Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2005-26 - Lexus Automobile Dealership• RESOLUTION NO. 2005- 26 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH CERTIFYING THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT AND ADOPTING A MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM REGARDING THE NEWPORT LEXUS AUTOMOBILE DEALERSHIP FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 848 & 888 DOVE STREET AND 3901, 3931, & 2961 MACARTHUR BOULEVARD (PA 2004 -153) WHEREAS, an application was filed by Wilson Automotive Group for property identified as 848 & 888 Dove Street and 3901, 3931, & 3961 MacArthur Boulevard located at the southwesterly comer of the intersection of MacArthur Boulevard and Jamboree Road. The application requests approval of: a General Plan Amendment to change the land use designation from "Administrative, Professional and Financial Commercial' to 'Retail and Service Commercial" for the 5 -acre northerly portion of the site and establish a maximum developable gross floor area of 139,000 square feet for the entire 8 -acre project site; an amendment to the Newport Place Planned Community Development Standards to change the designation of the 3 -acre southerly portion from "Auto Center Site" to "General Commercial" and combine the 3 -acre site and the 5 -acre site into a single site designated Site 7 and to revise use and development regulations in the Planned Community Text to allow construction of a 114,485 square -foot automobile dealership comprised of a 42,142 square -foot automobile showroom building and a 72,343 square -foot service department facility; a Use Permit as required by the Planned Community Text for an automobile dealership and for a wine bar pursuant to the Alcoholic Beverage Ordinance; a Modification Permit to allow encroachment of vehicle display areas into required landscaped yards, encroachment of eight (8) new vehicle display pads into required yards, and encroachment of a screening wall and tire and fluid storage areas into a required yard; and, a Traffic Study pursuant to the Traffic Phasing Ordinance. WHEREAS, in accordance with California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requirements, a Notice of Preparation (NOP) was filed with the State Clearinghouse, which assigned State Clearinghouse No. 2004081004. WHEREAS, the NOP and an Initial Study were distributed to all responsible and trustee agencies and other interested parties for a 30 -day public review period commencing on August 2, 2004 and ending on September 1, 2004. WHEREAS, in accordance with CEQA requirements, a Notice of Completion (NOC) of a Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) was filed with the State Clearinghouse, and the Draft EIR was distributed to agencies, interested organizations, and individuals by the City. The distribution list is available at the City of Newport Beach Planning Department. The Draft EIR dated November 2004 was distributed separately due to bulk and is hereby designated as Exhibit EIR 1. WHEREAS, a 45 -day public review period for the Draft EIR was established pursuant to State law, which commenced on November 29, 2004 and ended on January 12, 2005. •WHEREAS, all comments received during the public review period for the Draft EIR were responded to in the Response to Comments document. The Response to Comments document was distributed separately due to bulk and is hereby designated Exhibit EIR -2. WHEREAS, on April 21, 2005, the Planning Commission held a public noticed public hearing at which time the final Environmental Impact Report, comprised of the Draft Environmental Impact Report, a listing of persons and organizations that provided written comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Report during the public circulation period, a compilation of the these comments, and responses to those comments, was considered. Notice of time, place and purpose of the public hearing was duly given and testimony was presented to and considered by the Planning Commission at the hearing. WHEREAS, at the conclusion of the public hearing, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 1665, recommending that the City Council certify the EIR as complying with the requirements of CEQA. WHEREAS, the Final Environmental Impact Report identifies potential significant impacts to the environment and certain mitigation measures designed to reduce or avoid these impacts to a less than significant level. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Newport •Beach has reviewed and considered the information in the Final EIR, and in the full administrative record, prior to taking any action on the project. The documents and other material that constitute the record of proceedings on which the City Council's Findings and decision are based are located at Newport Beach City Hall, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California 92658. The custodian for these documents is the Planning Department Executive Secretary. This information is provided in compliance with Public Resources Code section 21081.6(a)(2) and CEQA Guidelines section 15091(e). The following documents are also attached to this resolution for ease of reference, and by reference made part of this Resolution. EIR — 1 Draft Environmental Impact Report. EIR-2 Responses to Comments on Draft EIR dated March 2005. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT THE City Council does hereby make the findings attached to this resolution as Exhibit "A" and certifies as follows: 1. That the Newport Lexus Environmental Impact Report (State Clearinghouse No. 2004081004) has been prepared in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the CEQA Guidelines. • 2. That the EIR reflects the City Council's independent judgment and analysis. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED the City Council does hereby adopt the Mitigation Monitoring Program attached to this resolution as Exhibit "B ". • ADOPTED this 24"' day of May 2005 by the following vote, to wit: AYES, COUNCIL MEMBERS Heffernan, Rosansky, Ridgeway, Daigle, Mayor Bromberg NOES, COUNCIL MEMBERS Nichols ABSENT, COUNCIL MEMBERS Webb ATTEST: CITY CLERK u • ., l E • NEWPORT LEXUS Environmental Impact Report November 2004 Prepared for City of New port Beach C� ice.. NEWPORT LEXUS Environmental Impact Report i0 710 Second Avenue Suite 730 SeaNe, WA 98104 (206) 442 -0900 1751 Old Pecos Tail Suite O Santa Fe, NM 87505 (505) 992 -8860 November 2004 Prepared for City of Newpoil Beach 2685 Ulmerton Road Suite 102 Cleatvater, FL 33762 (m) M -5226 5850 T.G. Lee Boulevard Suite 440 Oduad4 FL 32822 (407) 851 -1155 ESAIEwAronmental Science SfCMC ASSOCIOtes 225 Bnsh Street 8950 Ca] Center Drive Suite 1700 Building 3, Suite 300 San Fanciseu, CA 94104 Sattament4 CA 95826 (415) 896 -5900 (916) 564 -0500 • 43614th Street 4221 Wilshire Boulevard Suite 600 Suite 480 Oakland, CA 94612 Los Angeles, CA 90010 (510)839 -5066 (323) 933 -6111 206224 710 Second Avenue Suite 730 SeaNe, WA 98104 (206) 442 -0900 1751 Old Pecos Tail Suite O Santa Fe, NM 87505 (505) 992 -8860 November 2004 Prepared for City of Newpoil Beach 2685 Ulmerton Road Suite 102 Cleatvater, FL 33762 (m) M -5226 5850 T.G. Lee Boulevard Suite 440 Oduad4 FL 32822 (407) 851 -1155 ESAIEwAronmental Science SfCMC ASSOCIOtes • • 40 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NEWPORT LEXUS TABLE OF CONTENTS Page EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ES -1 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION 1 -1 1.1 Background, Scope and Content 1 -1 1.2 Purpose and Legal Authority 1 -2 1.3 Draft FIR Organization 1 -3 1.4 Draft FIR Process 1 -5 1.5 Availability of the Draft FIR 1 -6 CHAPTER 2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND SITE CHARACTERISTICS 2 -1 2.1 Project Background, Purpose and Objectives 2 -1 2.1.1 Project Background 2 -1 2.1.2 Project Purpose and Need 2 -3 2.1.3 Project Objectives 2 -3 2.2 Project Location and Site Characteristics 2-4 2.2.1 Regional Setting 2 -4 2.2.2 Physical Environmental Setting 2 -4 2.2.3 Surrounding Land Uses 2 -5 2.3 Project Description 2 -5 2.4 Project Approvals and Intended Uses of this Draft FIR 2 -9 2.5 Cumulative Development 2 -9 2.6 Project Schedule 2 -13 CHAPTER 3 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING, IMPACTS AND MITIGATION 3C -4 MEASURES 3 -1 A. AESTHETICS and LAND USE 3A -1 Introduction 3A -1 Setting 3A -1 Applicable Regulations 3A -6 Impacts and Mitigation 3A -8 B. HYDROLOGY, WATER QUALITY and STORM WATER 313-1 Introduction 313-1 Setting 313-1 Applicable Regulations and Permits 313-3 Impacts and Mitigation 313-5 C. TRANSPORTATION /TRAFFIC 3C -1 Introduction 3C -1 Setting 3C -1 Applicable Regulations 3C -4 Impacts and Mitigation 3C -7 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NEWPORT LEXUS TABLE OF CONTENTS - (Continued) Appendix A: Notice of Preparation / Initial Study and Responses to the NOP Appendix B: Air Quality Worksheet LIST OF FIGURES Figure 2 -1: Project Location Map Figure 2 -2: View of Platt College from Dove Street Figure 2 -3: View of Avis Rent -A -Car Facility from Dove Street Figure 2 -4: Project Site Plan Figure 3A -1: View from the project site looking north -iii- Pape 3D -1 3D -I 3D -1 3D -2 3D -8 4 -1 4 -1 4 -2 4 -5 5 -1 5 -1 5 -1 5 -2 �N 7 -1 7 -1 8 -1 2 -2 2 -6 2 -6 2 -8 3A -3 i • • 0 D. AIR QUALITY Introduction Setting Applicable Regulations Impacts and Mitigation CHAPTER 4 ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS 4.1 Introduction and Overview 4.2 Alternatives to the Proposed Project 4.3 Environmentally Superior Alternative CHAPTER 5 OTHER CEQA CONSIDERATIONS 5.1 Adverse Impacts that can be Mitigated to Less than Significant 5.2 Growth- Inducing Impacts 5.3 Significant Unavoidable Environmental Impacts CHAPTER REFERENCES CHAPTER REPORT PREPARATION 7.1 Draft EIR Preparers CHAPTER 8 ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS Appendix A: Notice of Preparation / Initial Study and Responses to the NOP Appendix B: Air Quality Worksheet LIST OF FIGURES Figure 2 -1: Project Location Map Figure 2 -2: View of Platt College from Dove Street Figure 2 -3: View of Avis Rent -A -Car Facility from Dove Street Figure 2 -4: Project Site Plan Figure 3A -1: View from the project site looking north -iii- Pape 3D -1 3D -I 3D -1 3D -2 3D -8 4 -1 4 -1 4 -2 4 -5 5 -1 5 -1 5 -1 5 -2 �N 7 -1 7 -1 8 -1 2 -2 2 -6 2 -6 2 -8 3A -3 i • • 0 0 0 0 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NEWPORT LEXUS TABLE OF CONTENTS - (Continued) Paee LIST OF FIGURES (cont Figure 3A -2: View of offices on the west side of Dove Street, across from the -iv- project site 3A -3 Figure 3A -3: View of buildings north of the project site, on MacArthur Boulevard 3A -4 Figure 3A-4: View of high -rise buildings on the east side of MacArthur Boulevard, across from the project site 3A -4 Figure 3A -5: View of intersection of MacArthur Boulevard and Jamboree Road, east side 3A -5 Figure 3A -6: View of shopping center on Bristol Street, south of the project site 3A -5 Figure 3A -7: View Eastbound on Jamboree Road from Bristol Street 3A -1 I Figure 3A -8: View South along MacArthur Boulevard opposite Bowspirit Drive 3A -12 Figure 3A -9: View of site across MacArthur Boulevard and Jamboree Road Intersection 3A -13 Figure 3C -1: CMP Study Area Determination 3C -17 LIST OF TABLES Table ES -l: Summary of Impacts and Mitigation for Newport Lexus ES -5 Table 1 -1: Required Draft EIR Contents 1 -3 Table 2 -1: Summary of Required Approvals 2 -9 Table 2 -2: Summary of Cumulative Projects List 2 -11 Table 2 -3: Summary of Approved Projects 2 -12 Table 313-1: Available Non - Structural and Structural Source Control BMPs 313-8 Table 313-2: Treatment Control BMP Categories 313-9 Table 3C-I: Intersection Level of Service Definitions 3C -3 Table 3C -2: Existing Levels of Service During the AM /PM Peak Hour (2004) 3C -5 -iv- DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NEWPORT LEXUS • TABLE OF CONTENTS - (Continued) Pape to LIST OF TABLES (cons.) Table 3C -3: TPO Summary of Peak Hour Intersection Operation Existing Plus Growth Plus Approved Projects Plus Project Conditions 3C -10 Table 3C -4: CEQA Summary of Peak Hour Intersection Operation Existing Plus Growth Plus Approved Projects Plus Cumulative Projects Plus Project Conditions 3C -12 Table 313-1: Ambient Air Quality Standards for Criteria Pollutants 3D -3 Table 313-2: Proposed Project Area Air Pollutant Summary, 2000 -2002 3D -7 Table 313-3: SCAQMD Air Pollution Significance Criteria 3D -8 Table 313-4: Lexus Dealership Construction Emissions 3D -12 Table 313-5: Lexus Dealership Operational Emissions 3D -13 Table 4 -1: Summary of Peak Hour Intersection Operation (Reduced Project - 117 KSF) 4 -5 Table 4 -2: Intersection Improvements —Project Responsibilty 4 -5 to Executive Summary 0 This section provides an overview of the proposed project and its objectives, and summarizes the potential impacts anticipated as a result of project implementation. The following summary table identifies these impacts and lists the mitigation measures recommended to reduce significant adverse impacts. The alternatives in the Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) are briefly described. For a full description of the proposed project, its impacts, and alternatives, the reader is referred to Chapters 2, 3 and 4 of this Draft EIR. PROJECT OVERVIEW The proposed project site is 8.05 acres in size and located along the northeastern border of the City of Newport Beach. The site is located on the northwest corner of MacArthur Boulevard and Jamboree Road in the City of Newport Beach, and is bounded on the north by an office building (3991 MacArthur Boulevard) that separates the project site from Bowsprit Drive, on the east by MacArthur Boulevard and on the west by Dove Street. A commercial strip shopping center between the project site and Bristol Street (which runs parallel to the State Route 73 (SR 73) Freeway) adjoins the project on the south. The project site is located in an office park known as Park MacArthur. It is surrounded by office uses on the north, east and west. The proposed project site is currently developed with Platt College, general office uses, and an Avis rental car storage facility. It consists of two contiguous parcels which include the addresses 3901, 3931 and 3961 MacArthur Boulevard and 848 and 888 Dove Street. The northerly parcel of the project site (3901, 3931 and 3,961 MacArthur Boulevard) is approximately 5.05 acres in size and contains three buildings, while the southerly parcel (848 and 888 Dove Street) is approximately three acres in size and also includes three buildings These buildings would be demolished to allow for redevelopment of the site with the proposed Lexus Dealership. The project applicant, Wilson Automotive Group, of Orange, California, proposes to develop a Lexus automobile dealership showroom and a four -story structure that would house the service department and provide employee parking and storage of automobile inventory The Lexus Dealership would include the following elements: • 33,700 square -foot showroom; • Four -story parking structure with rooftop parking; • 96,300 square -foot automotive parts and service center on first level of parking structure. Newport Leans Executive Summary Administrative Draft EIR ES -1 November 2004 The project includes a General Plan Amendment and a Zoning Ordinance Amendment. The General Plan Amendment would change the land use designation for the northerly five acre portion of the site from "Administrative, Professional, and Financial Commercial' to "Retail and Service Commercial." This is the appropriate land use designation for general commercial uses including automobile dealerships. The Zoning Ordinance Amendment is necessary to revise the use and general development regulations ( "Planned Community Development Standards, Newport Place ") for the Planned Community zoning district that encompasses the project site. The Amendment would change the permitted use category for the northerly five acres from "Commercial/Professional and Business Offices" to "General Commercial," and from "Auto Center" to "General Commercial' on the southerly three acres. PROJECT OBJECTIVES The proposed project objectives are in accord with the specific goals of the City of Newport Beach Economic Development Objectives. These objectives are as follows: • The City Council recognizes that the City's ability to deliver quality municipal services is dependent on adequate tax revenues derived primarily from the properties and businesses located within the City. • Healthy, thriving businesses not only increase property, sales and bed taxes they also provide employment opportunities that support local businesses and the strong residential property values that Newport Beach enjoys. • The City Council seeks to promote economic activity within the City to maintain a healthy economy, provide revenue for high quality municipal services and infrastructure maintenance and improvements, and preserve the unique commercial villages in Newport Beach. • All of these objectives serve the overriding purpose of protecting the quality of life of Newport Beach residents, and the City Council recognizes the need to balance economic development objectives with protection of the environment and the health and safety of the community. I City of Newport Beach Economic Development Policy httpalativw.city.newpon- beach. ca .us.'CouncilpoliciesiK- l0.htm, accessed online August 2, 2004. Newpor! Les us E.xeeuttve Summory Droft EIR ES -2 November 20d4 The applicant's specific project objectives are: • To better serve the existing Lexus customer base in Newport Beach; • To expand Lexus' market share in Orange County and the Newport Beach area; • To construct a facility of high architectural quality, complementary to the Newport Beach image; and AREAS OF CONTROVERSY Section 15123 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines requires that an EIR summary identify areas of controversy known to the Lead Agency, including issues raised by other agencies and the public. There are no known areas of controversy associated with the proposed project. ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROJECT CEQA requires that the "no project" alternative be evaluated. Other alternatives may include a reduction in the size of the project, a different project design, or suitable alternative project sites. The range of alternatives discussed in an EIR is governed by a "rule of reason" that requires the identification of only those alternatives necessary to permit a reasoned choice between the alternatives and proposed project. This EIR does not identify any unmitigated significant adverse impacts of the project, and therefore project alternatives are not strictly necessary. In order to comply with CEQA, a "Reduced Project Alternative" is presented to illustrate how impacts would be affected if the project were reduced in size. The alternatives analyzed in the EIR are: • The No Project Alternative involves the scenario where the Lexus dealership is not constructed at the proposed project-site. The site would remain as it is with three office buildings (one containing Platt College) on the northernmost parcel and the Avis rental car facility on the southernmost. • The Reduced Project Alternative would consist of the development of a Lexus dealership that is reduced in size by 13,000 square feet compared to the project. This alternative would satisfy all of the project objectives. In general, impacts would be similar to the proposed project. Reductions in traffic impacts, however, could be achieved: the Traffic Phasing Ordinance (TPO) analysis methodology indicates traffic impacts would be reduced to a less than significant level at the MacArthur /Jamboree intersection but would still occur at the Irvine Avenue/Mesa Drive intersection; the CEQA analysis indicates that traffic profs EIR ES-3 November 2004 impacts would be reduced to a less than significant at both the MacArthur /Jamboree and Irvine Avenue /Mesa intersections. is ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Chapter 3 of this Draft EIR considers the environmental impacts associated with four issue areas. The results of this evaluation are presented on Table ES -1. The impact analysis did not identify any unavoidable significant impacts. ,rt Laws Executive Summary E/R ES -4 November 7004 0 a O al W z a O w z O W C7 F A d F U d P. w 0 x 0 0 L F d d u u 'e w 0 W d .a L 0 d C O �o 6-P ro a E �O Q FN h � O d W Y y� o � i4 i C ro U N ro Su' N JI N vro 3 O 3 U ma F G ro U � ro u H H U v = O 3 U ma F C ro U N H H N •o 7 O 3 U a d Q fi d Q Q V Q p0 y ZZ.r bp r[ OC1 O r yam. Q to zz Z O N Q O y 4 .N5 .t2p U V 'h Q ,s 6 y 4 0 Z ai .Z y M•O>' [ cL [ Op = O 'B 4' O 5 7 c .i y Q i ';' �• eC r -fi Q Q czn ZZ ti to ��. ZL 44 3 o Q' ri o Q' .ofio �••� _� N e7 7 V1 �D - I� 0p � MI 1�1 MI N) MI Ni MI MI L •C Q' OL pp m p t C •" y •> A d U "J O L � ro m V C A h a•- V y A cC a— eC a o r Ev E9 E°, N 61 y ` O A v C y � °� ads a ago �O Q FN h � O d W Y y� o � i4 i y� R W r.� �i O a w z �i O w O H W M W F A z Q F U Q P. M w O 7+ a iG C O OD z d Q d C R L .0 OD `o m N d L a �.d G a 0 m 7 u R 0 G U m 9 3 T � U P b 3 n -+ U C U m : b 3 p U oao y b 3 U y OZS � O�� r �• d 5 � ` Q U ,�_ 5,O Li d d y[[ M Z ... Z� S �• S Z[ pp U O� N w� d o c pQ p a w d E `5• y� U c°'i > a m � o d� 4 0 �: Q U 0 9 p L c R y E a s o m y a o y T m b d u y a u u u y L a o>n a a aGi p d S a° = a° fi n° a° rLu 0 E W a Q 0 C O d Q Y C u C: .0 DD J v d L 7 R e 0 ij R E N U W N O tua tCC U op U O tua T > 7 U O O o � �° U tCC U op U o � N U ❑ op d O tua A U o9 U O ro O O Q tt��-- b p Q N 0'4 iS 6 O r y N r OlC o ce O V y Q 0 �. U R p if N b -O a a tl i o Zs Off,\ b `s ts G y Ur .pp.- p1 b Y p r� N O 0 b 7 4Ri Q 0 N r dC C O C Q O �0 ts N ts yF o to to to E w w U U U U z a a C u wo p v .u. L 61 L d ox R O 7 o w > L � Q m tu3 9 R CuC R 9 u tub tub O O. G L O. a a r °1 E .' pia p � R c s n iaw i G u O N d v z W C a O W W d F C O OD 4 V C A U 0.'. G OD 0 d d .a u Y , y A e O j u A a E C U 0_CO N N A � 3 U C U OCO N U A i 3 U E T U U O C 3 d 3 ro U b G p U C U w oC_0 N U A 3 3 U G U w- DC^p N d A 7 3 V N� �• 'Q 00 �• N � O G O v1 r0 0 U N Q d Q ti O '• y �1 'Q v v •� C q a v ;� �. a c s U ^' i• '_' w b o� � o� q y v c o d v Zs [ at0i z z d Q E y � U y " •tp u 5d LO u G S C G C W U U U U U U U L d A .. ti Q C C •N A. a a E ° 0 as a d � } j ( a 7 § \ j\ � k( �\ \ k § � a � \ i E / $ � \ x / (\ )i g \\ // ) ) \ ! � to w \)\ ` \± Zz \z 4 { \\ \ \ \ \ \\ . �§ \\ 3 %mra± § \6\ ƒ\ - � _ + + + m 2 2 ) k ( f \ ) ;1; ) � f \\ ) (\ )i g \\ // i Chapter 1. Introduction This Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) evaluates the environmental effects that may result from the construction of a new Lexus automobile dealership at the northwest comer of MacArthur Boulevard and Jamboree Road in the City of Newport Beach (City). The proposed project site, encompasses approximately 8.05 acres, and is located less than 1/4-mile north of the State Route 73 (SR 73). This Draft EIR has been prepared in conformance with State and City of Newport Beach Guidelines for the implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). 1.1 BACKGROUND, SCOPE AND CONTENT As described in Section 15143 of the CEQA Guidelines: The EIR shall focus on the significant effects on the environment. The significant effects should be discussed with emphasis in proportion to their severity and probability of occurrence. Effects dismissed in an Initial Study as clearly insignificant and unlikely to occur need not be discussed further in the EIR unless • the Lead Agency subsequently receives information inconsistent with the finding in the Initial Study. In compliance with CEQA, the City of Newport Beach completed a multi -step process to determine the appropriate scope of issues to be examined in the Draft EIR. A Notice of Preparation (NOP) and Initial Study (IS) were circulated to responsible agencies and interested parties, including the State Clearinghouse, describing the proposed project and requesting comments between August 2, 2004 and September 2, 2004. A copy of the NOP /IS. prepared by the City of Newport Beach and comments received are included in Appendix A of this document. The IS identified the following issue areas, which are addressed in this Draft EIR: air quality during construction and operation, aesthetics and land use, hydrology and water quality,, and transportation/traffic. The following issues were determined by the IS not to be significantly impacted by the project and are not addressed in the EIR: • Biological Resources; • Hazards and Hazardous Materials; • Mineral Resources; • Public Services; Newport Lexus Chapter 1. Introduction Draft EIR 1 _ I November 2004 • Agriculture Resources; • Cultural Resources; • Noise; • Recreation; • Utilities / Service Systems; • Geology / Soils; and • Population / Housing. 1.2 PURPOSE AND LEGAL AUTHORITY In accordance with CEQA Section 15121(a), the purpose of an EIR is to serve as an informational document that will generally inform public agency decision makers and the public of the significant environmental effects of a project, identify possible ways to minimize the significant effects, and describe reasonable alternatives to the project. CEQA Section 15151 contains the following standards for EIR adequacy: An EIR should be prepared with a sufficient degree of analysis to provide decision makers with information which intelligently takes an account of environmental consequences. An evaluation of the environmental effects of a proposed project need not be exhaustive, but the sufficiency of an EIR is to be reviewed in the light of what is reasonably feasible. Disagreement among • experts does not make an EIR inadequate, but the EIR would summarize the main points of disagreement among the experts. The courts have looked not for perfection; but for adequacy, completeness, and a good faith effort at full disclosure. The Newport Lexus Draft EIR is an informational document for use by decision makers and the public in their review of the potential impacts of the proposed project, as well as in the evaluation of alternatives and mitigation measures which may minimize, avoid, or eliminate those impacts. As such; this document includes a full discussion of the project description, the existing environmental setting, environmental impacts, mitigation measures, any residual impacts that may exist after mitigation has been implemented, and project alternatives that could alleviate potential impacts. To gain the most value from this report, certain key points recommended in the CEQA Guidelines should be kept in mind: • This report should be used as a tool to give the reader an overview of the possible ramifications of the proposed project. It is designed to be an "early warning system" with regard to potential environmental impacts and subsequent effects on the local community's natural resources. Ne porl Lesus Chapter 1. Introduction Draft EIR 1-2 .November 2004 • A specific environmental impact is not necessarily irreversible or permanent. Incorporating changes recommended in this report during the design and construction phases of project development can wholly or partially mitigate most impacts, particularly in urban, more developed areas. As the public agency with the authority to approve or deny the proposed project, the City of Newport Beach will consider the information in the Draft EIR along with other information before taking any action on the proposed project. The conclusions of the Draft EIR regarding environmental impacts do not control the City of Newport Beach's discretion to approve, deny or modify the proposed project, but instead are presented as information intended to aid the decision- making process. 1.3 DRAFT EIR ORGANIZATION As illustrated in Table 1 -1, this Draft EIR is organized into eight chapters, each dealing with a separate aspect of the required content of a Draft EIR as described in the CEQA Guidelines; it is intended for use and reference. To help the reader locate information of particular interest, a brief summary of the contents of each chapter of the Draft EIR is provided. The following • sections are contained within the Draft EIR: • TABLE 1 -1 REQUIRED DRAFT EIR CONTENTS Requirement /CEQA Section Location in Draft EIR Table of contents (Section 15122) Table of Contents Summary (Section 15123) Executive Summary Project Description (Section 15124) and Environmental Setting (Section 15125) Chapter 2 - Significant environmental impacts (Section 15126.2) Chapters 3A -3D Unavoidable significant environmental impacts (Section 15126.2) Chapter 5 Mitigation measures (Section 15126.4) Chapters 3A -3D Cumulative impacts (Section 15130) Chapters 3A -3D Alternatives to the proposed project (Section 15126.6) Chapter 4 Growth- inducing impacts (Section 15126.2) Chapter 5 Effects found not to be significant (Section 15128) Chapter 5 Organizations and persons consulted (Section 15129) Chapters 6 and 7 List of preparers (Section 15 129) Chapter 7 Newport Lexus Chapter I. Introduction Draft EIR 1 -3 November 2004 Executive Summary: This section contains an overview of the scope of the Draft EIR, as well as a summary of environmental impacts, proposed mitigation, level of significance after mitigation, and unavoidable impacts. Also contained within this section is a summary description of project alternatives and potential growth- inducing impacts. Chapter 1. Introduction: This chapter provides an overview of the purpose and use of the Draft EIR, the scope of this Draft EIR, the environmental review process for the Draft EIR and the proposed project, and the general format of the document. Chapter 2. Project Description and Site Characteristics: This chapter defines the project location, summarizes the proposed project, and outlines the project objectives and the need for the proposed project. Chapter 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures: This chapter describes and evaluates the environmental issue areas, including the existing environmental setting and background, applicable environmental thresholds, environmental impacts (both short-term and long - term), policy considerations related to, the particular environmental issue area under analysis, mitigation measures capable of minimizing environmental harm, and a discussion of cumulative impacts. Where additional actions must be taken to ensure consistency with environmental policies, recommendations are made, as appropriate. By consolidating environmental impact assessment and site - specific policy directives within each impact area, • clear linkages between impact assessment and related policy consistency can be established. Chapter 4. Alternatives Analysis: This chapter analyzes feasible alternatives to the proposed project, including the No Project Alternative, and a reduction in project scale. Chapter 5. Other CEQA Considerations: This chapter provides a summary of the proposed project's potential growth- inducing impacts; provides a list of proposed project impacts that are significant and unavoidable by issue area; discusses the environmental effects of the proposed project found not to be significant; and, identifies any irreversible changes to the natural environment resulting from the proposed project. Chapter 6. References: This chapter identifies all references used and cited in the preparation of this report. Chapter 7. Report Preparation: This chapter identifies the public and private agencies and individuals contacted during the preparation of this report, and all individuals responsible for the preparation of this report. Chapter S. Acronyms and Abbreviations: This chapter provides a description of abbreviations and acronyms used throughout the document. • N"port Lexus Chapter 1. Introduction Draft EIR 1-4 November 2004 Appendices: Data supporting the analysis or contents of the Draft EIR are provided in the . appendices to the document. These include the NOP/IS and responses received, traffic report, air quality calculations and hydrology reports prepared for the project. Other reports are available at the Newport Beach Planning Department offices, 3300 Newport Boulevard, in the City of Newport Beach, CA. 1.4 DRAFT EIR PROCESS This Draft EIR has been prepared to meet all of the substantive and procedural requirements of CEQA of 1970 (California Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq.), and the CEQA Guidelines (California Code of Regulations (CCR), Title 14, Section 15000 et seq.). Accordingly, the City of Newport Beach is the Lead Agency for this proposed project, taking primary responsibility for conducting the environmental review and approving or denying the project. As a first step in complying with the procedural requirements of CEQA, the City of Newport Beach prepared a NOP /IS to determine whether any aspect of the project, either individually or cumulatively, may cause a significant effect on the environment and, if so, to narrow the focus (or scope) of the environmental analysis. • After completion, the City of Newport Beach filed the NOP /IS with the State Clearinghouse in the Office of Planning and Research as an indication that a Draft EIR would be prepared. In turn, the NOP was distributed to involved public agencies and interested parties for a 30 -day public review period, which began on August 2, 2004 and ended on September 2, 2004. The purpose of the public review period was to solicit comments on the scope and content of the environmental analysis to be included in the Draft EIR. The City of Newport Beach received three comment letters on the NOP, which are included in Appendix A of this Draft EIR. During the preparation of the Draft EIR, agencies, organizations, and persons whom the City believed might have an interest in this proposed project were specifically contacted. Information, data, and observations from these contacts are included in the Draft EIR. Agencies or interested persons who did not respond during the public review period of the NOP will have an opportunity to comment during the public review period of the Draft EIR, as well as at subsequent hearings on the proposed project. It should be noted that environmental impacts might not always be mitigated to a less than significant level. When this occurs, impacts are considered to be significant and unavoidable. If a public agency approves a project that has significant and unavoidable impacts, the agency shall state in writing the specific reasons for approving the project, based on the Final EIR and any other information in the public record for the project. This is termed a "statement of overriding Newport Lexus Chapter 1. Introduction Draft EIR 1 -5 November 2004 considerations" and is used to explain the specific reasons why the benefits of a proposed project make its unavoidable environmental effects acceptable. The statement is prepared, if required, , after the Final EIR has been completed, yet before action to approve the project has been taken. A graphic description of the EIR preparation process is provided in the following flow chart. Notice of Prepamtion I g y P g Prepare Public] Prepare �^ Certify I Conceptual Initial Project Ys''e'v\�JI Project Drag Agency Final Final Project Design Stud Sco m Decision EIR Review EIR EIR Public/ Public/ Public/ Agency Agency Agency Comments Comments Comments 1.5 AVAILABILITY OF THE DRAFT EIR This Draft EIR has been distributed to affected agencies, surrounding cities, counties and . interested parties for a 45 -day review period in accordance with Section 15087 of the CEQA Guidelines. During the 45 -day public review period, which commences on November 29, 2004 and ends on January 12, 2005, the Draft EIR is available for general public review at the following locations: City of Newport Beach Planning Department City Hall 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92658 Phone: (949) 644-3200 Hours: 7:30am to 5:30pm (Monday to Thursday) and 8am to 5pm (Friday) Newport Beach Public Library Central Library 1000 Avocado Ave. Newport Beach, CA 92660 Phone: (949) 717- 3800 Hours: 9:00am to 9:00pm (Monday to Saturday) and Noon to 5:00pm (Sunday) Thursday), 9:00am to 6:00pm (Friday and Newport Levus Chapter 1. Introduction Draft EIR 1-6 Navember 2004 • Newport Beach Public Library Mariners Branch 2005 Dover Drive Newport Beach, CA 92660 Phone (949) 644 -3078 Hours: 9:00am- 9:00pm (Monday and Wednesday), 9:00am- 6:00pm (Tuesday, Thursday to Saturday) and Closed Sunday Additionally, the Draft EIR can be downloaded or reviewed via the Internet at: http://WWW.city.newport-beach.ca.us/ Interested parties may provide written comments on the Draft EIR. Written comments on the Draft EIR must be postmarked by January 12, 2005 and should be addressed to: David Lepo Hogle - Ireland, Inc 42 Corporate Park, Suite 250 Irvine, CA 92606 (949) 553 -1427 DLepo(�Dhoaleireland.com A public hearing on the EIR is tentatively scheduled to be held on April 7, 2005 at 6:30 PM. The hearing will be held at the City Hall in the City Council Chambers. Upon completion of the 45 -day public review period, written responses to all comments on environmental issues discussed in the Draft EIR will be prepared and incorporated into the Final EIR. These comments, and their responses, will be included in the Final EIR for consideration by the City of Newport