Service: Under the Year 2016 With Alternative C TPO scenario,
Alternative C peak hour traffic volumes are added to the Year 2016 Without Alternative TPO
traffic volumes; Bluff Road /North Bluff Road is assumed to be constructed through the Project
site from West Coast Highway to 17th Street. Table 7 -9 identifies the ICU /delay values and
corresponding levels of service. As depicted in Exhibit 7 -4, the seven intersections listed below
would operate at deficient levels of service. Alternative C would significantly impact six of the
seven intersections.
City of Newport Beach
9. Newport Boulevard at West Coast Highway (AM: LOSE; Alternative C impact: 0.022)
City of Costa Mesa
26. Newport Boulevard at Victoria Street/22nd Street (AM: LOS F; no impact)
36. Newport Boulevard at Harbor Boulevard (PM: LOS F; Alternative C impact: 0.099)
37. Newport Boulevard at 18th Street/Rochester Street (PM: LOS F; Alternative C impact:
0.100)
42. Pomona Avenue at 17th Street (PM: LOS F; Alternative C impact at unsignalized
intersection)
43. Superior Avenue at 17th Street (PM: LOS F; Alternative C impact: 0.196)
44. Newport Boulevard at 171h Street (PM: LOS E; Alternative C impact: 0.053)
R:TrojectslNewpartU015Verafi EIR7.0 AU090311,dac 7 -87 Newport Banning Ranch
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Victoria St
Hamilton Ave
r
Costa i Q Q
>
>
y
Huntington Q
Mesa Q
Q
Q
2
,a
a
S Beach
/
a 0 u
m
o
E
.�
Q
m
`0
��
m
r ° m
0
E
ry
0� ¢
f a
o°
Q
a
=
�•¢ cam <,aP
?2'a
Banning Ave
19th St
Q <m P PAe j
`Sr
I
c�
w
r
18th St
�
<m
e<
� Project
17th St
fgf68
p
d0fr
Site
o
CO�r
<��� 16th St
heyf es
/
@ ^S
f
r 0
15th St
;
f
¢
LEGEND:
0J
Sf O
F
2a
® = LOS E -AM PEAK
I .¢<P
Newport
® = LOS E - PM PEAK
r R¢ <� Hospital Rd
t
Ir
Beach
= LOSE • AM /PM PEAK
J
= LOS F - AM PEAK
0 = LOS F - PM PEAK
• = LOS F - AM /PM PEAK
W. Coast Hwy
SIGNIFICANT
D
IMPA TTES
¢
O
t
w
a
to
Source: Kimley -Horn and Associates, Inc. 2011
Year 2016 With Alternative C
- TPO Analysis: Deficient Intersections
Exhibit 7 -4
Newport Banning Ranch EIR
N
Gn
w� e
C O N S U L T I N G
s
(REV 080311
JFG) R:lProje=/Ne poNJ0151Gmphica/EIRIEx7 -4 Deflnf2016.pdf
Section 7.0
Alternatives to the
TABLE 7 -9
YEAR 2016 WITH ALTERNATIVE C TPO ANALYSIS: INTERSECTION OPERATIONS
RAProj.WNewportl015\ID.ft EIRV.0 Ali -09031 1 d.c 7 -88 Newport Banning Ranch
Draft Environmental Impact Report
No Project Development
With Alternative C
Alternative C Impact
AM Peak Hour
PM Peak Hour
AM Peak Hour
PM Peak Hour
Change
Significant?
ICU/
ICU/
ICU/
ICU/
Intersection
Control
Delay
LOS
Delay
LOS
Delay
LOS
Delay
LOS
AM
PM
AM
PM
1
Monrovia Ave /16th St
U
8.80
A
8.20
A
10.90
B
10.50
B
2.100
2.300
No
No
2
Placentia Ave /15'h St
S
0.45
A
0.35
A
0.59
A
0.49
A
0.141
0.143
No
No
3
Superior Ave /15th St
U
20.90
C
28.10
D
22.30
C
32.10
D
1.400
4.000
No
No
4
Superior Ave /Placentia Ave
S
0.53
A
0.60
A
0.51
A
0.55
A
-0.014
-0.045
No
No
5
Newport Blvd /Hospital Rd
S
0.53
A
0.64
8
0.53
A
0.64
B
0.000
0.000
No
No
m
6
Orange St/West Coast Hwy
S
0.79
C
0.72
C
0.80
C
0.75
C
0.012
0.028
No
No
c
7
Prospect St/West Coast Hwy
S
0.78
C
0.72
C
0.79
C
0.72
C
0.012
-0.002
No
No
3
8
Superior Ave/West Coast Hwy
S
0.70
B
0.70
B
0.71
C
0.65
B
0.012
-0.051
No
No
z
9
Newport Blvd /West Coast Hwy
S
0.90
D
0.70
B
0.93
E
0.73
C
0.022
0.021
Yes
No
10
Riverside Ave/N/est Coast Hwy
S
0.73
C
0.77
C
0.75
C
0.80
C
0.018
0.027
No
No
11
Tustin Ave/West Coast Hwy
S
0.73
C
0.64
B
0.75
C
0.68
B
0.018
0.004
No
No
12
Dover Dr/West Coast Hwy
S
0.69
B
0.78
C
0.69
B
0.80
C
0.008
0.013
No
No
58
Monrovia Ave /15th Street
U
7.50
A
7.40
A
9.20
A
9.30
A
1.700
1.900
No
No
13
Magnolia St/Hamilton Ave
S
0.57
A
0.57
A
0.59
A
0.60
A
0.020
0.024
No
No
14
Bushard St/Hamilton Ave
S
0.45
A
0.56
A
0.45
A
0.57
A
0.003
0.009
No
No
Brookhurst St/Hamilton Ave (Victoria
U
15
St)
S
0.72
C
0.68
B
0.72
C
0.68
B
0.003
0.006
No
No
m
m
16
Magnolia St /Banning Ave
S
0.25
A
0.30
A
0.26
A
0.31
A
0.016
0.010
No
No
0
c
17
Bushard St/Banning Ave
U
10.20
B
9.20
A
10.20
B
9.20
A
0.000
0.000
No
No
18
Brookhurst SUBanning Ave
S
0.27
A
0.25
A
0.27
A
0.26
A
0.005
0.012
No
No
=
19
Magnolia St /Pacific Coast Hwy
S
0.52
A
0.63
B
0.52
A
0.63
B
0.008
0.006
No
No
20
Brookhurst St/Bushard St
S
0.34
A
0.35
A
0.35
A
0.36
A
0.004
0.017
No
No
21
Brookhurst St/Pacific Coast Hwy
S
0.61
B
0.71
C
0.62
B
0.74
C
0.014
0.032
No
No
RAProj.WNewportl015\ID.ft EIRV.0 Ali -09031 1 d.c 7 -88 Newport Banning Ranch
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Section 7.0
Alternatives to the
TABLE 7 -9 (Continued)
YEAR 2016 WITH ALTERNATIVE C TPO ANALYSIS: INTERSECTION OPERATIONS
Intersection
Control
No Project Development
With Alternative C
Alternative C Impact
AM Peak Hour
PM Peak Hour
AM Peak Hour
PM Peak Hour
Change
Significant?
ICU/
Delay
LOS
ICU/
Delay
LOS
ICU/
Delay
LOS
ICUI
Delay
LOS
AM
PM
AM
PM
22
Placentia Ave /Victoria St
S
0.80
C
0.85
D
0.80
C
0.86
D
0.005
0.016
No
No
23
Pomona Ave/Victoria St
S
0.67
B
0.71
C
0.67
B
0.71
C
0.000
0.000
No
No
24
Harbor Blvd/Victoria St
S
0.75
C
0.83
D
0.76
C
0.85
D
0.006
0.014
No
No
25
Newport Blvd/Victoria St
S
0.59
A
0.48
A
0.59
A
0.48
A
0.000
0.000
No
No
26
Newport Blvd /Victoria St (22ntl St)
S
1.03
F
0.61
B
1.03
F
0.61
B
0.000
0.000
No
No
27
Whittier Ave /19th St
U
10.30
B
9.20
A
10.30
B
9.20
A
0.000
0.000
No
No
28
Monrovia Ave /19'" St
U
19.90
C
14.00
B
19.90
C
14.00
B
0.000
0.000
No
No
29
Placentia Ave /191h St
S
0.52
A
0.73
C
0.53
A
0.75
C
0.006
0.015
No
No
30
Pomona Ave /19'" St
S
0.50
A
0.61
B
0.50
A
0.61
B
0.004
0.003
No
No
31
Anaheim Ave /191h St
S
0.50
A
0.58
A
0.51
A
0.59
A
0.004
0.003
No
No
32
Park Ave /191h St
S
0.47
A
0.58
A
0.48
A
0.59
A
0.004
0.003
No
No
0
33
Harbor Blvd /19th St
S
0.43
A
0.60
A
0.43
A
0.63
B
0.003
0.025
No
No
34
Newport Blvd /191" St
S
0.86
D
0.83
D
0.90
D
0.87
D
0.047
0.041
No
No
0
35
Newport Blvd /Broadway
S
0.62
B
0.78
C
0.64
B
0.87
D
0.023
0.081
No
No
36
Newport Blvd /Harbor Blvd
S
0.75
C
1.06
F
0.78
C
1.16
F
0.030
0.099
No
Yes
37
Newport Blvd /181h St (Rochester St)
S
0.79
C
1.07
F
0.84
D
1.17
F
0.045
0.100
No
Yes
38
Placentia Ave /181h St
S
0.47
A
0.50
A
0.48
A
0.56
A
0.010
0.066
No
No
39
Whittier Ave /17"' St
U
7.40
A
7.40
A
10.30
B
12.40
B
2.900
5.000
No
No
40
Monrovia Ave /17th St
U
9.90
A
9.00
A
14.90
B
17.30
C
5.000
8.300
No
No
41
Placentia Ave /17'h St
S
0.44
A
0.56
A
0.49
A
0.71
C
0.052
0.152
No
No
42
Pomona Ave /170 St
U
14.80
B
15.50
C
25.10
D
51.30
F
10.300
35.800
No
Yes
43
Superior Ave /17' "St
S
0.70
B
0.81
D
0.82
D
1.01
F
0.122
0.196
No
Yes
Blvd /171h St
S
0.80
C
0.88
D
0.86
D
0.93
E
0.063
0.053
No
Yes
r
Orange Ave /17th St
S
0.44
A
0.66
B
0.47
A
0.69
B
0.024
0.031
No
No
46Newport
Santa Ana Ave /17t" St
S
0.42
A
0.64
B
0.45
A
0.67
B
1 0.024
0.030
No
No
RAProlecte\NewpcnU015\IDmft EIRV.0 Ali - 090311 doc 7 -89 Newport Banning Ranch
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Section 7.0
Alternatives to the
TABLE 7 -9 (Continued)
YEAR 2016 WITH ALTERNATIVE C TPO ANALYSIS: INTERSECTION OPERATIONS
RAProjectsNewpcnU015VDreft EIRM0 AIis- 090311 doc 7 -90 Newport Banning Ranch
Draft Environmental Impact Report
No Project Development
With Alternative C
Alternative C Impact
AM Peak Hour
PM Peak Hour
AM Peak Hour
PM Peak Hour
Change
Significant?
ICU/
ICU/
ICU/
ICU/
Intersection
Control
Delay
LOS
Delay
LOS
Delay
LOS
Delay
LOS
AM
PM
AM
PM
47
Tustin Avail 7" St
S
0.51
A
0.70
B
0.54
A
0.73
C
0.024
0.030
No
No
y
48
Irvine Ave /17" St
S
0.53
A
0.69
B
0.55
A
0.71
C
0.023
0.021
No
No
49
Placentia Ave /16'" St
S
0.34
A
0.32
A
0.38
A
0.43
A
0.039
0.112
No
No
y
50
Superior Ave /16'" St
S
0.52
A
0.49
A
0.61
B
0.64
B
0.093
0.145
No
No
0
51
Newport Blvd /16t" St
S
0.55
A
0.60
A
0.56
A
0.62
B
0.016
0.018
No
No
52
Bluff Rd /Victoria St
S
Future Intersection
Future Intersections
N/A
N/A
53
Bluff Rd /19'" St
S
Future Intersection
N/A
N/A
54
Bluff Rd /17'" St
S
0.14
A
0.17
A
0.140
0.165
No
No
Future Intersections
55
Bluff Rd /16"' St
U
14.60
B
19.60
C
14.600
19.600
No
No
O
56
Bluff Rd /15'° St
S
0.18
A
0.28
A
0.180
0.300
No
No
57
Bluff Rd/West Coast Hwy
S
0.65
B
0.81
D
0.648
0.805
No
No
ICU: Intersection Capacity Utilization; LOS: level of service; S: Signalized; U: Unsignalized; N /A: not applicable
Notes: Bold and shaded values indicate intersections operating at LOS E or F.
Intersection operation is expressed in average seconds of delay per vehicle during the peak hour for unsignalized intersections using the HCM 2000 Methodology and is expressed in volume -to-
capacity (v /c) for signalized intersections using the ICU Methodology.
Source: Kimley -Horn 2010.
RAProjectsNewpcnU015VDreft EIRM0 AIis- 090311 doc 7 -90 Newport Banning Ranch
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Section 7.0
Alternatives to the
It should be noted that the impacts at the Newport Boulevard at Victoria Street/22nd Street
intersection are not attributable to Alternative C. Additionally, when comparing the two scenarios
(Year 2016 TPO Analysis with Project and Year 2016 TPO Analysis with Alternative C), the
proposed Project would impact two additional intersections: Monrovia Avenue at 19th Street and
Newport Boulevard at 191h Street.
Year 2016 Cumulative Conditions
Year 2016 Cumulative Without Alternative C
Traffic from the cumulative projects was added to the Year 2016 Without Alternative C TPO
peak hour forecasts to develop Year 2016 Cumulative Without Alternative C traffic forecasts.
Intersection Levels of Service: In addition to the three intersections currently (i.e., Existing
Conditions) operating at deficient levels of service, one additional intersection is forecasted to
operate at a deficient LOS with the addition of cumulative development traffic. The LOS at
Newport Boulevard and West Coast Highway would further decline to LOS E with the addition of
cumulative traffic. All other traffic study area intersections are forecasted to operate at an
acceptable LOS (LOS D or better) in both peak hours.
City of Newport Beach
9. Newport Boulevard at West Coast Highway (AM: LOS E)
City of Costa Mesa
26. Newport Boulevard at Victoria Street/22nd Street (AM: LOS F)
36. Newport Boulevard at Harbor Boulevard (PM: LOS F)
37. Newport Boulevard at 181h Street/Rochester Street (PM: LOS F)
CMP Intersection: The CMP intersection of Newport Boulevard at West Coast Highway is
forecasted to operate at LOS E. This intersection is operating at an acceptable LOS (LOS E)
based on CMP criteria.
State Highway Intersections: The intersections listed below are forecasted to operate at
deficient levels of service; the intersection of Newport Boulevard at Victoria St /22nd Street is also
deficient under Existing Conditions and would worsen from LOS D to LOS E. All other traffic
study area intersections would continue to operate at acceptable levels of service (LOS C or
better).
City of Costa Mesa
26. Newport Boulevard at Victoria Street/22nd Street, (AM: LOS E)
36. Newport Boulevard at Harbor Boulevard (PM: LOS D)
37. Newport Boulevard at 18th Street/Rochester Street (PM: LOS D)
R:TrojectslNewpartU015VOrafi EIR7.0 Nf 090311.doc 7 -91 Newport Banning Ranch
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Section 7.0
Alternatives to the
Freeway Mainline Segments: All traffic study area freeway segments are forecasted to
operate at acceptable levels of service (LOS D or better) under this scenario.
Year 2016 Cumulative With Alternative C
This is an analysis of future traffic conditions in 2016 that could be expected to result from traffic
associated with cumulative development with buildout of Alternative C. Under this scenario,
Alternative C peak hour traffic volumes are added to the Year 2016 Cumulative Without
Alternative C traffic volumes. The following on -site roadway improvements are assumed to be
implemented by 2016:
• Bluff Road and North Bluff Road would be constructed through the Project site from
West Coast Highway to just north of 17th Street. Bluff Road would be signalized at West
Coast Highway and at the Sunset Ridge Park intersection.
• 15th Street would be constructed to Bluff Road and signalized.
• 16th Street would be constructed to North Bluff Road.
• 17th Street would be constructed to North Bluff Road and signalized.
• Other on -site local roads would be constructed to support the site development.
Intersection Levels of Service: Table 7 -10 identifies the peak hour ICU /delay values and the
corresponding levels of service for the traffic study area intersections for the Year 2016
Cumulative With Alternative C scenario. As depicted in Exhibit 7 -5, Year 2016 Cumulative
Conditions With Alternative C: Deficient Intersections, with the addition of Alternative C traffic,
intersections listed below are forecasted to operate at deficient levels of service in 2016.
City of Newport Beach
9. Newport Boulevard at West Coast Highway (AM: LOSE, Alternative C impact: 0.022)
City of Costa Mesa
26. Newport Boulevard at Victoria Street/22nd Street (AM: LOS F, no impact)
34. Newport Boulevard at 19th Street (AM: LOS E, Alternative C impact: 0.047)
36. Newport Boulevard at Harbor Boulevard (PM: LOS F, Alternative C impact: 0.100)
37. Newport Boulevard at 18th Street/Rochester Street (PM: LOS F, Alternative C impact:
0.100)
42. Pomona Avenue at 17th Street (PM: LOS F, Alternative C impact to unsignalized
intersection)
43. Superior Avenue at 17th Street (PM: LOS F, Alternative C impact: 0.196)
44. Newport Boulevard at 17th Street (PM: LOS E, Alternative C impact: 0.045)
It is noted that the Newport Beach intersection of Newport Boulevard at West Coast Highway is
forecasted to operate at a deficient level of service in 2016 both with the proposed Project or
Alternative C in the AM peak period. Based on the significance criteria set forth in this EIR, the
addition of either the Project - related traffic or Alternative C traffic would significantly impact this
intersection.
R:TrojectMNewpartU015Mmft EIR7.0 Nt 090311,dac 7 -92 Newport Banning Ranch
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Victoria St
Hamilton Ave
Costa i Q Q
>
> y
Huntington Q
Mesa Q
Q
Q 2
�a
a
S Beach
/
a 0 u
m
o
E to
.� Q `o
m
r ° m
0
E
o� ¢
f a
0.
Q a s
2° °A¢ $1
?2'a
Banning Ave
_ 19th St
O <m P Am
yti a
18th St
<m
r°
® e
Project
17th St
�
79?6S,
m
a%
Site
r
I
6, r
o
aak-
c
i
AO
c0
16th St
heyr es
%f /
9`
v —
°rs
7
O y
15th St
% --
a/ @
fhsr
<�`
¢
LEGEND:
Q <°
i
a�\
Q0a
F
2a
®
= LOS E -AM PEAK
I . °lP
Newport
®
= LOS E - PM PEAK
I R¢ <� Hospital Rd
o
Beach
= LOSE • AM /PM PEAK
J
= LOS F - AM PEAK
0
= LOS F - PM PEAK
•
= LOS F - AM /PM PEAK
W. Coast Hwy
= INDICATES SIGNIFICANT
IMPACT
¢
O
t
w
a
n
m
Source: Kimley -Horn and Associates, Inc. 2011
Year 2016
Cumulative Conditions
With Alternative C: Deficient
Intersections
Exhibit 7 -5
Newport Banning Ranch EIR
N
GAT °, ��
w� e
C O N S U L T I N G
s
(REV 080311 JFG) R )PfojeclslNewpod/J015IGraphics lEIR/En7- 5_DeflntARC2016.pdf
Section 7.0
Alternatives to the
TABLE 7 -10
YEAR 2016 CUMULATIVE WITH ALTERNATIVE C: INTERSECTION OPERATIONS
Intersection
Control
No Project Development
With Alternative C
Alternative C Impact
AM Peak Hour
PM Peak Hour
AM Peak Hour
PM Peak
Hour
Change
Significant
?
ICUs
Delay
TL OS
ICU/
Delay
LOS
ICU/
Delay
LOS
ICU/
Delay
LOS
AM
PM
AM
PM
1
Monrovia Ave /16th St
U
9.60
A
8.60
A
12.10
B
11.60
B
2.500
3.000
No
No
2
Placentia Ave /15th St
S
0.49
A
0.38
A
0.64
B
0.53
A
0.141
0.143
No
No
3
Superior Ave /15th St
U
21.00
C
28.80
D
22.50
C
33.10
D
1.500
4.300
No
No
4
Superior Ave /Placentia Ave
S
0.54
A
0.66
B
0.51
A
0.60
A
-0.027
-0.062
No
No
v
5
Newport Blvd /Hospital Rd
S
0.54
A
0.65
B
0.54
A
0.65
B
0.000
0.000
No
No
m
6
Orange St/West Coast Hwy
S
0.81
D
0.76
C
0.83
D
0.78
C
0.012
0.027
No
No
c
7
Prospect St/West Coast Hwy
S
0.80
C
0.76
C
0.81
D
0.76
C
0.012
-0.002
No
No
3
8
Superior Ave/West Coast Hwy
S
0.72
C
0.74
C
0.73
C
0.69
B
0.013
-0.047
No
No
z
9
Newport Blvd/West Coast Hwy
S
0.94
E
0.76
C
0.96
E.
0.79
C
0.022
0.022
Yes
No
10
Riverside Ave /West Coast Hwy
S
0.77
C
0.82
D
0.79
C
0.84
D
0.018
0.027
No
No
11
Tustin Ave /West Coast Hwy
S
0.77
C
0.68
B
0.79
C
0.72
C
0.017
0.041
No
No
12
Dover Dr/West Coast Hwy
S
0.72
C
0.85
D
0.73
C
0.86
D
0.009
0.013
No
No
58
Monrovia Ave /15th Street
U
7.70
A
7.50
A
9.40
A
9.70
A
1.700
2.200
No
No
13
Magnolia St/Hamilton Ave
S
0.65
B
0.64
B
0.67
B
0.66
B
0.002
0.023
No
No
14
Bushard St/Hamilton Ave
S
0.47
A
0.59
A
0.48
A
0.60
A
0.003
0.009
No
No
15
Brookhurst St /Hamilton Ave (Victoria St)
S
0.73
C
0.71
C
0.73
C
0.72
C
0.003
0.006
No
No
m
16
Magnolia St/Banning Ave
S
0.26
A
0.33
A
0.27
A
0.34
A
0.015
0.011
No
No
c
$
17
Bushard St/Banning Ave
U
10.30
B
9.40
A
10.30
B
9.40
A
0.000
0.000
No
No
rn
r
18
Brookhurst St/Banning Ave
S
0.27
A
0.26
A
0.28
A
0.27
A
0.000
0.000
No
No
c
=
19
Magnolia St/Pacific Coast Hwy
S
0.54
A
0.69
B
0.55
A
0.70
B
0.003
0.007
No
No
20
Brookhurst St/Bushard St
S
0.35
A
0.36
A
0.35
A
0.37
A
0.005
0.017
No
No
21
Brookhurst St/Pacific Coast Hwy
S
0.63
B
0.75
C
0.65
B
0.78
C
0.014
0.032
No
No
RAProjectMNewpcnU015\IDreft EIRV.0 Ali -09031 1 doc 7 -93 Newport Banning Ranch
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Section 7.0
Alternatives to the
TABLE 7 -10 (Continued)
YEAR 2016 CUMULATIVE WITH ALTERNATIVE C: INTERSECTION OPERATIONS
Intersection
Control
No Project Development
With Alternative C
Alternative C Impact
AM Peak Hour
PM Peak Hour
AM Peak Hour
PM Peak
Hour
Change
Significant
?
ICU/
Delay
LOS
ICU/
Delay
LOS
ICU/
Delay
LOS
ICU/
Delay
LOS
AM
PM
AM
PM
22
Placentia AveNictoria St
S
0.86
D
0.86
D
0.86
D
0.88
D
0.005
0.016
No
No
23
Pomona AveNictoria St
S
0.71
C
0.76
C
0.71
C
0.76
C
0.000
0.000
No
No
24
Harbor BlvdNictoria St
S
0.79
C
0.88
D
0.80
C
0.90
D
0.006
0.013
No
No
25
Newport BlvdNictoria St
S
0.62
B
0.51
A
0.62
B
0.51
A
0.000
0.000
No
No
26
Newport BlvdNictoria St (22nd St)
S
1.10
F
0.65
B
1.10
F
0.65
B
0.000
0.000
No
No
27
Whittier Ave /19th St
U
10.30
B
9.20
A
10.30
B
9.20
A
0.000
0.000
No
No
28
Monrovia Ave /19th St
U
21.10
C
14.50
B
21.10
C
14.50
B
0.000
0.000
No
No
29
Placentia Ave /19th St
S
0.54
A
0.76
C
0.55
A
0.78
C
0.013
0.016
No
No
30
Pomona Ave /19th St
S
0.51
A
0.63
B
0.51
A
0.63
B
0.004
0.003
No
No
31
Anaheim Ave /19th St
S
0.51
A
0.59
A
0.52
A
0.59
A
0.004
0.003
No
No
32
Park Avail 9th St
S
0.48
A
0.59
A
0.49
A
0.59
A
0.004
0.003
No
No
°
33
Harbor Blvd /19th St
S
0.44
A
0.63
B
0.44
A
0.64
B
0.003
0.013
No
No
34
Newport Blvd /19th St
S
0.86
D
0.84
D
0.91
E
0.88
D
0.047
0.040
Yes
No
35
Newport Blvd /Broadway
S
0.63
B
0.80
C
0.65
B
0.88
D
0.023
0.081
No
No
36
Newport Blvd /Harbor Blvd
S
0.76
C
1.07
F
0.79
C
1.17
F
0.031
0.100
No
Yes
37
Newport Blvd /18th St (Rochester St)
S
0.80
C
1.08
F
0.85
D
1.18
F
0.045
0.100
No
Yes
38
Placentia Ave /18th St
S
0.52
A
0.54
A
0.53
A
0.60
A
0.010
0.066
No
No
39
Whittier Ave /17th St
U
7.40
A
7.40
A
10.30
B
12.40
B
2.900
5.000
No
No
40
Monrovia Ave /17th St
U
11.10
B
9.90
A
18.80
C
24.80
C
7.700
14.900
No
No
41
Placentia Ave /17th St
S
0.50
A
0.60
A
0.55
A
0.75
C
0.052
0.152
No
No
42
Pomona Ave /17th St
U
15.30
C
16.60
C
27.20
D
58.40
F
11.900
41.800
No
Yes
43
Superior Ave /17th St
S
0.70
B
0.82
D
0.83
D
1.02
F
0.123
0.196
No
Yes
44
Newport Blvd /17th St
S
0.80
C
0.88
D
0.86
D
0.93
E
0.060
0.045
No
Yes
45
Orange Avail 7th St
S
0.45
A
0.66
B
0.47
A
0.69
B
0.024
0.031
No
No
RAProjecte\NewpcnU015\IDmft EIRV.0 Ali -09031 1 doc 7 -94 Newport Banning Ranch
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Section 7.0
Alternatives to the
TABLE 7 -10 (Continued)
YEAR 2016 CUMULATIVE WITH ALTERNATIVE C: INTERSECTION OPERATIONS
RAProjectMNewpcnU015VDmft EIRM0 Ali -09031 1 doc 7 -95 Newport Banning Ranch
Draft Environmental Impact Report
No Project Development
With Alternative C
Alternative C Impact
PM Peak
Significant
AM Peak Hour
PM Peak Hour
AM Peak Hour
Hour
Change
?
ICU/
ICU/
ICU/
ICU/
Intersection
Control
Delay
LOS
Delay
LOS
Delay
LOS
Delay
LOS
AM
PM
AM
PM
46
Santa Ana Ave /17th St
S
0.43
A
0.65
B
0.45
A
0.68
B
0.024
0.030
No
No
a
47
Tustin Ave /17th St
S
0.52
A
0.71
C
0.54
A
0.74
C
0.024
0.031
No
No
m
�
48
Irvine Ave /17th St
S
0.56
A
0.71
C
0.58
A
0.73
C
0.024
0.020
No
No
a
49
Placentia Ave /16th St
S
0.39
A
0.35
A
0.41
A
0.47
A
0.018
0.114
No
No
0
50
Superior Ave /16th St
S
0.52
A
0.49
A
0.62
B
0.65
B
0.093
0.160
No
No
51
Newport Blvd /16th St
S
0.55
A
0.60
A
0.57
A
0.62
B
0.017
0.018
No
No
52
Bluff Rd/Victoria St
S
Future Intersections
N/A
N/A
53
Bluff Rd /19th St
S
54
Bluff Rd /17th St
S
A
0.17
A
0.140
0.165
No
No
in
Future Intersections
55
Bluff Rd /16th St
U
14.60
B
19.60
C
14.600
19.600
No
No
56
Bluff Rd /15th St
S
0.18
A
0.28
A
0.180
0.276
No
No
57
Bluff Rd/West Coast Hwy
S
0.67
B
0.84
D
0.672
0.839
No
No
Notes:
S = Signalized, U= Unsignalized
Bold and shaded values indicate intersections operating at LOS E or F.
Intersection operation is expressed in average seconds of delay per vehicle during the peak hour for unsignalized intersections using the HCM 2000 Methodology and is expressed in volume -to-
capacity (v /c) for signalized intersections using the ICU Methodology.
Source: Kimley -Horn 2011,
RAProjectMNewpcnU015VDmft EIRM0 Ali -09031 1 doc 7 -95 Newport Banning Ranch
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Section 7.0
Alternatives to the
When compared to the proposed Project, Alternative C would impact one fewer intersection.
The Costa Mesa intersection of Monrovia Avenue at 19th Street would be impacted by the
proposed Project, but not by Alternative C. With respect to Newport Boulevard at
Victoria Street /22nd Street, Newport Boulevard at Harbor Boulevard, and Newport Boulevard at
18th Street/Rochester Street, these three Costa Mesa intersections are currently (Existing
Conditions) operating and are forecasted to continue to operate at deficient levels of service.
Based on the significance criteria, the addition of traffic related to Alternative C and the
proposed Project would significantly impact six of the seven Costa Mesa intersections.
CMP Intersection: The CMP intersection of Newport Boulevard at West Coast Highway is
forecasted to operate at LOS E without and with the Project. The proposed Project would not
cause the intersection to fall below the CMP LOS standards. Therefore, no significant impact
would occur.
State Highway Intersections: Table 7 -11 identifies the peak hour intersection delay values for
the Year 2016 Cumulative with Alternative C scenario.
The following are the deficient intersections, as well as the delays in seconds that are
attributable to Alternative C.
City of Costa Mesa
26. Newport Boulevard at Victoria Street/22nd Street (AM: LOS E; Alternative C: no impact)
36. Newport Boulevard at Harbor Boulevard (PM: LOS E; Alternative C: no impact; 22.5)
37. Newport. Boulevard at 18th Street/Rochester Street (PM: LOS E; Alternative C: no
impact; 22.7)
44. Newport Boulevard at 171h Street (PM: LOS D; Alternative C: Alternative C impact; 4.2)
Three of the intersections (26, 36, and 37) are forecasted to operate at LOS D or worse without
the Project. As set forth in the EIR, the significance criteria for Caltrans intersections identifies
that a significant impact occurs when project - generated traffic changes the level of service from
an acceptable operation (LOS A, B, or C) to a deficient operation (LOS D, E, or F). Of the four
intersections identified above, only the Newport Boulevard at 17th Street intersection would
change from a LOS C to a LOS D, resulting in a significant impact with Alternative C.
R:TrojectslNewpartU015VOrafi EIR7.0 Nf 090311,dac 7 -96 Newport Banning Ranch
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Alternatives to the
TABLE 7 -11
YEAR 2016 CUMULATIVE WITH ALTERNATIVE C: STATE HIGHWAY OPERATIONS
Intersection
Control
PM Peak Hour
5
Newport Blvd /Hospital Rd
S
LOS
6
Orange St/West Coast Hwy
S
C
7
Prospect St/West Coast Hwy
S
A
8
Superior Ave/West Coast Hwy
S
A
9
Newport Blvd/West Coast Hwy
S
C
10
Riverside Ave/West Coast Hwy
S
B
11
Tustin Ave/West Coast Hwy
S
B
12
Dover Dr/West Coast Hwy
S
A
19
Magnolia St/Pacific Coast Hwy
S
C
21
Brookhurst St/Pacific Coast Hwy
S
B
25
Newport BlvdNictoria St
S
B
26
Newport BlvdNictoria St (22ntl St)
S
C
34
Newport Blvd /19" St
S
C
35
Newport Blvd /Broadway
S
C
36
Newport Blvd /Harbor Blvd
S
A
37
Newport Blvd /18'" St (Rochester St)
S
D
44
Newport Blvd /17'" St
S
D
51
Newport Blvd /16'" St
S
C
57
Bluff Rd /West Coast Hwy
S
A
No Project Development
AM Peak Hour
PM Peak Hour
Delay
LOS
Delay
LOS
22.3
C
23.3
C
6.5
A
5.5
A
11.6
B
5.5
A
24.9
C
29.8
C
16.8
B
17.1
B
11.8
B
14.4
B
30.6
C
5.7
A
20.5
C
24.2
C
15.6
B
15.9
B
18.0
B
16.2
B
19.6
B
20.6
C
58.8
E
24.7
C
25.2
C
25.2
C
5.9
A
8.0
A
11.7
B
37.1
D
13.6
B
39.9
D
29.1
C
33.1
C
9.9
A
8.3
A
Future Intersection
With Alternative C
AM Peak Hour
PM Peak Hour
Delay
LOS
Delay
LOS
22.3
C
23.3
C
6.5
A
5.6
A
11.6
B
5.4
A
23.9
C
27.1
C
17.6
B
17.1
B
12.0
B
15.1
B
33.3
C
7.1
A
20.5
C
24.5
C
15.7
B
16.1
B
18.0
B
16.9
B
19.6
B
20.6
C
58.8
E
24.7
C
26.1
C
26.1
C
5.9
A
8.6
A
12.1
B
59.6
E
15.4
B
62.6
E
31.8
C
37.3
D
9.7
A
8.2
A
11.5
B
16.7
B
Section 7.0
Alternative C Impact
LOS: level of service; S: Signalized
Notes: Bold and shaded values indicate intersections operating at LOS E or F.
Intersection operation is expressed in average seconds of delay per vehicle during the peak hour for signalized intersections using the HCM 2000 Methodology.
Negative changes in delay values may occur as a result of: the reassignment of traffic due to the Bluff Road connection to West Coast Highway; reassignment of trips in the traffic analysis model due to
congestion at other intersections, and trips served more locally by the new project that would otherwise travel farther or in another direction.
Source: Kimley -Horn 2011.
RAProie"WNewp.nU015\Inreft EIRM0 Al S- 090311 tloc 7 -97 Newport Banning Ranch
Draft Environmental Impact Report
rr
rr
mm
rr
�mm
rr
rr
mm
rr
�mm
LOS: level of service; S: Signalized
Notes: Bold and shaded values indicate intersections operating at LOS E or F.
Intersection operation is expressed in average seconds of delay per vehicle during the peak hour for signalized intersections using the HCM 2000 Methodology.
Negative changes in delay values may occur as a result of: the reassignment of traffic due to the Bluff Road connection to West Coast Highway; reassignment of trips in the traffic analysis model due to
congestion at other intersections, and trips served more locally by the new project that would otherwise travel farther or in another direction.
Source: Kimley -Horn 2011.
RAProie"WNewp.nU015\Inreft EIRM0 Al S- 090311 tloc 7 -97 Newport Banning Ranch
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Section 7.0
Alternatives to the
Freeway Mainline: Under existing conditions, all study freeway segments are currently
operating at LOS D or better for both peak hours. Without Alternative C, these freeway
segments would continue to operate at acceptable levels of service in 2016. As identified in
Table 7 -12, the addition of Alternative C traffic would not cause additional freeway segments to
worsen. No significant impacts would occur.
TABLE 7 -12
YEAR 2016 CUMULATIVE WITH ALTERNATIVE C
FREEWAY MAINLINE OPERATIONS
Freeway Segment
Lanes
AM Peak Hour
PM Peak Hour
Volume
Density
(pc /mi/In)
LOS
Volume
Density
(pclmi /In)
LOS
SR -55 Northbound
19`" Street to Victoria /22n0 Streets
4
4,417
17.9
B
3,885
15.7
B
Victoria /22n0 Streets to Mesa Drive
4
5,952
24.1
C
5,236
21.2
C
Mesa Drive to 1-405, San Diego Fwy
5
8,765
29.1
D
6,867
22.2
C
SR -55 Southbound
1 -405, San Diego Fwy to Mesa Drive
4
3,250
13.2
B
4,146
16.8
B
Mesa Drive to Victoria/22n0 Streets
4
4,028
16.3
B
4,628
18.7
C
Victoria/22nd Streets to 19th Street
3
2,989
16.1
B
3,435
18.5
C
pdmi /ln: passenger cars per mile per lane; LOS: level of service
Source: Kimley -Horn 2011.
General Plan Buildout
General Plan Buildout peak hour traffic forecasts were developed using the City's Newport
Beach Traffic Model (NBTM). The NBTM assumes buildout of the area and the region according
to the General Plans of the Cities of Newport Beach, Huntington Beach, and Costa Mesa. The
City of Newport Beach General Plan assumes a 2030 buildout year. The NBTM also assumes
buildout of local arterials generally in accordance with the General Plan Circulation Elements of
these jurisdictions and the Orange County MPAH. The Cities of Newport Beach, Costa Mesa,
and Huntington Beach collect traffic impact/development fees and use Capital Improvement
Program funds to provide anticipated traffic improvements. Such improvements are
implemented based on project- specific traffic impact analyses and /or the findings of the
jurisdictions' General Plan buildout assumptions and required traffic improvements necessary to
accommodate projected growth.
For the intersection peak hour analysis, the NBTM network assumes buildout of local arterials in
accordance with the Orange County MPAH, with the exception of some on -site roadways.
Project - specific model runs using the NBTM as the base, were conducted to reflect the
proposed Project network, which does not reflect the full Orange County MPAH improvements
on the Project site. The following modifications are proposed as a part of Alternative C:
• North Bluff Road just north of 17th Street to 19th Street would not be constructed
• Both Alternative C and the proposed Project propose the deletion of the second
connection from Bluff Road to West Coast Highway and the designated extension of
15th Street west of Bluff Road. On the City of Newport Beach Circulation Element, this
second connection is shown as the extension of 15th Street as a Primary (four -lane
divided) roadway from Bluff Road to West Coast Highway. On the Orange County
R:TrolectslNewpartU015VOrafi EIR7.0 Nt 090311.doc 7 -98 Newport Banning Ranch
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Section 7.0
Alternatives to the
MPAH, the second connection is shown as the extension of 17`h Street west of Bluff
Road to West Coast Highway as a Secondary (four -lane undivided) roadway between
Bluff Road and 15th Street and as a Primary (four -lane divided) between 15th Street and
West Coast Highway. The MPAH also shows an extension of 15th Street west of Bluff
Road. The Traffic Impact Analysis finds that a second roadway connection is not
required for either Alternative C or the proposed Project with the addition of cumulative
traffic. This deletion would require a General Plan Amendment to the Newport Beach
General Plan Circulation Element and an amendment to the Orange County MPAH.
19th Street Bridge: The Orange County MPAH and the City of Newport Beach's General Plan
Circulation Element include the extension of 19th Street from its existing eastern terminus in the
City of Costa Mesa over the Santa Ana River and connecting to Brookhurst Street at Banning
Avenue to the west in the City of Huntington Beach. The 19th Street extension and river crossing
is shown on the Orange County MPAH as a Primary (four -lane, divided) Arterial. As such, the
General Plan Buildout scenarios included in the traffic analyses for both Alternative C and the
proposed Project assume the completion of the 19th Street Bridge as shown on the Orange
County MPAH, although the bridge is not a part of the Project or any Project alternative.
State Route 55 Freeway Extension: State Route (SR) 55 (Costa Mesa Freeway) provides
north -south access in Orange County from SR -91 (Riverside Freeway) to SR -1 (Pacific Coast
Highway). From SR -91 to 19th Street, SR -55 is a freeway facility. At 19th Street, the freeway
ends and merges with Newport Boulevard, and then continues southward into the City of
Newport Beach. The City of Costa Mesa Circulation Element depicts the extension of SR -55 as
a freeway between 19th Street and Industrial Way. The Orange County MPAH depicts the
freeway portion of SR -55 ending at its current terminus at 19th Street in Costa Mesa. The
potential extension of SR -55 and other access alternatives along this corridor have been the
subject of study and analysis for a number of years, and a Project Study Report/Project
Development Support (PSR/PDS) to study a number of alternatives is planned for the near
future. The traffic analyses for Alternative C and the proposed Project assume that the freeway
portion of SR -55 ends at its current terminus at 19th Street in Costa Mesa, consistent with the
Orange County MPAH assumptions.
General Plan Buildout Without Alternative C
Intersection Levels of Service: The intersections listed below are forecasted to operate at
deficient levels (LOS E or F) without Alternative C. All other traffic study area intersections are
forecasted to operate at an acceptable LOS (LOS D or better) in both peak hours.
City of Huntington Beach
19. Magnolia Street at Pacific Coast Highway (PM: LOS F)
City of Costa Mesa
34. Newport Boulevard at 19th Street (AM: LOS F, PM: LOS F)
36. Newport Boulevard at Harbor Boulevard (PM: LOS F)
37. Newport Boulevard at 18th Street/Rochester Street (PM: LOS F)
44. Newport Boulevard at 17th Street (PM: LOS E)
48. Irvine Avenue at 17th Street (PM: LOS E)
R:TrojectslNewpartU015VDrah EIR7.0 Nf 090311.tloc 7 -99 Newport Banning Ranch
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Section 7.0
Alternatives to the
All other intersections in the cities of Newport Beach, Huntington Beach, and Costa Mesa are
forecasted to operate at acceptable levels of service with buildout of their respective General
Plans and without Alternative C.
CMP Intersection: The CMP intersection of Newport Boulevard at West Coast Highway is
forecasted to operate at LOS D without Alternative C. This intersection would operate at an
acceptable LOS (LOS E) based on the CMP significance criteria.
State Highway Intersections: All State Highway intersections are forecasted to operate at
acceptable levels of service except for the following intersections which would operate at a
deficient LOS D or worse:
City of Huntington Beach
19. Magnolia Street at Pacific Coast Highway (PM: LOS E)
City of Costa Mesa
34. Newport Boulevard and 19`h Street (AM: LOS D; PM: LOS D)
36. Newport Boulevard and Harbor Boulevard (PM: LOS D)
37. Newport Boulevard and 18'h Street/Rochester Street (PM: LOS D)
44. Newport Boulevard and 17`h Street (PM: LOS D)
General Plan Buildout With Alternative C
Intersection Levels of Service: Table 7 -13 identifies the peak hour ICU /delay values and the
corresponding levels of service for the traffic study area intersections for General Plan buildout
with and without Alternative C. In some cases, even with the addition of Alternative C traffic the
volume to capacity (V /C) ratio improves when compared to the no development traffic
conditions. This is a result of one or more of the following conditions:
• The reassignment of area traffic that would occur when the Bluff Road connection to
West Coast Highway through the site is constructed. Bluff Road and North Bluff Road
would provide an alternate route for traffic from Newport Beach and Costa Mesa that
currently travels on Superior Avenue or Newport Boulevard to reach West Coast
Highway.
• The reassignment of trips by the NBTM to alternate routes, due to congestion at other
intersections.
• The reassignment of trips by the NBTM that would be served more locally by the future
land uses that would otherwise travel farther or in another direction.
R:TrojectslNewpartU015VOrafi EIR7.0 AU090311.tloc 7 -100 Newport Banning Ranch
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Section 7.0
Alternatives to the
TABLE 7 -13
GENERAL PLAN BUILDOUT WITH ALTERNATIVE C: INTERSECTION OPERATIONS
RAProjectMNewpcnU015\IDreft EIRV.0 Ali -09031 1 doc 7 -101 Newport Banning Ranch
Draft Environmental Impact Report
No Project Development
With Alternative C
Alternative C Impact
AM Peak Hour
PM Peak Hour
AM Peak Hour
PM Peak Hour
Change
Significant?
ICU/
ICU/
ICU/
ICU/
Intersection
Control
Delay
LOS
Delay
LOS
Delay
LOS
Delay
LOS
AM
PM
AM
PM
1
Monrovia Ave /16th St
S
0.32
A
0.31
A
0.34
A
0.36
A
0.018
0.044
No
No
2
Placentia Ave /15th St
S
0.43
A
0.59
A
0.53
A
0.51
A
0.106
-0.080
No
No
3
Superior Ave /15`h St
S
0.38
A
0.46
A
0.52
A
0.47
A
0.144
0.009
No
No
4
Superior Ave /Placentia Ave
S
0.65
B
0.61
B
0.59
A
0.50
A
-0.056
-0.110
No
No
r
m
5
Newport Blvd /Hospital Rd
S
0.67
B
0.79
C
0.64
B
0.75
C
-0.025
-0.033
No
No
m
6
Orange SUWest Coast Hwy
S
0.77
C
0.80
C
0.76
C
0.74
D
-0.006
-0.069
No
No
0
7
Prospect St/West Coast Hwy
S
0.90
D
0.85
D
0.90
D
0.88
D
0.002
0.031
No
No
0
8
Superior Ave/West Coast Hwy
S
0.85
D
0.81
D
0.89
D
0.86
D
0.033
0.046
No
No
z
9
Newport Blvd/West Coast Hwy
S
0.87
D
0.83
D
0.88
D
0.84
D
0.013
0.011
1 No
No
10
Riverside Ave/West Coast Hwy
S
0.72
C
0.87
D
0.73
C
0.88
D
0.012
0.013
No
No
11
Tustin Ave /West Coast Hwy
S
0.59
A
0.82
D
0.60
A
0.83
D
0.010
0.004
No
No
12
Dover Dr/West Coast Hwy
S
0.78
C
0.90
D
0.78
C
0.90
D
0.005
0.003
No
No
13
Magnolia St/Hamilton Ave
S
0.73
C
0.74
C
0.78
C
0.74
C
0.050
0.004
No
No
14
Bushard St/Hamilton Ave
S
0.54
A
0.65
B
0.54
A
0.64
B
-0.004
-0.007
No
No
t
U
15
Brookhurst St/Hamilton Ave (Victoria
S
0.59
A
0.83
D
0.60
A
0.85
D
0.011
0.020
No
No
d
St)
16
Magnolia St/Banning Ave
S
0.59
A
0.49
A
0.66
B
0.48
A
0.069
-0.006
No
No
0
rn
17
Bushard St/Banning Ave
S
0.67
B
0.73
C
0.75
C
0.69
B
0.088
-0.037
No
No
c
18
Brookhurst St/Banning Ave
S
0.46
A
0.50
A
0.49
A
0.48
A
0.025
-0.024
No
No
=
19
Magnolia St /Pacific Coast Hwy
S
0.84
D
1.23
F
0.79
C
1.14
F
-0.052
-0.085
No
No
20
Brookhurst St/Bushard St
S
0.40
A
0.42
A
0.39
A
0.37
A
-0.012
-0.049
No
No
21
Brookhurst St/Pacific Coast Hwy
S
0.77
C
0.90
D
0.77
C
0.88
D
0.003
-0.022
No
No
RAProjectMNewpcnU015\IDreft EIRV.0 Ali -09031 1 doc 7 -101 Newport Banning Ranch
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Section 7.0
Alternatives to the
TABLE 7 -13 (Continued)
GENERAL PLAN BUILDOUT WITH ALTERNATIVE C: INTERSECTION OPERATIONS
Intersection
Control
No Project Development
With Alternative C
Alternative C Impact
AM Peak Hour
PM Peak Hour
AM Peak Hour
PM Peak Hour
Change
Significant?
ICU/
Delay
LOS
ICU/
Delay
LOS
ICU/
Delay
LOS
ICU/
Delay
LOS
AM
PM
AM
PM
22
Placentia AveNictoria St
S
0.74
C
0.82
D
0.73
C
0.82
D
-0.007
0.000
No
No
23
Pomona Ave /Victoria St
S
0.69
B
0.82
D
0.71
C
0.84
D
0.013
0.022
No
No
24
Harbor BlvdNictoria St
S
0.66
B
0.79
C
0.66
B
0.79
C
0.005
0.000
No
No
25
Newport BlvdNictoria St
S
0.48
A
0.43
A
0.48
A
0.44
A
0.000
0.009
No
No
26
Newport Blvd /Victoria St (22ntl St)
S
0.86
D
0.53
A
0.87
D
0.53
A
0.004
0.002
No
No
27
Whittier Ave /19" St
S
0.64
B
0.73
C
0.69
B
0.73
C
0.045
0.004
No
No
28
Monrovia Ave /191h St
S
0.56
A
0.51
A
0.58
A
0.50
A
0.024
-0.013
No
No
29
Placentia Ave /19th St
S
0.60
A
0.58
A
0.59
A
0.58
A
-0.011
-0.006
No
No
30
Pomona Ave /19`" St
S
0.57
A
0.73
C
0.58
A
0.75
C
0.012
0.022
No
No
w
31
Anaheim Ave /19'" St
S
0.58
A
0.66
B
0.59
A
0.68
B
0.003
0.012
No
No
32
Park Ave /19'" St
S
0.53
A
0.59
A
0.53
A
0.60
A
0.003
0.006
No
No
:=
33
Harbor Blvd /19" St
S
0.50
A
0.63
B
0.50
A
0.63
B
-0.002
0.001
No
No
L)
34
Newport Blvd /19'" St
S
1.07
F
1.01
F
1.09
F
1.02
F
0.023
0.008
Yes
No
35
Newport Blvd /Broadway
S
0.69
B
0.85
D
0.70
B
0.88
D
0.006
0.021
No
No
36
Newport Blvd /Harbor Blvd
S
0.80
C
1.11
F
0.80
C
1.13
F
0.006
0.021
No
Yes
37
Newport Blvd /18" St (Rochester St)
S
0.83
D
1.09
F
0.83
D
1.10
F
0.004
0.016
No
Yes
38
Placentia Ave /18'" St
S
0.52
A
0.54
A
0.54
A
0.55
A
0.027
0.009
No
No
39
Whittier Ave /17th St
S
0.18
A
0.23
A
0.41
A
0.44
A
0.231
0.218
No
No
40
Monrovia Ave /17' St
S
0.31
A
0.41
A
0.33
A
0.44
A
0.018
0.030
No
No
41
Placentia Ave /17' St
S
0.40
A
0.56
A
0.45
A
0.56
A
0.050
0.000
No
No
42
Pomona Ave /17th St
S
0.44
A
0.51
A
0.51
A
0.52
A
0.062
0.006
No
No
43
Superior Ave /17`" St
S
0.76
C
0.81
D
0.81
D
0.81
D
0.049
-0.003
No
No
44
Newport Blvd /17'" St
S
0.80
C
0.92
E
0.83
D
0.93
E
0.027
0.012
No
Yes
45
Orange Ave /17t° St
S
0.41
A
0.62
B
0.42
A
0.62
B
0.005
0.002
No
No
46
Santa Ana Ave /17th St
S
0.43
A
0.51
A
0.43
A
0.50
A
-0.002
-0.010
No
No
RAProjecte\NewpcnU015\IDmft EIRV.0 Ali - 090311 doc 7 -102 Newport Banning Ranch
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Section 7.0
Alternatives to the
TABLE 7 -13 (Continued)
GENERAL PLAN BUILDOUT WITH ALTERNATIVE C: INTERSECTION OPERATIONS
RAPrq.WNewp.nU015VD.iI EIRM0 Alin- 090311 d.c 7 -103 Newport Banning Ranch
Draft Environmental Impact Report
No Project Development
With Alternative C
Alternative C Impact
AM Peak Hour
PM Peak Hour
AM Peak Hour
PM Peak Hour
Change
Significant?
ICU/
ICU/
ICU/
ICU/
Intersection
Control
Delay
LOS
Delay
LOS
Delay
LOS
Delay
LOS
AM
PM
AM
PM
47
Tustin Avail 7'h St
S
0.45
A
0.58
A
0.44
A
0.58
A
-0.007
0.003
No
No
0
d
48
Irvine Ave /17s' St
S
0.65
B
0.91
E
0.64
B
0.92
E
-0.009
0.003
No
No
49
Placentia Ave /16th St
S
0.26
A
0.32
A
0.29
A
0.34
A
0.031
0.020
No
No
0
50
Superior Ave /16`" St
S
0.55
A
0.51
A
0.58
A
0.52
A
0.022
0.010
No
No
0
51
Newport Blvd /16" St
S
0.68
B
0.75
C
0.68
B
0.76
C
0.004
0.004
No
No
52
Bluff RdNictoria St
S
0.65
B
0.68
B
0.67
B
0.68
B
0.023
0.003
No
No
53
Bluff Rd /191M1 St
S
0.50
A
0.58
A
0.53
A
0.58
A
0.031
0.000
No
No
54
Bluff Rd /171M1 St
S
0.26
A
0.31
A
0.257
0.313
No
No
rn
55
Bluff Rd /16'" St
U
11.5
B
15.6
C
11.5
15.6
No
No
c
O
N/A
56
Bluff Rd /151h St
S
0.43
A
0.66
B
0.432
0.657
No
No
57
Bluff Rd/West Coast Hwy
S
0.74
C
0.88
D
0.735
0.881
No
No
ICU: Intersection Capacity Utilization; LOS: level of service; S: Signalized; U: Unsignalized; NIA: not applicable.
Notes: Bold and shaded values indicate intersections operating at LOS E or F.
Intersection operation is expressed in average seconds of delay per vehicle during the peak hour for unsignalized intersections using the HCM 2000 Methodology and is expressed in volume -to-
capacity (vlc) for signalized intersections using the ICU Methodology.
Negative changes in ICU values may occur as a result of: the reassignment of traffic due to the Bluff Road connection to West Coast Highway; reassignment of trips in the traffic analysis model
due to congestion at other intersections, and trips served more locally by the new project that would otherwise travel farther or in another direction
Source: Kimley -Horn 2011.
RAPrq.WNewp.nU015VD.iI EIRM0 Alin- 090311 d.c 7 -103 Newport Banning Ranch
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Section 7.0
Alternatives to the
The intersections listed below are forecasted to operate at deficient levels (LOS E or F) both
without and with Alternative C. All other traffic study area intersections are forecasted to operate
at an acceptable LOS (LOS D or better) in both peak hours. The deficient traffic study area
intersections are shown on Exhibit 7 -6, General Plan Buildout With Alternative C: Deficient
Intersections.
City of Huntington Beach
19. Magnolia Street at Pacific Coast Highway (PM: LOS F, Alternative C: no impact)
City of Costa Mesa
34. Newport Boulevard at 19th Street (AM: LOS F, Alternative C impact: 0.023; PM: LOS F;
Alternative C: no impact)
36. Newport Boulevard at Harbor Boulevard (PM: LOS F, Alternative C impact: 0.021)
37. Newport Boulevard at 18th Street/Rochester Street (PM: LOS F, Alternative C impact:
0.016)
44. Newport Boulevard at 17th Street (PM: LOS E, Alternative C impact: 0.012)
48. Irvine Avenue at 17'h Street (PM: LOS E, Alternative C: no impact)
With the extension of North Bluff Road only to just north of 17'h Street, two additional
intersections would be impacted when compared to the proposed Project. The deletion of the
northerly segment of North Bluff Road to 19th Street would result in an increase in both project
traffic and areawide traffic using 19th Street and other east -west streets to get to destinations to
the west of the site, resulting in increased delay at the intersections along 171h Street,
18th Street, and 19'h Street.
CMP Intersection: The intersection of Newport Boulevard at West Coast Highway is the only
CMP intersection within the traffic study area. This intersection would continue to operate at an
acceptable LOS under this traffic scenario. As with the proposed Project, no significant impact
would occur with Alternative C.
State Highways: Table 7 -14 summarizes the General Plan Buildout with Alternative C peak
hour operations. The following State Highway study intersections would operate at LOS D or
worse:
City of Huntington Beach
19. Magnolia Street and Pacific Coast Highway (PM: LOS D)
City of Costa Mesa
34. Newport Boulevard and 19th Street (AM: LOS D; PM: LOS D)
36. Newport Boulevard and Harbor Boulevard (PM: LOS D)
37. Newport Boulevard and 18th Street/Rochester Street (PM: LOS D)
44. Newport Boulevard and 17th Street (PM: LOS D)
R:TrojectslNewpartU015VOrafi EIR7.0 Nf 090311.tloc 7 -104 Newport Banning Ranch
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Victoria St
Hamilton Ave
Costa
Huntington ao
\ Mesa a
M
M
a'
Beach '
'a Beach
`
>
m
c
0
E ,
4
m
`o
c r
x
f —_ r
°
m
E
i
o� m
m'
I 3
f
a
Q.
Q a
=
2e o¢ °•'Sr
Banning Ave
19th St
ptac ,ac �e
/
J P
�
y*
18th St
CjSe
® °v
0t° �
Project
nth Bt
r9rhs
A
Site
pt ytp
15th St
idr
7s
°t�
LEGEND:
2a
® = LOS E -AM PEAK
I
. °tP
Newport
® = LOS E - PM PEAK
/
Hospital Rd
Beach
= LOS E - AM /PM PEAK
Jmts
= LOS F - AM PEAK
0 = LOS F - PM PEAK
• = LOS F - AM /PM PEAK
�djL
W. Coast Hwy
= INDICATES SIGNIFICANT
a
IMPACT
d
0
t
w
a
to
Source: Kimley -Horn and Associates, Inc. 2011
General
Plan Buildout with Alternative C: Deficient
Intersections
Exhibit 7 -6
Newport Banning Ranch EIR
WE
C O N S U L T I N G
s
(REV 080311JFG) R: /Pmje"Ne poNJ015/Gmphics /El R/Ex7- 6_DefInlBO.pdf
Section 7.0
Alternatives to the
TABLE 7 -14
GENERAL PLAN BUILDOUT WITH ALTERNATIVE C: STATE HIGHWAY INTERSECTION OPERATIONS
Intersection
Control
No Project Development
With Alternative C
Alternative C Impact
AM Peak Hour
PM Peak Hour
AM Peak Hour
PM Peak Hour
Change
Significant?