Beach, as well as any other public decision makers. Newport L"us Chapter 1. Introduction Draft EIR 1-7 November 2004 E u s 2. Project and Site Characteristics 2.1 PROJECT BACKGROUND, PURPOSE AND OBJECTIVES 2.1.1 Project Background The proposed project site is 8.05 acres in size and located near the northern border of the City of Newport Beach. Figure 2 -1 shows the regional location of the proposed project site. The site is located on the northwest corner of MacArthur Boulevard and Jamboree Road in the City of Newport Beach, and is bounded on the north by an office building (3 991 MacArthur Boulevard) that separates the project site from Bowsprit Drive, on the east by MacArthur Boulevard and on the west by Dove Street. A strip shopping center between the project site and Bristol Street (which runs parallel to SR 73) bounds the project on the south. The project site includes an office park known as Park MacArthur and an adjoining Avis rental car storage facility. It is surrounded by office uses on the north, east and west. The proposed project site is currently developed with Platt College (a small graphic arts school with approximately 250 students), general office uses and the Avis rental car storage facility. It consists of two contiguous parcels which include the addresses 3901, 3931 and 3961 MacArthur Boulevard and 848 and 888 Dove Street. The parcel on the northern edge of the project site (3901, 3931 and 3961 MacArthur Boulevard) is approximately 5.05 acres in size and contains three separate buildings, while the southern parcel (848 and 888 Dove Street) is approximately three acres in size and also includes three separate buildings. These uses would be demolished to allow for redevelopment of the project site and construction of the proposed Lexus Dealership. The buildings located on the northernmost parcel are part of the office park known as Park MacArthur. On this slightly larger than five -acre parcel are three buildings. Each of the three buildings is two stories in height and approximately 30,000 square feet in size. The building located at the south end of the site (3901 MacArthur Boulevard) is currently occupied by Platt College; the other buildings are used for general office purposes. The southern portion of the site is developed with an Avis rental car storage facility that includes three structures: a 2,500 square -foot office structure located at 848 Dove Street; a 2,700 square -foot structure at the southwest corner of the site that includes office cubicles, restrooms, and an employee kitchen; and a 10,000 square -foot cinderblock "shop" building used primarily for rental car maintenance. Nenport Lexus Chapter 1. Project Description and Site Characteristics Draft EIR 2-1 November 2004 • e i E 6 e 0 u • 0 N � ry �G ci few ❑ � W U � O n U m O o O+ 3 m z • e i E 6 e 0 u • 0 The applicant proposes to redevelop the project site for a Lexus dealership with an automotive sales • and service center. The site currently has a General Plan land use designation of "Administrative, Professional and Financial Commercial" on the north parcel, and "Retail and Service Commercial" on the south parcel. The project requires a change in General Plan land use designation for the north parcel from "Administrative, Professional and Financial Commercial" to "Retail and Service Commercial." The site is currently zoned as Planned Community. General development regulations for the Planned Community zoning district at this location are set forth in "Planned Community Development Standards, Newport Place" and allows an auto center on the southern three acre parcel and office buildings on the northern five acre parcel. "Planned Community Development Standards, Newport Place" would be revised to accommodate the proposed use on both parcels. As in the existing Planned Community Development Standards, Newport Place, the revised text will include automobile centers as permitted uses subject to approval of a Use Permit. 2.1.2 Project Purpose and Need As the population of the City and the remainder of southern California increases, additional services, including commercial retail opportunities, are necessary. The development of the Newport Lexus automobile dealership would provide the residents of Newport Beach and the surrounding area with an additional retail commercial service. Furthermore, the development of the proposed project would provide an additional source of revenue for the City. 2.1.3 Project Objectives The proposed project objectives are in accord with the specific goals of the City of Newport Beach Economic Development Objectives. These objectives are as follows:) • The City Council recognizes that the City's ability to deliver quality municipal services is dependent on adequate tax revenues derived primarily from the properties and businesses located within the City. • Healthy, thriving businesses not only increase property, sales and bed taxes they also provide employment opportunities that support local businesses and the strong residential property values that Newport Beach enjoys. • 1 City of Newport Beach Economic Development Policy htto: ^! �v.citv.ncw9)ort- beach. ca.uslCouncilnolicies /K- l0.htm, accessed online August 2, 2004. Newport Le us Chapter 2. Project Description and Site Characteristics Draft ELR 2 -3 Novianher 2004 • The City Council seeks to promote economic activity within the City to maintain a healthy economy, provide revenue for high quality municipal services and infrastructure . maintenance and improvements, and preserve the unique commercial villages in Newport Beach. • All of these objectives serve the overriding purpose of protecting the quality of life of Newport Beach residents, and the City Council recognizes the need to balance economic development objectives with protection of the environment and the health and safety of the community. The applicant's specific project objectives are: • To better serve the existing Lexus customer base in Newport Beach; • To expand Lexus' market share in Orange County and the Newport Beach area; and • To construct a facility of high architectural quality, complementary to the Newport Beach image. The project site is served by existing transportation infrastructure and is accessible by local residents. The Lexus dealership would create new temporary employment opportunities in the construction trades in the short-term and permanent employment opportunities in retail and service jobs. The proposed project would generate additional sales tax with which the City of Newport Beach may promote general welfare within the City. 2.2 PROJECT LOCATION AND SITE CHARACTERISTICS 2.2.1 Regional Setting The proposed project is located less than one mile to the south and east of John Wayne Airport (JWA) and is less than one - quarter mile north of SR 73. It is approximately three miles southwest of the San Diego Freeway (I -405), two miles southwest of the University of California, Irvine, and two miles west of the San Joaquin Wildlife Sanctuary and University of California Natural Reserve System. The proposed project is located entirely within the boundaries of the City of Newport Beach adjoining the western border of the City of Irvine. 2.2.2 Physical Environmental Setting The proposed project site is predominately flat with small slopes along the easterly boundary of the project site near the MacArthur Boulevard/Jamboree Road intersection and along Jamboree Road. The proposed project site consists of 8.05 acres and two separate parcels. Located on the • northernmost parcel (3901, 3931 and 3961 MacArthur Boulevard) are three, two -story buildings. The buildings are currently occupied by Platt College (in one of the buildings) and general office Neuport Lexus Chapter 2. Project Description and Sae Characteristics Draft EIR 2.4 November 2004 uses in the remaining two buildings. Located on the southernmost (848 and 888 Dove Street) parcel • are an Avis rental car storage facility including two office structures and an automobile repair facility. Figures 2 -2 and 2 -3 present the existing conditions at the proposed project site showing the current development. 0 2.2.3 Surrounding Land Uses The proposed project is located in an area with primarily business and office uses. There is a small retail commercial shopping center located to the south along Bristol Street that stretches from Jamboree Road to Dove Street. The office buildings surrounding the site vary from one to two stories in height to approximately fifteen stories in height. The following land uses surround the site: • North — The site is bordered to the north by a three -story office building (3991 MacArthur Boulevard) • East - The site is bordered to the east by MacArthur Boulevard. Several high -rise office buildings are located across MacArthur Boulevard from the project site and several mid -rise buildings are located across the MacArthur /Jamboree from the site. • South — The site is bordered on the south by a shopping center whose occupants include Conroy's Flowers, Liquor -Mart, Supercuts, Yuki's Sushi, Celebrity Cleaners and Pizza Hut. • West — The site is bordered on the west by Dove Street. Quail Street intersects Dove Street and continues to the northwest from the property boundary separating the northern parcel from the southern parcel of the project site. A mid -rise building containing the offices of John Laing Homes (895 Dove Street) is located to the west of the property on the south side of Quail Street and a two -story building located at 901 Dove Street lies north of Quail Street. A Coco's Bakery and Restaurant (900 Bristol Street) is located to the southwest of the project site. There are no sensitive receptors such as schools or residences within one half mile of the project site. 2.3 PROJECT DESCRIPTION The project applicant, Wilson Automotive Group, of Orange, California, proposes to develop a Lexus dealership showroom and an auto service building within a four -story parking structure for employee parking and storage of sales inventory. The existing buildings on the site would be Newport Lerus Chapter 1. Project Descriplion and Site Characteristics Draft EIR 2 -5 November 2004 ,y demolished. The project includes amendment of the City of Newport Beach General Plan to change • the land use designation of the five acre northern parcel from "Administrative, Professional and Financial Commercial' to "Retail and Service Commercial." The project also includes amendment of the Zoning district development regulations applicable to this site through revision of the text of "Planned Community Development Standards, Newport Place" to allow an automobile dealership on the northern five acre parcel. This amendment would allow general commercial uses, as currently defined in the Planned Community Development text, on the entire site. An automobile center would be permitted subject to approval of a Use Permit. The proposed development plans would involve the construction of a Lexus Dealership that would include the following elements: • 33,700 square -foot showroom; • Four -story parking structure with rooftop parking; • 96,300 square -foot automotive parts and service center on first level of parking structure. A site plan of the proposed project is shown in Figure 2 -4. Although the showroom would be 33,700 square feet in size, the actual "footprint" of the project would be 27,700 square feet; the additional 6,000 square feet would be utilized in the form of a mezzanine. The overall showroom building height would be 35 feet. The showroom would be in the approximate center of the site. The showroom building main entrance would face northeast, toward MacArthur Boulevard. The showroom building would include an area for sales managers and service writers, a customer lounge, and a merchandise boutique. The rear of the showroom building (east side) would include the service reception area and cashier. The showroom would include two customer patios, one on the north side of the showroom and one on the east side of the showroom. The automobile service center would be located within the parking structure and would consist of a 75,000 square -foot service area on the first floor. An additional 18,000 square -foot service area would be provided on the second floor of theparking structure. A car wash facility would be located adjacent to the southwesterly side of this building on the ground floor. Automobile inventory and employee parking are included in this structure. Vehicular access from MacArthur Boulevard would be provided at the north end of the site. This entrance would be a right -in, right -out only and would provide access primarily to the showroom and, secondarily, to other areas of the dealership site. Vehicular access from Dove Street would be provided at three locations: into the automobile display lot on the northerly portion of the site; into the service write -up area between the showroom and service facility opposite the intersection of Dove Street and Quail Street; and at the southwesterly corner of the site near the car wash facility. The southwesterly entrance would be a gated and used primarily by service personnel and for service department test drives. Delivery trucks would access the site from Dove Street. Newport L"us Chapter 2. Project Description and Site Characteristics Draft E/R 2 -7 November 2004 I w w w co > � yy� RN S \g�. sr cc cc IN ix e j p0 / f i • 7 C V � cl O i N N •w � Y U 3 U Y O L1. m e s s 2 r'c 3 v V V O i. Up to 250 employees (at full operation) would work at the proposed Lexus dealership on a daily . basis. The proposed hours of operation for the Lexus dealership showroom would be from 9:00 AM to 10:00 PM, seven days per week. The automotive service center would be open to the public Monday through Saturday from 7:00 AM to 9:00 PM. The automobile service center would be closed on Sundays. Deliveries to the dealership could occur at any time. 2.4 PROJECT APPROVALS AND INTENDED USES OF THIS DRAFT EIR This Draft EIR includes discussion of State and local govermnental discretionary approvals that may be required to construct or implement the proposed project, whether or not they are explicitly listed below. A summary of the known discretionary approvals required to implement the proposed project is provided in Table 2 -1 as follows: TABLE 2 -1 SUMMARY OF REQUIRED APPROVALS Approval Description Status General Plan Amendment To amend the General Plan land use Draft changes to be considered in designation from "Administrative, conjunction with EIR certification and Professional, and Financial project entitlement. Commercial' to "Retail and Service Commercial' on a portion of the site. Amendment to the Zoning To amend the "Planned Community Ordinance Development Standards, Newport Place" text to include auto center use on northerly 5 -acre parcel. Use Permit To allow the proposed use on the project site. Draft changes to be considered in conjunction with EIR certification and project entitlement. To be considered in. conjunction with EIR and project entitlement. . Building/Grading Permits To allow commencement of To be considered at a future time after construction of proposed project. discretionary entitlements granted. Source: City of Newport Beach, 2004. 2.5 CUMULATIVE DEVELOPMENT Cumulative impacts refer to the combined effect of proposed project impacts with the impacts of other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects. The discussion of cumulative impacts need not be as detailed as the discussion of environmental impacts attributable to the Newport Lexus Chapter 1. Project Description and Site Characteristics Draft EIR 2 -9 November 2004 proposed project alone. The discussion is intended to be guided by the standards of practicality and reasonableness. The treatment of cumulative impacts in this Draft EIR is guided by the following: • 1) According to Section 15355 of the 2001 CEQA Guidelines, "cumulative impacts" refer to two or more individual effects which, when considered together, are considerable or which compound or increase other environmental impacts. a) The individual effects may be changes resulting from a single project or a number of separate projects. b) The cumulative impact from several projects is the change in the environment that results from the incremental impact of the project when added to other closely related past, present, and reasonably foreseeable probable future projects. Cumulative impacts can result from individually minor but collectively significant projects taking place over a period of time. 2) According to CEQA Section 15355, a "cumulative impact" consists of an impact which is created as a result of the combination of the project evaluated in the EIR together with other projects causing related impacts. An EIR should not discuss impacts that do not result in part from the project evaluated in the EIR. 3) According to CEQA, the mere existence of significant cumulative impacts caused by other projects alone shall not constitute substantial evidence that the proposed project's incremental effects are cumulatively considerable. Therefore, the cumulative discussion in this Draft EIR focuses on whether the impacts of the proposed project under review are cumulatively considerable within the context of impacts caused by other past, present, or future projects. Cumulative impact discussions for each issue area are provided in the technical analysis contained within Chapter 3, Sections A through D. Table 2 -2 Summary of Cumulative Project List provides a list of the cumulative projects that are considered in this cumulative environmental analysis, and comprise development projects planned in the proposed project area. Cumulative projects are those projects that are in various stages of the application and approval process, but have not yet been approved. The cumulative project list was compiled using project lists provided by the Planning Departments of the City of Newport Beach and the City of Irvine. Cumulative impacts analyzed in this Draft EIR (impacts from related projects in conjunction with the proposed project) would likely represent a conservative scenario that would over - estimate impacts for the following reasons: • It is likely that some of the future projects will not be constructed or opened until after the proposed project has been built and occupied. 0 Neeport Lexus Chapter 2. Projec! Desorption and Site Characteristics Droft EIR 2-10 November 2004 0 TABLE 2 -2 SUMMARY OF CUMULATIVE PROJECTS City Project Name Project Description 48.73 KSF Health Club Bridgeport (Newport Pier Area) 28 Apartments - High School 320 Students 19.6 KSF Commercial Newport Child Care Center 10.4 KSF Commercial Office Beach Mormon Temple 17.46 KSF Mormon Temple 19.6 KSF Retail Saint Mark Presbyterian Church 34.8 KSF Church Scholle Development 425 KSF Office / 7.5 KSF Restaurant / 54 KSF 4.72 KSF Daycare Health Club / -12 KSF Office 1 -23 KSF Industrial Our Lady Queen of Angels 18.5 KSF Church 250 Students St. Andrews Presbyterian Church 35.95 KSF Church Regent Newport Beach Hotel 156 Rooms Bonita Canyon - Bluff Commercial Center 40.3 KSF Community Retail 11.58 KSF Restaurant Newport Coast 3,180 SF Residential (954 future) 1,880 Condo I MF Residential 564 future Newport Ridge 2,107 SF Residential (632 future) 1,281 MF Residential (384 future) 102.959 KSF Commercial Lower Ba view Senior Housing 120 Senior Housing DO Bonita Can on - Residential 436 Apartments Irvine Crossings 736 Apartments 1016 KSF Industrial Campus Center Phase IIB 202 Condominiums Irvine 132.8 KSF Office Marble Mountain 221 Single- Family Dwelling 330 Condominiums Mariners Church 35 KSF Health Club Exodus Community Center and Tarbut V'Torah 48.73 KSF Health Club Expansion 83.49 KSF Church - High School 320 Students - Elcmentary/Middle School 160 Students Child Care Center 27.78 KSF Central Park 1,380 Multi - Family Dwelling 19.6 KSF Retail 90.0 KSF Office Scholle Development 425 KSF Office / 7.5 KSF Restaurant / 54 KSF Health Club / -12 KSF Office 1 -23 KSF Industrial DU = Dwelling Units SF = Single - Family (Residential) KSF = Thousand Square Feet MF = Multi-Family (Residential) Source: Planning Departments of the City of Newport Beach and City of Irvine, 2004. • Impact projections for future projects would likely be, or have been, subject to unspecified mitigation measures, which would reduce potential impacts. • Many future projects are expressed in terms of gross square footage or are conceptual plans such as master plans that assume complete development; in reality, such projects may be • smaller (i.e., the net new development) because of the demolition or removal of existing land uses resulting from development of the related project. Newport Lexus Chapter 2. Project Description and Sire Characteristics Draft EIR 2-11 November 2004 The potential for cumulative impacts to occur from the proposed project could occur: 1) Within Local Context: Development of the proposed project in conjunction with other projects in the nearby area could result in locally significant impacts (i.e., such as construction- related impacts). 2) Within the Regional Context: Development of the proposed project in conjunction with other projects could result in regionally significant impacts (i.e., such as air quality). Approved project information was provided by the cities of Newport Beach and Irvine staff. Approved Projects are projects that have been approved, but are not yet built and fully occupied. A summary of Approved Projects for both Newport Beach and Irvine is provided in Table 2 -3. City Newport Beach Irvine TABLE 2 -3 SUMMARY OF APPROVED PROJECTS Project Name Balboa Bay Club Expansion Fashion Island Expansion Temple Bat Yahm Expansion Ford Redevelopment Cannery Lofts Village Hoag Hospital Phase II CIOSA — Irvine Project Newport Dunes 1401 Dove Street Newport Auto Center Expansion Olsen Townhome Project Bayview Landing Senior dousing Birch Bayview Plaza II 494/496 Old Newport Boulevard 401 Old Newport Boulevard The Lofts at Von Karman Essex Apartments MetLife Apartments Campus Center Phase I and IIA 2300 Michelson Office Source: Planning Departments of the City of Newport Beach and City of Irvine, 2004. Nnvpor! Lexus Chapter 2. Project Description and Site Characteristics Draft EIR 2 -12 November 2004 0 \J 0 • • 2.6 PROJECT SCHEDULE The project is proposed to be completed in 2006. Total construction time is anticipated to last approximately 18 months. Currently it is estimated that demolition would last approximately eight weeks, site grading and preparation would last approximately eight weeks and building construction would last approximately 14 months. Building construction could occur while site preparation is occurring on another portion of the site. Nexport Lexus Chapter 1. Prn Ject Description and Sile Characteristics Draft EIR 2-13 November 2004 Chapter 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation 0 Measures • The following sections include an analysis, by issue area, of the proposed Newport Lexus Dealership project on the environment in compliance with Section 15126.2(a) of the CEQA Guidelines. Each environmental issue area includes the following subsections: • Introduction; • Setting; • Applicable Regulations; • Impacts and Mitigation; • Methodology; • Criteria for Determining Significance; and, • Project Impacts The environmental issue areas analyzed in this section are as follows: • Aesthetics and Land Use • Air Quality • Hydrology and Water Quality • Transportation/Traffic Newport Lexus Chapter 3. Environmental Setting. Impacts and Mitigation Measures Draft EIR 3-1 November 2004 3A. Aesthetics and Land Use INTRODUCTION This chapter discusses the potential aesthetic (or visual resource) impacts associated with the proposed project. This chapter includes a discussion of the qualitative aesthetic characteristics of the existing environment that would be potentially degraded by the implementation of the proposed project, and the consistency of the proposed project with established visual resources policies relevant to the project. This chapter also discusses the proposed project's consistency with existing land use policies and/or regulations and land use compatibility issues. SETTING Regional Character In general, Orange County is characterized by a variety of landforms including coastal shorelines, flatlands, hills, mountains, and canyons. The Pacific shorelines are characterized by broad sandy beaches, coastal bluffs, uplifted marine terraces, and tidal marshes. Major ridgelines occur in the Santa Ana Mountains, Lomas de Santiago, and the San Joaquin Hills. • The proposed project site is located in a predominantly urbanized area that includes primarily low and mid -rise buildings occupied primarily by general office uses and including limited retail • sales and restaurant uses Onsite and Surrounding Visual Elements Existing Site Area The proposed project site is located at the northwesterly comer of the intersection of MacArthur Boulevard and Jamboree Road in the City of Newport Beach. The site is predominately flat with slight slopes along the eastern portion of the site. The City of Newport Beach General Plan currently designates the site as Administrative, Professional and Financial. The proposed project site consists of 8.05 acres spread over two parcels, both of which are fully developed. The southern most parcel is developed with an Avis rental car storage facility and the northern most parcel is developed with Platt College (three, two -story buildings) and general office uses. In total the project site contains six buildings including two office structures and an automobile repair facility on the Avis lot. The project site also contains some light landscaping as a buffer between the two sites and along the eastern edge of the site (along MacArthur Boulevard). Newport Lesus 3A. Aesthetics and Land Use Loaf( ELR 3A -1 November 1004 Surroundine Area The project site is located entirely within the City of Newport Beach, but is immediately west of the City of Irvine. JWA Airport is located approximately one mile to the north of the project site. The proposed project site is located in an area with primarily commercial office uses. Properties across MacArthur Boulevard include one office building approximately 15 stories in height and several low -rise (4 stories or less) and mid -rise (5 -10 stories) office buildings. To the south of the project site is a single -story retail shopping center that includes several eateries and service shops (including Supercuts, Yuki's Sushi, Celebrity Cleaners and Pizza Hut). Across the MacArthur /Jamboree intersection to the east are several mid -rise office buildings, while to the west are several more mid -rise buildings containing general office uses. The proposed project site is not located near (within one mile) of sensitive receptors such as schools or residences. Light and Glare The proposed project site currently produces minimal light in the area. The commercial structures along the southern portion of the site have minimal nighttime lighting which is • primarily for security purposes. Similarly, the surrounding commercial and office buildings to the north, east and west produce low -level light and minimal glare. The major nighttime light sources are from street lights, building interiors, security lighting, and parking lot lighting. Existing Viewers Viewer sensitivity is based, in part, on the visibility of resources in the landscape, the proximity of viewers to the visual resources, the vertical elevation of viewers relative to the visual resources, the frequency and duration of views, the number of viewers, and the types and expectations of the individuals and viewer groups. Generally, visual sensitivity increases with an increase in total number of viewers, the frequency of viewing, and the duration of views. However, visual sensitivity is generally higher for views seen by people who are driving for pleasure, engaging in recreational activities, or who are homeowners. Visual sensitivity is generally believed to be lower for people commuting to and from work. As indicated above, the proposed project site is located in an urban area surrounded by a mix of uses including commercial, retail and office space in the City of Newport Beach. Figures 3A -1 through 3A -6 demonstrate the existing visual character of the proposed project site and the • Newport Levus &A. Aesthetics and Land Use Draft EIR 3A -2 November 2004 i't'ik` *`f'R <3' "''a Y vq 1.101 i E T 11 vmmw..4 1 v SOURCE: Environmental Science Associates Ne »port Bench Lexus EIR /204224■ Figure 3A -3 View of buildings north of the project site, on MacArthur Boulevard SOURCE: Envimnmental Science Associates Nenporl Bench Lexus EIR 1204224 Figure 3A -4 View of high -rise buildings on the east side of MacArthur* Boulevard, across from the project site 0 E SOURCE: Emironmemai Science Assceiams Nexpor( Beach Lexus EIR /104114 ■ Figure 3A -5 View of intersection of MacArthur Boulevard and Jamboree Road, east side Nexpori Beach Lexus E/R/204224■ SOURCE. Environmental $ciencc ASWCldtes Figure 3A -6 • View of shopping center on Bristol Street, south of the project site surrounding area. From the project site facing north (towards Bowsprit Drive), there is a three story office building that dominates the view. Facing south from the site, there are a few small • commercial structures which front onto Bristol Street. From the project site facing east, the view includes several office buildings including two high - rise buildings (approximately 15 stories) directly across from the project site on MacArthur Boulevard. Beyond the office buildings are the University of California, Irvine and the San Joaquin Wildlife Sanctuary; however neither of these uses are visible from the project site. From the site facing west, there are several low to mid -rise office buildings located at the intersection of Dove Street and the project site. Office buildings dominate the streetscape to the northwest of the site. APPLICABLE REGULATIONS City of Newport Beach General Plan Development within the City of Newport Beach ranges from lower density single - family residential areas, to more intensely developed beachfront residential areas. Commercial areas range from master planned employment centers to marine industrial and visitor commercial areas. The City of Newport Beach General Plan delineates the planning guidelines and policies for development throughout the City. The General Plan designates groupings of small • communities or "villages" within Newport Beach. Many of the newer developments within the City (including the proposed project site) are based on a "planned community" concept. The General Plan Land Use Element divides the Land Use Plan into "Statistical Areas" within which the permitted uses and building intensity are specified. The project site is within the Land Use Element Airport Area (Statistical Area L4) and identified as part of Newport Place (NP), Block J, of Statistical Area L4. NP Block J includes "Administrative, Professional and Financial Commercial" and "Retail and Service Commercial" land use designations. The Land Use Element to the City of Newport Beach General Plan, adopted in October 1998, sets forth a number of policies that are concerned with the orderly balance of residential, retail, commercial and public service facilities. The General Plan places an emphasis on preserving and enhancing the unique beauty, character, charm and quality of life found in the various residential and commercial villages within the City. The goals and policies of the General Plan Land Use Element that apply to the proposed project include:' ' City of Newport Beach. General Plan — Land Use Element, 1988, as amended January, 2000. Newport Lexus 3A. Aesthelies and Load Use Draft EIR 3A_6 November 2004 0 u 0 0 Policy L: The City shall encourage its community commercial districts to reflect and complement the high quality of its residential areas. The City shall promote the prosperity of its several community commercial districts through the adoption and application of its planning, zoning, building and public works codes, regulations, policies and activities. Guidelines 1. The City desires to promote quality community commercial areas that reflect the City's attractive, enjoyable and valuable residential areas. Attractive in the sense of architecturally and aesthetically stylish with enduring designs, materials and landscaping. Enjoyable in the sense of both pride and ownership and compatibility with neighbors and community goals. Valuable in the sense of both market price and municipal revenue. 2. The City recognizes that its regulations and requirements have a significant effect on the success and the viability of commercial districts and individual business. 5. The City recognizes that "Looking Good is Good Business " and that well designed and maintained business districts are the most successful. 6. The City recognizes that to be successful its business districts must appeal to residents, visitors and tourists. Newport Place Planned Community Zoning District The area bounded by Birch Street, MacArthur Boulevard, Jamboree Road and Bristol Street is zoned PC, Planned Community. General development regulations applicable to properties zoned PC at this location are set forth in the text of "Planned Community Development Standards, Newport Place." This text designates the southerly three acres of the project site as "Auto Center" and the northerly five acres as "Commercial/Professional and Business Offices." John Wayne Airport, Airport Land Use Plan The proposed project is located within the planning area for John Wayne Airport established by the Orange County Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) and defined in the Airport Environs Land Use Plan (AELUP)2 Development projects within this planning area are to be submitted to the ALUC for review for consistency with the ALUP. 2 Airport Land Use Commission, Airport Land Use Plan for John Wayne Airport http: /. /www.ocair com/AELUP text version.htm, accessed online September 30, 2004. Neeport Lexus Draft ELR 3A -7 3A. Aesthetics and Land Use November 2004 Building Height Restrictions Zone The ALUC has adopted Federal Aviation Regulation Part 77, Objects Affecting Navigable • Airspace, to establish the maximum permissible height of structures within the John Wayne Airport planning area. FAR 77 defines "imaginary surfaces" above which physical structures may not project. The ALUC also uses FAR Part 77.23 standards for determining if a structure is an "obstruction." Noise Impact Zone The ALUP identifies land uses which are "normally acceptable," "conditionally acceptable ", and "normally unacceptable" within each noise impact zone delineated by the respective Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) noise contour derived from studies of aircraft flight operations into and out of John Wayne Airport. IMPACTS AND MITIGATION Methodology Aesthetics Characterizing aesthetics can be highly subjective; therefore, the evaluation of aesthetic resources in the landscape requires the application of a process that objectively identifies the visual features of the landscape and their importance, and the sensitivity of receptors that view them. Sensitive receptors that have views of the project site are first identified and the relative importance of these views is determined. The project - related changes to the aesthetic character of the site and surrounding area are qualitatively evaluated based on the extent of proposed modification of the physical conditions and the estimated viewer sensitivity to this modification. A policy analysis will determine the project's consistency with relevant planning regulations and General Plan goals, objectives, and policies. Light and glare impacts are determined through a comparison of the existing light sources with anticipated light levels consistent with the proposed lighting plan. If the project has the potential to generate lighting that is dispersed onto adjacent properties occupied by sensitive receptors, or to produce glare at sensitive receptor sites in the vicinity, mitigation measures will be identified as necessary to reduce potential impacts. Land Use The environmental baseline for the proposed project is based on project information pertaining to existing land use characteristics and patterns. The proposed project is assessed to determine whether it creates physical division within the community. In addition, the proposed project also is assessed to determine its conformity with applicable local plans and policies. Newport Lezus 3A. Aesthetics and Land Use Draft E/R 3A -8 November 2004 Criteria for Determining Significance • The criteria used to determine the significance of a potential impact are based on the model initial study checklist contained in Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines. The proposed project may result in a significant impact if it would: Aesthetics • Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista; • Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway; • Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings; • Conflict with established plans or policies concerning visual resources; • Create a new source of substantial light or glare, which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area; or, • Conflict with an applicable land