Delay
LOS
Delay
LOS
Delay
LOS
Delay
LOS
AM
PM
AM
PM
5
Newport Blvd /Hospital Rd
S
17.7
B
23.1
C
16.9
B
22.3
C
-0.8
-0.8
No
No
6
Orange St/West Coast Hwy
S
7.0
A
6.2
A
5.6
A
6.1
A
-1.4
-0.1
No
No
7
Prospect SUWest Coast Hwy
S
13.8
B
6.8
A
13.8
B
7.5
A
0.0
0.7
No
No
8
Superior Ave /West Coast Hwy
S
30.3
C
30.0
C
29.9
C
31.2
C
-0.4
1.2
No
No
9
Newport Blvd/West Coast Hwy
S
19.1
B
16.4
B
19.2
B
16.4
B
0.1
0.0
No
No
10
Riverside Ave /West Coast Hwy
S
12.4
B
15.3
B
12.4
B
15.5
B
0.0
0.2
No
No
11
Tustin Ave/West Coast Hwy
S
17.6
B
11.6
B
18.4
B
11.3
B
0.8
-0.3
No
No
12
Dover Dr/West Coast Hwy
S
21.0
C
21.6
C
20.7
C
21.0
C
-0.3
-0.6
No
No
19
Magnolia St/Pacific Coast Hwy
S
24.1
C
62.8
E
22.8
C
44.2
D
-1.3
-18.6
No
No
21
Brookhurst St/Pacific Coast Hwy
S
20.0
B
19.3
B
19.1
B
17.5
B
-0.9
-1.8
No
No
25
Newport Blvd/Victoria St
S
18.4
B
21.0
C
18.4
B
21.3
C
0.0
0.3
No
No
26
Newport Blvd/Victoria St (22n6 St)
S
29.1
C
22.6
C
29.4
C
22.6
C
0.3
0.0
No
No
34
Newport Blvd /1 gth St
S
47.2
D
39.4
D
52.1
D
41.6
D
4.9
2.2
No
No
35
Newport Blvd /Broadway
S
4.8
A
7.0
A
4.7
A
7.0
A
-0.1
0.0
No
No
36
Newport Blvd /Harbor Blvd
S
11.4
B
45.1
D
11.4
B
50.0
D
0.0
4.9
No
No
37
Newport Blvd /18th St (Rochester St)
S
15.4
B
41.9
D
15.2
B
44.9
D
-0.2
3.0
No
No
44
Newport Blvd /17th St
S
27.8
C
36.5
D
28.9
C
36.9
D
1.1
0.4
No
No
51
Newport Blvd /16th St
S
9.6
A
8.2
A
10.0
A
8.4
A
0.4
0.2
No
No
57
Bluff Rd/West Coast Hwy
S
1 0.9
A
1.4
A
12.0
B
23.6
C
1 11.1
22.2
No
No
LOS: level of service; S: Signalized
Notes: Intersection operation is expressed in average seconds of delay per vehicle during the peak hour for signalized intersections using the HCM 2000 Methodology.
Negative changes in delay values may occur as a result of: the reassignment of traffic due to the Bluff Road connection to West Coast Highway; reassignment of trips in the traffic
analysis model due to congestion at other intersections, and trips served more locally by the new project that would otherwise travel farther or in another direction.
Source: Kimley -Horn 2011.
R:\ProjectMNewpcnU015\Inreft EIRV.0 Ali - 090311 doc 7 -105 Newport Banning Ranch
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Section 7.0
Alternatives to the
These are the same intersections forecasted to operate at LOS D or worse without
implementation of Alternative C. The addition of Alternative C traffic would not cause additional
intersections to operate at LOS D or worse, and would not cause the LOS to worsen at any
intersection already operating at LOS D or worse. As with the proposed Project, Alternative C
would not significantly impact State Highways.
Mitigation Program
MM 4.9 -1 Table A identifies the City of Newport Beach (City) transportation improvement
mitigation program for the Project as well as the Applicant's fair -share
responsibility for the improvements. The resulting levels of service are identified
in Table B. In accordance with the requirements of the Traffic Phasing
Ordinance, the improvements shall be completed during the 60 months
immediately after approval. Approval refers to the receipt of all permits from the
City and applicable regulatory agencies. Concept plans depicting these
recommended improvements are provided in Appendix F to the Newport Banning
Ranch EIR.
MM 4.9 -2 Table C identifies the City of Costa Mesa transportation improvement mitigation
program proposed for the Project. The resulting levels of service are identified in
Table D. The Applicant shall be responsible for using its best efforts to negotiate
in good faith to arrive at fair and responsible arrangements to either pay fees
and /or construct 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 approval. Approval refers to the receipt of all permits from the
City of Newport Beach and applicable regulatory agencies. Concept plans
depicting these recommended improvements are provided in Appendix F to the
Newport Banning Ranch EIR.
TABLE A
ALTERNATIVE C
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH TRAFFIC MITIGATION REQUIREMENTS
R:TrojectslNewpartU015VDraft EIR7.0 Nf 090311.tloc 7.5 -106 Newport Banning Ranch
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Scenario in which Improvements are
Needed /Project's Percentage of Fair Share
Improvements
General
Existing
2016
2016
Plan
Location
Improvement
+Project
TPO
Cumulative
Buildout
Restripe the southbound approach on Newport
Blvd to provide one exclusive right -turn lane,
one exclusive left -turn lane, and one shared
right4left -turn lane.
g
Newport Blvd/
West Coast Hwy
N/A
x
(41.2°/x)
N/A
N/A
Note: The proposed improvement is limited to
restriping of the southbound approach. No
physical changes to the roadway section are
anticipated to be necessary and no changes to
the right -of -way should be required.
NIA: Mitigation measure is not required under this traffic scenario.
Source: Kimley -Horn 2011.
R:TrojectslNewpartU015VDraft EIR7.0 Nf 090311.tloc 7.5 -106 Newport Banning Ranch
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Section 7.0
Alternatives to the
TABLE B
ALTERNATIVE C
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH TRAFFIC MITIGATION REQUIREMENTS
LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE
Scenario
Peak
Period
Without Mitigation
With Mitigation
ICU
I LOS
ICU
LOS
Intersection 9: Newport Boulevard/West Coast Highway
Restripe the southbound approach on Newport Blvd to provide one exclusive right -turn lane, one exclusive left -
turn lane, and one shared right - /left -turn lane.
Existing + Project
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
2016 TPO
AM
0.93
E
0.87
D
2016 Cumulative
AM
0.96
E
0.91
E
General Plan Buildout
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N /A: not applicable for the traffic scenario.
Source: Kimley -Horn 2011.
TABLE C
ALTERNATIVE C
CITY OF COSTA MESA TRAFFIC MITIGATION REQUIREMENTS
R:TrojectslNewpartU015VDraft EIR7.0 Nf 090311.tloc 7.5 -107 Newport Banning Ranch
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Scenario in which Improvements are
Needed
General
Existing
2016
2016
Plan
Location
Improvement
+ Project
TPO
Cumulative
Buildout
Provide a second southbound left -turn on
Newport Blvd.
Note: The proposed improvement is anticipated
to require modifications to the medians and
Newport Blvd/
incremental widening of the street on one or both
34
191h St
sides of the roadway depending on the final
N/A
N/A
X
X
design. Additional right -of -way may be required
on one or both sides of Newport Blvd. Direct
physical impacts are anticipated to be limited to
roadway components including median
hardscape and landscape.
Addition of a fourth southbound through lane on
Newport Boulevard. Improve the southbound
approach of Newport Boulevard to provide 3
through lanes and 1 shared through /right -turn
lane and to improve the south leg to
accommodate a fourth receiving lane.
36
Newport Blvd/ Harbor Blvd
X
X
X
X
Note: Direct physical impacts are anticipated to
be limited to roadway components,
including median hardscape and landscape
improvements, and sidewalk modifications both
to the north and south of the intersection. No
existing structures or on- street packing would be
impacted.
R:TrojectslNewpartU015VDraft EIR7.0 Nf 090311.tloc 7.5 -107 Newport Banning Ranch
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Section 7.0
Alternatives to the
TABLE C (Continued)
ALTERNATIVE C
CITY OF COSTA MESA TRAFFIC MITIGATION REQUIREMENTS
R:TroiectslNewpartU015VDraft EIR7.0 Nf 090311.tloc 7.5 -108 Newport Banning Ranch
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Scenario in which Improvements are
Needed
General
Existing
2016
2016
Plan
Location
Improvement
+ Project
TPO
Cumulative
Buildout
Convert the southbound right -turn lane
(southbound approach) of Newport Boulevard to
provide a through /right -turn lane and to improve
the south leg to accommodate a fourth receiving
lane.
Newport Blvd/
Note: This improvement has been conditioned on
37
St
X
X
X
X
(Rochester St)
the Hoag Health Center project. Direct physical
Impacts are anticipated to be limited to roadway
components, including median hardscape and
landscape improvements, and sidewalk
modifications both to the north and south of the
intersection.
Install a traffic signal.
Note: The improvement would be limited to the
Pomona Ave/
42
17m St
installation of the traffic signal. No physical
X
X
X
N/A
changes to the roadway section are anticipated;
no right -of -way is anticipated to be required.
Modify the westbound approach to provide 1 left,
1 shared through /left, 1 through, and 1 right -turn
lane. This will require split phasing signal
operation.
43
Superior Ave/
17 S
171, St
X
X
X
N/A
Note: The proposed improvement is limited to
signal operation modifications. No physical
changes to the roadway section are anticipated
to be necessary and no changes to the right -of-
way should be required.
Add dedicated right -turn lane on the northbound
approach.
Note: The proposed improvement in anticipated
to require modifications to the medians and
incremental widening of the street on one or
both sides of the roadway depending on the final
44
Newport Blvd/
design. Improvements may also require
N/A
X
X
X
17 St
modifications to the frontage road along the
easterly side of Newport Boulevard. Additional
right -of -way may be required on one or both
sides of Newport Boulevard. Direct physical
impacts are anticipated to be limited to roadway
components including median hardscape and
landscape.
N /A: Mitigation measure is not required under this traffic scenario.
Source: Kimley -Horn 2011,
R:TroiectslNewpartU015VDraft EIR7.0 Nf 090311.tloc 7.5 -108 Newport Banning Ranch
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Section 4.9
and Circulation
TABLE D
CITY OF COSTA MESA TRAFFIC MITIGATION REQUIREMENTS
LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE
Scenario
Peak
Period
Without Mitigation
With Mitigation
ICU
LOS
ICU
LOS
Intersection 34: Newport Boulevard /19t" Street
Assumes the addition of a second southbound left -turn lane on Newport Blvd.
Existing + Project
N/A
N/A
NIA
N/A
N/A
2016 TPO
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
2016 Cumulative
AM
0.91
E
0.85
D
General Plan Buildout
AM
1.09
F
1.00
E
Intersection 36: Newport Blvd /Harbor Blvd
Addition of a fourth southbound through lane on Newport Boulevard. Improve the southbound approach of
Newport Boulevard to provide 3 through lanes and 1 shared through /right -turn lane and to improve the south leg
to accommodate a fourth receiving lane.
Existing + Project
PM
1.07
F
0.89
D
2016 TPO
PM
1.16
F
0.96
E
2016 Cumulative
PM
1.17
F
097
E
General Plan Buildout
PM
1.13
F
0.93
E
Intersection 37: Newport Blvd /18t" St (Rochester St)
Assumes the southbound right -turn lane is converted to a southbound shared through /right lane on Newport
Blvd.
Existing + Project
PM
1.07
F
0.91
E
2016 TPO
PM
1.17
F
0.99
E
2016 Cumulative
PM
1.18
F
1.00
E
General Plan Buildout
PM
1.10
F
0.93
E
Intersection 42: Pomona Ave /17t" St
Install traffic signal
Existing + Project
PM
39.0
E
0.52
A
2016 TPO
PM
51.3
F
0.55
A
2016 Cumulative
PM
58.4
F
0.57
A
General Plan Buildout
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Intersection 43: Superior Ave /17`" St
Assumes the westbound approach is converted to provide 1 left, 1 shared /left., 1 through, and 1 dedicated right -
turn lane.
Existing + Project
PM
0.94
E
0.83
D
2016 TPO
PM
1.01
F
0.89
D
2016 Cumulative
PM
1.02
F
0.90
D
General Plan Buildout
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Intersection 44: Newport Blvd /17t" St
Assumes 1 dedicated northbound right -turn lane.
Existing + Project
N/A
NIA
N/A
N/A
N/A
2016 TPO
PM
0.93
E
0.90
D
2016 Cumulative
PM
0.93
E
0.90
D
General Plan Buildout
PM
0.93
E
0.89
D
ICU: Intersection Capacity Utilization; LOS: level of service; NIA: not applicable to the traffic scenario; TPO: Traffic Phasing
Ordinance.
Source: Kimley -Horn 2011.
R:TrojectslNewpartU015\IDrafi EIR7.0 Nf 090311.tloc 7.5 -109 Newport Banning Ranch
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Section 7.0
Alternatives to the
MM 4.9 -3 Prior to the introduction of combustible materials on the Project site, emergency
fire access to the site shall be approved by the City of Newport Beach's Public
Works and Fire 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. Parallel parking on one side may be
permitted if the road is a minimum 32 feet in width.
MM 4.9 -5 Prior to the displacement of any private parking spaces associated with
improvements to 15'h Street, the Applicant shall be responsible for the
construction of replacement parking on the Project site within the Community
Park site or in a location immediately proximate to the existing parking lot.
Level of Significance After Mitigation
The following summarizes the findings of Thresholds 4.9 -1 and 4.9 -2 with respect to the
analyzed traffic scenarios for Alternative C.
Existing Plus Alternative C
City of Newport Beach Intersections: No City of Newport Beach intersections would
be significantly impacted under the Existing Plus Alternative C scenario. This is also true
for the proposed Project.
City of Costa Mesa Intersections: Alternative C would significantly impact four
intersections in Costa Mesa, whereas the proposed Project would significantly impact
three intersections in Costa Mesa. As previously noted, this traffic scenario does not
accurately reflect the timing for development of Alternative C or the proposed Project.
Congestion Management Plan Intersection: The CMP intersection at Newport
Boulevard and West Coast Highway is forecasted to operate at an acceptable level of
service for both Alternative C and the proposed Project.
Year 2016 With Alternative C TPO Analysis
City of Newport Beach Intersections: Alternative C and the proposed Project would
significantly impact the intersection of Newport Boulevard at West Coast Highway in
Newport Beach. The impact can be mitigated to a level considered less than significant
with the implementation of the Mitigation Program.
City of Costa Mesa Intersections: Alternative C would significantly impact five
intersections; the proposed Project would significantly impact the same five intersections
as Alternative C, in addition to the intersections of Monrovia Avenue at 19th Street and
Newport Boulevard at 19th Street. Implementation of the Mitigation Program would
mitigate 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, and impacts would be
potentially greater than the proposed Project.
RTrojectMNewpertU015Mrafi EIR7.0 Nt 090311.tloc 7 -110 Newport Banning Ranch
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Alternatives to the
Year 2016 Cumulative With Alternative C
Section 7.0
City of Newport Beach Intersections: Both Alternative C and the proposed Project
would significantly impact the intersection of Newport Boulevard at West Coast Highway
in Newport Beach. The impact can be mitigated to a level considered less than
significant with the implementation of the Mitigation Program.
City of Costa Mesa Intersections. Alternative C would significantly impact six
intersections; the proposed Project would significantly impact seven intersections;
Monrovia Avenue at 19th Street and the same six intersections as Alternative C.
Implementation of the Mitigation Program would mitigate the impacts to a level
considered less than significant. However, the City of Newport Beach cannot impose
mitigation on another jurisdiction. Therefore, for purposes of this EIR, the impacts to be
mitigated by the improvements would remain significant and unavoidable, and impacts
associated with Alternative C would be potentially greater than the proposed Project.
• Congestion Management Plan Intersection: Neither Alternative C nor the proposed
Project would cause the intersection of Newport Boulevard at West Coast Highway to fall
below the CMP LOS standards. Therefore, no significant impacts would occur.
State Highway Intersections: Both Alternative C and the Project would cause the
Newport Boulevard at 17th Street intersection to operate at LOS D, which is considered a
deficient level of service..
• Freeway Mainline Segments: Neither Alternative C nor the Project would significantly
impact any freeway segments.
General Plan Buildout
• City of Newport Beach Intersections: No Newport Beach intersections would be
significantly impacted by Alternative C or the proposed Project.
• City of Costa Mesa Intersections: Alternative C would significantly impact four
intersections, and the proposed Project would significantly impact two of the four
intersections. Implementation of the Mitigation Program would mitigate impacts to a level
considered less than significant. However, the City of Newport Beach cannot impose
mitigation on another jurisdiction. Therefore, for purposes of this EIR, the impacts to be
mitigated by the improvements would remain significant and unavoidable, and impacts
associated with Alternative C would be potentially greater than the proposed Project.
• Congestion Management Plan Intersection: Neither Alternative C nor the proposed
Project would cause the intersection of Newport Boulevard at West Coast Highway to fall
below the CMP LOS standards. Therefore, no significant impact would occur.
State Highway Intersections: Neither Alternative C nor the proposed Project would
cause any State intersections to operate at a deficient level of service. No significant
impact would occur.
As with the proposed Project, Alternative C would not substantially increase hazards due to a
design feature, incompatible land uses, or inadequate emergency access (Threshold 4.9 -3). All
land uses would be required to provide adequate on -site parking; no parking impacts would
occur (Threshold 4.9 -4). With respect to Threshold 4.9 -5, which addresses consistency with
transportation - related plans, policies, and regulations, both the proposed Project and
Alternative C are considered consistent with the intent of the transportation - related goals and
policies of SCAG, the City of Newport Beach General Plan, and the California Coastal Act.
RTrojetMNewpartU015Mrafi EIR7.0 Nt090311.tloc 7 -111 Newport Banning Ranch
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Section 7.0
Alternatives to the
The Mitigation Program outlined in Section 4.9.15 would also be applicable to Alternative C. As
with the proposed Project, Alternative C's impacts on intersections within the City of Newport
Beach can be mitigated to a level considered less than significant. However, all measures in the
City of Costa Mesa would be subject to the approval of Costa Mesa and cannot be enforced by
the City of Newport Beach. Therefore, for both the proposed Project and Alternative C, for
purposes of this EIR, these impacts in the City of Costa Mesa would be significant and
unavoidable.
Air Quality
Alternative C construction emissions could be slightly reduced due to the elimination of a portion
of North Bluff Road. However, in terms of daily activity and associated emissions, Alternative C
would be essentially the same as the proposed Project. As described for the proposed Project,
without mitigation, regional (mass) emissions of NOx are forecasted to exceed applicable
thresholds in some construction years. Mitigation would reduce the emissions to less than
significant. However, the availability of sufficient Tier 4 diesel engine construction equipment
cannot be assured; thus the impact is potentially significant and unavoidable (Threshold 4.10 -2).
Localized concentrations of CO, nitroxiden dioxide (NO2), large particulate matter (PM10), and
fine particulate matter (PM2.5) due to construction activities would not exceed the applicable
thresholds (Threshold 4.10 -2).
As with the proposed Project, the cancer risk, the cancer burden, the chronic hazard risk, and
the acute hazard risk from TAC emissions with Alternative C to both off -site and on -site
receptors would be less than significant (Threshold 4.10 -4).
Alternative C would eliminate a potential north -south connection from areas within and to the
south of the Project site to areas to the north of the site. Therefore, it may be assumed that
there would be an increase in vehicle miles traveled (VMT) when compared to the proposed
Project and, accordingly, a comparative increase in vehicle emissions. The increase would not
be substantial when compared to total Project emissions, and the long -term emissions impact
conclusions would be the same as for the proposed Project. Beyond 2020, pollutant emissions
of VOCs and CO would exceed SCAQMD CEQA significance thresholds, principally due to
vehicle operations. The impacts would be significant and unavoidable (Threshold 4.10 -2).
Long -term emissions would be cumulatively significant (Threshold 4.10 -3).
Localized CO concentrations at congested intersections, TAC emissions from the site, and
future on -site TAC concentrations would not exceed ambient air quality standards or CEQA
significance thresholds and would not expose persons to substantial pollutant concentrations.
Impacts would be less than significant (Thresholds 4.10 -2 and 4.10 -4). Potential odor impacts
would be less than significant (Threshold 4.10 -5). Alternative C and the proposed Project would
have the same level of impact for each of these thresholds.
Proposed development would not exceed the assumptions used to develop the SCAQMD
AQMPs, and Alternative C would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the SCAQMD
AQMPs (Threshold 4.10 -1) or other applicable policies of agencies with jurisdiction over the
Project (Threshold 4.10 -6).
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Alternative C construction GHG emissions would be incrementally less than for the proposed
Project, because there would be no construction of North Bluff Road north of 17th Street.
R:Troj.tMN..partU015M . ft EIR7.0 Nt 090311.tloc 7 -112 Newport Banning Ranch
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Section 7.0
Alternatives to the
Long -term GHG emissions would be slightly greater with Alternative C compared to the
proposed Project. The increase in GHG would be associated with the small increase in VMT
when compared to the proposed Project because this Alternative would eliminate the full
extension of North Bluff Road, causing drivers to take longer routes. Therefore, it may be
assumed that there would be an increase in vehicle GHG emissions. As with the proposed
Project, it is estimated that the Alternative C long -term GHG emissions would exceed the 6,000
MTCO2e /yr significance threshold and would be a cumulatively significant impact
(Threshold 4.11 -1). Without the construction of North Bluff Road between 17th Street and
19th Street, the GHG emission impacts of this Alternative would be slightly greater than the
proposed Project.
Neither the proposed Project nor Alternative C would conflict with applicable plans, policies, or
regulations adopted for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions and there would be no impacts
(Threshold 4.11 -2).
Noise
Construction noise impacts for Alternative C would be similar to those for the proposed Project,
except that there would be less impact to receptors near and north of 17th Street because North
Bluff Road north of 17th Street would not be built. There would be periodic, temporary,
unavoidable significant noise impacts that would cease upon completion of construction
activities (Threshold 4.12 -2). Vibration impacts would be the same as for the proposed Project
(Threshold 4.12 -3).
Cumulative noise levels on existing roadways for Alternative C would be slightly less than for
the proposed Project on roadways to the north and northeast of the Project site and slightly
greater on roadways to the east of the Project site because of the redistribution of traffic. The
noise level changes would be due to a combination of cumulative growth, a redistribution of
traffic resulting from the building of the Alternative C roads, and new trips generated by the
development of residential, commercial, and park uses. There would be a significant noise
impact on 17th Street west of Monrovia Avenue, the same as is forecasted for the proposed
Project. As with the proposed Project, mitigation is proposed but, because these impacts would
occur in the City of Costa Mesa and because the City of Newport Beach cannot dictate
mitigation outside its jurisdiction, it cannot be certain the mitigation would be implemented
(Thresholds 4.12 -1 and 4.12 -4). There would be a significant noise impact on 15th Street, west
of Monrovia Avenue in the Alternative C's Existing Plus Project and 2016 with Project scenarios,
but not in the General Plan Buildout scenario, which is the same as is forecasted for the
proposed Project. Although there would be no change in total trip generation, there would be an
increase in traffic volumes on 15th Street due to a redistribution of traffic; thus the impact would
be slightly greater than the proposed Project. As with the proposed Project, the impact can be
mitigated to a less than significant level.
With Alternative C at General Plan buildout, future CNEL at the Newport Crest residences
facing the Project site would increase from approximately 9 to 15 dBA above existing noise
levels, which would be a significant noise impact. The noise increases would be approximately
0.4 dBA CNEL greater than with the proposed Project because traffic volumes on Bluff Road
would be approximately 10 percent greater than with the proposed Project. The increase in
traffic volumes is because the direct connection to 19th Street provided by North Bluff Road
would not be built. This would require vehicles to remain on Bluff Road and use an alternative
north -south route. As a result, there would be an increase in the number of vehicles on
Bluff Road. Noise - abatement measures could reduce noise to a compatible level as defined for
new development by the General Plan, but the increase would still exceed the significance
R:TrojectslNewpartU015Mrafi EIR7.0 Nf 090311.tloc 7 -113 Newport Banning Ranch
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Section 7.0
Alternatives to the
criterion. Noise - abatement measures — including the construction of noise barriers to reduce
exterior noise impacts and upgrades for windows on the facades of homes facing Bluff Road to
reduce interior noise impacts —could reduce noise to a compatible level, as defined for new
development by the General Plan. However, as with the proposed Project, from a CEQA
perspective, the interior noise impacts on the first row of units in Newport Crest facing Newport
Banning Ranch would remain a significant and unavoidable impact because the City of Newport
Beach does not have the authority to mandate the implementation of mitigation on property that
is not on the Project site. Future noise levels at the California Seabreeze and Parkview Circle
residences would be reduced negligibly because North Bluff Road would not extend north of
17th Street. Future noise levels at the Carden Hall School would increase by less than 1 dBA;
the impact would be less than significant (Thresholds 4.12 -1 and 4.12 -4).
The potential for traffic noise impacts to proposed land uses would be the same or very similar
to those forecasted for the proposed Project. Noise land use compatibility would be the same as
for the proposed Project. Mitigation would be required to reduce traffic noise to proposed
residential uses adjacent to roadways to achieve the compatible noise levels required by the
General Plan and the California Code of Regulations (Threshold 4.12 -1).
Noise impacts from stationary sources associated with new residential and commercial
development would be the same with Alternative C as with the proposed Project (Thresholds
4.12 -1 and 4.12 -4). Noise impacts from the possible drilling of new wells in the consolidated
oilfield would be the same as for the proposed Project (Threshold 4.12 -2). The Project site is not
within an airport land use plan or near a private airstrip; there would be no impacts from
excessive aircraft noise levels (Thresholds 4.12 -5 and 4.12 -6). As with the proposed Project,
Alternative C would be consistent with the goals and policies of the City of Newport Beach
General Plan related to noise (Threshold 4.12 -7).
Cultural and Paleontological Resources
Alternative C would develop the site with residential, commercial, resort inn, recreational, and
open space uses without the construction of North Bluff Road between 17th Street and
19th Street. Development under this Alternative would not impact any known historical resources
(Threshold 4.13 -1); however, grading and excavation of the site would have the potential to
impact unknown historical resources, same as the proposed Project.
As with the proposed Project, Alternative C would involve oil consolidation operations and
development of the site. Therefore, there is the potential for discovery of previously unidentified
archaeological (Threshold 4.13 -2) or paleontological resources (Threshold 4.13 -3), same as the
proposed Project. Alternative C would impact known archaeological resources. More
specifically, three archaeological sites (CA -ORA -906, CA -ORA -839 and CA- ORA -844B) are
deemed eligible for listing on the California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR) and
National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). Disturbance activities could also impact unknown
resources. It should be noted that, by not developing the northern portion of Bluff Road, this
Alternative would help preserve CA -ORA -906 and not completely destroy the site, but oil
infrastructure removal could impact the site. This site also would be directly impacted by the
proposed Project.
There is no indication that burials are present on the site; however, as with the proposed
Project, under this Alternative there is potential for disturbance of human remains, including
those interred outside of formal cemeteries (Threshold 4.13 -4). With the applicable mitigation,
impacts would be less than significant.
R:TrojectMNewpartU015Mrafi EIR7.0 Nt 090311.tloc 7 -114 Newport Banning Ranch
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Section 7.0
Alternatives to the
Threshold 4.13 -5 pertains to consistency with any applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted
for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. Alternative C would not conflict
with any goals or policies of the City of Newport Beach General Plan or the Coastal Act related
to historic, archaeological, and paleontological resources, same as the proposed Project. To
mitigate for potentially significant impacts, this Alternative would be required to comply with the
Mitigation Program set forth in the EIR. This Mitigation Program requires compliance with
standard practices for the identification, evaluation, and preservation of cultural resources
remains and /or the recovery of these remains in a manner that preserves the scientific and
historical value of the resource. This Alternative would be consistent with provisions of the
General Plan. For this threshold, this Alternative and the proposed Project would have no
impacts.
Public Services and Facilities
The public services and facilities evaluated in the EIR include the following: fire protection,
police protection, schools, library services, and solid waste. Alternative C assumes the same
land uses and same development plan as the proposed Project without the construction of
North Bluff Road between 17th Street and 19th Street. As a result, Alternative C would have the
same residential population as the proposed Project, and would have the same level of impact
on public services and facilities.
With Alternative C, potential impacts to fire protection service (Threshold 4.14 -1) would remain
the same as the proposed Project and mitigation measures would reduce the impacts to less
than significant. Elimination of the northern extension of North Bluff Road would not
substantially alter emergency response times because the primary response would be from City
of Newport Beach facilities, which are located south of the Project site. As with the proposed
Project, the majority of the development proposed with this Alternative can be adequately
served through the use of existing City of Newport Beach fire and emergency medical services.
As with the proposed Project, Site Planning Area 12b, the northerly block of Site Planning Area
10a, and the northerly block of Site Planning Area 10b cannot be served by Station Number 2
within the established response time, which is a significant impact. As with the proposed
Project, implementation of the Mitigation Program would be required and potential impacts to
fire protection service associated with Alternative C would be less than significant (Threshold
4.14 -1).
Potential impacts to police protection service (Threshold 4.14 -3) associated with Alternative C
would be the same as with the proposed Project. Construction - related impacts such as
trespassing, theft, and vandalism would require police protection services; however, as with the
proposed Project, construction - related impacts would be less than significant. Operational
impacts associated with Alternative C, as with the proposed Project, could increase the demand
for police protection services; however, this demand would not require the construction of new
facilities, nor would it require the expansion of existing facilities that would result in physical
environmental impacts. Access to the site by the Newport Beach Police Department would not
be adversely impacted if the segment of North Bluff Road between 17th Street and 19th Street is
not constructed. Police protection services can be provided for Alternative C, as for the
proposed Project, without significantly impacting existing and planned development within the
City. Implementation of the Mitigation Program, including SC 4.14 -1 (building and site safety
design recommendations) and SC 4.14 -2 (site security), would ensure that adequate police
protection services can be provided to the site. As with the proposed Project, the impact of
Alternative C on police protection services would be less than significant.
R:TrojectslNewpartU015\IOrafi EIR7.0 Nf 090311.tloc 7 -115 Newport Banning Ranch
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Section 7.0
Alternatives to the
Potential impacts to schools (Threshold 4.14 -5) associated with Alternative C would be the
same as with the proposed Project. The Project site is located within the Newport-Mesa Unified
School District (School District). Both the proposed Project and Alternative C would generate
approximately 161 elementary school students, approximately 42 middle school students, and
approximately 65 high school students. These students would attend schools within the School
District, which has capacity to accommodate the expected number of students. Access to the
schools that would be attended by children in the Newport Banning Ranch development would
not be adversely impacted by not providing the segment of North Bluff Road between 17th Street
and 19th Street. Implementation of the Mitigation Program, including SC 4.14 -3 (payment of
developer fees) and SC 4.14 -4 (application of General Obligation bond tax rate), would preclude
significant impacts to the School District associated with Alternative C. As with the proposed
Project, no significant impacts are anticipated with Alternative C.
Potential impacts to library service (Threshold 4.14 -7) associated with Alternative C would
remain the same as the proposed Project. Implementation of the Mitigation Program, including
SC 4.14 -5 (payment of required Property Excise Tax to the City of Newport Beach) would
further reduce potential impacts to library services. As with the proposed Project, Alternative C
would not create a need for new or expanded library facilities; therefore, there would be no
impact to library services.
Potential impacts to solid waste service (Threshold 4.14 -9) associated with Alternative C would
remain the same as with the proposed Project. Both the proposed Project and Alternative C
would generate an estimated 19,456.3 pounds of solid waste per day or approximately
3,540.5 tons of solid waste annually. As with the proposed Project, less than significant impacts
to solid waste would result from implementation of Alternative C.
Thresholds 4.14 -2, 4.14 -4, 4.14 -6, 4.14 -8, and 4.14 -10 pertain to consistency with any
applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an
environmental effect. As with the proposed Project, Alternative C would be consistent with
applicable policies
Utilities
The Utilities evaluated in the EIR include the following: Water, Wastewater Facilities, and
Energy (Electricity and Natural Gas). Alternative C assumes the same land uses and same
development plan as the proposed Project without the construction of North Bluff Road between
17th Street and 19th Street. As a result, Alternative C would have the same residential population
as the proposed Project, and would have the same level of impact on public services and
facilities.
As with the proposed Project, Alternative C would require the construction of new water lines
and connections (Threshold 4.15 -1) both on site and off site. The impacts of the construction of
these facilities have been assumed in the impact analysis of this Alternative. Regarding water
supply (Threshold 4.15 -2), based on the Water Supply Assessment, the City has indicated that
a sufficient supply of water is available during average, single -dry, and multiple -dry years that
would meet the anticipated water demand associated with the proposed Project, in addition to
the water demands of existing and planned future uses through year 2030. Because Alternative
C assumes the same land uses as the proposed Project, it can be assumed that there would be
sufficient water supply to serve Alternative C. As with the proposed Project, less than significant
impacts to water supply would result with Alternative C.
R:TrojectslNewpartU015VOrafi EIR7.0 Nt 090311.tloc 7 -116 Newport Banning Ranch
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Section 7.0
Alternatives to the
As with the proposed Project, wastewater flows from the Project site for Alternative C would be
subject to treatment according to treatment requirements set forth by the RWQCB (Threshold
4.15 -4). Project flows would not exceed the established wastewater treatment requirements for
Alternative C.
With Alternative C, an increase in wastewater would occur with discharge flowing to the Bitter
Point Pump Station. As with the proposed Project, there is a potential City- operated sewer lift
station would be constructed in the event that a gravity system cannot be incorporated
(Threshold 4.15 -5). As with the proposed Project, Alternative C would require the construction of
new wastewater pipelines on site and one off -site connection on 16th Street; however, the
off -site connection would occur within existing street right -of -way and would not result in
environmental effects beyond those addressed as part of this Alternative. As with the proposed
Project, less than significant impacts to wastewater would result with Alternative C.
Alternative C would result in an increase in demand for electrical service and natural gas
service. As with the proposed Project, Alternative C is designed to avoid inefficient, wasteful,
and unnecessary energy consumption and to otherwise reduce energy consumption as
compared to standard construction practices. The electrical and natural gas utility providers
have indicated their ability to serve the proposed Project; therefore, it is assumed these service
providers would be able to adequately serve Alternative C. As with the proposed Project, there
would be less than significant impacts to additional demand for electricity and natural gas
services and infrastructure with implementation of Alternative C. Physical impacts related to
installation and /or relocation of necessary infrastructure include air quality and noise impacts.
Implementation of the Mitigation Program, including construction noise and short-term air quality
mitigation would reduce these physical impacts to a less than significant level. As with the
proposed Project, no significant impacts are anticipated with Alternative C (Threshold 4.15 -7).
Thresholds 4.15 -3, 4.15 -6, and 4.15 -8 pertain to consistency with any applicable plan, policy, or
regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. As with the
proposed Project, Alternative C would be consistent with applicable policies.
Conclusion
Alternative C is the same as the proposed Project, except that the extension of North Bluff Road
between 17th Street and 19th Street would not be constructed. As a result, the nature of the
impacts are the same as those discussed in Sections 4.1 through 4.15 of this EIR, with
incremental decreases in impacts associated with the amount of grading and disturbance to
native habitat and biological resources, and increased (qualitative and quantitative)
opportunities for habitat restoration. There is also a reduction in the amount of construction air
emissions and impacts to cultural resources disturbed. This Alternative would also have the
benefit of not having the road extension bisecting the open space area. However, Alternative C
would result in additional traffic using Bluff Road, which would result in an incremental increase
in traffic noise along this segment of roadway. In addition, this alternative would increase the
number of intersections that have project - related impacts. Additionally, should it be determined
at some point in the future that the connection of North Bluff Road to 19th Street is required, the
City or other entity would be responsible for implementing the improvement. This would not be
an expense borne by the developer. Subsequent CEQA analysis would likely be required and
permitting may be more difficult because the roadway would bisect lands that had been
remediated and were functioning as open space.
R:TrojectslNewpartU015VOrafi EIR7.0 Nt 090311.tlac 7 -117 Newport Banning Ranch
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Alternatives to the
Significant and Unavoidable Impacts
Section 7.0
Alternative C would not eliminate or substantially lessen any of the significant and unavoidable
impacts identified with the proposed Project. The following significant and unavoidable impacts
would occur with Alternative C:
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 17`h 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
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
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).
• 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:
R:TrojectslNewpartU015VOrafi EIR7.0 Nt 090311.tloc 7 -118 Newport Banning Ranch
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Section 7.0
Alternatives to the
— 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
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 171h 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).
R:TrojectslNewpartU015VOrafi EIR7.0 Nt 090311.tloc 7 -119 Newport Banning Ranch
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Alternatives to the
Feasibility and Ability to Meet Project Objectives
Section 7.0
Alternative C is a potentially feasible alternative. It is able to meet the Project objectives as
effectively as the proposed Project, with the exception of Objective 7. This objective reads:
"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." Alternative C does not operate as effectively as the proposed Project in
meeting this objective because it results in an additional intersection operating at a deficient
level of service. Additionally, it does not construct a segment of the local and regional
transportation network.
R:TrojectslNewpartU015VOrafi EIR7.0 Nt 090311.tloc 7 -120 Newport Banning Ranch
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Section 7.0
Alternatives to the
7.5.4 ALTERNATIVE D: REDUCED DEVELOPMENT AND REDUCED DEVELOPMENT
AREA (NO RESORT INN AND 1,200 UNITS)
Description of the Alternative
Alternative D was developed to evaluate whether the Project objectives could be met, while
decreasing the Project impacts by reducing the number of residential and hotel units and the
overall Project footprint. This Alternative would result in a minimal reduction in the number of
acres impacted by the development and, in that respect, would reduce impacts (Table 7 -1
provides a comparison of the acres for each alternative). However, it would not totally avoid the
significant impacts associated with the proposed Project.
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 same
roadway system is proposed. When compared to the proposed Project, Alternative D would
allow for 1,200 du, including an affordable housing component per the 6; 60,000 sf of
neighborhood commercial uses (compared to 75,000 sf); 15,000 sf of visitor - serving commercial
uses (in place of a 75 -room resort inn); approximately 39.1 acres of parks including a 24.8 -
gross -acre Community Park (compared to approximately 51 total acres of parklands for the
proposed Project) .7 The 15,000 sf of visitor - serving commercial use would be predominately
restaurant uses. Alternative D does not include a Nature Center or interpretive trails. Similarly,
the pedestrian bridge and the internal trail network would not be implemented as part of this
Alternative. Open space uses would increase from 252.3 gross acres to 269.1 gross acres. The
development area (residential, commercial, and visitor - serving uses) would decrease from
97.4 gross acres to 92.9 gross acres. As with the proposed Project, the Community Park would
be constructed by the Applicant as part of this Alternative; it would be offered for dedication to
the City; and, upon acceptance, it would be maintained by the City.
Alternative D would require the same discretionary actions as noted for the proposed Project. It
is assumed that a Mitigation Program similar to what is proposed for the Project would be
required for Alternative D. Though the nature of the mitigation would be the same, for some
topical areas, such as biological resources, the mitigation requirements may be slightly less
because the number of acres of habitat impacted would be less.
Exhibit 7 -7, Alternative D: Reduced Development and Reduced Development Area, depicts the
land use plan for Alternative D. Table 7 -15 identifies the land uses and acreage associated with
the allowable land uses. The exhibit reflects the land uses that would be allowed, which is not
the same as the limits of land disturbance. Additional impacts would be associated with the
oilfield remediation, fuel modification, and any trails that ultimately are provided by other parties
in open space area.
The number of required affordable units would be 15 percent of the total number of approved units.
7 Alternative D assumes compliance with Quimby Act, 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.
RTrojetMNewpartU015Mrafi EIR7.0 Nt090311.tloc 7 -121 Newport Banning Ranch
Draft Environmental Impact Report
B-
aa,
m "$
ivn svaal
-
• —....f
wsteorinr Ra:ervermn
i
w
2
/
2
¢
I
¢
�=
18th s:me1
m
o
uos \
1.m
Los
\\
\
\
MUIR
nth st�aa:
U05
UPACE
OF
MWR
Wetlands ' -�
Restorabon
Nawnausw°.
Area ��
\
`
��•-
NMUSD
�
I6LR51'ee�
LEGEND
R
_ /City
Project Site Boundary
9
Utilities
Vard
OPEN SPACE
7,
£
Lowland Open Space (LOS)
Upland Open Space (UOS)
RP
� Interim Oil Facilities (OF)
N
PUBLIC PARKS / RECREATION
Community Park (CP)
LOS
15t so- -v
Bluff Park (BP)
o°
VISITOR-SERVING COMMERCIAL
'
e-
0 Visitor - Serving Commercial (VSC)
RESIDENTIAL
L
R
0°
0 Residential (R)
E
MIXED - USE /RESIDENTIAL
OF
VSC
0 Mixed- Use / Residential (MUIR)
Pmpose Pennenem
ROADWAYS
U05 RP
conneeepo w S.ns0 Ridge Per,
_ Arterial Roads
west
'r7Z2 Right -of -Way Reservation for 19th
Street
c °as.r
JOS
blghW
Sunset Ridge
Park
e
F
9
PACIFIC
C
y
OCEAN
Source: FORMA 2011
Alternative D: Reduced Footprint
and 1,200 Dwelling
Units
Exhibit 7 -7
Newport Banning Ranch EIR
AN
`ewf
wJ
ry
C O N S U L T 1 N G
s
(REV 080311 JFG) R:
Projects\ Newport\ J0151Gmphics \EIRTx7- LLducedDevAlO pM
Section 7.0
Alternatives to the
TABLE 7 -15
ALTERNATIVE D STATISTICAL SUMMARY
Comparative Analysis of Environmental Impacts
Land Use and Related Planning Programs
Alternative D would result in approximately 13 percent fewer dwelling units than the proposed
Project and no overnight accommodations (i.e., the 75 -room resort inn). As previously described
in Section 4.1.7 of Section 4.1, Land Use and Related Planning Programs, the Project site is
surrounded by established communities of residential development and is an active oilfield.
There are no other uses on site or public access to the site. Therefore, as with the proposed
Project, Alternative D would not physically divide an established community (Threshold 4.1 -1).
However, as with the proposed Project, there would be land use incompatibility with respect to
night illumination associated with the Community Park and long -term noise impacts on those
RTrojectMNewpartU015Mrafi EIR7.0 Nf 090311,dac 7 -122 Newport Banning Ranch
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Maximum
Maximum
Planned
Permitted
Permitted
Gross
Dwelling
Commercial
Overnight
Land Use District
Acres'
Units
sf
Accommodations
Open Space
LOS
Lowland Open Space'
130.6
—
—
—
LOS
Upland Open Space°
122.0
OF
Interim Oil Facilities`
16.5
—
—
—
Subtotal Open Space
269.1
—
—
—
Public Parks /Recreation
CID
Community Park
24.8
—
—
—
BP
Bluff Park'
14.3
—
—
—
Subtotal Public Parks/Recreation
39.1
—
—
—
Visitor-Serving Commercial
VSC
I Visitor - Serving Commercial'
2.0
—
15,000
—
Subtotal Visitor - Serving Commercial
1 2.0
—
1 15,0001
—
Residential
R Residential (up to 10 du/ac)'
70.0
645
-
-
Subtotal Residential
1 70.0
645
-
-
M fixed -U s elRes i dentia l
MU /R
I Mixed - Use /Residential (up to 35 du/ac)'
1 20.9
555
1 60,000
-
Subtotal Mixed- Use /Residential
1 20.9
5551
60,0001
0
Total Project
1 401.1
1,2001
75,000
0
sf: square footage; du /ac: dwelling unit per acre
Gross acres are measured to centerlines of all public roads where such roads are shown on the plan. Gross acres are
computed using geographic information system (GIs) technology with accuracy to 10 decimal places. Acres are shown in this
table to 1 decimal place.
° The Right -of -Way Reservation for the 19" Street Extension contains approximately 3.1 acres.
The Interim Oil Facilities (Open Space Land Use) District includes: (1) the existing oil operations site near West Coast
Highway; (2) the oil consolidation site near the middle of the Lowland; and (3) an oil access road (non - exclusive easement)
connecting the two working sites.
Gross acres for the Bluff Park District may include fuel management zones and landscape focal points and greens.
Gross acres for the Residential District, the Visitor - Serving Commercial District, and the Mixed-Use/Residential District may
include fuel management zones, privately owned and maintained parks and recreational facilities, and landscape focal points
and greens.
Source: FORMA 2011.
Comparative Analysis of Environmental Impacts
Land Use and Related Planning Programs
Alternative D would result in approximately 13 percent fewer dwelling units than the proposed
Project and no overnight accommodations (i.e., the 75 -room resort inn). As previously described
in Section 4.1.7 of Section 4.1, Land Use and Related Planning Programs, the Project site is
surrounded by established communities of residential development and is an active oilfield.
There are no other uses on site or public access to the site. Therefore, as with the proposed
Project, Alternative D would not physically divide an established community (Threshold 4.1 -1).
However, as with the proposed Project, there would be land use incompatibility with respect to
night illumination associated with the Community Park and long -term noise impacts on those
RTrojectMNewpartU015Mrafi EIR7.0 Nf 090311,dac 7 -122 Newport Banning Ranch
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Section 7.0
Alternatives to the
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 -2 pertains to consistency with any applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted
for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. As with the proposed Project,
Alternative D would be consistent with land use policies, outlined in Table 4.1 -6, City of Newport
Beach General Plan Consistency Evaluation. However, this Alternative would not provide
visitor - serving uses in the form of overnight accommodations, as called for in the City's General
Plan and the Coastal Act. Without the overnight accommodations component, this Alternative
would not provide job opportunities to the same extent as the proposed Project. These were
project elements that the City, when preparing the updated General Plan, identified for the
Newport Banning Ranch site. Though this would not be considered a significant impact, when
evaluating the consistency of Alternative D and the proposed Project with applicable planning
programs, the proposed Project has a greater level of compliance. Therefore, Alternative D
would have greater impacts than the proposed Project for this threshold.
Aesthetics and Visual Resources
The City does not have any designated scenic vistas, and West Coast Highway is not a State -
or locally designated scenic highway. Therefore, similar to the proposed Project, Alternative D
would not result in any impacts to this type of resource (Threshold 4.2 -1).
Compared to the proposed Project, 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 same roadway system is proposed, including the North Bluff Road. While
Alternative D would provide slightly more open space than the proposed Project, the overall
visual changes to the Project site associated with the implementation of Alternative D would be
similar to those anticipated to occur under the proposed Project. The site would be converted
from an active oilfield to a developed condition. Visibly notable features of the proposed Project
that would not be constructed with Alternative D are the resort inn and the pedestrian /bicycle
bridge over West Coast Highway. Removal of the resort inn would reduce the mass of the
buildings visible from key locations, such as West Coast Highway. The removal of the
pedestrian bridge would also reduce the change to views from West Coast Highway. Though
these are important components, the visual changes to the Project site associated with the
implementation of Alternative D would not be substantially different from the proposed Project.
The character of the Project site would change to a suburban environment, consistent with the
surrounding uses. Similar to the proposed Project, Alternative D would not result in a significant
topographical or aesthetic impact (Threshold 4.2 -2).
Under both the proposed Project and this Alternative, significant and unavoidable impacts would
occur with the creation of nighttime light. Because Alternative D would be developed with
generally the same land uses, Alternative D would introduce new sources of light on the Project
site similar to the proposed Project, resulting in nighttime lighting into a currently unlit area. This
increased nighttime lighting on the Project site is considered a significant unavoidable impact
(Threshold 4.2 -3). As discussed for the proposed Project, as part of the General Plan update,
the City identifies the need for having an active park, with lighted ball fields. The City of Newport
Beach General Plan Final EIR finds that the introduction of new sources of lighting associated
with development of the site would be considered significant and unavoidable. The conclusions
RTrojetMNewpartU015\IOrafi EIR7.0 Nt090311.tloc 7 -123 Newport Banning Ranch
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Section 7.0
Alternatives to the
of the proposed Project and this Alternative with respect to night lighting are consistent with the
General Plan Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations.
As with the proposed Project, Alternative D would be consistent with the intent of the aesthetic
resources goals and policies of the City of Newport Beach General Plan and the California
Coastal Act (Threshold 4.2 -4).
Geology and Soils
Alternative D would have a smaller development footprint compared to the proposed Project.
Alternative D represents an approximately 11 percent reduction in the grading footprint.
Because the reduction comes at the Project's perimeter, however, the corresponding reduction
in grading is expected to be somewhat less. The expected earthwork reduction for both the
mass excavation and corrective grading is in the range of 8 to 10 percent for this Alternative.
As indicated in Section 4.3, Geology and Soils, the Project site is located in a seismically active
area with faults within the proposed development site that could not be proven to be inactive
(Threshold 4.3 -1). Alternative D proposes fewer structures than the proposed Project; however,
the nature of the development would be the same (i.e., residential village). Alternative D would
result in the potential for impacts associated with surface fault rupture and seismic shaking
(Threshold 4.3 -2). It is reasonable to assume that Alternative D would be subject to the same
type of measures outlined in the Mitigation Program in Section 4.3.9 and that the potential
impacts would be reduced to less than significant levels. Because of the reduced footprint,
reduction in dwelling units, and elimination of the resort inn, Alternative D would expose fewer
people and structures to impacts associated with these thresholds and therefore, impacts would
be incrementally less than the proposed Project.
As indicated in Section 4.3, Geology and Soils, two fault segments on the Project site have not
been confirmed as inactive, and development setbacks have been recommended. The fault
setback zones would reduce the risk of surface fault rupture. As with the proposed Project, it is
assumed that Alternative D would be required to incorporate strengthened building foundations
and structural design which would accommodate strong seismic shaking on the Project site.
Habitable structures would be restricted to the Upland area, avoiding soils that may liquefy or
undergo lateral spreading and, where necessary, corrective grading would ensure all structures
are placed on competent foundation materials. Furthermore, this Alternative would not result in
impacts from seismic - related ground failure, liquefaction, lateral spreading, soil collapse, or
landslides (Thresholds 4.3 -3 and 4.3 -6). Implementation of the Mitigation Program in Section
4.3.9 would reduce potential impacts to less than significant. Because of the reduced footprint
and reduction in dwelling units, Alternative D would expose fewer people and structures to
impacts associated with these thresholds and therefore, would be less than the proposed
Project.
As with the proposed Project, Alternative D would be subject to some existing on -site potential
for landslides under dynamic seismic conditions. Consistency with the CBC, City building code
requirements, and General Plan policies along with the incorporation of bluff setback zones
would ensure that impacts associated with on- and off -site landslides would be less than
significant (Threshold 4.3 -4). Because of the reduced footprint and reduction in dwelling units,
Alternative D would expose fewer people and structures to impacts associated with these
thresholds and therefore, the impacts would be less than the proposed Project.
As with the proposed Project, grading activities associated with Alternative D would increase the
potential for soil erosion and loss of topsoil (Threshold 4.3 -5). With the incorporation of
RTrojetMNewpartU015Mrafi EIR7.0 Nt090311.tloc 7 -124 Newport Banning Ranch
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Section 7.0
Alternatives to the
construction BMPs as described in Section 4.4, Hydrology and Water Quality, impacts on soil
erosion and loss of topsoil would be less than significant. Design measures would be applied
through the approval process that would require that post- construction soil erosion and loss of
topsoil be minimized through the use of engineered grading, surface drainage improvements,
and landscaping. This Alternative would require slightly less grading; therefore, impacts
associated with this threshold would be incrementally less than the proposed Project.
On -site soils have a low to medium expansion potential. As with the proposed Project,
incorporation of standard conditions and mitigation measures would reduce impacts from this
Alternative associated with expansive soils to a less than significant level (Threshold 4.3 -7).
Because of the reduced footprint and reduction in dwelling units, Alternative D would expose
fewer people and structures to impacts associated with these thresholds and therefore, would
be less than the proposed Project.
Both the proposed Project and Alternative D would be consistent with the intent of the soils and
geology - related goals and policies of the City of Newport Beach General Plan and the California
Coastal Act (Threshold 4.3 -8).
Hydrology and Water Quality
Alternative D would result in on -site grading and development on the Project site but not to the
same extent as there would less development. As with the proposed Project, Alternative D
would result in an increase in impervious surfaces, although to a slightly lesser degree than the
proposed Project, and would increase the amount of runoff and the concentration of pollutants
in storm water runoff (Thresholds 4.4 -1, 4.4 -6, 4.4 -11, 4.4 -12, and 4.4 -13). Implementation of
the Mitigation Program in Section 4.4.7 of the EIR would ensure that these impacts would be
reduced to a less than significant level. However, when these impacts are compared to the
proposed Project, Alternative D would result in fewer impacts. These impacts would be less
than significant.
The proposed Project would result in an increase in impervious surface and would reduce the
potential for groundwater percolation (Threshold 4.4 -2); implementation of treatment - control
BMPs and LID features would ensure that impacts would be less than significant. Alternative D
would have less impervious surface than the proposed Project; therefore, potential impacts to
groundwater would be less than the proposed Project. This impact would be less than
significant.
This Alternative would involve changes to existing drainage patterns and would cause increases
in erosion of the Project site or surrounding areas that would occur with the proposed Project
(Thresholds 4.4.3 and 4.4 -15). Implementation of the Mitigation Program in Section 4.4.7 of the
EIR would ensure that these impacts would be reduced to a less than significant level. However,
when compared to the proposed Project, Alternative D would result in a slight reduction in
impacts because of the smaller project footprint. This impact would be less than significant.
Alternative D would result in increases in impervious surfaces and in peak flow runoff and runoff
volumes from the site (Thresholds 4.4 -4 and 4.4 -14). However, the increase would be less than
the proposed Project. Implementation of the Mitigation Program in Section 4.4.7 of the EIR
section would ensure that impacts related to on -site or downstream flooding would be
considered less than significant. As with the proposed Project, the impact of Alternative D on
on -site or downstream flooding would be considered less than significant.
R:TrojectslNewpartU015VOrafi EIR7.0 Nt 090311.tloc 7 -125 Newport Banning Ranch
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Section 7.0
Alternatives to the
This Alternative would also affect the capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage
systems (Threshold 4.4 -5). Since the same drainage improvements would be constructed but
there would be incrementally less grading and development, the impacts with Alternative D
would be slightly less when compared to the proposed Project. This impact would be less than
significant.
As with the proposed Project, housing associated with Alternative D would be located on the
Upland at elevations well outside the 100 -year floodplain. There would be no impacts to or from
the 100 -year floodplain for both the proposed Project and Alternative D (Thresholds 4.4 -7
and 4.4 -8).
The Project site is located at the lower end of the watershed and is not located within any dam
inundation areas. As with the proposed Project, housing associated with Alternative D would be
located on the Upland and people and /or structures would not be exposed to significant risk
associated with the failure of a levee or dam (Threshold 4.4 -9). Potential impacts associated
with Threshold 4.4 -9 would be less than significant for both the proposed Project and
Alternative D.
There are no permanent standing water bodies in the Upland area and inundation by tsunami is
not likely because of Project site elevations and the City's existing Emergency Management
Plan. Therefore, as with the proposed Project, inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow is not
likely for this Alternative (Threshold 4.4 -10).
Alternative D would not conflict with applicable policies (Threshold 4.4 -16). As with the proposed
Project, this Alternative would be consistent with the Harbor and Bay Element, Natural
Resources Element, and Safety Element goals and policies, which were outlined in
Table 4.4 -25, City of Newport Beach General Plan Consistency Evaluation and the relevant
California Coastal Act policies which were outlined in Table 4.4 -26, California Coastal Act
Consistency Analysis.
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
As discussed in Section 4.5, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, with implementation of the
identified Mitigation Program, potentially significant impacts related to the historical and
continuing oil operations on the Project site and the potential presence of ACMs and LBP in
some structures would be reduced to a level considered less than significant. Alternative D
assumes similar land uses within a similar development plan as the proposed Project except for
the overnight accommodations (75 -room resort inn) component. The presence or absence of
the resort inn and incremental decrease in the number of units is inconsequential to the need
for, or implementation of, the RAP. This Alternative would require implementation of the final
RAP, including consolidation of oilfield activities. Therefore, like the proposed Project, with
implementation of the Mitigation Program, Alternative D would result in less than significant
impacts related to Thresholds 4.5 -1 and 4.5 -2, which pertain to the creation of hazards
associated with the transport, use, disposal and /or emissions of hazardous materials and
location on an identified hazardous materials site.
R:TrojectslNewpartU015VOrafi EIR7.0 Nt 090311.tloc 7 -126 Newport Banning Ranch
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Section 7.0
Alternatives to the
Both the construction and operational characteristics of Alternative D are the same as the
proposed Project. The long -term operation of the development would not emit hazardous
emissions within ''A mile of a school. Since the remediation activities may establish off -site haul
routes on streets that pass existing schools, Alternative D may have slightly less impact that the
proposed Project because it would reduce the amount of grading by 8 to 10 percent.
Implementation of standard conditions would provide for impacts to be considered less than
significant. This is consistent with the finding for the proposed Project (Threshold 4.5 -3).
The Project site is not identified on the Cortese List, which is compiled pursuant to Section
65962.5 of the California Government Code. Therefore, there would be no impact associated
with Threshold 4.5 -4.
Threshold 4.5 -5 pertains to consistency with any applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted
for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. Alternative D would not conflict
with any applicable land use, harbor and bay, natural resource, or safety policies because it
would provide for the consolidation of oilfield activities and remediation of the site, same as the
proposed Project. The policies, which were outlined in Table 4.5 -5, City of Newport Beach
General Plan Consistency Evaluation, call for the prohibition of new oil and gas extraction
activities, the consolidation and /or relocation of existing oil operations, to limit hazards
associated with oil operations, and to remediate soil and groundwater contamination. This
Alternative would be consistent with provisions of the General Plan. For this threshold, this
Alternative would have similar impact to the proposed Project, and would remain less than
significant.
Biological Resources
Alternative D would include the primary features of the proposed Project, but assumes both a
reduction in the amount of development that would occur and a reduction in the acreage
associated with that development.
Because the proposed Project and Alternative D have minimal differences in their impact areas,
their corresponding impacts to biological resources are expected to be similar. Alternative D
would result in a substantial adverse effect on special status plant and wildlife species similar to,
however, slightly less, that the proposed Project (Threshold 4.6 -1). As discussed in Section 4.6,
Biological Resources, with implementation of the identified Mitigation Measures, potentially
significant impacts to special status species from Alternative D would be reduced to a level
considered less than significant.
This Alternative would involve a substantial adverse effect on riparian habitat (woodland /scrub
habitats and marsh areas) and other sensitive natural communities (e.g., coastal sage scrub)
(Thresholds 4.6 -2 and 4.6 -3). Although these impacts are expected to be less than the
proposed Project, they are still considered significant. As discussed in Section 4.6, Biological
Resources, with implementation of the identified Mitigation Measures, potentially significant
impacts to special status habitats would be reduced to a level considered less than significant.
This finding would be applicable to Alternative D, as well.
Development on the Project site, which is highly disturbed due to the oilfield operations and is
primarily limited to the upland area, would reduce the habitat available for species moving along
the Santa Ana River and those using the upland portions of the Project site as a migration
stopover point. This impact would be considered significant for both Alternative D and the
proposed Project (Threshold 4.6 -4). However, Alternative D would retain more area in open
space so the impact would be incrementally less than the proposed Project. As discussed in
R:TrojeatslNewpartU015\IDrafi EIR7.0 Nf 090311.tlac 7 -127 Newport Banning Ranch
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Section 7.0
Alternatives to the
Section 4.6, Biological Resources, with implementation of the identified Mitigation Measures,
these potentially significant impacts would be reduced to a level considered less than
significant.
As with the proposed Project, any acreage to be restored after fulfilling mitigation requirements
and requiring restoration would be placed in a reserve area (mitigation bank) or similar
mechanism and may be made available to third parties seeking off -site areas in which to fulfill
their respective mitigation obligations. The area would be restored in accordance with the
Habitat Restoration Plan. One area that is contemplated for inclusion in a mitigation bank is the
land proposed for use for the consolidated oil operations. Upon cessation of oil production
operations, these two Oil Consolidation sites would be remediated and could be available in a
reserve area.