use plan or policy. Land Use • • Physically divide an established community; • 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, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect; or, • Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan. Project Impacts Potential Impact 3A1: Scenic vistas, scenic resources, existing visual character and quality. The proposed project site is located in an urban area that includes a mix of office and other commercial land uses. The proposed project site is predominantly flat with scattered amounts of ornamental vegetation and landscaping throughout. The existing structures located on the site would be removed as part of the proposed project. The proposed project site is not located within a scenic vista and redevelopment of the proposed project site would not obstruct the view . of any scenic vistas. Nexport Lex s 3A. Aesthetics and Land Use Drat EIR 3A -9 November 2004 The project site is located in an area developed primarily with office buildings and including some retail sales and restaurant uses. Architecture ranges from modern, glass -clad mid -rise and . high -rise buildings to single -story buildings clad in stucco as are common throughout southern California. The project site is currently developed with an Avis rental car storage facility and three, two -story office buildings housing Platt College and various other commercial offices. Plans for the proposed project include a two -story automotive showroom and business office building and a four -story parking structure that includes ground floor and second floor service areas as well as rooftop parking. Figures 3A -7 through 3A -9 illustrate the existing conditions and the proposed conditions at the project site. These visual simulations indicate the overall scale and massing of the proposed project would be consistent with the surrounding area. Review of project plans by the City Planning Commission would ensure consistency with the surrounding area. With the inclusion of mitigation measure M -3A.1 this impact would be less than significant. Project development would result in an overall increase in building intensity on the site and would include parking on the roof of the parking structure. Since this type of parking cannot be landscaped in a manner similar to surface parking, it will be more visible to occupants of taller office buildings. There are many such parking structures in the vicinity of the site, however, and there is a reasonable expectation of this type of development in the area. Mitigation Measures M -3A.1 In accordance with the City of Newport Beach General Plan and "Planned Community Development Standards, Newport Place, " the applicant shall submit design plans to the City of Newport Beach for review to ensure consistency with the surrounding area and all conditions of approval. Remaining Impacts The proposed project would not have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista, damage a scenic resource and/or degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site. Impacts would be less than significant. Potential Impact 3A2: Consistency with established plans and policies concerning visual resources. The Newport Beach General Plan Land Use Element includes Policy L and Guidelines that promote attractive development in commercial areas. In addition and consistent with Policy L, development guidelines are included in "Planned Community Development Standards, Newport Place." Newport Lexus 3A. Aesthetics and Land Use Draft EIR 3A-10 November 2004 • Ys:� .z a r F ; k ' { 't x Yi y e t r l U�'. iy'4;FVM1 f� it 1 a 7�,y Of 1'�T � * 1 . i N T�y� • t F� It7 T i 33rr Y .t3� >� . .. 6 f' -2/» -y <2� \ / \(\ ` ^ .. NAM \�� q -:m. . . «_. .<. . \1 \/ - « °<« . : : � � ,w: ° \� . . . . . < < < }<%} M M.r » »\ .a. - - d « N N , az? � y> } : , � : \ :22% - « \( \ \. \ \' f fill These have been revised as part of the project to ensure quality new development on the subject site. The proposed project would adhere to the requirements of Newport Place Planned • Community for the proposed project site. Therefore, the design of the proposed project would be consistent with existing and future design guidelines as determined by the City of Newport Beach. This impact would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures No mitigation is required. Remaining Impacts The proposed project would be consistent with established plans and policies concerning visual resources. Impacts would be less than significant. Potential Impact 3A3: New sources of light or glare that could affect surrounding uses. Redevelopment of the project site with the Newport Lexus automobile dealership would increase light and glare at the project site. The proposed project would implement nighttime building lighting, security lighting, and landscape lighting. Lighting on the project site would be detectable from the surrounding areas. However, the proposed project site is located in an urbanized area and redevelopment of the site with the proposed Lexus dealership would be consistent with existing development in the area. In addition, the proposed project is not located in the vicinity of any sensitive receptors such as schools or residences. Neither the City of Newport Beach General Plan nor Municipal Code contains any specific lighting guidelines. However, generally accepted standards have been established by the Illuminating Engineering Society of North America (IESNA) a collection of engineers, architects, scientists and other professionals who aim to disseminate information 'for the improvement of the lighted environment. With the inclusion mitigation measures M -3A.2 through M -3A.8, potential light and glare impacts associated with the proposed project would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures M -3A.2 All lighting fixtures shall be consistent with Illuminating Engineering Society of North America (IESNA) "sharp cut -off' fixtures, and will befitted with flat glass lenses and internal and external shielding. 3 Illuminating Engineering Society of North America httD: /wv w.icsna.ore abouUwhat is iesna.cfm, accessed online • October 19, 2004. Nenport Locus 3A. Aesthelics and Land Use Draft EIR 3A -14 Nowmber 2004 M -3A.3 All fixtures shall be parallel with the finished grade of the project site, no fixtures • shall be tilted above a 90- degree angle. M -3A.4 Lighting levels will be appropriately designed to fall within the IESNA recommendations for automobile dealerships. M -3A.5 Site lighting systems and showroom lighting shall be grouped into control zones to allow for open, closing, and night light /security lighting schemes. All control groups shall be controlled by an automatic lighting control system utilizing a time clock, photocell, and low voltage relays. M -3A.6 Design and layout of the site shall take advantage of landscaping, on -site architectural massing, and off site architectural massing to block light sources and reflection from cars. M -3A.7 The applicant shall submit a lighting plan and photometric plan to be reviewed by the City of Newport Beach. The lighting plan shall include design features (such as those mentioned above) to minimize impacts of light and glare on the surrounding area. M -3A.8 A post - installation inspection will be required to ensure that the site is not excessively illuminated and that illuminations lighting sources are properly shielded. 0. Remaining Impacts 0 The proposed project would not create significant new sources of light or glare that could affect surrounding uses. Impacts would be less than significant. Potential Impact 3A4: Consistency with local land use policies. As previously described, the General Plan provides a long -term plan for the physical development within the City. The Land Use Element of the General Plan identifies the proposed distribution and intensity of uses of the land for housing, business, industry, open space, natural resources, public facilities, waste disposal sites, and other categories of public and private uses. Its aim is to correlate land use issues to a set of coherent development policies. The Newport Beach General Plan Land Use Element designates the northerly five acres of the project site as "Administrative, Professional and Financial Commercial' and the southerly three acres as "Retail and Service Commercial." The former designation includes professional and administrative office uses and the latter designation accommodates retail and service commercial uses including automobile sales. Newport Le"s 3A. Aesthetics and Land Use Draft EIR 3A -15 November 2004 The Planned Community zoning designation for the project site requires more specific use and development standards than are included in the General Plan. These are provided in the text of • "Planned Community Development Standards, Newport Place" (PC text). The PC text currently allows auto sales on the southerly three acres and commercial office uses on the northerly five acres. The City of Newport Beach Planning Department is currently revising the PC text to accommodate retail commercial uses including auto sales on both parcels. Consistent with the existing PC text, an automobile dealership will require a Use Permit. The proposed project has also incorporated design features, including landscaping throughout the project site, that would increase compatibility with the existing land uses. The proposed project would not create any significant land use and planning impacts related to conflicts with either the City's General Plan or Planned Community Development Standards. However, implementation of M -3A.9 would ensure consistency with the City's General Plan and Zoning Ordinance. The proposed project is located within the ALUC AELUP for JWA; specifically the proposed project is located within the AELUP Noise Impact Zone and the Height Restriction Zone. As such the proposed project is subject to the requirements of the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and the ALUC. Implementation of M -3A.10 would ensure compliance with all FAA and ALUC requirement; therefore impacts would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures :9 M -3A.9 The applicant shall apply for a Use Permit from the City to allow the proposed use on the site. The City shall amend the text of "Planned Community Development Standards, Newport Place" to reflect the proposed use on the site and incorporate development standards reflecting the highest level of improvements as now exist in the project area. M -3A.10 The applicant shall submit project plans to the FAA to be evaluated under FAR Part 77 and to the ALUC for a Determination of Consistency or Inconsistency with the AELUP. Remaining Impacts The proposed project will require amendments to local land use plans, however with implementation of the above mitigation measures, impacts would be less than significant. Potential Impact 3A5: Cumulative aesthetic impacts This analysis is based on the Cumulative Projects List provided in Chapter 2. The listed_projects include commercial/mixed -use and residential projects located within two miles of the project Newport Lexus 3A. Aesthetics and Land Use Draft EIR 3A -16 November 2004 site that are currently under construction, approved but not built, or proposed for development. • This development is occurring in an area that has already been impacted by urban development. The redevelopment of the proposed project would be aesthetically consistent with the character and level of development in the area. Therefore, the proposed project, in conjunction with the listed projects, will have no cumulative impacts on aesthetics in the area. • Mitigation Measures No mitigation is required. Remaining Impacts Together with other area projects, the proposed project would not have a cumulative aesthetic impact. Impacts would not be cumulatively considerable. Newport L"us 3A. Aesthetics and Land Use Draft EIR 3A -17 November 2004 0 3B. Hydrology, Water Quality and Storm Water • • INTRODUCTION This chapter assesses the potential impacts to surface water hydrology, surface water quality, groundwater hydrology, and groundwater quality resulting from the development of the proposed Lexus Dealership. This chapter also focuses on the proposed project's consistency with state, regional, and local water quality policies /regulations, and the potential impacts to water quality. Information in this section is based on two reports prepared for the City of Newport Beach: Newport Beach Lexus Dealership Water Quality Study, prepared by Fuscoe Engineering, Inc, September 2004; and letter amendment dated September 23, 2004. Newport Beach Lexus Dealership Hydrology & Hydraulics Study, prepared by Fuscoe Engineering, Inc., September 2004. Both reports are available for review at the City of Newport Beach Planning Department, City Hall. SETTING Drainage Under existing conditions, surface runoff generated on the project site is conveyed off site via curbs and gutters onto the public streets along the east and west perimeters of the property. The project site runoff mixes with street runoff and discharges into existing storm drain catch basins along Dove Street and Jamboree Road. There are no storm-drain inlets within the project site. Two main storm drain lines that service the neighborhood run northwest to southeast under the project site: an 84 -inch reinforced concrete pipe (RCP) and a 54 -inch RCP. The Dove Street catch basin connects to the 84 -inch RCP. The majority of the site's runoff (94 %) discharges into the Dove Street catch basin. This storm drain system discharges to San Diego Creek. The San Diego Creek Reach 1, is designated as Hydrologic Unit No. 801.11 in the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) Basin Plan. San Diego Creek is a tributary to Upper and Lower Newport Bay, which ultimately discharges into the Pacific Ocean. Newport Lexus 3B. Hydrology, Water Quality and Storm Water Draft E!R 313-1 November 2004 The existing site drainage was characterized as part of a hydrology and hydraulics study.' Existing conditions at the site are such that 11 distinct drainage patterns can be identified. Of the 40 11 drainage areas, only the easternmost drainage area drains to the catch basin along Jamboree Road. All other drainage areas (totaling 7.6 acres) enter the Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) at the Dove Street catch basin at the east intersection of Dove Street and Quail Street. The final discharge point of the site produces a 25 -year storm runoff of 19.7 cubic feet per second (cfs). Flood Plain The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM) identify those areas located within the 100 -year flood boundary. The 100 -year flood boundary is defined as a flood level with a one percent chance of being equaled or exceeded in any given year. "Special Flood Hazard Areas" are subdivided into four insurance risk zones: A, B, C and X. Areas designated as Zone A are subject to inundation by a 100 -year flood. Zones B, C and X are areas that have been identified as areas of moderate or minimal flood hazards. According to the applicable FIRM for the area, the project site is outside of the 500 -year flood plain .2 Surface Water Surface water resources include creeks, rivers, lakes and reservoirs. Reservoirs serving flood control and water storage functions exist throughout the region. Since the climate of Southern • California is predominantly arid, many of the natural rivers and creeks are intermittent or ephemeral, drying up in the summer or flowing only in reaction to precipitation. However, due to urban landscape watering, storm drains often maintain a perennial flow. The nearest surface water bodies are Newport Bay located approximately two miles to the southwest and San Diego Creek which drains into the Bay from the north east. Urbanization causes changes in hydrology. including increased runoff and decreased infiltration and groundwater recharge. Urban runoff transports pollutant loads to receiving water bodies. Groundwater The proposed project site is located within the Irvine Groundwater Management Zone of the Lower Santa Ana River Basin. The Irvine Groundwater Management Zone has the following designated uses for the basin: municipal and domestic supply, industrial service supply and agricultural supply. Fuscoe Engineering, Inc. Newport Beach Lexus Dealership — Hydrology & Hydraulics Study, September 3, 2004. • Z Federal Emergency Management Agency, Flood Insurance Rate Map, Orange County, Panel 47, Map 06059C0047E, September 15, 1989. N"pori Lexus 38. HydroluVt Waler Qoaliy and Sturm Water DraJl E/R 3$ -2 November 2004 Groundwater flow may be locally affected by faults, which can act as a barrier to flow. Seasonal . precipitation can cause changes in groundwater levels. In areas where localized impermeable layers create a barrier to downward percolation, "perched" groundwater can be found at shallow depths after heavy seasonal rainfall. Groundwater quality can be affected by surface land uses. Fertilizers and pesticides that are typically used on lawns can infiltrate and degrade groundwater. In addition, urban runoff has been proven to be a significant source of pollutants in groundwater. Leaking underground storage tanks (USTs) that store fuel or waste oil can also contaminate groundwater. Many older USTs that were installed prior to the mid -1980s were made of unprotected steel and have rusted and released their contents into the environment. Leaks can also be caused by improper installation, spills and overfills, and piping failures. Samples from two Orange County Water District (OCWD) groundwater monitoring stations were used to assess groundwater quality within the vicinity of the project site. One station is located at the Newport Beach Golf Course (NBGC -NB) and the other is located near the University of California Irvine (UCI- MRSH). Depth to groundwater for NBGC -NB was measured at 93.45 feet, while UCI -MRSH displayed an average depth of 40.00 feet. Water quality on these wells is good except for elevated levels of sodium resulting from seawater intrusion . 