This Alternative would also not conflict with any local or regional policies or ordinances
protecting biological resources or provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural
Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or State habitat conservation
plan (Threshold 4.6 -5).
Population, Housing, and Employment
Alternative D would result in approximately 13 percent fewer dwelling units than the proposed
Project and would not include the resort inn. This is less than what is assumed with the
Residential Village concept presented in the General Plan, but greater than the Open Space
scenario of the General Plan (Alternative B). This Alternative would not result in a substantial
population growth, nor would it exceed projected growth estimates for the area
(Threshold 4.7 -1). To meet the City's RHNA goals and to implement the Housing Element, there
would need to be an intensification of development in one of the eight other locations identified
in the General Plan as being suitable for residential development. Assuming the total number of
units developed in the City would remain the same, impacts would be less than significant with
respect to consistency with population projections.
Alternative D would not provide the visitor accommodations called for in the General Plan;
therefore, it would not provide the same level of employment assumed as part of the long -range
planning. In addition, it would not contribute as much as the proposed Project to meeting the
City's housing goals. Alternative D would also include an AHIP and contribute to meeting the
City's affordable housing goals, but to a lesser degree than the proposed project. This
Alternative would require intensification of affordable housing development elsewhere in the City
to meet the RHNA requirements. In addition to the reduction in the number of affordable units,
Alternative D would have a reduction of a 175 du. To ensure the City's contribution to the
regional housing requirements are met, intensification of density would be required elsewhere
within the City. Increasing density elsewhere may require a General Plan Amendment. City
Charter Section 423 requires a vote if the number of dwelling units in any statistical area is
increased by more than 100. It is uncertain if the residual density would be spread throughout
multiple statistical areas or absorbed by one area. If it were proposed to be placed in one
statistical area, it is uncertain if this would be approved by voters. While these impacts would be
less than significant and overall Alternative D would be consistent with the applicable policies;
this Alternative would not meet the City's goals for affordable housing and employment as
effectively as the proposed Project (Threshold 4.7 -2). This Alternative would be consistent with
the California Coastal Act provision pertaining to population and housing.
R:TrojectslNewpartU015VOrafI EIR7.0 Nt 090311.tloc 7 -128 Newport Banning Ranch
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Alternatives to the
Recreation and Trails
Section 7.0
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. There would also
be a reduction in the amount of parkland from approximately 51 acres to approximately
39.1 acres of parks. This Alternative does not include a Nature Center or trails. However, under
Alternative D, open space uses would increase from 252.3 gross acres to 269.1 gross acres. As
with the proposed Project, as part of this Alternative, the Community Park would be constructed
by the Applicant; it would be offered for dedication to the City; and upon acceptance, it would be
maintained by the City. Alternative D would increase the demand for park and recreational
facilities similar to that of the proposed Project. While this Alternative does not offer the same
amenities or number of amenities as the proposed Project, it would meet the recreational needs
of the Project without accelerating the deterioration of existing facilities. Both Alternative D and
the proposed Project would have less than significant impacts with respect to recreation
(Thresholds 4.8 -1, 4.8 -2, and 4.8 -3). However, this Alternative does not provide as many
recreational amenities of the proposed Project, which proposes 51.4 acres of parkland and a
trail network.
As with the proposed Project, Alternative D would be consistent with the intent of the
recreational resources goals and policies of the City of Newport Beach General Plan and the
California Coastal Act (Threshold 4.2 -4). Because this Alternative would provide fewer trails and
would not construct the pedestrian /bike overcrossing, it would provide less public access
opportunities than the proposed Project from a Coastal Act policy perspective. Though
consistent, the proposed Project better meets the recreational goals and policies.
Transportation and Circulation
Alternative D assumes basically the same arterial roadway network as the proposed Project.
The number of residences in the Urban Colony would decrease from 730 du to 525 du. The
resort inn in the Resort Colony would be eliminated. There would also be a redistribution of the
commercial development. The commercial use in the Urban Colony would decrease from
75,000 sf to 60,000 sf and 15,000 sf of commercial use would be allocated to the area designed
by the proposed Project as the Resort Colony. This commercial use would be visitor - serving
and is anticipated to be a combination of shopping and restaurant uses with an emphasis on
restaurants.
Although this Alternative would have fewer units and no resort inn, it is projected that there
would be a lower number of average daily trips (ADT), an increase in the number of AM peak
hour trips, and a slight decrease in PM peak hour trips.
The trip generation associated with Alternative D is provided in Table 7 -16. Alternative D would
generate 14,749 ADT with 962 AM peak hour trips and 1,408 PM peak hour trips. When
compared to the proposed Project, Alternative D would have a reduction of 240 average daily
trips, but an increase of 56 trips in the AM peak hour and a decrease of 22 trips in the PM peak
hour. Moving the location of visitor - serving commercial uses to the Resort Colony from the
Urban Colony would result in a redistribution of some trips on the circulation network, with more
trips expected to be generated in the southerly portion of the Project site, which would be
expected to result in a slightly higher volume of traffic on the southern portion of Bluff Road and
use of 15'h Street easterly of the Project site.
R:TrojectslNewpartU015VOrafi EIR7.0 Nt 090311.tloc 7 -129 Newport Banning Ranch
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Alternatives to the
TABLE 7 -16
ALTERNATIVE D TRIP GENERATION
Section 7.0
Trip Rates
Trip Generation Rates
AM Peak Hour
PM Peak Hour
ITE
Trips
Daily
In
Out
Total
In
Out
Total
Land Use
Code
per
Single - Family Detached Housing
210
du
9.57
0.19
0.56
0.75
0.64
0.37
1.01
Residential Condominium/Townhouse
230
du
5.81
0.07
0.37
0.44
0.35
0.17
0.52
Parka
412
Acre
2.28
0.01
0.00
0.01
0.02
0.04
0.06
Soccer Complex
488
Field
71.33
0.70
0.70
1.40
14.26
6.41
20.67
Tennis Courts
490
Court
31.04
0.84
0.84
1.68
1.94
1.94
3.88
Shopping Centers
820
ksf
See Formulas Below
High- Turnover (Sit -Down) Restaurant'
932
ksf
127.15 5.99 1 5.53 111.52 1 6.58 1 4.57 111.15
Project Trip Generation
Trip Generation
AM Peak Hour
PM Peak Hour
Project Area
Land Use
Units
Daily
In
Out
Total
In
Out
Total
Single - Family Detached
141
du
1,349
27
79
106
90
52
142
Housing
South Family
Park
28
Acre
64
0
0
0
1
1
2
Village
Soccer Complex
4
Fields
285
3
3
6
57
26
83
Tennis Courts
6
Courts
186
5
5
10
12
12
24
Subtotal
1,884
35
87
122
160
91
251
Residential Condominium/
87
du
505
6
32
38
30
15
45
Townhouse
Resort Colony
High- Turnover (Sit -down)
15
ksf
1,907
90
83
173
99
69
168
Restaurant`
Subtotal
2,412
96
115
211
129
84
213
Single - Family Detached
282
du
2,699
54
158
212
180
104
284
Housing
North Family
Residential Condominium/
Village
Townhouse
135
du
784
9
50
59
47
23
70
Subtotal
3,483
63
208
271
227
127
354
Residential
525
du
3,050
37
194
231
184
89
273
Condominium /Townhouse
Urban Colony
Shopping Centers
PP 9
60
ksf
4,872
70
44
114
221
230
451
Subtotal
7,922
107
238
345
405
319
724
Eastern
Residential Condominium/
Residential
Townhouse
30
du
174
2
11
13
11
5
16
Colony
Total Before Internal Capture/Pass -By
15,875
303
659
962
932
626
1,558
Internal Capture'
1,126
55
55
110
Pass -By Reduction for Retail (10 %)'
20
20
40
Total Alternative D Project Trips
14,749
303
659
962
857
551
1,408
Total Proposed Project Trips
14,989
251
655
906
866
564
1,430
ITE: Institute of Transportation Engineers; du: dwelling unit; ksf: thousand square feet
a Trip generation is based on ITE Land Use County Park (Land Use 412) because this category includes peak hour trip rates.
Trip rates for Shopping Center are derived from the following regression equations: T = Trip Ends, X = units in ksf
ADT: Ln(T) = 0.65 Ln(X) + 5.83
AM Peak Hour: Ln(T) = 0.59 Ln(X) + 2.32
PM Peak Hour: Ln(T) = 0.67 Ln(X) + 3.37
Trip generation is based on ITE land use 932 (High- Turnover Restaurant), a higher generator than shopping center.
Source: Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) publication Trip Generation Handbook. See Internal Capture Worksheets in
Appendix C of the Kimley -Horn Traffic Impact Analysis.
Note: The ITE publication Trip Generation Handbook indicates pass -by for a shopping center is 34% in the PM peak hour. 10% is
assumed here, for a conservative approach. Pass -by reduction is taken on balance of retail trips, after Internal Capture reduction
Source: Kimley -Horn 2011.
RAProlectMN..paMJ015\ID.fI EIR7.0 Nt 090311.d.c 7 -130 Newport Banning Ranch
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Section 7.0
Alternatives to the
Intersection Levels of Service: Alternative D would be expected to result in a slight decrease
in ADT and PM peak hour traffic volumes but a slight increase in AM peak hour trips when
compared to the proposed Project. Based on the lower volume of ADT and PM peak hour
volumes, Alternative D would not create additional roadway or intersection deficiencies when
compared to the proposed Project. The slight increase in AM peak hour volumes would not be
expected to cause any of the intersections forecasted to operate at an acceptable level of
service with the Project to operate at an unacceptable level of service with this Alternative. Both
Alternative D and the proposed Project would be expected to significantly impact the
intersection of Newport Boulevard at West Coast Highway in the City Newport Beach. The
impact can be mitigated to a level considered less than significant with the implementation of
SC 4.9 -3 and MM 4.9 -1.
Both Alternative D and the proposed Project would be expected to result in a significant impact
at seven intersections in Costa Mesa: Newport Boulevard at 19th Street, Newport Boulevard at
Harbor Boulevard, Newport Boulevard at 18th Street/Rochester Street, 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 and proposed 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.
Congestion Management Plan Intersection: Consistent with the findings for the proposed
Project, Alternative D would not be expected to cause the intersection of Newport Boulevard at
West Coast Highway to fall below the CMP level of service standards. Therefore, no significant
impact would be expected to occur.
State Highway Intersections: Neither Alternative D nor the proposed Project would be
expected to cause any State intersections to operate at a deficient level of service. No
significant impact would occur.
Freeway Mainline Segments: Neither Alternative D nor the proposed Project would be
expected to significantly impact any freeway segments.
Therefore with respect to Threshold 4.9 -1 (would the project cause an increase in traffic which is
substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system [i.e., result in a
substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume -to- capacity ratio on roads,
or congestion at intersections]), both Alternative D and the proposed Project would be expected
to result in significant impacts at the same intersections in the traffic study area, some of which
would remain unavoidable impacts because the City of Newport Beach cannot guarantee
implementation of the Mitigation Program in Costa Mesa. This Alternative would not conflict with
the CMP (Threshold 4.9 -2). As with the proposed Project, Alternative D would not substantially
increase hazards due to a design feature, incompatible land uses, or inadequate emergency
access (Threshold 4.9 -3). As with the proposed Project, Alternative D land uses would be
required to provide adequate on -site parking. No parking impacts would occur with this
alternative (Threshold 4.9 -4).
With respect to Threshold 4.9 -5 —which addresses consistency with transportation - related
plans, policies, and regulations —both Alternative D and the proposed Project would require
amendments to the City of Newport Beach General Plan Circulation Element's Master Plan of
Streets and Highways and the Orange County Master Plan of Arterial Highways (MPAH). The
RTrojetMNewpartU015\IDrafi EIR7.0 Nt090311.tloc 7 -131 Newport Banning Ranch
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Section 7.0
Alternatives to the
same modifications to the roadway system are proposed for Alternative D and the proposed
Project. However, both the proposed Project and Alternative D would be consistent with
applicable transportation policies.
Air Quality
Alternative D would have less development than the proposed Project because there would be
less developed area, 175 fewer housing units and no resort inn. Construction maximum daily
emissions would be essentially the same as for the proposed Project, although construction
duration would be less. The impacts described for the proposed Project would also be
applicable to Alternative D. Regional (mass) emissions of NOx are forecasted to exceed
applicable thresholds in some construction years (Threshold 4.10 -2). Localized concentrations
of CO, NO2, PM10, and PM2.5 due to construction activities would not exceed the applicable
thresholds (Threshold 4.10 -2). The analysis of TAC emissions to both off -site and on -site
receptors demonstrates that the cancer risk, the cancer burden, the chronic hazard risk and the
acute hazard risk would be less than significant (Threshold 4.10 -4), as would odors from
construction and long -term operations (Threshold 4.10 -5). The elimination of housing units and
the resort inn proposed with Alternative D would result in an approximate 1.6 percent reduction
in daily vehicle trips, which would be a negligible change in VMT compared to the proposed
Project. The reduction in VMT would not change the impact conclusions. As a result, the
following significant and unavoidable impacts would occur:
• Without mitigation, regional (mass) emissions of NOx are forecasted to exceed
applicable thresholds in some construction years. Implementation of the Mitigation
Program would reduce the emissions to less than significant. However, the availability of
sufficient Tier 4 diesel engine construction equipment cannot be assured; thus the
impact is potentially 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 Project
development continues beyond 2020, emissions of VOC and CO would exceed the
significance thresholds, principally due to vehicle operations (Threshold 4.10 -2).
• The Project would have a significant cumulative air quality impact because its
contribution to regional pollutant concentrations of 03 would be cumulatively
considerable (Threshold 4.10 -3).
As with the proposed Project, development would not exceed the assumptions used to develop
the SCAQMD AQMPs, and Alternative D would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of
the SCAQMD AQMPs (Threshold 4.10 -1) or other applicable policies of agencies with
jurisdiction over the project (Threshold 4.10 -6).
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Alternative D construction GHG emissions would be less than for the proposed Project because
there would be less development area and no construction of the resort inn or 175 residential
units. Alternative D long -term GHG emissions would be slightly less than those associated with
the proposed Project. Alternative D would have an incremental reduction in vehicle trips, and
there would be less consumption of electricity, natural gas, and water because of the reduced
development. Nevertheless, as with the proposed Project, the long -term GHG emissions
generated by Alternative D would be substantially greater than the 6,000 MTCO2e /yr
significance threshold and would be a significant impact (Threshold 4.11 -1). The cumulative
RTrojetMNewpartU015Mrafi EIR7.0 Nt090311.tloc 7 -132 Newport Banning Ranch
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Section 7.0
Alternatives to the
GHG emission impacts of this Alternative would be less than, but similar to, the proposed
Project.
Neither the proposed Project nor Alternative D would conflict with applicable plans, policies, or
regulations adopted for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions (Threshold 4.11 -2).
Noise
Construction noise impacts for Alternative D would be very similar to those for the proposed
Project, with the exception that there would be less impact or duration of impact to receptors
near areas selected for less housing and elimination of the resort inn compared to the proposed
Project. There would be periodic, temporary, unavoidable significant noise impacts that would
cease upon completion of construction activities (Threshold 4.12 -2). Vibration impacts would be
the same as for the proposed Project (Threshold 4.12 -3).
The reduction of 175 planned housing units and elimination of the resort inn from the proposed
Project would result in an approximate 1.6 percent reduction in daily project - generated vehicle
trips with a less than 1 percent increase in AM peak hour trips and a less than one percent
decrease in PM peak hour trips. Because the roadway system for Alternative D is the same as
for the proposed Project, cumulative noise levels on existing roadways at General Plan buildout
for Alternative D would be similar to those for the proposed Project, with the exception that there
would be a slightly higher volume of traffic on 151h Street easterly of the Project site. The noise
level changes would be due to a combination of cumulative growth; a redistribution of traffic
resulting from building Alternative D roads; and new trips generated by the development of
residential, commercial, and park uses. There would be a significant noise impact on 17th Street
west of Monrovia Avenue, the same as is forecasted for the proposed Project. As with the
proposed Project, mitigation is proposed, but because these impacts would occur in the City of
Costa Mesa and the City of Newport Beach cannot dictate mitigation outside its jurisdiction, it
cannot be certain the mitigation would be implemented (Thresholds 4.12 -1 and 4.12 -4). There
would be a significant noise impact on 15th Street, west of Monrovia Avenue in the Existing Plus
Project and 2016 with Project scenarios, but not in the General Plan Buildout scenario, the
same as is forecasted for the proposed Project, Although there would be a decrease in total trip
generation, there would be a slight increase in traffic volumes on 15th Street due to a
redistribution of traffic; thus the impact would be slightly greater than the proposed Project. As
with the proposed Project, the impact can be mitigated to less than significant.
Although there would be a slight overall project trip reduction with Alternative D, the substitution
of 15,000 sf of commercial development for the resort inn would increase traffic on Bluff Road
between West Coast Highway and 15th Street. With Alternative D at General Plan buildout,
future CNEL at the Newport Crest residences facing the Project site would increase from
approximately 8 to 16 dBA above existing noise levels, which would be a significant noise
impact. Future noise levels at the California Seabreeze and Parkview Circle residences, and at
the Carden Hall School would be the same or slightly greater than with the proposed Project
because redistribution of traffic on Bluff Road; the impact would be less than significant
(Thresholds 4,12 -1 and 4.12 -4). Noise - abatement measures — including the construction of
noise barriers to reduce exterior noise impacts and upgrades for windows on the facades of
homes facing Bluff Road to reduce interior noise impacts —could reduce noise to a compatible
level, as defined for new development by the General Plan. However, as with the proposed
Project, from a CEQA perspective, the interior noise impacts on the first row of units in Newport
Crest facing Newport Banning Ranch would remain a significant and unavoidable impact
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.
RTrojetMNewpon\JOWIOrafi EIR7.0 Nf 090311.tloc 7 -133 Newport Banning Ranch
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Section 7.0
Alternatives to the
Traffic noise levels to proposed land uses (internal to the development) would be the same or
very similar to those forecasted for the proposed Project, but slightly greater for development
proposed adjacent to Bluff Road. Noise land use compatibility would be the same as for the
proposed Project. Mitigation would be required to reduce traffic noise to proposed residential
uses adjacent to roadways to achieve compatible noise levels required by the General Plan and
the California Code of Regulations (Threshold 4.12 -1).
Noise impacts from stationary sources associated with new residential and commercial
development would be the same or very similar with Alternative D as with the proposed Project
(Thresholds 4.12 -1 and 4.12 -4). Noise impacts from the possible drilling of new wells in the
consolidated oilfield would be the same as for the proposed Project (Threshold 4.12 -2).
As with the proposed Project, Alternative D would have no impacts pursuant to
Thresholds 4.12 -5 and 4.12 -6 because the Project site is not within an airport land use plan or
near a private airstrip so there would be no impacts from excessive aircraft noise levels.
Similarly, Alternative D would be consistent with the goals and policies of the City of Newport
Beach General Plan related to noise (Threshold 4.12 -7).
Cultural and Paleontological Resources
Alternative D assumes a smaller grading area compared to the proposed Project. As with the
proposed Project, there would be no direct impacts to known historic sites; however, grading
and excavation could impact unknown historical resources (Threshold 4.13 -1).
As with the proposed Project, Alternative D would impact three known archaeological sites
(CA -ORA -839, CA -ORA -8448, and CA -ORA -906) that are deemed eligible for listing in the
CRHR and NRHP. In addition, disturbance activities could also impact unknown resources
(Threshold 4.13 -2). The development activities for Alternative D would not be able to avoid the
three known sites, but the potential for affecting unknown resources may be incrementally less
than with the proposed Project because the area to be graded would be less.
As with the proposed Project, grading activities also have the potential to impact significant
paleontological resources (Threshold 4.13 -3) and unknown human remains, including those
interred outside formal cemeteries (Threshold 4.13 -4). The Mitigation Program identified for the
proposed Project, would also be applicable to Alternative D. As discussed in Section 4.13,
Cultural Resources, with implementation of the identified Mitigation Program (e.g., a data
recovery program and construction monitoring by qualified professionals), potentially significant
impacts related to the cultural resources identified within the Project site would be reduced to a
level considered less than significant. Impacts with Alternative D would generally be the same
as with the proposed Project.
Alternative D would not conflict with applicable land use policies (Threshold 4.13 -5). As with the
proposed Project, this Alternative would be consistent with the Land Use Element, Historic
Resource Element, and Natural Resources Element goals and policies, which were outlined in
Table 4.13 -3, City of Newport Beach General Plan Consistency Analysis.
Public Services and Facilities
The public services and facilities evaluated in the EIR include the following: fire protection,
police protection, schools, library services, and solid waste. Alternative D would result in
approximately 13 percent fewer dwelling units than the proposed Project and no overnight
accommodations. Therefore, the associated demand for public services (fire protection, police
R:Troj.tMN..partU015M . fI EIR7.0 Nt 090311.d.c 7 -134 Newport Banning Ranch
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Section 7.0
Alternatives to the
protection, schools, library service, and solid waste) would be incrementally reduced compared
to the proposed Project. However, as discussed for the proposed Project, Site Planning Area
12b, the northerly block of Site Planning Area 10a, and the northerly block of Site Planning Area
10b cannot be served by Station Number 2 within the established response time, which is a
significant impact. As with the proposed Project, implementation of the Mitigation Program
would be required and potential impacts to fire protection service associated with Alternative D
would be less than significant (Threshold 4.14 -1).
The increase in demand for police protection services would not require new facilities or other
environmental impacts in order to maintain acceptable levels of service (Threshold 4.14 -3).
Because the number of dwelling units would be reduced compared to the proposed Project, the
demand for schools and library service would be reduced with Alternative E compared to the
proposed Project (Thresholds 4.14 -5 and 4.14 -7). The demand for solid waste services would
be incrementally reduced because of the reduction in units and the elimination of the resort inn
(Threshold 4.14 -9). The impacts to Thresholds 4.14 -3, 4.14 -5, 4.14 -7, and 4.14 -9 would be less
than significant.
The increase in service demand would not require other new facilities or other environmental
impacts in order to maintain acceptable levels of service (Thresholds 4.14 -3, 4.14 -5, 4.14 -7, and
4.14 -9). Since Alternative D would result in reduced demand, this determination would also be
applicable to Alternative D.
Thresholds 4.14 -2, 4.14 -4, 4.14 -6, 4.14 -8, and 4.14 -10 pertain to consistency with any
applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an
environmental effect. As with the proposed Project, this Alternative would meet the policies,
which were outlined in Table 4.14 -8, City of Newport Beach General Plan Consistency.
Utilities
The Utilities evaluated in the EIR included the following: Water, Wastewater Facilities, and
Energy (Electricity and Natural Gas). The reduction in development associated with
Alternative D compared to the proposed Project would result in an incremental reduction in
demand for utilities (water supply, wastewater facilities, and energy - electricity and natural gas).
However, the impacts associated with construction of new infrastructure for distribution of water
and energy transmission would be the same for Alternative D, as for the proposed Project
(Thresholds 4.15 -1 and 4.15 -7). From a water demand perspective, the impacts of Alternative D
would be less than the proposed Project because there would be less development (Threshold
4.15 -2).
Alternative D would generate less wastewater than the proposed Project because of the
reduced development and would be required to comply with all the same regulations and
wastewater treatment requirements as the proposed Project. Therefore, as with the proposed
Project, impacts for Alternative D would be less than significant and slightly reduced compared
to the proposed Project (Thresholds 4.15 -4 and 4.15 -5).
Thresholds 4.15 -3, 4.15 -6, and 4.15 -8 pertain to consistency with any applicable plan, policy, or
regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. As with the
proposed Project, this Alternative would meet the policies, which were outlined in Table 4.15 -11,
City of Newport Beach General Plan Consistency.
R:TrojectslNewpartU015VOrafi EIR7.0 Nt 090311.tlac 7 -135 Newport Banning Ranch
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Alternatives to the
Conclusion
Section 7.0
Alternative D would reduce the number of residential units by approximately 13 percent and
eliminate the resort inn. The project footprint would be approximately 11 percent smaller.
Although the nature of the impacts would be the same as those discussed for the proposed
Project, the overall impacts associated with Alternative D would be less due to the reduced
amount and area of development. However, it should be noted that this Alternative offers a
reduced level of public amenities (i.e., trails, parks, and pedestrian bridge) compared to the
proposed Project, and would not provide as much affordable housing as the proposed Project.
Additionally, there are additional traffic impacts.
Significant and Unavoidable Impacts
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,
but would be lessened. Although not identified as significant and unavoidable, impacts
associated with grading, habitat removal, and creation of impervious surfaces would be reduced
compared to the proposed Project due to the reduction in the development footprint. The
following significant and unavoidable impacts would occur 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 17`h 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), but an increase of trips in the AM peak hour and a decrease
trips in the PM peak hour. 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
R:TrojectslNewpartU015VOrafi EIR7.0 Nt 090311.tloc 7 -136 Newport Banning Ranch
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Section 7.0
Alternatives to the
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 (PM10 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
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 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 (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).
Feasibility and Ability to Meet Project Objectives
This Alternative is potentially feasible. However, it would require the same investment in
infrastructure as the proposed Project (e.g., the same circulation and infrastructure system
RTrojectMNewpartU015Mrafi EIR7.0 Nt 090311.tloc 7 -137 Newport Banning Ranch
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Section 7.0
Alternatives to the
would be constructed for this Alternative as for the proposed Project), but the costs would have
to be allocated over a smaller amount of development. Thus, the economic feasibility of this
Alternative would be less certain. Further, public benefits, coastal access, and visitor - serving
amenities would be reduced.
This Alternative is able to meet most of the project objectives. However, it does not meet the
objective of providing overnight visitor accommodations (Objective 4), which is an important
Coastal Act policy consideration and does not provide as extensive of a public access network
(no pedestrian and bicycle bridge over West Coast Highway) as compared to the proposed
Project. In addition, it only partially meets the following objectives:
• Development of a residential village of 1,375 residential units, offering a variety of
housing types in a range of housing prices for future residents, including provision of
affordable residential dwelling units to help meet the City's Regional Housing Needs
Assessment (RHNA) (Objective 3).
• Provide enhanced public access through 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 (Objective 8).
As previously indicated, Section 15126.6(a) of the State CEQA Guidelines requires that the
alternatives "feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the project ". Since Alternative D is
able to meet most of the project objectives, it is considered a potentially feasible alternative.
R:TrojectslNewpartU015VOrafi EIR7.0 Nt 090311.tloc 7 -138 Newport Banning Ranch
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Section 7.0
Alternatives to the
7.5.5 ALTERNATIVE E: REDUCED DEVELOPMENT AREA (NO RESORT INN)
Descriotion of the Alternative
Alternative E was developed to evaluate potential benefits associated with reducing the project
footprint, while maintaining the overall number of residential units and commercial component.
However, this alternative would not provide the resort inn. This Alternative would result in an
incremental reduction in impacts on natural resources because more area would be converted
from oilfield operations to protected open space. However, it would not avoid any of the
significant impacts associated with the proposed Project.
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 97.4 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. Open space uses would increase from
252.3 gross acres to 269.1 gross acres. This Alternative does not include a Nature Center or
interpretive trails; 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 under the proposed Project).' As with the proposed
Project, the Community Park would be constructed by the Applicant as part of this Alternative; it
would be offered for dedication to the City; and upon acceptance, it would be maintained by the
City. 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
(also identified above under Alternative C). It is assumed that a Mitigation Program similar to
what is proposed for the Project would be required for Alternative E. However, as discussed
above, there are project features (such as the pedestrian bridge, Nature Center, and interpretive
trails) that would not be incorporated in Alternative E.
Exhibit 7 -8, Alternative E: Reduced Footprint and 1,375 Dwelling Units, depicts the land use
plan for Alternative E. Table 7 -17 identifies the land uses and acreage associated with the
allowable land uses. Similar to the other land use alternatives, the exhibit reflects the land uses
that would be allowed, which is not the same as the limits of land disturbance; additional
impacts would be associated with the oilfield remediation, fuel modification, and any trails that
ultimately are provided by other parties in open space.
' Alternative E assumes compliance with Quimby Act, 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.
RTrojectMNewpartU015Mrafi EIR7.0 N6090311.tloc 7 -139 Newport Banning Ranch
Draft Environmental Impact Report
B-
aa,
m "$
ivn sveel
-
• —...•1
wsteorinr Ra:en•amn
i
w
2
/
2
¢
I
¢
�=
18th s:me1
m
o
uos \
1.m
Los
\\
\
\ MUIR
e
nth st�aa:
U05
UPACE
'
OF
MWR
Wetlands -�
Restoration
Newnausw°.
Area ��
\
`
��•-
NMUSD
�
I6LR51'ee�
LEGEND
R
/City
Project Site Boundary
OPEN SPACE
N
m�
7,
F
.,G Utilities Yard
Lowland Open Space (LOS)
Upland Open Space (UOS)
N
_
Interim Oil Facilities (OF)
PUBLIC PARKS RECREATION
Community Park (CP)
AIDS
15t st—t
Bluff Park (BP)
VISITOR-SERVING COMMERCIAL
'
o°
e-
0 Visitor - Serving Commercial (VSC)
L
R
0°
RESIDENTIAL
0 Residential (R)
E
MIXED -USE I RESIDENTIAL
OF
VSC
0 Mixed l Residential(MUIR)
�� Pmgosed Pamanert
-Use
ROADWAYS
U05 BP
conneonao w S.nael Ridge Per,
Arterial Roads
waat
Right -of -Way Reservation for 19th Street
o °a�.t
AIDS
blgdW
Sunset Ridge
Park
e
F
9
PACIFIC
C
y
OCEAN
Source: FORMA 2011
Alternative E: Reduced
Footprint
and 1,375 Dwelling
Units
Exhibit 7 -8
Newport Banning Ranch EIR
N
Awn-E-6-0-4
wAe
r v
TING
C O N 5 U L T N G
s
(REV: 090311 JFG) R:
PmjeotslNewparfl 5IGmphicslEIMFx7- 8_Reducen DevAltE.pdf
Section 7.0
Alternatives to the
TABLE 7 -17
ALTERNATIVE E STATISTICAL SUMMARY
Comparative Analysis of Environmental Impacts
Land Use and Related Planning Programs
Alternative E assumes the same land uses and similar development plan as the proposed
Project without the overnight accommodations (75 room resort inn) component. As previously
described and in Section 4.1.7 of Section 4.1, Land Use and Related Planning Programs, the
Project site is surrounded by established communities of residential development and is an
active oilfield. There are no other uses on site or public access to the site. Therefore, as with the
proposed Project, Alternative E would not physically divide an established community
(Threshold 4.1 -1). However, as with the proposed Project, 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
R:TroiectMN..partU015M.ft EIR7.0 Nf 090311.tloc 7 -140 Newport Banning Ranch
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Maximum
Maximum
Planned
Permitted
Permitted
Gross
Dwelling
Commercial
Overnight
Land Use District
Acresa
Units
sf
Accommodations
Open Space
LOS
Lowland Open Space'
130.6
—
—
—
LOS
Upland Open Space
122.0
OF
Interim Oil Facilities`
16.5
—
—
—
Subtotal Open Space
269.1
—
—
—
Public Parks /Recreation
CID
Community Park
24.8
—
—
—
BP
Bluff Park°
14.3
—
—
—
Subtotal Public Parks/Recreation
39.1
—
—
—
Visitor-Serving Commercial
VSC
I Visitor - Serving Commerciale
2.0
—
15,000
—
Subtotal Visitor - Serving Commercial
1 2-01
1 15,0001
—
Residential
R Residential (up to 10 du/ac)'
70.0
645
—
—
Subtotal Residential
70.0
645
—
Mixed-Use/Residential
MU /R
I Mixed - Use /Residential (up to 35 du/ac)'
20.9
730
60,000
—
Subtotal Mixed- Use /Residential
1 20.91
7301
60,0001
0
Total Project
1 401.11
1,3751
75,000
0
sf: square footage; du /ac: dwelling units per acre
Gross acres are measured to centerlines of all public roads where such roads are shown on the plan. Gross acres are
computed using geographic information system (GIs) technology with accuracy to 10 decimal places. Acres are shown in this
table to one decimal place
The Right -of -Way Reservation for the 19t' Street Extension contains approximately 3.1 acres.
Gross acres for the Bluff Park District may include fuel management zones and landscape focal points and greens.
Gross acres for the Residential District, the Visitor - Serving Commercial District, and the Mixed-Use/Residential District may
include fuel management zones, privately owned and maintained parks and recreational facilities, and landscape focal points
and greens.
The Interim Oil Facilities (Open Space Land Use) District includes: (1) the existing oil operations site near West Coast
Highway; (2) the oil consolidation site near the middle of the Lowland; and (3) an oil access road (non - exclusive easement)
connecting the two working sites.
Comparative Analysis of Environmental Impacts
Land Use and Related Planning Programs
Alternative E assumes the same land uses and similar development plan as the proposed
Project without the overnight accommodations (75 room resort inn) component. As previously
described and in Section 4.1.7 of Section 4.1, Land Use and Related Planning Programs, the
Project site is surrounded by established communities of residential development and is an
active oilfield. There are no other uses on site or public access to the site. Therefore, as with the
proposed Project, Alternative E would not physically divide an established community
(Threshold 4.1 -1). However, as with the proposed Project, 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
R:TroiectMN..partU015M.ft EIR7.0 Nf 090311.tloc 7 -140 Newport Banning Ranch
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Section 7.0
Alternatives to the
site. In addition, there would be a potential long -range noise impacts for residents on 17`h 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 -2 pertains to consistency with any applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted
for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. This Alternative would
generally be consistent with land use policies, outlined in Table 4.1 -6, City of Newport Beach
General Plan Consistency Evaluation. However, without the overnight accommodations
component, this Alternative would not provide the visitor accommodations called for in the
General Plan or the same level of job opportunities to the same extent as the proposed Project.
Therefore, for this threshold, Alternative E would have greater impacts than the proposed
Project.
Aesthetics and Visual Resources
The City does not have any designated scenic vistas, and West Coast Highway is not a State -
or locally designated scenic highway. Therefore, similar to the proposed Project, Alternative E
would not result in any impacts to this type of resource (Threshold 4.2 -1).
The area with urban development (residential, commercial, and visitor - serving uses) for
Alternative E would decrease from 97.4 gross acres to 92.9 gross acres, when compared to the
proposed Project. 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 including North
Bluff Road. Visual changes to the Project site associated with the implementation of
Alternative E would be similar to those anticipated to occur under the proposed Project since the
site would be converted from an active oilfield to a developed condition. As discussed above for
Alternative D, the removal of the resort inn and pedestrian bridge would reduce the mass of the
project compared to the proposed Project as viewed from West Coast Highway. However, the
overall change in visual character of the Project site associated with the implementation of
Alternative E would not be substantially different from the proposed Project. The character of
the Project site would change to a suburban environment, consistent with the surrounding uses.
Similar to the proposed Project, Alternative E would not result in a significant topographical or
aesthetic impact (Threshold 4.2 -2).
Under both the proposed Project and this Alternative, significant and unavoidable impacts would
occur with the creation of nighttime light. Because Alternative E would be developed with similar
land uses, Alternative E would introduce new sources of light on the Project site similar to the
proposed Project resulting in nighttime lighting into a currently unlit area. This increased
nighttime lighting on the Project site is considered a significant and unavoidable impact
(Threshold 4.2 -3). A Statement of Overriding Considerations was adopted by the City Council
for this impact as part of the certification of the General Plan EIR and General Plan project
approval.
As with the proposed Project, Alternative E would be consistent with the intent of the aesthetic
resources goals and policies of the City of Newport Beach General Plan and the California
Coastal Act (Threshold 4.2 -4).
R:TrojectslNewpartU015VOrafi EIR7.0 Nt 090311.tloc 7 -141 Newport Banning Ranch
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Alternatives to the
Geology and Soils
Section 7.0
Alternative E assumes the same land uses and a similar development plan as the proposed
Project without the overnight accommodations component. Alternative E would require less
grading compared to the proposed Project. This Alternative represents an approximate
11 percent reduction in the grading footprint. Because the reduction comes at the project's
perimeter, however, the corresponding reduction in grading is expected to be somewhat less.
The expected earthwork reduction for both the mass excavation and corrective grading is in the
range of 8 to 10 percent less than the proposed Project.
As indicated in Section 4.3, Geology and Soils, the Project site is located in a seismically active
area with faults within the proposed development site that could not be proven to be inactive
(Threshold 4.3 -1). Although Alternative E proposes fewer structures (no resort inn) than the
proposed Project, it would result in the same potential for impacts associated with surface fault
rupture and seismic shaking (Threshold 4.3 -2). Implementation of the Mitigation Program in
Section 4.3.9 would reduce potential impacts to less than significant levels, which is the same
as the proposed Project. Because of the reduced footprint without the overnight
accommodations, Alternative E would expose fewer people and structures to impacts
associated with these thresholds and therefore, would be incrementally less than the proposed
Project.
As indicated in Section 4.3, Geology and Soils, two fault segments on the Project site have not
been confirmed as inactive, and development setbacks have been recommended. The fault
setback zones would reduce the risk of surface fault rupture. As with the proposed Project,
Alternative E would be required to incorporate strengthened building foundations and structural
design, which would accommodate strong seismic shaking on the Project site. Habitable
structures would be restricted to the Upland area, avoiding soils that may liquefy or undergo
lateral spreading and, where necessary, corrective grading would ensure all structures are
placed on competent foundation materials. As with the proposed Project, after implementation
of mitigation measures, this Alternative would not result in significant impacts from
seismic - related ground failure, liquefaction, lateral spreading, soil collapse, or landslides
(Thresholds 4.3 -3 and 4.3 -6). Although the conditions and type of risk would be the same,
because of the reduced footprint without the overnight accommodations, Alternative E would
expose fewer people and structures to impacts associated with these thresholds and therefore,
would be less than the proposed Project.
As with the proposed Project, Alternative E would be subject to some existing on -site potential
for landslides under dynamic seismic conditions. Consistency with the CBC, City building code
requirements, and General Plan policies along with the incorporation of bluff setback zones
would ensure that impacts associated with on- and off -site landslides would be less than
significant (Threshold 4.3 -4). Because of the reduced footprint without the overnight
accommodations, Alternative E would expose fewer people and structures to impacts
associated with these thresholds and therefore, would be less than the proposed Project.
As with the proposed Project, grading activities associated with Alternative E would increase the
potential for soil erosion and loss of topsoil (Threshold 4.3 -5). With the incorporation of
construction BMPs, as described in Section 4.4, Hydrology and Water Quality, impacts on soil
erosion and loss of topsoil would be less than significant. Post- construction soil erosion and the
loss of topsoil would be minimized through the use of engineered grading, surface drainage
improvements, and landscaping. This Alternative would require slightly less grading; therefore,
impacts associated with this threshold would be incrementally less than the proposed Project.
RTrojetMNewpartU015Mrafi EIR7.0 Nf 090311.tloc 7 -142 Newport Banning Ranch
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Section 7.0
Alternatives to the
On -site soils have a low to medium expansion potential. As with the proposed Project,
incorporation of SCs 4.3 -1 through 4.3 -3 and MMs 4.3 -1 and 4.3 -2, would reduce impacts from
this Alternative associated with expansive soils to a less than significant level (Threshold 4.3 -7).
Because of the reduced footprint and reduction in dwelling units, Alternative E would expose
fewer people and structures to impacts associated with these thresholds and therefore, would
be less than the proposed Project.
Alternative E would be consistent with the intent of the soils and geology - related goals and
policies of the City of Newport Beach General Plan and the California Coastal Act
(Threshold 4.3 -8), which is the same as the proposed Project.
Hydrology and Water Quality
Alternative E would result in on -site grading and development on the Project site but not to the
same extent without the overnight accommodations component. As with the proposed Project,
Alternative E would result in an increase in impervious surfaces, although to a slightly lesser
degree than the proposed Project, and would increase the amount of runoff and the
concentration of pollutants in storm water runoff (Thresholds 4.4 -1, 4.4 -6, 4.4 -11, 4.4 -12,
and 4.4 -13). Implementation of the Mitigation Program in Section 4.4.7 of the EIR would ensure
that these impacts would be reduced to a less than significant. However, when compared to the
proposed Project, Alternative E would result in incrementally fewer impacts.
The proposed Project would result in an increase in impervious surface and would reduce the
potential for groundwater percolation (Threshold 4.4 -2); implementation of treatment - control
BMPs and LID features would ensure that project impacts would be less than significant.
Alternative E would have less impervious surface than the proposed Project; therefore, potential
impacts to groundwater would be incrementally less than the proposed Project. This impact
would be less than significant.
This Alternative would involve the same changes to existing drainage patterns and would cause
the same increases in erosion of the Project site and surrounding areas that would occur with
the proposed Project (Thresholds 4.4.3 and 4.4 -15). Implementation of the Mitigation Program
in Section 4.4.7 of the EIR would ensure that these impacts would be reduced to a less than
significant. However, when compared to the proposed Project, Alternative E would result in
incrementally fewer impacts. These impacts would be less than significant.
Alternative E would result in increases in impervious surfaces and in peak flow runoff and runoff
volumes from the site (Thresholds 4.4 -4 and 4.4 -14) and would also affect the capacity of
existing or planned storm water drainage systems (Threshold 4.4 -5). Since the same drainage
improvements would be constructed but there would be incrementally less grading and
development, the impacts with Alternative E would be slightly less when compared to the
proposed Project. Implementation of the Mitigation Program in Section 4.4.7 of the EIR section
would ensure that impacts related to on -site or downstream flooding would be considered less
than significant.
As with the proposed Project, housing associated with Alternative E would be located on the
Upland at elevations well outside the 100 -year floodplain. There would be no impacts to or from
the 100 -year floodplain for both the proposed Project and Alternative E
(Thresholds 4.4 -7 and 4.4 -8).
The Project site is located at the lower end of the watershed and is not located within any dam
inundation areas. As with the proposed Project, housing associated with Alternative E would be
R:TrgedMNewpartU015M.ft EIR7.0 Nt 090311.tloc 7 -143 Newport Banning Ranch
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Section 7.0
Alternatives to the
located on the Upland and people and /or structures would not be exposed to significant risk
associated with the failure of a levee or dam (Threshold 4.4 -9). Potential impacts associated
with Threshold 4.4 -9 would be less than significant for both the proposed Project and
Alternative E.
There are no permanent standing water bodies in the Upland area, and inundation by tsunami is
not likely because of Project site elevations and the City's existing Emergency Management
Plan. Therefore, as with the proposed Project, inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow is not
likely for this Alternative (Threshold 4.4 -10).
Alternative E would not conflict with applicable land use policies (Threshold 4.4 -16). As with the
proposed Project, this Alternative would be consistent with the Harbor and Bay Element, Natural
Resources Element, and Safety Element goals and policies, which are outlined in Table 4.4 -25,
City of Newport Beach General Plan Consistency Evaluation, and the relevant California
Coastal Act policies which are outlined in Table 4.4 -26, California Coastal Act Consistency
Analysis.
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
As discussed in Section 4.5, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, with implementation of the
identified Mitigation Program, potentially significant impacts related to the historical and
continuing oil operations on the Project site and the potential presence of ACMs and LBP in
some structures would be reduced to a level considered less than significant. Alternative E
would result in on -site grading and development on the Project site. While this Alternative would
result in a reduced site development area than the proposed Project, this reduction would not
affect the need for or implementation of the final RAP, as identified in the Mitigation Program.
Therefore, like the proposed Project, with implementation of the Mitigation Program, this
Alternative would result in less than significant impacts related to Thresholds 4.5 -1 and 4.5 -2,
which pertain to the creation of hazards associated with the transport, use, disposal, and /or
emissions of hazardous materials and location on an identified hazardous materials site.
Both the construction and operational characteristics of Alternative E would be similar to the
proposed Project. The long -term operation of the development would not emit hazardous
emissions within 1/4 mile of a school site. However, since the remediation activities may establish
off -site haul routes on streets that pass the existing schools, Alternative E may have slightly less
impact that the proposed Project because it would reduce the amount of grading by 8 to
10 percent. Implementation of standard conditions would provide for impacts to be considered
less than significant. This is consistent with the finding for the proposed Project
(Threshold 4.5 -3).
The Project site is not identified on the Cortese List which is compiled pursuant to Section
65962.5 of the California Government Code. Therefore, there would be no impact associated
with Threshold 4.5 -4.
Threshold 4.5 -5 pertains to consistency with any applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted
for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. Alternative E would not conflict
with applicable land use, harbor and bay, natural resource, and safety policies because it would
provide for the consolidation of oilfield activities and remediation of the site, same as the
proposed Project. The policies, which were outlined in Table 4.5 -5, City of Newport Beach
General Plan Consistency Evaluation, call for the prohibition of new oil and gas extraction
activities and the consolidation and /or relocation of existing oil operations in order to limit
hazards associated with oil operations and to remediate soil and groundwater contamination.
RTrojetMNewpartU015\IOrafi EIR7.0 Nt090311.tloc 7 -144 Newport Banning Ranch
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Section 7.0
Alternatives to the
This Alternative would be consistent with provisions of the General Plan. For this threshold, this
Alternative would have similar impact to the proposed Project, and would remain less than
significant.
Biological Resources
Alternative E would include the primary features of the proposed Project, but assumes a
reduction in the development acreage.
Because the proposed Project and Alternative E have minimal differences in their impact areas,
their corresponding impacts to biological resources are expected to be similar. Alternative E
would result in a substantial adverse effect on special status plant and wildlife species, which is
similar but slightly less than the proposed Project (Threshold 4.6 -1). As discussed in Section
4.6, Biological Resources, with implementation of the identified Mitigation Measures, potentially
significant impacts to special status species from Alternative E would be reduced to a level
considered less than significant.
This Alternative would involve a substantial adverse effect on riparian habitat (woodland /scrub
habitats and marsh areas) and other sensitive natural communities (e.g. coastal sage scrub)
(Thresholds 4.6 -2 and 4.6 -3). Although these impacts are expected to be less than the
proposed Project, they are still considered significant. As discussed in Section 4.6, Biological
Resources, with implementation of the identified Mitigation Measures, potentially significant
impacts to special status habitats from the Open Space Alternative would be reduced to a level
considered less than significant.
The area to be developed is highly disturbed due to oilfield operations and is primarily limited to
the upland area; development of this area would reduce the habitat available for species moving
along the Santa Ana River and those using the upland portions of the Project site as a migration
stopover point. Impacts to wildlife migration corridors would be incrementally less for Alternative
E than for the proposed Project because it proposes a smaller footprint; however, this impact
would be considered significant, similar to the proposed Project (Threshold 4.6 -4). However, as
discussed in Section 4.6, Biological Resources, with implementation of the identified Mitigation
Measures, these potentially significant impacts would be reduced to a level considered less than
significant.
As with the proposed Project, any acreage to be restored after fulfilling mitigation requirements
and requiring restoration would be placed in a reserve area (mitigation bank) or similar
mechanism and may be made available to third parties seeking off -site areas in which to fulfill
their respective mitigation obligations. The area would be restored in accordance with the
Habitat Restoration Plan. One area that is contemplated for inclusion in a mitigation bank is the
land proposed for use for the consolidated oil operations. Upon cessation of oil production
operations, these two Oil Consolidation sites would be remediated and could be available in a
reserve area.
This Alternative would also not conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological
resources or provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community
Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan
(Threshold 4.6 -5), same as the proposed Project.
Population, Housing, and Employment
R:TrojectslNewpartU015VOrafi EIR7.0 Nt 090311.tloc 7 -145 Newport Banning Ranch
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Section 7.0
Alternatives to the
Alternative E would have the same residential population as the proposed Project. This
Alternative would create long -term employment opportunities and help balance the employment
demands associated with the City's population; however, without the overnight accommodations
component, it would not accomplish this to same extent when compared to the proposed
Project.
Long -range planning programs assume approximately 36 percent of the projected population
growth and 25 percent of the projected employment growth in the City for the 25 -year period
between 2010 and 2035 would be accommodated on the Newport Banning Ranch site.
Alternative E would be the same as the proposed Project with respect to consistency with
population projections and impacts would be less than significant (Threshold 4.7 -1). This
Alternative would provide the same commitment to affordable housing as the proposed Project.
This Alternative would not require intensification of development elsewhere in the City to meet
the City's RHNA allocation.
Alternative E would not provide the visitor accommodations called for in the General Plan;
therefore, it would not provide the same level of employment assumed as part of the General
Plan. While this impact would be less than significant and overall Alternative E would be
consistent with the applicable policies; this Alternative would not meet the City's General Plan
policies as effectively as the proposed Project (Threshold 4.7 -2).
Recreation and Trails
With Alternative E, residential units would be provided at a higher density and on smaller lots
than assumed for the proposed Project. Compared to the proposed Project, there would be a
reduction on the amount of parkland from approximately 51.4 gross acres to 39.1 gross acres,
but still including a 24.8- gross -acre Community Park. As with the proposed Project, the
Community Park would be constructed by the Applicant as part of this Alternative; it would be
offered for dedication to the City; and, upon acceptance, it would be maintained by the City.
Alternative E does provide a 14.3 -gross acre Bluff Park, which would be in addition to the
Community Park in the proposed Project. As with Alternative D, this Alternative does not include
a Nature Center or interpretive trails. However, under Alternative E open space uses would
increase from 252.3 gross acres with the proposed Project to 269.1 gross acres. This
Alternative does not include the pedestrian and bicycle bridge spanning West Coast Highway.
While there is a reduction in development on the Project site, the same types of land uses would
still be developed (residential, commercial, and visitor - serving commercial). Alternative E would
increase the demand for park and recreational facilities similar to that of the proposed Project
and sufficient parkland would be provided to meet applicable City standards. While this
Alternative does not offer the same amenities or number of amenities, less than significant
impacts would result with respect to recreation because sufficient parkland would be provided to
meet the needs of the Alternative (Thresholds 4.8 -1, 4.8 -2, and 4.8 -3). However, since this
Alternative does not provide the recreational amenities of the proposed Project, which proposes
51.4 acres of parkland and a trail network, recreational benefits of the Project are greater than
Alternative E.
Alternative E would be consistent with the intent of the recreational resources goals and policies
of the City of Newport Beach General Plan and the California Coastal Act (Threshold 4.2 -4).
However, because this Alternative would provide few trails and would not construct the
pedestrian /bike overcrossing, it would provide less public access opportunities than the
proposed Project from a Coastal Act policy perspective. Therefore, it would not meet the
recreational goals as effectively as the proposed Project.
R:TrojectMNewpartU015Mmft EIR7.0 Nf 090311.tloc 7 -146 Newport Banning Ranch
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Alternatives to the
Transportation and Circulation
Section 7.0
Alternative E assumes the same arterial roadway network as the proposed Project. It also is
proposed to provide the same number of residential units in the same basic distribution. The
resort inn in the Resort Colony would be eliminated and there would also be a redistribution of
the commercial development. The commercial use in the Urban Colony would decrease from
75,000 sf to 60,000 sf and 15,000 sf of commercial use would be reallocated to the 2 -acre
visitor - serving commercial site in the Resort Colony. This would be in lieu of the resort inn. The
15,000 sf of visitor - serving commercial use is anticipated to be a combination of shopping and
restaurant uses.
Alternative E is projected to result in higher daily traffic volumes (by approximately 5.2 percent)
as well as higher traffic during the AM and PM peak hours. The trip generation associated with
Alternative E is provided in Table 7 -18. Alternative E would generate 15,766 ADT with 1,039 AM
peak hour trips and 1,500 PM peak hour trips.
TABLE 7 -18
ALTERNATIVE E TRIP GENERATION
R:TrojectslNewpanu015VDrafi EIR7.0 Nt 090311.tloc 7 -147 Newport Banning Ranch
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Trip Rates
Land Use
ITE
Code
Trips
per
Trip Generation Rates
AM Peak Hour
PM Peak Hour
Daily
In
Out
Total
In
Out
Total
Single - Family Detached Housing
210
du
9.57
0.19
0.56
0.75
0.64
0.37
1.01
Residential
Condominium /Townhouse
230
du
5.81
0.07
0.37
0.44
0.35
0.17
0.52
Parka
412
acre
2.28
0.01
0.00
0.01
0.02
0.04
0.06
Soccer Complex
488
Field
71.33
0.70
0.70
1.40
14.26
6.41
20.67
Tennis Courts
490
Court
31.04
0.84
0.84
1 1.68
1.94
1.94
1 3.88
Shopping Center°
820
ksf
Equation - See Below
High- Turnover (Sit -Down)
Restaurant`
932
ksf
127.15
5.99
5.53
11.52
6.58
4.57
11.15
Project Trip Generation
Project
Area
Land Use
Units
Trip Generation
AM Peak Hour
PM Peak Hour
Daily
In
Out
Total
In
Out
Total
South
Family
Single - Family
Detached Housing
141
du
1,349
27
79
106
90
52
142
Village
Park
28
acre
64
0
0
0
1
1
2
Soccer Complex
4
Fields
285
3
3
6
57
26
83
Tennis Courts
6
Courts
186
5
5
10
12
12
24
Subtotal
1,884
35
87
122
160
91
251
Resort
Colony
Res. Condominium/
Townhouse
87
du
505
6
32
38
30
15
45
High - Turnover (Sit-
down) Restaurant`
15
ksf
1907
,
90
83
173
99
69
168
Subtotal
2,412
1 96
115
211
129
84
213
R:TrojectslNewpanu015VDrafi EIR7.0 Nt 090311.tloc 7 -147 Newport Banning Ranch
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Alternatives to the
TABLE 7 -18 (Continued)
ALTERNATIVE E TRIP GENERATION
Section 7.0
T
North
Single - Family
282
du
2,699
54
158
212
180
104
284
Family
Detached Housing
Village
Res. Condominium/
Townhouse
135
du
784
9
50
59
47
23
70
Subtotal
3,483
63
208
271
227
127
354
Urban
Res. Condominium/
700
du
4,067
49
259
308
245
119
364
Colony
Townhouse
Shopping Center°
60
ksf
4,872
70
44
114
221
230
452
Subtotal
8,939
119
303
422
466
349
816
Eastern
Res. Condominium/
Residential
Townhouse
30
du
174
2
11
13
11
5
16
Colony
Total Before Internal Capture /Pass -By
16,892
315
724
1,039
993
656
1,650
Internal Capture
1,126
55
55
110
Pass -By Reduction for Retail (10 %)e
20
20
40
Total Altemative E Trips
15,766
315
724
1,039
916
581
1,500
Total Proposed Project Trips
14,989
251
655
906
866
564
1,430
du: dwelling unit; ksf: thousand square feet.
Trip generation is based on ITE Land Use County Park (Land Use 412) because this category includes peak hour trip rates.
Trip rates for Shopping Center are derived from the following regression equations: T = Trip Ends; X = units in ksf;
ADT: LN(T) = 0.65 Ln(X) + 5.83; AM Peak Hour: Ln(T) = 0.59 Ln(X) + 2.32; PM Peak Hour: Ln(T) = 0.67 Ln(X) + 3.37
Trip generation is based on ITE land use 932 (High- Turnover Restaurant), a higher generator than shopping center.
°- Source: Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) publication Trip Generation Handbook. See Internal Capture Worksheets in
Appendix C of the Kimley -Horn Traffic Impact Analysis.
Nate: The ITE publication Trip Generation Handbook indicates pass -by for a shopping center is 34% in the PM peak hour. 10%
is assumed here, for a conservative approach. Pass -by reduction is taken on balance of retail trips, after Internal Capture
reduction
Source: Kimley Hom 2011.
When compared to the proposed Project, Alternative E would increase average daily trips by
777 trips, AM peak hour trips by 133 trips, and PM peak hour trips by 70 trips. The reallocation
of 15,000 sf of the proposed retail uses from the Urban Colony to the Resort Colony would
result in a redistribution of traffic. Moving the location of visitor - serving commercial uses to the
Resort Colony from the Urban Colony would result in a redistribution of trips on the circulation
network, with more trips using the southerly portion of Bluff Road as well as increased use of
15th Street easterly of the Project.
Intersection Levels of Service: Alternative E would be 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 over the proposed Project traffic 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 with 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. The impact can be mitigated to a level considered
less than significant with implementation of SC 4.9 -3 and MM 4.9 -1.
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 Street, Newport Boulevard at
RTrojetMNewpartU015Mrafi EIR7.0 AIta-09031 1,dac 7 -148 Newport Banning Ranch
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Section 7.0
Alternatives to the
17`h Street, Monrovia at 19`h Street, Pomona Avenue at 17th Street, and Superior Avenue at
17`h Street. Implementation of MM 4.9 -2 would mitigate these 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 and proposed 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.
Congestion Management Plan Intersection: Consistent with the findings for the proposed
Project, Alternative E would not be expected to cause the intersection of Newport Boulevard at
West Coast Highway to fall below the CMP LOS standards. Therefore, no significant impact
would be expected to occur.
State Highway Intersections: Neither Alternative E nor the proposed Project would be
expected to cause any State intersections to operate at a deficient LOS. No significant impact
would be expected to occur.
Freeway Mainline Segments: Neither Alternative E nor the proposed Project would be
expected to significantly impact any freeway segments.
Therefore with respect to Threshold 4.9 -1, Alternative E would still be expected to cause an
increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the
street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the
volume -to- capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections). Both Alternative E and the
proposed Project would significantly impact intersections in the traffic study area, some of which
would remain unavoidable impacts because the City of Newport Beach cannot guarantee
implementation of the Mitigation Program in Costa Mesa. This Alternative would not conflict with
the CMP (Threshold 4.9 -2). As with the proposed Project, Alternative E would not substantially
increase hazards due to a design feature, incompatible land uses, or inadequate emergency
access (Threshold 4.9 -3). As with the proposed Project, Alternative E land uses would be
required to provide adequate on -site parking. No parking impacts would occur (Threshold 4.9-
4).
With respect to Threshold 4.9 -5 which addresses consistency with transportation - related plans,
policies, and regulations, both Alternative E and the proposed Project would require
amendments to the City of Newport Beach General Plan Circulation Element's Master Plan of
Streets and Highways and the Orange County Master Plan of Arterial Highways (MPAH). The
same modifications to the roadway system are proposed for Alternative E and the proposed
Project.
Air Quality
Alternative E would have less development than the proposed Project because there would be
less developed area and no resort inn. However, the relocation of 15,000 sf of visitor - serving
commercial would result in an approximate 5.2 percent increase in vehicle trips and VMT when
compared to the proposed Project, with a similar increase of long -term vehicle emissions. This
increase would add to the exceedances of the VOC and CO thresholds forecasted for the
proposed Project post -2020.
Construction maximum daily emissions would be essentially the same as for the proposed
Project, although the construction duration may be slightly less. The impacts described for the
proposed Project would also be applicable to Alternative E. Regional (mass) emissions of NOx
RTrojetMNewpartU015Mrafi EIR7.0 Nt090311.tloc 7 -149 Newport Banning Ranch
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Section 7.0
Alternatives to the
are forecasted to exceed applicable thresholds in some construction years (Threshold 4.10 -2).