3 Tsunamis, Seiches, and Flooding due to Earthquakes • Earthquakes can cause flooding due to tsunamis, seiches, or by causing dam failure. The risk of tsunamis resulting from landslides or volcanic activity is considered to be extremely remote within the City. In general, Newport Beach is afforded a degree of protection by coastal islands with the chance for major damage to the coastal areas or harbor entrances small and negligible for inland bay areas. A seiche is the oscillation of sloshing water in an enclosed body of water caused by seismic activity or land sliding. Due to the small surface area of the bodies of water within Newport Beach, seiches are not considered a potential hazard to the public safe.ty.4 APPLICABLE REGULATIONS AND PERMITS Federal and State The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is the federal agency responsible for water quality management and administration of the federal Clean Water Act (CWA). The EPA has delegated most of the administration of the CWA in California to the State Water Resources Control Board ( SWRCB). The SWRCB was established through the California Porter - Cologne 3 Ibid. 4 Newport Beach General Plan, Public Sae Element, February 1975. w'P Safety rY PP. 24 -25. Newporl texas 3B. SY, Water EIR Hydrology, Draft Y Quality and Storm Water 3B -3 November 2004 Water Quality Act of 1969 and is the primary state agency responsible for water quality management issues in California. Much of the responsibility for implementation of the SWRCB's policies is delegated to the nine Regional Water Quality Control Boards (RWQCB's). The project site is located within the jurisdiction of the Santa Ana RWQCB. Section 402 of the CWA established the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System ( NPDES) to regulate discharges into "navigable waters" of the United States. The U.S. EPA authorized the SWRCB to issue NPDES permits in the State of California in 1974. The NPDES permit establishes discharge pollutant thresholds and operational conditions for industrial discharges, wastewater treatment plants, and urban storm water runoff. State -wide general storm water NPDES permits have been developed to expedite discharge applications for industrial sites and construction activities. Storm water NPDES permits are required for specific industrial activities, Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4's), and for construction sites greater than one acre. A prospective applicant may apply for coverage under one of these permits through the preparation of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). SWPPPs commit the applicant to certain Best Management Practices (BMPs) to minimize polluted runoff. Section 303(d) of the CWA requires each state to list impaired water bodies in the state and determine total maximum daily loads (TMDLs) for pollutants or other stressors impacting water • quality. A TMDL is an estimate of the daily load of pollutants that a water body may receive from point sources, non -point sources, and natural background conditions. Those facilities and activities that are discharging into the water body collectively must not exceed the TMDL. The Santa Ana RWQCB is responsible for ensuring that total discharges do not exceed TMDLs for individual water bodies as well as for entire watersheds. Based on the 2002 Section 303(d) list of Water Quality Limited Segments, San Diego Creek is considered an impaired water body for fecal coliform and pesticides. The sources of these pollutants are urban runoff for coliform and unknown for. pesticides. Both Upper and Lower Newport Bay are impaired by metals and pesticides. Lower Newport Bay is listed as an impaired water for pesticides and priority organics as well.5 In January 2002, the Santa Ana RWQCB issued a MS4 storm water permit to the County of Orange. The County has established Drainage Area Management Plan (DAMP) to comply with MS4 NDPES requirements. The City of Newport Beach requires that new development prepare Water Quality Management Plans (WQMPs) to ensure compliance of new facilities with the DAMP. WQMP's establish source control, site design, and treatment BMPs for new development. The City must approve the WQMP prior to approving the project. 5 Fuscoe Engineering. Newport Beach Lexus Dealership Water Quality Report, September 7, 2004. Newport Lexus 3B. Hydrology, Water Quality andSlnrm Water Draft EIR 3B4 November 2004 E The SWRCB has issued a statewide dewatering NPDES permit for small scale discharges that present a low threat to water quality. Construction dewatering is covered under this permit. Prior to discharging dewatered made water to the storm drain, an applicant must submit a Notice of Intent to the SWRCB. De Minimus Permit for San Diego Creek/Newport Bay Watershed (Tentative) It is the intention of the Santa Ana RWQCB to require a permit for short-term (intermittent and/or one year or less duration) discharges from activities involving groundwater extraction and discharge within the San Diego Creek and Newport Bay Watershed. Should this permit be adopted, permittees shall be required to monitor their discharges from groundwater dewatering activities during construction to ensure that proposed effluent limitations for constituents are not exceeded. Due to its relative proximity to Upper Newport Bay and its groundwater quality concerns, the .proposed Newport Beach Lexus automobile dealership may encounter groundwater during construction activities and may require dewatering. The proposed project is therefore subject to the requirements of the DeMinimus Permit for San Diego Creek/Newport Bay Watershed, should this tentative permit be adopted prior to or. during the proposed project's development, and if groundwater dewatering is required at any time during the construction of the project. • City of Newport Beach Municipal Code Section 14.36.040 of the City of Newport Beach Municipal Code deals specifically with urban runoff from new and redevelopment projects within the City. The section states that all new development and significant redevelopment within the City of Newport Beach shall be undertaken in accordance with any conditions and requirements established by the planning department, engineering department or building department, which are reasonably related to the reduction or elimination of pollutants in storm water runoff from the project site .6 IMPACTS AND MITIGATION Criteria for Determining Significance The proposed project may have a significant impact on surface hydrology, water quality, storm water and/or groundwater if it meets or exceeds the following thresholds: • Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements; 6 City of Newport Beach Municipal Code section 14.36.040 (1) http:/,' municipalcodes .lexisnexis.com(codes!newportbi accessed online September 23, 2004. Newport Lexus 3H. Hydrology, Water Quality and Storm Water Draft EIR 3B -5 November 2004 • Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge; • Substantially alter existing drainage patterns resulting in substantial erosion and/or flooding on- or off -site; • Create runoff water that would exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems or provide substantial sources of polluted runoff, and, • Substantially degrade overall water quality; Project Impacts Potential Impact 3131: Water quality standards. The proposed project is located within the vicinity of San Diego Creek and Upper Newport Bay, both considered impaired receiving water bodies. Currently, s San Diego Creek is listed as impaired for pathogens and pesticides, while Upper Newport Bay is impaired by metals and pesticides. Storm water runoff generated from the project site ultimately discharges into these surface waters. The proposed project could generate a number of general pollutants associated with its use as an automobile dealership. Typical pollutants from these facilities include heavy metals, oil and grease, organic compounds, and trash and debris. Other potential pollutants.of concern for commercial properties are pesticides, sediments and fertilizers. Construction activities associated with the proposed project may impact water quality due to sheet erosion of exposed soils and subsequent deposition of particles and pollutants in drainage areas. Grading, in particular, may lead to exposed areas of loose soil, as well as sediment . stockpiles, that are susceptible to uncontrolled sheet flow. In addition, the use of materials such as fuels, solvents and paints also present a risk to surface water quality due to an increased potential for non - visible. pollutants entering the storm drain system. If uncontrolled, these materials could lead to water quality impacts and ultimately the degradation of downstream receiving water bodies, of which sediment is a major water quality concern. The proposed project would be required to comply with all applicable federal, state, and regional regulations to protect water quality during construction, as well as during the life of the project. Prior to construction, the applicant would be required to develop and submit a SWPPP to the Santa Ana RWQCB for compliance with the Statewide NPDES permit for construction activity. The SWPPP would contain BMPs to be implemented during construction and operation of the • proposed project to minimize storm water impacts to receiving water bodies. Newport L"us 3B. Hydrology, Water Quality and Storm Water Draft E/R 3B -6 November 2004 General BMPs include erosion controls, sediment controls, tracking controls, wind erosion • control, non -storm water management, and materials and water management. The applicant would be required to incorporate design features and implement BMPs to minimize the introduction of pollutants of concern to the storm water conveyance system to the maximum extent practicable. The City of Newport Beach water quality ordinances and its Council Polices L -18 and L -22 require that the project applicant submit a WQMP to the City of Newport Beach. The project applicant has prepared and submitted a Water Quality Management Plan that is currently on file with the City of Newport Beach. The WQMP contains an outline of approved post - construction BMPs including site design, source control, and treatment control BMPs selected for the project to reduce runoff from operation of the proposed project. Table 313-1 identifies non - structural and structural source control BMPs that are available to the project for implementation and the areas in which they may apply. In addition to source control, the proposed project requires treatment control BMPs (single or in combination) to remove anticipated pollutants of concern from on -site runoff. These BMPs can range from natural treatment systems (i.e., vegetated swales or detention basins) to proprietary control measures. Since no single treatment BMP can remove all contaminants, the selected BMP(s) shall be high to moderately efficient in removing target pollutants. Table 313-2 • demonstrates the different BMPs and their efficiency. Two feasible treatment BMP's are based on the mitigation requirements and summarized below: Natural Filtration/Infiltration System This method includes a system of vegetated swales coupled with bioretention zones along the project's east and west perimeters. By placing the swales along the east and west perimeter, this would allow surface runoff generated from the parking areas to drain into the swales via curb notches. In addition, roof runoff from the two proposed buildings will be conveyed to the swales via underground PVC (plastic) piping. The filtered runoff will then discharge into a bioretention zone located at the swale's downstream end. Here pollutants are removed through absorption, filtration, plant uptake, microbial activity, decomposition, sedimentation and volatilization. Underground Media Filtration This method includes the installation of three media filter units located within the project site to treat storm water runoff generated on the property. Two locations would be on the west end of . the property. This discharge point will convey drainage from the west portion of the project site including parking and roof runoff. The third location would be the east end of the project site. Newport Le=s 311. llydrololry. Water Quality and Storm Water Draft EIR 313-7 November 2004 TABLE 3B -1 AVAILABLE NON - STRUCTUAL AND STRUCTUAL SOURCE CONTROL BMPS Commercial Auto Repair Appropriate Source Control BMPs Facility Shop Parking Lots Streets Non Structural BMPs Education of Property Owners X X X X Activity Restrictions X X X X Common Area Landscape Management X X X X BMP Maintenance X X X X Title 22 CCR Compliance X X X X Local Water Quality Permit Compliance X X X X Spill Contingency Plan X X X X Underground Storage Tank Compliance X X X X Hazardous Materials Disclosure Compliance X X X X Uniform Fire Code Implementation X X X X Common Area Litter Control X X X X Employee Training/Education Program X X X X Housekeeping of Loading Docks X X Common Area Catch Basin Inspection X X X X Street Sweeping Private Streets and Parking Lots X X X X Retail Gasoline Owlets Structural BMPs Storm Drain Signage X X X X Outdoor Hazardous Materials Storage X X X Trash Storage Area Design X X X Landscape Planning (SD -10) X X X X Efficient Irrigation and Landscape Design X X X X Protect Slopes and Channels X X X X Project Features Loading Dock Areas X X Maintenance Bays X X Vehicle Washing Areas X X Outdoor Processing Areas X Equipment Wash Areas X X Fueling Areas X X Hillside Landscaping X X X Wash Water Controls for Food Preparation Areas X Source: Fuscoe Engineering. Newport Beach Lexus Dealership — Water Quality Report, September 7, 2004. Newport Lexus 3B. Hydrology, (Pater Quality and Storm IYaler Draft EIR 3B -8 November 2004 • TABLE 3B -2 TREATMENT CONTROL BMP CATEGORIES Hydrodynamic Detention Infiltration Wet Ponds Separator Pollutant of Concern Biofilters Basins Basins or Wetlands Filtration Systems Sediment/Turbidity HIM M HIM HIM HIM H/M Nutrients L L HIM HIM LIM L Organic Compounds U U U U HIM L Trash and Debris L M U U HIM HIM Oxygen Demanding Substances L M HIM HIM HIM L Bacteria and viruses U U HIM U HIM L Oil and Greese HIM M U U HIM LIM Pesticides (non -soil bound) U U U U U L Sediment/Turbidity H/M M HIM HIM H/M HIM Nutrients L L HIM HIM LIM L L: Low removal efficiency M: Medium removal efficiency H: High removal efficiency U: Unknown removal efficiency Source: Fuscoe Engineering, Newport Beach Lexus Dealership - Water Quality Reporl, September 2004. This discharge point will convey all runoff draining from the east portion of the site and also includes parking and roof runoff. Both treatment options described above would mitigate the anticipated pollutants from the project site (metals, organics, sediments, trash and oil and grease).. Pesticides and bacteria would be mitigated through these treatment options as well. By complying with the requirements of the City of Newport Beach Municipal Code and preparation of a SWPPP for NPDES compliance, and implementation of M -313.1 and M -313.2 the proposed project would meet all applicable regulations to manage runoff from the proposed project site. Pollutants in storm water would be substantially reduced by source control and treatment BMPs. Mitigation Measures M -3B.1 Prior to the issuance of a grading permit by the City, the applicant shall provide proof off ling for an NOI with the SWRCB and prepare a project SWPPP that will describe the BMPs to be implemented during project construction. M -3B.2 Prior to the issuance of a grading permit by the City, the applicant shall have an approved WQMP. The WQMP shall identify the site design, source control and treatment control BMPs that will be implemented on the site to control Newport Lexus 3B. Hydrology, Draft EIR 3B -9 ,nd Storm Water November 2004 predictable pollutant runoff, including operations and maintenance plan for the prescribed structural BMPs to ensure their long -term performance. Remaining Impacts With the inclusion of the above mitigation measures the proposed project would not violate water quality standards. Impacts would be less than significant. Potential Impact 3132: Groundwater supply and groundwater recharge. Although much of the storm water falling on urbanized areas quickly runs off to gutters and storm drains, some water does infiltrate pervious areas and contributes to groundwater recharge. The proposed project will result in the construction of impervious surfaces, which will replace buildings and other impervious surfaces currently on the site. The existing site is approximately 95% impervious while the proposed site would be 90% impervious. The proposed project will neither significantly increase, nor reduce, the opportunity for groundwater recharge from existing conditions. Furthermore, depth to groundwater is estimated to be approximately 40 to 90 feet below ground, and therefore it is unlikely that construction or site grading will have an effect on area groundwater. In addition, any proposed infiltration BMPs such as storm water planters will be designed with sufficient vegetation to provide adequate treatment and removal of typical storm water pollutants prior to discharging into the MS4 system. Therefore, the proposed project would not deplete groundwater supplies or interfere with groundwater recharge. Mitigation Measure No mitigation is required. Remaining Impacts The proposed project would not deplete groundwater supplies or interfere with groundwater recharge. Impacts would be less than significant. Potential Impact 3133: On- or off -site flooding due to altered drainage patterns, erosion, and storm drain capacity. During project construction, drainage patterns at the proposed project site would be temporarily disrupted due to the site clearance, excavation, and grading. These changes in drainage conditions at the project site would be temporary and not considered to be significant and runoff • would continue to drain through the existing conveyances. Runoff from the site during Ne ,port Lems 3B. Hydrolo&T, Rarer Quality and Storm Rater Draft E/R 3B-10 November 2004 construction should not substantially increase since existing impervious structures would be • removed and some runoff may be retained in excavated areas. Erosional and water quality impacts would be mitigated through SWPPP. After construction is completed, site drainage will discharge into the existing 84 -inch RCP storm drain that bisects the project site. The project site will be graded to drain toward the project's east and west perimeters. Storm runoff will no longer flow off -site to existing catch basins along Dove Street and Jamboree Road. Instead, storm runoff will be intercepted by on -site catch basins and conveyed to the existing 84 -inch RCP. Due to this change in drainage patterns the runoff will have a shorter travel distance. Consequently, the time of concentration for surface runoff at the project site will be reduced from 13.5 minutes to 8.7 minutes. This will increase the 25 -year peak discharge from 19.7 cfs to 26.6 cfs. This increase is considered insignificant to the 84 -inch RCP, which generally has a capacity of 450 cfs.7 Mitigation Measure No mitigation is required. 