Localized concentrations of CO, NO2, PM10, and PM2.5 due to construction activities would not
exceed the applicable thresholds (Threshold 4.10 -2). The analysis of TAC emissions to both
off -site and on -site receptors demonstrates that the cancer risk, the cancer burden, the chronic
hazard risk and the acute hazard risk would be less than significant (Threshold 4.10 -4), as
would odors from construction and long -term operations (Threshold 4.10 -5). However, since the
relocation of some commercial uses would result in an approximate 5.2 percent increase in daily
vehicle trips, there would be a similar increase in VMT compared to the proposed Project. As a
result, the following significant and unavoidable impacts would occur:
• Without mitigation, regional (mass) emissions of NOx are forecasted to exceed
applicable thresholds in some construction years. Implementation of the Mitigation
Program would reduce the emissions to less than significant. However, the availability of
sufficient Tier 4 diesel engine construction equipment cannot be assured; thus the
impact is potentially 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 Project
development continues beyond 2020, emissions of VOC and CO would exceed the
significance thresholds, principally due to vehicle operations (Threshold 4.10 -2).
• Alternative E would have a significant cumulative air quality impact because its
contribution to regional pollutant concentrations of 03 would be cumulatively
considerable (Threshold 4.10 -3). Due to the increase VMT compared to the proposed
Project, the impact would be incrementally greater.
As with the proposed Project, development would not exceed the assumptions used to develop
the SCAQMD AQMPs, and Alternative E would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of
the SCAQMD AQMPs (Threshold 4.10 -1) or other applicable policies of agencies with
jurisdiction over the project (Threshold 4.10 -6).
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Alternative E construction GHG emissions would be less than for the proposed Project because
there would be less development area and no construction of the resort inn. Alternative E
long -term GHG emissions would be greater than for the proposed Project because there would
be an approximately 5.2 percent increase in vehicle trips, which would add more GHG
emissions than the reduction of emissions anticipated with the elimination of the resort inn and
reduced of electricity, natural gas, and water. The long -term GHG emissions with Alternative E
would be substantially higher than the 6,000 MTCO2e /yr significance threshold and would be a
significant impact (Threshold 4.11 -1), which is the same as the proposed Project.
Alternative E would not conflict with applicable plans, policies, or regulations adopted for the
purpose of reducing GHG emissions; the impact would be less than significant
(Threshold 4.11 -2).
Noise
Construction noise impacts for Alternative E would be very similar to those for the proposed
Project. There would be periodic, temporary, unavoidable significant noise impacts that would
cease upon completion of construction activities (Threshold 4.12 -2). The nature of the vibration
impacts would be the same as for the proposed Project. Vibration may be noticeable for short
periods during construction for both the proposed Project and Alternative E (Threshold 4.12 -3).
R:TrojeatMNewpartU015VOrafi EIR7.0 Nt 090311.tloc 7 -150 Newport Banning Ranch
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Section 7.0
Alternatives to the
Vibration is a potential concern when large bulldozers and vibration rollers are operating within
ten feet from an existing residential structure. Therefore, neither the elimination of the resort inn
nor the reduction in development area would not change the impact compared to the proposed
Project.
The reallocation of the commercial use to the visitor - serving location as a replacement for the
resort inn would result in an approximate 5.2 percent increase in project - generated vehicle trips.
Therefore, because the roadway system for Alternative E is the same as for the proposed
Project, it may be assumed that cumulative noise levels on existing roadways at General Plan
buildout for Alternative E would be similar or slightly greater than those for the proposed Project
with the greater increases on 15`h Street east of the Project and nearby roadways. The noise
level changes would be due to a combination of cumulative growth, a redistribution of traffic
resulting from building of the Alternative E roads, and new trips generated by the development
of residential, commercial, and park uses. Because most of the additional trip generation with
Alternative E would occur on Bluff Road, the direct project contribution to a significant noise
impact on 17th Street west of Monrovia Avenue that is forecasted for the proposed Project would
be similar with Alternative E, and would result in a significant impact. As with the proposed
Project, mitigation is proposed, but because these impacts would occur in the City of Costa
Mesa and the City of Newport Beach cannot dictate mitigation outside its jurisdiction, it cannot
be certain the mitigation would be implemented (Thresholds 4.12 -1 and 4.12 -4). There would be
a significant noise impact on 15th Street, west of Monrovia Avenue in the Existing Plus Project
and 2016 with Project scenarios, but not in the General Plan Buildout scenario, which is the
same as is forecasted for the proposed Project, The increase in total trip generation and a
redistribution of traffic would result in an increase in traffic volumes on 15th Street; thus the
impact would be slightly greater than the proposed Project. As with the proposed Project, the
impact can be mitigated to less than significant.
The reallocation of 15,000 sf of commercial development for the resort inn would increase traffic
on Bluff Road between West Coast Highway and 15th Street. With Alternative E at General Plan
buildout, the future CNEL at the Newport Crest residences facing the Project site would
increase from approximately 8 to 16 dBA above existing noise levels, which would be a
significant noise impact. The noise increases would be less than 1 dBA CNEL greater than with
the proposed Project because traffic volumes on Bluff Road would be greater than with the
proposed Project. Noise abatement measures, including the construction of noise barriers to
reduce exterior noise impacts, and noise insulation upgrades to further reduce interior noise
impacts could reduce noise to a compatible level as defined for new development by the
General Plan; however, the increase would still exceed the significance criterion. Future noise
levels at the California Seabreeze and Parkview Circle residences would be the same or less
with Alternative E than with the proposed Project and would be less than significant. It is likely
that the noise levels would be less because commercial development at the nearby proposed
Urban Colony would be reduced by 15,000 sf. Future noise levels at the Carden Hall School
would be the same or very similar to those forecasted for the proposed Project; the impact
would be less than significant (Thresholds 4.12 -1 and 4.12 -4), which is the same as the
proposed Project.
Traffic noise levels to proposed internal land uses would be the same or very similar to those
forecasted for the proposed Project, but slightly greater for development proposed adjacent to
Bluff Road south of 15th Street. Noise -land use compatibility would be the same as for the
proposed Project. Mitigation would be required to reduce traffic noise to proposed residential
uses adjacent to roadways to achieve compatible noise levels required by the General Plan and
the California Code of Regulations (Threshold 4.12 -1).
R:TrojeatslNewpartU015\IOrafi EIR7.0 Nf 090311.tloc 7 -151 Newport Banning Ranch
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Section 7.0
Alternatives to the
Noise impacts from stationary sources associated with new residential and commercial
development would be the same or very similar with Alternative E as with the proposed Project
(Thresholds 4.12 -1 and 4.12 -4). Noise impacts from the possible drilling of new wells in the
consolidated oilfield would be the same as for the proposed Project (Threshold 4.12 -2). The
Project site is not within an airport land use plan or near a private airstrip; therefore, there would
be no impacts from excessive aircraft noise levels (Thresholds 4.12 -5 and 4.12 -6). Alternative E
would be consistent with the goals and policies of the City of Newport Beach General Plan
related to noise (Threshold 4.12 -7).
Cultural and Paleontological Resources
Alternative E would result in on -site grading and development on the Project site but, without the
resort inn component, they would not be to the same extent. Grading and excavation could
impact unknown historical resources (Threshold 4.13 -1). As discussed in Section 4.13, Cultural
Resources, with implementation of the identified Mitigation Program, potentially significant
impacts related to the cultural resources identified within the Project site would be reduced to a
level considered less than significant, which is the same as the proposed Project.
Alternative E would impact known archaeological resources. Three archaeological sites
(CA -ORA -839, CA- ORA -844B, and CA -ORA -906) are deemed eligible for listing in the CRHR
and the NRHP. Disturbance activities could also impact unknown resources (Threshold 4.13 -2),
which is the same as the proposed Project.
Grading activities also have the potential to impact significant paleontological resources and
unknown human remains, including those interred outside formal cemeteries (Threshold 4.13 -3
and Threshold 4.13 -4), which is the same as the proposed Project.
Alternative E would not conflict with applicable land use policies (Threshold 4.13 -5). As with the
proposed Project, this Alternative would be consistent with Land Use Element, Historic
Resource Element, and Natural Resources Element goals and policies, which were outlined in
Table 4.13 -3, City of Newport Beach General Plan Consistency Analysis.
Public Services and Facilities
The public services and facilities evaluated in the EIR include the following: Fire Protection,
Police Protection, Schools, Library Services, and Solid Waste. Alternative E would result in the
same number of dwelling units as the proposed Project; however, no overnight
accommodations (75 -units resort inn) are proposed.
Because this Alternative would not include the resort inn component of the proposed Project;
the associated demand for public services (fire protection, police protection) would be
incrementally reduced compared to the proposed Project. As with the proposed Project, Site
Planning Area 12b, the northerly block of Site Planning Area 10a, and the northerly block of Site
Planning Area 10b cannot be served by Station Number 2 within the established response time,
which is a significant impact. As with the proposed Project, implementation of the Mitigation
Program would be required and potential impacts to fire protection service associated with
Alternative E would be less than significant (Threshold 4.14 -1).
The increase in demand for police protection services would not require new facilities or other
environmental impacts in order to maintain acceptable levels of service (Threshold 4.14 -3).
Because the number of dwelling units would remain the same as the proposed Project, the
demand for schools and library service (Thresholds 4.14 -5 and 4.14 -7) associated with
RTrojetMNewpon\JO IDrafi EIR7.0 Nt090311.tloc 7 -152 Newport Banning Ranch
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Section 7.0
Alternatives to the
Alternative E would be the same as the proposed Project. The demand for solid waste services
would be incrementally reduced because of the elimination of the resort inn (Threshold 4.14 -9).
The impacts to Thresholds 4.14 -3, 4.14 -5, 4.14 -7, and 4.14 -9 would be less than significant.
Thresholds 4.14 -2, 4.14 -4, 4.14 -6, 4.14 -8, and 4.14 -10 pertain to consistency with any
applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an
environmental effect. As with the proposed Project, this Alternative would meet the policies,
which were outlined in Table 4.14 -8, City of Newport Beach General Plan Consistency.
Utilities
This Alternative would not include the resort inn component of the proposed Project; therefore,
the associated demand for utilities (water supply, wastewater facilities, and energy - electricity
and natural gas) would be incrementally reduced compared to the proposed Project. However,
the impacts associated with construction of new infrastructure for distribution of water and
energy transmission would be the same for Alternative E, as for the proposed Project
(Thresholds 4.15 -1 and 4.15 -7). From a water demand perspective, the impacts of Alternative E
would be less than the proposed Project because there would be less development (Threshold
4.15 -2).
Alternative E would generate less wastewater than the proposed Project because of the there
would be no resort inn but would be required to comply with all the same regulations and
wastewater treatment requirements as the proposed Project. Therefore, as with the proposed
Project, impacts for Alternative E would be less than significant and slightly reduced when
compared to those of the proposed Project (Thresholds 4.15 -4 and 4.15 -5).
Thresholds 4.15 -3, 4.15 -6, and 4.15 -8 pertain to consistency with any applicable plan, policy, or
regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. As with the
proposed Project, this Alternative would meet the policies, which were outlined in Table 4.15 -11,
City of Newport Beach General Plan Consistency.
Conclusion
Alternative E would reduce the development footprint by approximately 11 percent. Though the
nature of the impacts would be the same as those discussed for the proposed Project, the
impacts associated grading and project footprint would be incrementally smaller due to the
reduced amount of disturbed area with Alternative E (i.e., impacts associated with grading,
habitat removal, creation of impervious surfaces, construction air emissions). This Alternative
would increase the overall VMT; therefore, there would be slightly greater long -term air
emissions, noise, and traffic. It should be noted that while this Alternative increases public
access and amenities over the existing condition and Alternatives A and B, this Alternative
would not provide the same benefits (i.e., trails, Nature Center, parks, and pedestrian bridge) as
compared to the proposed Project. Additionally, it would not provide overnight visitor
accommodations, which is an important Coastal Act policy consideration.
R:TrojectslNewpartU015VOrafi EIR7.0 Nt 090311.tlac 7 -153 Newport Banning Ranch
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Alternatives to the
Significant and Unavoidable Impacts
Section 7.0
Alternative E would not eliminate any of the significant and unavoidable impacts identified with
the proposed Project. The following significant and unavoidable impacts would occur with
Alternative E:
There would be land use incompatibility with respect to long -term noise impacts and
night illumination on those Newport Crest residences immediately contiguous to the
Project site. 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. Land use compatibility issues from night lighting associated with the Community
Park would also be considered significant.
Development would introduce new sources of light on the Project site, which would
result in a significant visual impact.
Alternative E would result in impacts to the same intersections as outlined for the
proposed Project. Implementation of the Mitigation Program would reduce impacts to
less than significant levels. However, the City of Newport Beach cannot guarantee
implementation of necessary mitigation within another jurisdiction. Therefore, for
purposes of this EIR, the impacts in the City of Costa Mesa intersections are assumed to
remain significant and unavoidable.
• 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, 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.
• Alternative E would have cumulatively considerable contributions to regional pollutant
concentrations of 03.
• Alternative E would emit quantities of GHGs that would exceed the City's 6,000
MTCO2e /yr significance threshold. This would make a cumulatively considerable
contribution to the global GHG inventory.
• 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.
• 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 control 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.
• 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
R:TrojectslNewpartU015Mmft EIR7.0 Nf 090311.tloc 7 -154 Newport Banning Ranch
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Section 7.0
Alternatives to the
receptors, and duration of construction activities, temporary noise increases would be
significant and unavoidable.
Feasibility and Ability to Meet Project Objectives
This Alternative is potentially feasible. However, public benefits, coastal access and visitor -
serving amenities would be reduced.
This Alternative is able to meet most of the Project objectives. However, it does not meet the
objective of providing overnight visitor accommodations (Objective 4). In addition, it only partially
meets the following objective:
Provide enhanced public access through 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 (Objective 8).
This Alternative provides the land uses identified in the General Plan, with the exception of the
resort inn. This Alternative "feasibly attain[s] most of the basic objectives of the project' and may
be considered to be a potentially feasible alternative.
R:TrojectslNewpartU015VOrafi EIR7.0 Nt 090311.tloc 7 -155 Newport Banning Ranch
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Section 7.0
Alternatives to the
7.5.6 ALTERNATIVE F: INCREASED OPEN SPACE /REDUCED DEVELOPMENT AREA
Description of the Alternative
Alternative F was developed to evaluate potential benefits associated with reducing the Project
footprint and increasing open space while maintaining the overall number of residential units.
This Alternative would result in an incremental reduction in impacts on natural resources
because more area would be converted from oilfield operations to protected open space.
Although impacts would be reduced, Alternative F would not avoid any of the significant impacts
associated with the proposed Project.
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, an approximate 14 percent reduction
compared to the proposed Project. When parkland is factored in, the development footprint for
Alternative F is reduced by 20 percent compared to the proposed Project. 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 it would have
approximately 34.7 acres of parks, including a 21.8- gross -acre Community Park (compared to
approximately 51 total acres of parklands). As with the proposed Project, the Community Park
would be constructed by the Applicant as part of this Alternative; it would be offered for
dedication to the City; and upon acceptance, it would be maintained by the City. 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
(also identified above under Alternative C). It is assumed that a Mitigation Program similar to
what is proposed for the Project would be required for Alternative F. However, the Applicant has
identified a number of design features (i.e., trails, Nature Center, and pedestrian bridge) that are
amenities for the proposed Project that would not be incorporated in Alternative F.
Exhibit 7 -9, Alternative F: Increased Open Space and Reduced Footprint, depicts the land use
plan for Alternative F. Table 7 -19 identifies the land uses and acreage associated with the
allowable land uses. Similar to the other land use alternatives, the exhibit reflects the land uses
that would be allowed, which is not the same as the limits of land disturbance; additional
impacts would be associated with oilfield remediation, fuel modification, and any trails that
ultimately are provided by other parties in open space.
R:TrojectslNewpartU015VOrafi EIR7.0 Nt 090311.tloc 7 -156 Newport Banning Ranch
Draft Environmental Impact Report
19,n aireet
—_`: rLl _'T_7- iTJTJT17ZI2Y'277_T_lJJ7
� �?.7
w
f/
e
z
A'
z
111, seal
me
uos
LOS�'�
MUIR e
� _ nmsr.ec:
uos �`
UPACE
OF
Wetlantle ' -�
Restoration
Nawnsu swo.
Area
` ' ���-
c•y�
NMUSU
LEGEND
R /- /City- _ —. -__
Project Site Boundary
9
Utilities
Yard
OPEN SPACE
��
F
Lowland Open Space (LOS)
Upland Open Space(UOS)�
N
_
Interim Oil Facilities (OF)
PUBLIC PARKS RECREATION
M Community Park (CP)
DDS _ Is si—t
0 Bluff Park (BP)
RESIDENTIAL
-�
0 Residential (R)
B '�
MIXED-USE I RESIDENTIAL
0 Mixed -Use I Residential (MU/R)
ROADWAYS
OF
Arterial Roads
rtrt'p�
I
Right-of-Way Reservation for 19th Street
BP :P / 'o�po,xilwPenarwtrsaga aan
COS f
iuo3
well
cp }'
Sunset Ridge
edway
Park
e
f
a i!
C
PACIFIC
H
OCEAN
Source: FORMA 2011
Alternative F: Increased Open Space /Reduced Footprint
and 1,375 Dwelling Units,
60,000
SF Commercial Exhibit 7 -9
Newport Banning Ranch EIR
N
e
wA
ry e
T I N G C O N 5 U L T N G
s
(REV: 080211 JFG) R: ProjeotiaNewporl= 5 \Gmphics \EIR \Ex7- 9_Reduce DevAltF.pdf
Section 7.0
Alternatives to the
TABLE 7 -19
ALTERNATIVE F STATISTICAL SUMMARY
Comparative Analysis of Environmental Impacts
Land Use and Related Planning Programs
Alternative F assumes a similar development plan as the proposed Project without the overnight
accommodations (75 -room resort inn) and the visitor - serving commercial (15,000 sf)
components. As previously described in Section 4.1.7 of Section 4.1, Land Use and Related
Planning Programs, the Project site is surrounded by established communities of residential
development and is an active oilfield. There are no other uses on site or public access to the
site. Therefore, as with the proposed Project, Alternative F would not physically divide an
established community (Threshold 4.1 -1). However, as with the proposed Project, 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
RTroketMNewpertU015Mrafi EIR7.0 Nt090311.tloc 7 -157 Newport Banning Ranch
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Maximum
Maximum
Planned
Permitted
Permitted
Gross
Dwelling
Commercial
Overnight
Land Use District
Acresa
Units
sf
Accommodations
Open Space
LOS
Lowland Open Space'
130.6
—
—
—
LOS
Upland Open Space
135.3
OF
Interim Oil Facilities`
16.5
—
—
—
Subtotal Open Space
282.4
—
—
—
Public Parks /Recreation
CID
Community Park
21.8
—
—
—
BP
Bluff Park°
12.9
—
—
—
Subtotal Public Parks/Recreation
1 34.71
1
—
Residential
R
Residential (up to 14 DU /Ac)e
64.9
666
—
—
Subtotal Residential
1 64.91
666
1 —
Mixed-Use/Residential
MU /R I Mixed - Use /Residential (up to 40 DU /AC)e
19.1
709
60,000
—
Subtotal Mixed- Use /Residential
19.1
709
60,000
0
Total Project
401.1
1,3751
60,000
0
Gross acres are measured to centerlines of all public roads where such roads are shown on the plan. Gross acres are
computed using geographic information system (GIs) technology with accuracy to 10 decimal places. Acres are shown in this
table to one decimal place
The Right -of -Way Reservation for the 1 e Street Extension contains approximately 3.1 acres.
Gross acres for the Bluff Park District may include fuel management zones and landscape focal points and greens.
Gross acres for the Residential District and the Mixed - Use /Residential District may include fuel management zones, privately
owned and maintained parks and recreational facilities, and landscape focal points and greens.
The Interim Oil Facilities (Open Space Land Use) District includes: (1) the existing oil operations site near West Coast
Highway; (2) the oil consolidation site near the middle of the Lowland; and (3) an oil access road (non - exclusive easement)
connecting the two working sites.
Source: FORMA 2011.
Comparative Analysis of Environmental Impacts
Land Use and Related Planning Programs
Alternative F assumes a similar development plan as the proposed Project without the overnight
accommodations (75 -room resort inn) and the visitor - serving commercial (15,000 sf)
components. As previously described in Section 4.1.7 of Section 4.1, Land Use and Related
Planning Programs, the Project site is surrounded by established communities of residential
development and is an active oilfield. There are no other uses on site or public access to the
site. Therefore, as with the proposed Project, Alternative F would not physically divide an
established community (Threshold 4.1 -1). However, as with the proposed Project, 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
RTroketMNewpertU015Mrafi EIR7.0 Nt090311.tloc 7 -157 Newport Banning Ranch
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Section 7.0
Alternatives to the
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 -2 pertains to consistency with any applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted
for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. This Alternative would
generally be consistent with the land use policies outlined in Table 4.1 -6, City of Newport Beach
General Plan Consistency Evaluation. However, without the overnight accommodations and the
visitor - serving components, this Alternative would not provide the visitor accommodations called
for in the General Plan and Coastal Act or the level of job opportunities to the same extent as
the proposed Project. Therefore, for this threshold, Alternative F would have greater impacts
than the proposed Project.
Aesthetics and Visual Resources
The City does not have any designated scenic vistas, and West Coast Highway is not a State -
or locally designated scenic highway. Therefore, similar to the proposed Project, Alternative F
would not result in any impacts to this type of resource (Threshold 4.2 -1).
The area with urban development (residential, commercial, and visitor - serving uses) for
Alternative F would decrease from 97.4 gross acres under the proposed Project to 84.0 gross
acres, a reduction in the development footprint of approximately 14 percent. When parkland is
taken into consideration, the grading footprint is reduced by 20 percent and the earthwork
quantities are expected to be reduced by 25 to 35 percent. 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, including North Bluff Road. Visual changes to the Project site
associated with the implementation of Alternative F would be similar to those anticipated to
occur under the proposed Project since the site would be converted from an active oilfield to a
developed condition. The character of the Project site would change to a suburban environment,
consistent with the surrounding uses. Because of the higher density and smaller lots than the
proposed Project, potentially higher residential building heights may occur. However, this would
not be expected to degrade the visual quality of the site based on its setting in an urban
environment. Alternative F would have less of an aesthetic impact than the proposed Project
because more area would be retained in open space and the amount of landform alteration
would be reduced (Threshold 4.2 -2).
Under both the proposed Project and this Alternative, significant and unavoidable impacts would
occur with the creation of nighttime light. Because Alternative F would be developed with similar
land uses, Alternative F would introduce new sources of light on the Project site — similar to the
proposed Project — resulting in nighttime lighting in a currently unlit area. This increased
nighttime lighting on the Project site is considered a significant and unavoidable impact
(Threshold 4.2 -3). A Statement of Overriding Considerations was adopted by the City Council
for this impact as part of the certification of the General Plan EIR and General Plan project
approval.
As with the proposed Project, Alternative F would be consistent with the intent of the aesthetic
resources goals and policies of the City of Newport Beach General Plan and the California
Coastal Act (Threshold 4.2 -4).
Geology and Soils
Alternative F assumes the same land uses and similar development plan as the proposed
Project without the overnight accommodations or the visitor - serving commercial components.
R:TrojectMNewpartU015Mrafi EIR7.0 Nf 090311.tloc 7 -158 Newport Banning Ranch
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Section 7.0
Alternatives to the
Alternative F reflects a more substantial reduction in the proposed development area and, as a
result, the anticipated earthwork quantities would be reduced. The majority of the reduced
footprint is in the proposed residential areas of the north and south family villages. These areas
on the Project site have proportionately greater amounts of mass grading and corrective
grading. As a result, qualitatively, the 20 percent reduction in the grading footprint would result
in an estimated reduction in the range of 25 to 35 percent in the mass grading and corrective
grading quantities. Additionally the maximum fill slope of 60 feet would not apply under this
Alternative.
As indicated in Section 4.3, Geology and Soils, the Project site is located in a seismically active
area with faults within the proposed development site that could not be proven to be inactive
(Threshold 4.3 -1). Alternative F proposes fewer structures (no resort inn and visitor - serving
commercial) than the proposed Project. Although development would be exposed to the same
potential for impacts associated with surface fault rupture and seismic shaking (Threshold 4.3 -2)
because of the reduced footprint without the overnight accommodations and visitor - serving
commercial, Alternative F would expose fewer people and structures to impacts associated with
these thresholds; therefore, Alternative F would have incrementally fewer impacts than the
proposed Project.
As indicated in Section 4.3, Geology and Soils, two fault segments on the Project site have not
been confirmed as inactive and development setbacks have been recommended. The fault
setback zones would reduce the risk of surface fault rupture. As with the proposed Project,
Alternative F would be required to incorporate strengthened building foundations and structural
design, which would accommodate strong seismic shaking on the Project site. Habitable
structures would be restricted to the Upland area, avoiding soils that may liquefy or undergo
lateral spreading and, where necessary, corrective grading would ensure all structures are
placed on competent foundation materials. As with the proposed Project, Alternative F would
not result in significant impacts from seismic - related ground failure, liquefaction, lateral
spreading, soil collapse, or landslides (Thresholds 4.3 -3 and 4.3 -6). As with the proposed
Project, Alternative F would be subject to some existing on -site potential for landslides under
dynamic seismic conditions. Consistency with the CBC, City building code requirements, and
General Plan policies along with the incorporation of bluff setback zones would ensure that
impacts associated with on- and off -site landslides would be less than significant (Threshold
4.3 -4). Because of the reduced footprint, without the overnight accommodations and
visitor - serving commercial, Alternative F would expose fewer people and structures to impacts
associated with these thresholds; therefore, Alternative F would have fewer impacts than the
proposed Project.
As with the proposed Project, grading activities associated with Alternative F would increase the
potential for soil erosion and loss of topsoil (Threshold 4.3 -5). With the incorporation of
construction BMPs as described in Section 4.4, Hydrology and Water Quality, impacts on soil
erosion and loss of topsoil would be less than significant. Post - construction soil erosion and the
loss of topsoil would be minimized through the use of engineered grading, surface drainage
improvements, and landscaping. This Alternative would require less grading; therefore, impacts
associated with this threshold would be less than the proposed Project.
On -site soils have a low to medium expansion potential. As with the proposed Project,
incorporation of SCs 4.3 -1 through 4.3 -3 and MMs 4.3 -1 and 4.3 -2, would reduce impacts from
this Alternative associated with expansive soils to a less than significant level (Threshold 4.3 -7).
Because of the reduced footprint and reduction in dwelling units, Alternative F would expose
fewer people and structures to impacts associated with these thresholds; therefore, impacts
under Alternative F would be less than the proposed Project.
RTrojectMNewpertU015Mrafi EIR7.0 Nt 090311.tloc 7 -159 Newport Banning Ranch
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Section 7.0
Alternatives to the
Alternative F would be consistent with the intent of the soils and geology - related goals and
policies of the City of Newport Beach General Plan and the California Coastal Act (Threshold
4.3 -8), which is the same as the proposed Project.
Hydrology and Water Quality
Alternative F would result in on -site grading and development on the Project site. However, this
Alternative would reduce the development area (exclusive of parks and open space) by
approximately 14 percent compared to the proposed Project. As with the proposed Project,
Alternative F would result in an increase in impervious surfaces, although to a lesser degree
than the proposed Project, and would increase the amount of runoff and the concentration of
pollutants in storm water runoff (Thresholds 4.4 -1, 4.4 -6, 4.4 -11, 4.4 -12, and 4.4 -13).
Implementation of the Mitigation Program in Section 4.4.7 of the EIR would ensure that these
impacts would be reduced to a less than significant level. However, when compared to the
proposed Project, Alternative F would result in incrementally fewer impacts.
The proposed Project would result in an increase in impervious surface and would reduce the
potential for groundwater percolation (Threshold 4.4 -2); implementation of treatment - control
BMPs and LID features would ensure that Project impacts would be less than significant. Since
Alternative F would have less impervious surface than the proposed Project, potential impacts
to groundwater would be less than the proposed Project. This impact would be less than
significant.
This Alternative would involve changes to existing drainage patterns and would cause increases
in erosion of the Project site or surrounding areas that would occur with the proposed Project
(Thresholds 4.4.3 and 4.4 -15). Implementation of the Mitigation Program in Section 4.4.7 of the
EIR would ensure that these impacts would be reduced to a less than significant level. However,
when compared to the proposed Project, Alternative F would result in fewer impacts. These
impacts would be less than significant.
Alternative F would result in increases in impervious surfaces, in peak flow runoff, and in runoff
volumes from the site (Thresholds 4.4 -4 and 4.4 -14); it would also affect the capacity of existing
or planned storm water drainage systems (Threshold 4.4 -5). Implementation of the Mitigation
Program in Section 4.4.7 of the EIR section would ensure that impacts related to on -site or
downstream flooding would be considered less than significant. However, when compared to
the proposed Project, Alternative F would result in fewer impacts. These impacts would be less
than significant.
As with the proposed Project, housing associated with Alternative F would be located on the
Upland at elevations well outside the 100 -year floodplain. There would be no impacts to or from
the 100 -year floodplain for both the proposed Project and Alternative F (Thresholds 4.4 -7
and 4.4 -8).
The Project site is located at the lower end of the watershed and is not located within any dam
inundation areas. As with the proposed Project, housing associated with Alternative F would be
located on the Upland and people and /or structures would not be exposed to significant risk
associated with the failure of a levee or dam (Threshold 4.4 -9). Potential impacts associated
with Threshold 4.4 -9 would be less than significant for both the proposed Project and
Alternative F.
There are no permanent standing water bodies in the Upland area and inundation by tsunami is
not likely because of Project site elevations and the City's existing Emergency Management
R:TrojectMNewpartU015Mmft EIR7.0 Nt 090311.tlac 7 -160 Newport Banning Ranch
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Section 7.0
Alternatives to the
Plan. Therefore, as with the proposed Project, inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow is not
likely for this Alternative (Threshold 4.4 -10).
Alternative F would not conflict with applicable land use policies (Threshold 4.4 -16). As with the
proposed Project, this Alternative would be consistent with the Harbor and Bay Element, Natural
Resources Element, and Safety Element goals and policies, which were outlined in
Table 4.4 -25, City of Newport Beach General Plan Consistency Evaluation, and the relevant
California Coastal Act policies which were outlined in Table 4.4 -26, California Coastal Act
Consistency Analysis.
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
As discussed in Section 4.5, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, with implementation of the
identified Mitigation Program, potentially significant impacts related to the historical and
continuing oil operations on the Project site and the potential presence of ACMs and LBP in
some structures would be reduced to a level considered less than significant. Alternative F
would result in on -site grading and development on the Project site. While this Alternative would
result in a reduced site development area, compared to the proposed Project, this reduction
would not affect the need for or implementation of the final RAP identified in the Mitigation
Program. This Alternative would require implementation of the final RAP (identified in the
Mitigation Program), including consolidation of oilfield activities. Therefore, like the proposed
Project and with implementation of the Mitigation Program this Alternative would result in less
than significant impacts related to Thresholds 4.5 -1 and 4.5 -2, which pertain to the creation of
hazards associated with the transport, use, disposal and /or emissions of hazardous materials
and location on an identified hazardous materials site.
Both the construction and operational characteristics of Alternative F would be similar to the
proposed Project. The long -term operation of the development would not emit hazardous
emissions within 1/4 mile of a school site. However, Alternative F may have slightly less impact
that the proposed Project because it would reduce the amount of grading by 25 to 35 percent,
which potentially reduces the amount of soil from remediation activities that may have to be
hauled off site. Haul routes may be established on streets that pass existing schools.
Implementation of standard conditions would provide for impacts to be considered less than
significant (Threshold 4.5 -3).
The Project site is not identified on the Cortese List which is compiled pursuant to
Section 65962.5 of the California Government Code. Therefore, there would be no impact
associated with Threshold 4.5 -4.
Threshold 4.5 -5 pertains to consistency with any applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted
for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. Alternative F would not conflict
with applicable land use, harbor and bay, natural resource, or safety policies because it would
provide for the consolidation of oilfield activities and remediation of the site, which is the same
as the proposed Project. The policies, which were outlined in Table 4.5 -5, City of Newport
Beach General Plan Consistency Evaluation, call for prohibiting new oil and gas extraction
activities; consolidating and /or relocating existing oil operations;, limiting hazards associated
with oil operations; and remediating soil and groundwater contamination. This Alternative would
be consistent with provisions of the General Plan.
R:TrojectslNewpartU015VOrafi EIR7.0 Nt 090311.tlac 7 -161 Newport Banning Ranch
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Alternatives to the
Biological Resources
Section 7.0
Alternative F would include the primary features of the proposed Project, but assumes a
reduction in the development acreage.
Alternative F would reduce the development area by approximately 14 percent compared to the
proposed Project; therefore, corresponding impacts to biological resources are expected to be
similar. Alternative F would result in a substantial adverse effect on special status plant and
wildlife species; this is similar to, but less than, the proposed Project (Threshold 4.6 -1). As
discussed in Section 4.6, Biological Resources, with implementation of the identified Mitigation
Measures, potentially significant impacts to special status species from Alternative F would be
reduced to a level considered less than significant.
This Alternative would have a substantial adverse effect on riparian habitat (woodland /scrub
habitats and marsh areas) and other sensitive natural communities (e.g., coastal sage scrub)
(Thresholds 4.6 -2 and 4.6 -3). Although these impacts are expected to be less than the
proposed Project because of the reduced development area, they are still considered
significant. As discussed in Section 4.6, Biological Resources, with implementation of the
identified Mitigation Measures, potentially significant impacts to special status habitats from
Alternative F would be reduced to a level considered less than significant.
The area to be developed is highly disturbed due to the oilfield operations and is primarily
limited to the upland area, which would reduce the habitat available for species moving along
the Santa Ana River and those using the upland portions of the Project site as a migration
stopover point. Impacts to wildlife migration corridors would be incrementally less for Alternative
F than for the proposed Project because it proposes a smaller footprint; however, this impact
would be considered significant (Threshold 4.6 -4). As discussed in Section 4.6, Biological
Resources, with implementation of the identified Mitigation Measures, these potentially
significant impacts would be reduced to a level considered less than significant.
Because Alternative F would reduce the impacts to biological resources, the amount of acreage
that would be restored in compliance with mitigation measures imposed on the Project as
conditions of approvals and permits within the Lowland Open Space Preserve would be
expected to be less than the proposed Project. Any acreage to be restored after fulfilling
mitigation requirements and requiring restoration would be placed in a reserve area (mitigation
bank) or similar mechanism and may be made available to third parties seeking off -site areas in
which to fulfill their respective mitigation obligations. The area would be restored in accordance
with the Habitat Restoration Plan. One area that is contemplated for inclusion in a mitigation
bank is the land proposed for use for the consolidated oil operations. Upon cessation of oil
production operations, these two Oil Consolidation sites would be remediated and could be
available in a reserve area.
This Alternative would also not conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological
resources or provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan; Natural Community
Conservation Plan; or other approved local, regional, or State habitat conservation plan
(Threshold 4.6 -5), which is the same as the proposed Project.
Population, Housing, and Employment
Long -range plans assume approximately 36 percent of the projected population growth and 25
percent of the projected employment growth in the City would be accommodated on the
Newport Banning Ranch site for the 25 -year period between 2010 and 2035. Alternative F
R:TrojectMNewpartU015Mrafi EIR7.0 Nf 090311.tloc 7 -162 Newport Banning Ranch
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Section 7.0
Alternatives to the
would be consistent with the population assumptions and would have the same residential
population as the proposed Project (Threshold 4.7 -1). This Alternative would provide the same
commitment to affordable housing as the proposed Project, and it would not require
intensification of development elsewhere in the City to meet the RHNA requirements.
Alternative F would be consistent with most of the applicable planning programs; however, it
would not provide the visitor commercial uses called for in the General Plan. This Alternative
would create long -term employment opportunities; however, without the overnight
accommodations and visitor - serving commercial components and it would not help balance the
employment demands associated with the City's population to same extent as the proposed
Project (Threshold 4.7 -2).
Recreation and Trails
Alternative F assumes both a reduction in the amount of development that would occur on the
Project site and a reduction the acreage associated with that development. With Alternative F,
residential units would be provided at a higher density and on smaller lots than assumed for the
proposed Project. Compared to the proposed Project, there would be a reduction on the amount
of parkland from approximately 51 acres to approximately 34.7 acres, but it would still include a
21.8- gross -acre Community Park. As with the proposed Project, the Community Park would be
constructed by the Applicant as part of this Alternative; it would be offered for dedication to the
City; and upon acceptance, it would be maintained by the City. Alternative F also would provide
a 12.9 -gross acre Bluff Park, which would be in addition to the Community Park. As with
Alternatives D and E, this Alternative does not include a Nature Center or interpretive trails.
However, under Alternative F open space uses would increase from 252.3 gross acres with the
proposed Project to 282.4 gross acres. This Alternative does not include a pedestrian and
bicycle bridge spanning West Coast Highway. While there is a reduction in development on the
Project site, the similar types of land uses would still be developed (residential and commercial);
however, the resort inn and visitor - serving commercial uses would not be constructed under this
Alternative. Alternative F would increase the demand for park and recreational facilities similar
to that of the proposed Project. While this Alternative does not offer the same amenities or
number of amenities, less than significant impacts would result with respect to recreation
because sufficient parkland would be provided to meet the needs of the Alternative (Thresholds
4.8 -1, 4.8 -2, and 4.8 -3). However, since this Alternative does not provide the recreational
amenities of the proposed Project, which proposes 51.4 acres of parkland and a trail network.
Alternative F would be consistent with the intent of the recreational resources goals and policies
of the City of Newport Beach General Plan and the California Coastal Act (Threshold 4.2 -4).
However, because this Alternative would provide few trails and would not construct the
pedestrian /bike overcrossing, it would provide less public access opportunities than the
proposed Project from a Coastal Act policy perspective. Therefore, it would not meet the
recreational goals as effectively as the proposed Project would.
Transportation and Circulation
Alternative F assumes the same arterial roadway network as the proposed Project. It assumes
the same number of residential units as the proposed Project but with a slightly different
distribution of the units. The resort inn would be eliminated and there would be a reduction of
commercial uses. The commercial use in the Urban Colony would decrease from 75,000 sf to
60.000 sf.
R:TrojectslNewpartU015VOrafi EIR7.0 Nt 090311.tlac 7 -163 Newport Banning Ranch
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Section 7.0
Alternatives to the
The trip generation associated with Alternative F is provided in Table 7 -20. Alternative F would
generate 13,645 ADT, with 849 AM peak hour trips and 1,305 PM peak hour trips. When
compared to the proposed Project, Alternative F would decrease average daily trips by
1,344 trips, AM peak hour trips by 57 trips, and PM peak hour trips by 125 trips. The reduction
of 15,000 sf of the proposed retail uses from the Urban Colony would change the overall ADT
and peak hour trip generation and would result in a reduction of traffic focused primarily on the
use of 17th Street easterly of the Project site.
Intersection Levels of Service
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 LOS with the Project to operate at an
unacceptable LOS with Alternative F. 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 Newport Beach. The impact can be mitigated to a level considered less than
significant with the implementation of SC 4.9 -3 and MM 4.9 -1.
Both 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 Street, 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 and proposed 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.
Congestion Management Plan Intersection: Consistent with the findings for the proposed
Project, Alternative F would not be expected to cause the intersection of Newport Boulevard at
West Coast Highway to fall below the CMP LOS standards. Therefore, no significant impact
would be expected to occur.
State Highway Intersections: Neither Alternative F nor the proposed Project would be
expected to cause any State intersections to operate at a deficient level of service. No
significant impact would be expected to occur.
Freeway Mainline Segments: Neither Alternative F nor the proposed Project would be
expected to significantly impact any freeway segments.
R:TrojectslNewpartU015VOrafi EIR7.0 Nt 090311.tloc 7 -164 Newport Banning Ranch
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Alternatives to the
TABLE 7 -20
ALTERNATIVE F TRIP GENERATION
Section 7.0
Trip Rates
Trip Generation Rates
AM Peak Hour
PM Peak Hour
ITE
Trips
Daily
In
Out
Total
In
Out
Total
Land Use
Code
per
Single - Family Detached Housing
210
du
9.57
0.19
0.56
0.75
0.64
0.37
1.01
Residential Condominium/Townhouse
230
du
5.81
0.07
0.37
0.44
0.35
0.17
0.52
Parke
412
acre
2.28
0.01
0.00
0.01
0.02
0.04
0.06
Soccer Complex
488
Field
71.33
0.70
0.70
1.40
14.26
6.41
20.67
Tennis Courts
490
Court
31.04
0.84
0.84
1.68
1.94
1.94
3.88
Shopping Centerb
820
ksf
Equation - See Below
Project Trip Generation
Trip Generation
AM Peak Hour
PM Peak Hour
Project Area
Land Use
Units
Daily
In
Out
Total
In
Out
Total
South Family
Single - Family
141
du
1,349
27
79
106
90
52
142
Village
Detached Housing
Park
28
acre
64
0
0
0
1
1
2
Soccer Complex
4
Fields
285
3
3
6
57
26
83
Tennis Courts
6
Courts
186
5
5
10
12
12
24
Subtotal
1,884
35
87
122
160
91
251
Resort Colony
Res. Condominium/
165
du
959
12
61
73
58
28
86
Townhouse
Subtotal
959
12
61
73
58
28
86
North Family
Single - Family
225
du
2,153
43
126
169
144
83
227
Village
Detached Housing
Res. Condominium/
135
du
784
9
50
59
47
23
70
Townhouse
Subtotal
2,937
1 52
176
228
1 191
106
297
Urban Colony
Res. Condominium/
679
du
3,945
48
251
299
238
115
353
Townhouse
Shopping Center"
60
ksf
4,872
70
44
114
221
230
452
Subtotal
8,817
118
295
413
459
345
805
Eastern
Res. Condominium/
Residential
Townhouse
30
du
174
2
11
13
11
5
16
Colony
Total Before Internal Capture /Pass -By
14,771
219
630
849
879
575
1,455
Internal Capture`
1,126
1
1 55
55
110
Pass -By Reduction for Retail (10 %)°
20
20
40
Total Alternative F Trips
13,645
219
630
849
804
1 500
1,305
Total Proposed Project Trips
14,989
251
655
906
866
564
1,430
du: dwelling unit; ksf: 1,000 square feet
e Trip generation is based on ITE Land Use County Park (Land Use 412) because this category includes peak hour trip rates.
Trip rates for Shopping Center are derived from the following regression equations: T = Trip Ends, X = units in ksf
ADT: LN(T) = 0.65 Ln(X) + 5.83
AM Peak Hour: Ln(T) = 0.59 Ln(X) + 2.32
PM Peak Hour: Ln(T) = 0.67 Ln(X) + 3.37
Source: Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) publication Trip Generation Handbook. See Internal Capture Worksheets in
Appendix C of the Kimley -Horn Traffic Impact Analysis.
°- Note: The ITE publication Trip Generation Handbook indicates pass -by for a shopping center is 34% in the PM peak hour. 10%
is assumed here, for a conservative approach. Pass -by reduction is taken on balance of retail trips, after Internal Capture
reduction
Source: Kimley -Horn 2011.
R:TrojectMNewpartU015Vnraft EIR7.0 Nt 090311,dac 7 -165 Newport Banning Ranch
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Section 7.0
Alternatives to the
With respect to Threshold 4.9 -1, Alternative F would still be expected to cause an increase in
traffic that is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system
(i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume -to- capacity
ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections), both Alternative F and the proposed Project
would significantly impact intersections in the traffic study area, some of which would remain
significant and unavoidable impacts because the City of Newport Beach cannot guarantee
implementation of the Mitigation Program in Costa Mesa. This Alternative would not conflict with
the CMP (Threshold 4.9 -2). As with the proposed Project, Alternative F would not substantially
increase hazards due to a design feature, incompatible land uses, or inadequate emergency
access (Threshold 4.9 -3). As with the proposed Project, Alternative F land uses would be
required to provide adequate on -site parking. No parking impacts would occur (Threshold 4.9-
4).
With respect to Threshold 4.9 -5, which addresses consistency with transportation- related plans,
policies, and regulations, both Alternative F and the proposed Project would require
amendments to the City of Newport Beach General Plan Circulation Element's Master Plan of
Streets and Highways and the Orange County MPAH. The same modifications to the roadway
system are proposed for Alternative F and the proposed Project.
Air Quality
Alternative F would have less development than the proposed Project because there would be
less developed area, no resort inn, or visitor - serving commercial. Construction maximum daily
emissions would be essentially the same as for the proposed Project, although the construction
duration may be slightly less. As described for the proposed Project, regional (mass) emissions
of NOx are forecasted to exceed applicable thresholds in some construction years (Threshold
4.10 -2). Localized concentrations of CO, NO2, PM10, and PM2.5 due to construction activities
would not exceed the applicable thresholds (Threshold 4.10 -2). The analysis of TAC emissions
to both off -site and on -site receptors demonstrates that the cancer risk, the cancer burden, the
chronic hazard risk, and the acute hazard risk would be less than significant (Threshold 4.10 -4),
as would odors from construction and long -term operations (Threshold 4.10- 5).The elimination
of the resort inn and visitor - serving commercial uses from the proposed Project would result in
an approximate nine percent decrease in vehicle trips and VMT, with a similar decrease of
long -term vehicle emissions compared to the proposed Project. The reduction in VMT would not
change the impact conclusions. As a result, the following significant and unavoidable impacts
would occur:
• Without mitigation, regional (mass) emissions of NOx are forecasted to exceed
applicable thresholds in some construction years. Implementation of the Mitigation
Program would reduce the emissions to less than significant. However, the availability of
sufficient Tier 4 diesel engine construction equipment cannot be assured; thus the
impact is potentially 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 Project
development continues beyond 2020, emissions of VOC and CO would exceed the
significance thresholds, principally due to vehicle operations (Threshold 4.10 -2).
The Project would have a significant cumulative air quality impact because its
contribution to regional pollutant concentrations of 03 would be cumulatively
considerable (Threshold 4.10 -3).
R:TrojectslNewpartU015VOrafi EIR7.0 Nf 090311.tloc 7 -166 Newport Banning Ranch
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Section 7.0
Alternatives to the
As with the proposed Project, development would not exceed the assumptions used to develop
the SCAQMD AQMPs and Alternative F would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the
SCAQMD AQMPs (Threshold 4.10 -1) or other applicable policies of agencies with jurisdiction
over the project (Threshold 4.10 -6).
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Alternative F construction GHG emissions would be less than those for the proposed Project
because there would be less development area and no construction of the resort inn or
visitor - serving commercial uses. Alternative F long -term GHG emissions would be less than for
the proposed Project because there would be an approximate nine percent reduction in vehicle
trips and less consumption of electricity, natural gas, and water. However, long -term GHG
emissions with Alternative F would be substantially higher than the 6,000 MTCO2e /yr
significance threshold and would be a significant impact (Threshold 4.11 -1). The cumulative
GHG emission impacts of this Alternative would be less than the proposed Project.
Alternative F would not conflict with applicable plans, policies, or regulations adopted for the
purpose of reducing GHG emissions; the impact would be less than significant
(Threshold 4.11 -2).
Noise
There would be periodic, temporary, unavoidable significant noise impacts that would cease
upon completion of construction activities (Threshold 4.12 -2). Vibration impacts under
Alternative F would be the same as for the proposed Project (Threshold 4.12- 3).Therefore,
neither the elimination of the resort inn nor the reduction in development area would change the
impact compared to the proposed Project.
The elimination of the resort inn and visitor - serving commercial uses from the proposed Project
would result in an approximate nine percent reduction in daily project - generated vehicle trips
with similar decreases in AM and PM peak hour trips. Because the roadway system for
Alternative F is the same as for the proposed Project, it may be assumed that cumulative noise
levels on existing roadways at General Plan buildout for Alternative F would be slightly less
(less than 0.5 dBA) than those for the proposed Project, The noise level changes would be due
to a combination of cumulative growth, a redistribution of traffic resulting from building of the
Alternative F roads, and new trips generated by development of residential, commercial, and
park uses. There would be a significant noise impact on 17`h Street west of Monrovia Avenue.
As with the proposed Project, mitigation is proposed, but because these impacts would occur in
the City of Costa Mesa and the City of Newport Beach cannot require mitigation outside its
jurisdiction, the City of Newport Beach cannot be certain the mitigation would be implemented
(Thresholds 4.12 -1 and 4.12 -4). There would also be a significant noise impact on 15th Street,
west of Monrovia Avenue in the Existing Plus Project and 2016 with Project scenarios, but not in
the General Plan Buildout scenario, which is the same as is forecasted for the proposed Project.
As with the proposed Project, the impact can be mitigated to less than significant.
With Alternative F at General Plan buildout, future CNEL at the Newport Crest residences facing
the Project site would increase from approximately 8 to 16 dBA above existing noise levels,
which would be a significant noise impact; however, due to decreased trip generation, noise
levels would be slightly less than with the proposed Project. Noise - abatement measures —
including the construction of noise barriers to reduce exterior noise impacts and upgrades for
windows on the facades of homes facing Bluff Road to reduce interior noise impacts —could
reduce noise to a compatible level as defined for new development by the General Plan.
RTrojetMNewpartU015\IDrafi EIR7.0 Nt090311.tloc 7 -167 Newport Banning Ranch
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Section 7.0
Alternatives to the
However, as with the proposed Project, from a CEQA perspective, the interior noise impacts on
the first row of units in Newport Crest facing Newport Banning Ranch would remain a significant
and unavoidable impact 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.
Future noise levels at the California Seabreeze and Parkview Circle residences would be the
same or less with Alternative F than with the proposed Project and would be less than
significant. Future noise levels at the Carden Hall School would be the same or less to those
forecasted for the proposed Project; the impact would be less than significant (Thresholds 4.12-
1 and 4.12 -4), which is less than the proposed Project.
Traffic noise levels to proposed land uses (internal to the development) would be the same or
less than those forecasted for the proposed Project. Noise land use compatibility would be the
same as for the proposed Project. Mitigation would be required to reduce traffic noise to
proposed residential uses adjacent to roadways to achieve compatible noise levels required by
the General Plan and the California Code of Regulations (Threshold 4.12 -1).
Noise impacts from stationary sources associated with new residential and commercial
development would be the same or very similar with Alternative F as with the proposed Project
(Thresholds 4.12 -1 and 4.12 -4). Noise impacts from the possible drilling of new wells in the
consolidated oilfield would be the same as for the proposed Project (Threshold 4.12 -2). Since
the Project site is not within an airport land use plan or near a private airstrip, there would be no
impacts from excessive aircraft noise levels (Thresholds 4.12 -5 and 4.12 -6). Alternative F would
be consistent with the goals and policies of the City of Newport Beach General Plan related to
noise (Threshold 4.12 -7).
Cultural and Paleontological Resources
Alternative F would result in on -site grading and development on the Project site but not to the
same extent because of the reduced development area and without the resort inn and
visitor - serving commercial components. Grading and excavation could impact unknown
historical resources (Threshold 4.13 -1). As discussed in Section 4.13, Cultural Resources, with
implementation of the identified Mitigation Program, potentially significant impacts related to the
cultural resources identified within the Project site would be reduced to a level considered less
than significant, which is the same as the proposed Project.
Alternative F would impact known archaeological resources. Three archaeological sites
(CA -ORA -839, CA- ORA -844B, and CA -ORA -906) are deemed eligible for listing in the CRHR
and the NRHP. Disturbance activities could also impact unknown resources (Threshold 4.13 -2),
which is the same as the proposed Project.
Grading activities also have the potential to impact significant paleontological resources and
unknown human remains, including those interred outside formal cemeteries (Threshold 4.13 -3
and Threshold 4.13 -4), which is the same as the proposed Project.
Alternative F would not conflict with applicable land use policies (Threshold 4.13 -5). As with the
proposed Project, this Alternative would be consistent with the Land Use Element, Historic
Resource Element, and Natural Resources Element goals and policies, which were outlined in
Table 4.13 -3, City of Newport Beach General Plan Consistency Analysis.
R:TrojectslNewpartU015VOrafI EIR7.0 Nt 090311.tloc 7 -168 Newport Banning Ranch
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Alternatives to the
Public Services and Facilities
Section 7.0
The public services and facilities evaluated in the EIR include the following: fire protection,
police protection, schools, library services, and solid waste. Alternative F would result in the
same number of dwelling units as the proposed Project; however, no overnight
accommodations (75 -room resort inn) or visitor - serving commercial components are proposed.
Because this Alternative would not include the resort inn or visitor - serving commercial
components of the proposed Project, the associated demand for public services (fire protection,
police protection) would be reduced compared to the proposed Project. Additionally a portion of
Site Planning Area 12b, the northerly block of Site Planning Area 10a, and the northerly block of
Site Planning Area 10b that cannot be served by Station Number 2 within the established
response time, is not proposed for development. Therefore, the impact would be less with
Alternative F than with the proposed Project. However, implementation of the Mitigation
Program would be still required to reduce potential impacts to fire protection service associated
with Alternative F to less than significant (Threshold 4.15 -1).
The increase in demand for police protection services would not require new facilities or other
environmental impacts in order to maintain acceptable levels of service (Threshold 4.14 -3).
Because the number of dwelling units would remain the same as the proposed Project, the
demand for schools and library service (Thresholds 4.14 -5 and 4.14 -7) associated with
Alternative F would be the same as (library) and /or similar to the proposed Project (schools).
The School District has different generation rates for single - family detached, single - family
attached, and multi- family units. Upon final determination of the number of single - family
attached or single - family detached units are provided, the student generation could be slightly
less with more attached than detached units. The demand for solid waste services would be
incrementally reduced because of the elimination of the resort inn (Threshold 4.14 -9). The
impacts to Thresholds 4.14 -3, 4.14 -5, 4.14 -7, and 4.14 -9 would be less than significant.
Thresholds 4.14 -2, 4.14 -4, 4.14 -6, 4.14 -8, and 4.14 -10 pertain to consistency with any
applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an
environmental effect. As with the proposed Project, this Alternative would meet the policies,
which were outlined in Table 4.14 -8, City of Newport Beach General Plan Consistency.
Utilities
This Alternative would not include the resort inn or the visitor- serving commercial components of
the proposed Project; therefore, the associated demand for utilities (water supply, wastewater
facilities, and electricity and natural gas) would be reduced compared to the proposed Project.
However, the impacts associated with construction of new infrastructure for distribution of water
and energy transmission would be the same for Alternative F, as for the proposed Project
(Thresholds 4.15 -1 and 4.15 -7). From a water demand perspective, the impacts of Alternative F
would be less than the proposed Project because there would be less development (Threshold
4.15 -2).
Alternative F would generate less wastewater than the proposed Project because of the
reduced development and would be required to comply with all the same regulations and
wastewater treatment requirements as the proposed Project. Therefore, as with the proposed
Project, impacts for Alternative F would be less than significant and slightly reduced compared
to the proposed Project (Thresholds 4.15 -4 and 4.15 -5). The impacts to Thresholds 4.15 -1,
4.15 -2, 4.15 -4, 4.15 -5, and 4.15 -7 would be less than significant.
R:Troj.tMN..partU015M . ft EIR7.0 Nt 090311.d.c 7 -169 Newport Banning Ranch
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Section 7.0
Alternatives to the
Thresholds 4.15 -3, 4.15 -6, and 4.15 -8 pertain to consistency with any applicable plan, policy, or
regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. As with the
proposed Project, this Alternative would meet the policies, which were outlined in Table 4.15 -11,
City of Newport Beach General Plan Consistency.
Conclusion
Alternative F would reduce the development footprint (area used for urban development and
parkland) by approximately 20 percent. Although the nature of the impacts would be the same
as those discussed for the proposed Project, the overall impacts associated with Alternative F
would be fewer due to the reduced amount of disturbed area. Though not identified as
significant and unavoidable impacts, this alternative would substantially less the impacts
associated with grading, habitat removal, and creation of impervious surfaces. However, it
should be noted that this Alternative does not offer the same level of amenities (i.e., trails,
parks, and pedestrian bridge) as the proposed Project. While increasing public access
opportunities over the existing condition and compared to Alternatives A and B, Alternative F
would not provide the same extent of public access amenities (i.e., pedestrian /bike
overcrossing) as compared to the proposed Project, and would not provide overnight visitor
accommodations, which is an important Coastal Act policy consideration.
Significant and Unavoidable Impacts
Alternative F would substantially lessen construction air emissions impacts compared to the
proposed Project because less development is proposed; the area of disturbance would be
smaller; and grading would be reduced by 25 to 35 percent. However, Alternative F would not
eliminate any significant and unavoidable impacts identified with the proposed Project. The
following significant and unavoidable impacts would occur 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 17`h 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 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).
• 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
R:Trq.tMN..partU015M . ft EIR7.0 Nf 090311.tloc 7 -170 Newport Banning Ranch
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Section 7.0
Alternatives to the
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
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
MTCO2e /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).
R:TrojeatslNewpartU015Mmft EIR7.0 Nf 090311.tloc 7 -171 Newport Banning Ranch
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Section 7.0
Alternatives to the
• 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).
Feasibility and Ability to Meet Project Objectives
This Alternative is potentially feasible. However, public benefits, coastal access (pedestrian and
bicycle bridge), and visitor - serving amenities would be reduced.
This Alternative is able to meet most of the Project objectives. However, it does not meet the
objective of providing overnight visitor accommodations (Objective 4). In addition, it only partially
meets the following objectives:
• Development of 75,000 square feet of retail commercial uses oriented to serve the
needs of local residences and visitors utilizing the resort inn and the coastal recreational
opportunities provided as part of the Project (Objective 5).
• Provide enhanced public access through 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 (Objective 8).
This Alternative provides the land uses identified in the General Plan, with the exception of the
resort inn. This Alternative "feasibly attain[s] most of the basic objectives of the project' and may
be considered to be a potentially feasible alternative.
R:TrojectslNewpartU015VOrafi EIR7.0 Nt 090311.tloc 7 -172 Newport Banning Ranch
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Alternatives to the
7.6 ENVIRONMENTALLY SUPERIOR ALTERNATIVE
Section 7.0
CEQA requires the identification of an environmentally superior alternative. Section
15126.6(e)(2) of the State CEQA Guidelines identifies 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. This Alternative
is consistent with the General Plan. 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.
When evaluating the environmental impacts and community benefits, Alternative F, Increased
Open Space /Reduced Development Area has been identified as the environmentally superior
development alternative. 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. This Alternative provides greater protection of the environment by reducing
the area of non -open space uses by approximately 20 percent and the site grading by 25 to
35 percent. This would provide greater biotic resources protection and reduction in the amount
of impervious soil with the associated drainage benefits. With less grading there is an
incremental decrease in construction air emissions (short-term benefit).
R:TrojectslNewpartU015VOrafi EIR7.0 Nt 090311.tloc 7 -173 Newport Banning Ranch
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Alternatives to the
This page intentionally left blank
Section 7.0
R:TrojectslNewpartU015VOrafI EIR7.0 Nt 090311.tlac 7 -174 Newport Banning Ranch
Draft Environmental Impact Report