0 Remaining Impacts The proposed project would alter existing drainage patterns, but would not exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm drains and produce flooding on- or off -site. Impacts would be less than significant. Potential Impact 3B4: Groundwater quality. The proposed project includes the development of an automobile repair service center. The proposed project will likely include the installation of a 280 - gallon anti -freeze storage tank, a 500- gallon waste coolant tank, a 750- gallon used oil storage tank, a 480 - gallon new oil storage tank and a 12,000- gallon state -of -the -art, double walled, monitored gasoline tank. Potential leaks from these sources could degrade groundwater quality (e.g., through polluted runoff) in the project area. The use of materials such as fuels, solvents and paints also presents a risk to surface water quality due to an increased potential for non - visible pollutants entering the storm drain system. If uncontrolled, these materials could lead to water quality impacts and ultimately the degradation of downstream receiving water bodies. Potential impacts associated with these materials would be reduced through compliance with existing federal, state, and local rules and regulations. The Newport Beach Fire Department would oversee the design, installation, and 7 Fuscoe Engineering, 2004. Newport Lexus 3B. Hydrology Water Qualify and Storm Water Draft E/R 313-11 November 2004 operation of the underground and aboveground storage tanks in accordance with state and federal rules and regulations within its jurisdiction. The project applicant is required by the City of • Newport Beach to file a Hazardous Materials Business Plan with the City Newport Beach Fire Department detailing all hazardous materials at the site, storage methods, and spill prevention plans. The project applicant shall also prepare and implement a Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasures (SPCC) Plan, as required by the SWRCB. Compliance with WQMP BMPs would reduce potential impacts and no further mitigation is necessary. Mitigation Measure Refer to mitigation measure M -3B.2. Remaining Impacts With the mitigation measure, the proposed project would not substantially degrade groundwater quality. Impacts would be less than significant. Potential Impact 3B5: Cumulative impacts on hydrology and water quality in the project area. Development of the proposed project would take place in a city that is considered to be substantially built -out. Future development of adjacent properties would not cumulatively increase the amount of impervious surface and runoff draining to the San Diego Creek to any significant degree. Further, the project site has been accommodated in the Newport Beach General Plan, and calculated into the master drainage plan for the San Diego Creek Channel, as a fully developed site. Cumulative downstream impacts from project implementation are therefore considered less than significant. However, the proposed project would potentially alter the types of pollutants generated from the property. The project applicant has submitted a WQMP to the City for approval. The WQMP prepared by the applicant is available for review at the City of Newport Beach. The project WQMP demonstrates that the proposed project will implement post- construction BMPs to mitigate potential pollutants generated at the project site that may compromise the beneficial uses and water quality objectives of downstream receiving water bodies. Storm water runoff from the proposed project site ultimately flows to the San Diego Creek, which has been designated as an impaired water body by the EPA. Because the watershed has been designated as impaired, any additional inputs of constituents of concern could be considered a substantial impact. As set forth above, the proposed project would develop and submit an SWPPP to the Santa Ana RWQCB and would comply with the statewide NPDES for Newport Lexus 3B. Hydrology, Water Quality and Storm Water Draft E/R 3B-12 November 2004 construction activity. The SWPPP's BMPs will minimize impacts of storm water runoff • pollutants. In addition, the BMPs will capture most of the pollutants on site through the methods described above. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064(i)(1), a project's incremental effects, though individually limited, must be analyzed to determine whether they are cumulatively considerable. CEQA Guidelines Section 15064 (i)(3) states that, "a lead agency may determine that a project's incremental contribution to a cumulative effect is not cumulatively considerable if the project will comply with the requirements in a previously adopted plan or mitigation program which provides specific requirements that will avoid or substantially lessen the cumulative problem (i.e., water quality control plan, air quality plan, integrated waste management plan) within the area in which the project is located. Such plans or programs must be specified in law or adopted by the public agency with the jurisdiction over the affected resources through a public review process to implement, interpret or make specific the law enforced or administered by the public agency." The SWPPP, WQMP and other Santa Ana RWQCB and City of Newport Beach requirements are programs specified by law and adopted by the governing agency. Therefore, the proposed project's contribution of small quantities of contaminants to the overall runoff reaching the San Diego Creek, when added to the contributions of the related projects set forth in Chapter 2, Table 2 -2, is not cumulatively considerable on the basis that the proposed project will comply with the SWPPP and statewide NPDES, and the City of Newport Beach WQMP requirements. Mitigation Measure Refer to mitigation measure M -313.1 and M -3B.2. Remaining Impacts Together with other area projects, the proposed project would not have cumulative impacts on hydrology and water quality in the project area. Impacts would not be cumulatively considerable. Newport Lems 3B. Hdralo Water Draft E/R 313-13 Y 8S Quality aNt Sturm Water November 2004 E i 3C. Transportation /Traffic INTRODUCTION This section presents the results of the transportation/traffic analysis conducted for the project and summarizes the traffic counts and analysis for the proposed Newport Lexus project site. It includes the methodology, findings, and conclusions of the traffic impact analysis. A total of 24 primary study intersections in the vicinity of the project site were analyzed. Twenty of the intersections are located in the City of Newport Beach while the remaining four are located in the City of Irvine. The analysis assesses the effects of the additional trips forecast to be generated by the Newport Lexus dealership. The traffic impact analysis also takes into account other traffic growth due to specific development projects in the surrounding area and overall ambient growth in background traffic. Information in this section is based on the Traffic Study for Newport Lexus prepared by Kimley- Hom and Associates. The entire report is available for review at the City of Newport Beach. Planning Department located at City Hall. SETTING The street network in the project vicinity, existing traffic volumes, and levels of service at the primary study intersections are described below. Street Network The following section describes the characteristics of the streets and intersections in the immediate vicinity of the project site. The streets that are located in the immediate vicinity. of the project area include MacArthur Boulevard, Jamboree Road, Dove Street, Quail Street and Bristol Street North. I -405 - The Interstate 405 freeway (I -405) also named the San Diego Freeway, is an interstate/interregional freeway. It originates at Interstate 5 (I -5) in Orange County and terminates at I -5 in Los Angeles County. The I -405 runs east -west to the north of the project site. It is one of the most heavily traveled freeways in the state and accommodates approximately 290,000 vehicles per day in the vicinity of the project site. SR 73 Tollway - The San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor (State Route 73) runs northwest to southeast south of the project site and carries approximately 62,000 vehicles per day. N"port Lexus Chapter 3C. Transpartation/Trafc Draft EIR 3C -1 November 2004 SR 73 Freeway - State Route 73 extends from the northwesterly terminus of the San Joaquin • Hills Transportation Corridor (SR 73 Tollway) southeast of SR 55 to an interchange at the 1 -405 Freeway. SR 73 carries between 90,000 and 130,000 vehicles per day. SR 55 - State Route 55 (SR 55), the Costa Mesa Freeway has a total of five lanes in each direction including the carpool lane and provides enhanced traffic flow to the more than 200,000 motorists traveling the corridor each day. The SR 55 is located west of the project site and runs north south. MacArthur Boulevard - MacArthur Boulevard is a six lane divided highway that runs north to south adjacent to the project site. It is classified as a major arterial and accommodates 30,000 to 45,000 average daily trips (ADT). Jamboree Road - Jamboree Road is classified as a major roadway (six lanes divided) as it runs adjacent to the project site. South of the project site (just south of SR 73), Jamboree road is classified as a principal arterial and accommodates 45,000 to 60,000 ADT. Bristol Street North - Bristol Street North varies from three to four lanes within the study area and accommodates between 16,000 and 28,000 ADT. Bristol Street - Bristol Street varies from two to four lanes within the study area and is �� designated as a primary roadway and accommodates 20,000 to 30,000 ADT. University Drive - University Drive is a six -lane divided roadway, located east of the project site and runs from the northeast to the southwest. It is designated as a major roadway in the vicinity of the project site and accommodates 30,000 to 45,000 ADT. Birch Street - Birch Street is classified as a secondary roadway and runs east -west to the north of the project site, then curves to the south as it approaches the airport to run north -south parallel to Jamboree Road west of the project site. It is a four -lane roadway and accommodates 10,000 to 20,000 ADT Campus Drive /Irvine Avenue - Campus Drive/Irvine Avenue is north of Birch Street and runs in a similar direction. North of the site (naming east - west), Campus Drive is classified as secondary roadway (four lanes undivided). As Campus Drive turns to the south it is classified as a major roadway (six lanes divided) as it parallels the airport. It accommodates up to 26,000 ADT. 0 Newpor! Lens Chapter 3C. Transponation/Traffie Draft E/R 3C -2 November 2004 Existing Traffic Conditions • Level of Service (LOS) Definitions. The efficiency of traffic operations at intersections is described in terms of Level of Service (LOS). The LOS concept reflects average operating conditions at intersections during a single peak hour. It is based on volume -to- capacity (V /C) ratio with the ability to carry (the capacity) compared to the level of traffic (volume) during the peak hours. This method of analysis used to arrive at the LOS is known as the Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) technique. LOS range from A to F, with "A" representing excellent (free -flow) conditions and "F" representing extreme congestion. Table 3C -1 describes the level of service concept and the operating conditions expected under each level of service for signalized intersections. TABLE 3C -1 INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE DEFINITIONS F Forced flow. Represents jammed conditions. Backups from locations Over 1.000 downstream or on the cross street may restrict or prevent movements of vehicles out of the intersection approach lanes; therefore, volumes carried are not predictable. Potential for stop and go type traffic flow. Source: Highway Capacity Manual (HCM), Special Report 209. Transportation Research Board, Washington D.C., 1997. Newport Lexus Chapter 3C. Transportation/Traffrc Draft EIR X-3 November 2004 Signalized Intersection Volume LOS Interpretation to Capacity Ratio (ICU) A Excellent operation. All approaches to the intersection appear quite open, coming 0.000 - 0.600 movements are easily made, and nearly all drivers find freedom of operation. B very good operation. Many drivers begin to feel somewhat restricted within 0.601 - 0.700 platoons of vehicles. This represents stable flow. An approach to an intersection may occasionally be fully utilized and traffic queues start to form. C Good operation. Occasionally backups may develop behind tuming vehicles. 0.701 — 0.800 Most drivers felt somewhat restricted. D Fair operation. There are no long - standing traffic queues. This level is typically 0.801 - 0.900 associated with design practice for peak periods. E Poor Operations. Some long - standing vehicular queues develop on critical 0.901 — 1.000 approaches. F Forced flow. Represents jammed conditions. Backups from locations Over 1.000 downstream or on the cross street may restrict or prevent movements of vehicles out of the intersection approach lanes; therefore, volumes carried are not predictable. Potential for stop and go type traffic flow. Source: Highway Capacity Manual (HCM), Special Report 209. Transportation Research Board, Washington D.C., 1997. Newport Lexus Chapter 3C. Transportation/Traffrc Draft EIR X-3 November 2004 Existing Level of Service. Intersection analysis was conducted using the ICU methodology, which provides a comparison of the theoretical hourly vehicular capacity of an intersection to the • number of vehicles actually passing through that intersection in a given hour. The City of Newport Beach target LOS for peak hour operation of signalized intersections is LOS "D." In the City of Irvine, the target LOS is also "D" except where the intersection is located in the Irvine Business Complex (IBC) or the Irvine Spectrum area. For intersections within the IBC and Irvine Spectrum area, the target LOS is "E." Twenty of the intersections that were studied are located within the City of Newport Beach. The intersections of MacArthur Boulevard/ Michelson Drive, Von Karmen Avenue/Michelson Drive, and Jamboree Road/ Michelson Drive are located in the IBC, and therefore the target LOS is "E." The target LOS for the intersection of Campus Drive/ University Drive (located in Irvine) is LOS "D." The existing LOS results of the intersection analysis are summarized below in Table 3C -2. As indicated, only the Irvine Drive/Mesa Avenue intersection is operating at an LOS "E." APPLICABLE REGULATIONS County of Orange County of Orange Congestion Management Program. Congestion Management Plans (CMPs) are required pursuant to Proposition 111, passed in June 1990, which included a provision that a designated Congestion Management Agency develop and adopt a CMP for each county with a population of more than 50,000. OCTA is responsible for the development, monitoring and biennial updating of the County's CMP. The goals of the County's CMP are to reduce traffic congestion and to provide a mechanism for coordinating land use and development decisions. The CMP is also used as a method for proposing transportation projects that are eligible to compete for state gasoline tax funds. The CMP for Orange County was developed through a cooperative effort involving local jurisdictions, public agencies, businesses and community groups. The regional transportation system subject to the CMP is defined as all state highways and principal arterials. Bikeway Facilities. OCTA adopted a Commuter Bikeways Strategic Plan (CBSP) in May of 1995. The CBSP identified a network of proposed regional bikeways that link residential areas with activity centers. In the project vicinity, there are six existing bikeways: the Michelson Drive Class II (on road, striped bikeway), the Campus Drive Class 11 bikeway, the Bristol Street Class I bikeway (off -road, paved), Irvine Avenue Class 11 bikeway, MacArthur Boulevard Class I bikeway and the Jamboree Road Class I bikeway. 9 Newport Luus Chnpter 3C. 7 nnsportalion/rraffic Draft E/R 3C -4 November 2004 • TABLE 3C -2 EXISTING LEVELS OF SERVICE DURING THE AM/PM PEAK HOUR (2004) Existing Conditions AM Peak PM Peak Intersection ICU LOS ICU LOS 1. MacArthur Blvd/ Campus Drive 0.52 A 0.62 B 2. Campus Drive/ Quail Street 0.51 A 0.45 A 3. Bristol Street North/ Campus Drive 0.60 A 0.70 B 4. Bristol Street South/ Campus Drive 0.64 B 0.45 A 5. MacArthur Boulevard/ Birch Drive 0.38 A 0.48 A 6. Birch Street/ Quail Street 0.55 A 0.64 B 7. Bristol Street North/ Birch Street 0.61 B 0.61 B 8. Bristol Street South/ Birch Street 0.42 A 0.45 A 9. Campus Drive/ Von Karman Avenue 0.43 A 0.75 C 10. MacArthur Boulevard/ Von Karman Avenue 0.33 A 0.69 B 11. Jamboree Road/ Campus Drive 0.61 B 0.74 C 12. Jamboree Road/ Birch Street 0.51 A 0.67 B 13. Jamboree Road/ MacArthur Boulevard 0.70 B 0.85 D 14. Bristol Street North/ Jamboree Road 0.49 A 0.57 A 15. Bristol Street South/ Jamboree Road 0.65 B 0.66 B 16. Jamboree Road/ University Drive/ Easibluff Drive 0.58 A 0.53 A 17. University Drive/ MacArthur Boulevard SB Ramps 0.38 A 0.34 A 18. Irvine Avenue/ Mesa Drive 0.82 D 0.97 E 19. Irvine Avenue/ University Drive 0.65 B 0.73 C 20. Jamboree Road/ Bayview Way 0.42 A 0.37 A Irvine Intersections (using City of Irvine ICU method) _ 21. MacArthur Boulevard/ Michelson Drive 0.59 A 0.85 D 22. Von Karman Avenue/ Michelson Drive 0.45 A 0.62 B 23. Jamboree Road/ Michelson Drive 0.64 B 0.77 C 24. Campus Drive/ University Drive 0.50 A 0.83 D Source: Kimley -Horn and Associates, Inc, Traffic Studyfor Newport Lzrus in the City of Newport Beach, September, 2004. City of Newport Beach The Circulation Element of the Newport Beach General Plan identifies the general location and extent of the existing and proposed major roads, highways, trails, railroads, public transit routes and stations, and other public utilities and public facilities. The Circulation Element recognizes Newport Lexus Chapter 3C. Transportation/Traffic Draft EIR 3C -5 November 1004 the importance of traffic service levels and outlines several polices to accommodate vehicular traffic and maintain acceptable LOS. These include:l • • Construction of facilities' improvements resulting in a roadway system that is sized and located to accommodate all vehicular traffic generated by existing development and anticipated growth, as well as some regional traffic, at service levels as close to LOS "D" as possible. • The construction of intersection improvements necessary to ensure maximum feasible efficiency of the roadway system and service levels as close to LOS "D" as possible. • The City will adopt measures, such as transportation system management plans, which will reduce peak hour traffic and result in LOS below those forecast in the Circulation Element. • Fund costs of major roadway facility and intersection improvements through gas tax revenues, state, federal and county grants, city ordinances and privately financed improvements. Traffic Phasing Ordinance (TPO). The Traffic Phasing Ordinance of the City of Newport Beach was adopted in order to: provide a uniform method of evaluating traffic impacts; identify impacts of project traffic and required circulation system improvements; ensure that project proponents make or fund circulation required system improvements; and, ensure that a project proponent's cost of improvements is proportional to project impacts. According to TPO procedures, a traffic analysis for the project is required. The traffic study is to include analysis of any Primary Intersection to which the project contributes one percent or more of peak hour traffic on any intersection leg. A Primary Intersection is any intersection. on the Primary Intersection list in Appendix B of the City's TPO, and any additional- intersection selected by the Traffic Manager. A project's impact at a study intersection would -be considered significant if the project either causes an unsatisfactory Level of Service (LOS "E" or' F ") in one or both peak hours, or makes an already unsatisfactory condition at a study intersection worse (an ICU increase of 0.01 or more at an intersection already operating at LOS "E" or "17"). If the project traffic causes a significant impact, the project proponent will be required to pay a fee to fund the construction of recommended improvements to mitigate the project impacts. The fee is calculated according to a formula designed to assign fair -share responsibility to the project, based on the portion of the improvement that is required to accommodate the project traffic. I Newport Beach General Plan, Circulation Element, 1996. Nen'porl Laus Chapter 3C TransportationlTrafc Draft E/R 3C -6 November 2004 0 City of Irvine 0 The Irvine General Plan Circulation Element identifies the general location and extent of the existing and proposed major roads, highways, trails, railroads, public transit routes and stations, and other public utilities and public facilities. The primary goal of the Circulation Element of the Irvine General Plan is to provide a balanced transportation system. The Element also lists several objectives to support the overall goal, these include:2 • Plan, provide and maintain an integrated vehicular circulation system to accommodate projected local and regional needs. • Develop a vehicular circulation system consistent with high standards of transportation engineering safety and with sensitivity to adjoining land uses. IMPACTS AND MITIGATION Methodology • Traffic generation for the proposed project was calculated using trip generation rates from the Institute of Transportation Engineers (1TE) publication Trip Generation, Seventh Edition. As appropriate, credit was applied for the trips associated with the existing uses on the site which will be replaced by the proposed project. Future traffic forecasts were developed for two future scenarios: 1. For Traffic Phasing Ordinance (TPO) purposes, traffic forecasts are developed for the year following completion of the project. This future condition includes an ambient growth rate of one percent per year on selected key arterials (Jamboree Road, MacArthur Boulevard and Irvine Avenue), plus traffic from approved projects in the vicinity of the project. Project completion is expected to occur in 2006; therefore the year used for analysis is 2007. One percent per year ambient growth for four years has been applied to Jamboree Road, MacArthur Boulevard, and Irvine Avenue. 2. CEQA requires that a Cumulative Conditions analysis, which also includes traffic from related projects in the vicinity of the project, be conducted. Related projects include projects that are in various stages of the application and approval process, but have not 1 Irvine General Plan, Circulation Element, is http: / /www ci irvine ca us/ depts/ cd/ pl annin2activities /generalplanipdficiiculation pddf, accessed online October 19, 2004. Newporl Lerus Chapter 3C. Transportation/Traffic Draft EIR 3C_7 November 2004 yet been approved. These projects are considered to be "reasonably foreseeable" projects, and must therefore be analyzed in conjunction with approved projects for CEQA purposes. Criteria for Determining Significant Impacts The project impacts on the transportation system are considered to be significant if the project is determined to: • Cause an intersection to deteriorate from an acceptable level of service (LOS "D" in the City of Newport Beach and Irvine, except for those intersections within the Irvine Business Complex or the Irvine Spectrum, where the acceptable Level of Service is LOS "E ") to an unacceptable level. • Cause an increase of 0.01 or greater at an intersection in the City of Newport Beach and 0.02 or greater at an intersection in the City of Irvine already operating at an unacceptable Level of Service. Result in inadequate parking capacity; • Have a significant impact relative to site access or circulation, a substantial disruption to existing circulation patterns, and/or substantial increase in safety risk; is • Result in inadequate emergency access; or • Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways Project Impacts Potential Impact 3C1: Level of Service. Proposed Project Traffic The proposed development is projected to generate a total of 3,280 net new trips per day with 112 vehicles per hour during AM peak hour and 189 vehicles per hour during the PM peak hour. Trip distribution represents the directional orientation of traffic to and from the proposed project site. Trip distribution is influenced by the geographical location of the site, the location of employment, commercial, residential, and recreational facilities, and the proximity of the regional freeway system. Trip distribution assumptions for the traffic study were also based on information provided by the project applicant regarding the anticipated trade area for the project site. Newport Le us Chapter 3C. TransporinNon/Trofflic Draft E/R 3C-8 November 2004 TPO Analysis • Existing Plus Growth Plus Approved Projects Plus Project Traffic Conditions For the TPO analysis, the project AM and PM peak hour traffic volumes were compared to the Existing Plus Growth Plus Approved Project peak hour volume on each leg of each study intersection to determine the extent of the traffic analysis required of the project. Project traffic would exceed one percent on one or more approach legs at 15 of the 24 study intersections. Project traffic would not exceed one percent on any approach in either peak hour at the following intersections within the City of Newport Beach: • MacArthur Boulevard/Campus Drive • Campus DriveNon Karman Avenue • Jamboree Road/Campus Drive • Jamboree Road/University /Eastbluff • Jamboree Road /Bayview Way Project traffic would also not exceed one percent on any approach in either peak hour at any of • the intersections within the City of Irvine. The analysis results for the Irvine intersections are presented here for information purposes. Project peak hour traffic was added to the impacted intersections for the intersection analysis. As shown in Table 3C -3, the addition of project traffic would result in a significant impact at two study intersections: Jamboree Road at MacArthur Boulevard would decrease from LOS "D" to LOS "E" in the PM peak hour; and • Irvine Avenue and Mesa Drive would have a 0.01 impact in the evening peak hour. At the intersection of Irvine Avenue and Mesa Drive, the project impact would be 0.01 and this intersection would continue to operate at LOS "E;" however, the actual ICU increases from 0.98 to 0.99 due to rounding. While this is not a significant environmental effect, it is still an impact pursuant to the City's TPO. At the intersection of MacArthur Boulevard and Jamboree Road, the project would cause the intersection to worsen from LOS "D" to LOS "E" with a project impact of 0.010. This would be considered an impacted intersection under the TPO, and the project would be required to participate in improvements to this intersection, M -3C.1 and M -3C.2 that would mitigate the project impact to a level of insignificance. Newport Lexus Chapter 3C. Transportalion/Trafflic Draft E/R X-9 9 November 2004 Uj o o o o o o o o o o 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 w u� a 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ai A Y w v C p a UQ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 a Qr O Q U Q¢ m m¢ m m W m m¢ w U Q m U Q p Asa o �¢ c �.I F `y rUi O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 3 It O C a` 0 ¢¢ m¢¢ m¢¢ Q U¢ m¢ Q m m¢ m Q p V] r 9 Y > d O � rl p�U m Q¢ m m Q m m Ll ¢ m¢ W U q m U Ll Uwp 9a a, (i, I� ~ C/] F Y U m Q Q m m¢ p 3 s a a z d0. O- Q ��. � — vi O �D vi b D\ n h vi — �D N V V n O' N V t� N h a0 b 00 M O' W t� �O — b vD O 14R �D O vi V a ,V.� w z a 9 w F z e p 9 v Q 9 b 9 C Q U 0 Q p O) t GO Q N m w U U w @�@JU" cn Ua Cain d'c = s a�(b ' Us a J a p .`. CaJ o o m d 0 o m b 9 0 v a¢ `J > > Ki o o Q 0 D D > E G U M c0 c0 c0 c0 `n° fA cA .^c. `n° U CA V% .. O :J N O J z m z V Reasonably Foreseeable Future (CEQA Analysis) • Traffic Conditions With Cumulative Developments ICU analysis was conducted for Cumulative (Existing Plus Growth Plus App Cumulative Projects) peak hour traffic conditions for the impacted intersections as typically undertaken for documents prepared subject to CEQA. The resulting peak hour intersection operation is summarized in Table 3C -4. Based on this analysis, two Newport Beach intersections are projected to operate at unacceptable LOS: • The intersection of Irvine Avenue at Mesa Drive will continue to operate at ICU 0.99 /LOS "E" in the evening peak hour; • The intersection of MacArthur Boulevard at Jamboree Road will operate at ICU 0.99 /LOS "E" in the evening peak hour. Project peak hour traffic was then added to the study intersections. Cumulative Plus Project peak hour operating conditions are shown in Table 3C -4. With the addition of the project traffic, the two intersections listed above would continue to operate at an unacceptable level of service. At the intersection of Irvine Avenue and Mesa Drive, the project impact would not change the ICU value, therefore the impact would not be considered to be a significant impact. At the • intersection of MacArthur Boulevard and Jamboree Road, the project would cause the ICU to increase by 0.010, which would be considered a significant impact. • The following mitigation measures have been identified to reduce project impacts: Mitigation Measures M -3C.1 To mitigate the TPO impact: Res0pe the westbound approach at the intersection of Irvine Avenue and Mesa Drive to provide one left turn lane, one shared through /left lane and one right -turn. lane. In addition, necessary signal modifications will be made to implement split phase signal operation on the east- west approaches. M -3C.2 To mitigate both the TPO and CEQA impact: Improve the westbound approach of Jamboree Road at the intersection of MacArthur Boulevard and Jamboree Road to provide a triple left -turn pocket, and improve the eastbound approach to provide a fourth through lane. In accordance with the City of Newport Beach TPO, 70 percent of the incremental increase in intersection capacity (based on a capacity of 1,600 vehicles per hour for each new full traffic lane) is used to recalculate the intersection operation with the proposed mitigation. Nexpart Le s Administrative Draft E]R 3C -11 F U w ti O al Q 1W O Q1 Q vi �z C4f)o r� H Q1 Q FO 3u �W C4f)' r� O �a v .0� z .a aF WU � L:a C) FOB z� o� u W W .a F a z �i W w O G C• 1 C_ N � C e n w D L C U Q 1� Q N b b Q r r O b r M T r 00 b 00 T i ► O O O O O O O O O - O O O O O O O O O 0 m y � L E � � N N N �• �p N M O W �O Q M N N 1� U' W N M O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O e y o m d o a o� 0 a` 0 o � u Y a O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O L 6 u ro E � a U > m 0 0 @ m a a m c c QD QD d L L V V Lt L G 7 v j a a o a Z c Z � ry ry ry ry U 0 .J Y 6 J o z< • As shown in Table 3C -5, implementation of these intersection improvements would mitigate project impacts. At the intersection of Irvine Avenue and Mesa Drive, the PM ICU would be improved to 0.94. Although this would still be a LOS "E" it would be an improvement to the pre - project conditions. At the intersection of MacArthur Boulevard and Jamboree Road, the proposed improvement would return the intersection to an acceptable LOS (0.811, LOS "D" in the evening peak hour) in the TPO. Implementation of this intersection improvement will also result in an acceptable Level of Service (0.894, LOS "D" in the evening peak hour) in the CEQA (Cumulative Projects Plus Project) Condition. The project will be required to participate in the funding of improvements at these intersections. In order to determine the project's responsibility to the intersection improvements, the City of Newport Beach TPO requires the determination of the "effective capacity increase" and "effective capacity decrease" Results of the analysis indicate that the project's fair share responsibility toward the cost of the Irvine Avenue and Mesa Drive improvement would be 7.8 percent. The project's fair share responsibility toward the cost of the Macarthur Boulevard and Jamboree Road improvement would be 10.5 percent. Remaining Impacts With implementation of the mitigation measures described above, the proposed project would not have a significant impact on levels of service in the project area. Impacts would be less than significant. Potential Impact 3C2: Parking supply. As shown in the site plan (Figure 2 -4) for the. project, 32 on -site parking spaces are provided for customers in front of the showroom building. An additional eight parking spaces are provided for vendors on the lot adjacent to the parts department. Two hundred and three employee parking spaces are included on the roof of the service building/parking structure facility. Implementation of mitigation measure M -3C.3 would ensure that the proposed project has a less than significant impact on area parking. Mitigation Measure M -3C.3 The proposed project shall comply with all City of Newport Beach Municipal Code (Section 20.66.050) parking requirements. Nexport Lews Chapter 3C TransportationlTrafc Administrative Draft EIR X -13 November 2004 Remaining Impacts 40 The proposed project would provide adequate parking supply. Impacts would be less than significant. Potential Impact 3C3: Any hazards due to a design feature or incompatible use. As shown in Figure 2 -4 (Site Plan), access to the site would be provided from both MacArthur Boulevard and Dove Street. The entry on MacArthur Boulevard would be located near the north end of the site, approximately 320 feet south of Bowsprit Drive, and would be a right- in/right -out only driveway that would lead to the front sales and showroom area. A raised median in MacArthur Boulevard would preclude left turns to and from this driveway. The intersection of Bowsprit Drive and MacArthur Boulevard currently operates as an unsignalized intersection with a free -flow right -turn lane to serve right- turning traffic from Bowsprit onto southbound MacArthur Boulevard. The free -flow lane is configured with a 90- foot curb radius and a raised median, which allows right- turning vehicles not only to make the turn without stopping, but also at a relatively high rate of speed. The end of the curb radius is approximately 200 feet from the proposed Lexus dealership driveway. Access to the Lexus site will also be provided via three curb cuts on Dove Street. The center • entrance will align with Quail Street, and will provide access to the service canopy, on the south side of the showroom building. A smaller entrance on Dove Street at the north end of the site will provide customers access to both the showroom/sales area and the service area. A service entrance near the south end of the project site will be used by staff only to take cars in and out of the service areas for test drives. The proximity of the free -flow right turn lane at Bowsprit/MacArthur.to the curb cut proposed to provide primary vehicular access to the dealership from MacArthur Boulevard could create a hazard as described above. Implementation of the following mitigation measures will ensure a less than significant impact. Mitigation Measures M -3CA The applicant will make the required improvements at the intersection of Bowsprit Drive and MacArthur Boulevard to reduce the curb radius of the eastbound free right turn on Bowsprit Drive to MacArthur Boulevard to an approximately 35 foot curb radius to slow turning traffic and to increase the distance between Bowsprit Drive and the project entrance. Cl Newport Le us Chapier 3C. TransporraionlTraffi�c Draft EIR 3C -14 November 2004 • Remaining Impacts With implementation of the mitigation measure described above, the proposed project would not create a hazard due to a design feature. Impacts would be less than significant. Potential Impact 3C4: Emergency access. The proposed project design would be in compliance with Fire Department requirements regarding emergency vehicle access. As shown in the site plan (Figure 2 -4), the proposed Lexus site provides several access points for emergency vehicles. Therefore, no impacts are anticipated. Mitigation Measure No mitigation is required. Remaining Impacts The proposed project would provide adequate emergency access. Impacts would be less than significant. Potential Impact 3C5: Congestion Management Program. The Orange County Congestion Management Program (CMP) was established in 1991 to reduce traffic congestion and to provide- a mechanism for coordinating land use and development. decisions. Compliance with the CMP requirements ensures a city's eligibility to compete for State gasoline tax funds for local transportation projects. Within the City of Newport Beach, the CMP Highway System includes three arterials: • Jamboree Road from the north City limit to MacArthur Boulevard; • MacArthur Boulevard from Jamboree Road to Coast Highway; and • Coast Highway. CMP monitored intersections within the City of Newport Beach include: • Jamboree Road at MacArthur Boulevard (shared with the City of Irvine); • MacArthur Boulevard at Coast Highway; and • Newport Boulevard at Coast Highway. Newport Leeus Chapter 3C Transportation/Traffic Draft EIR X -15 November 2004 The Level of Service standard for CMP intersections is LOS "E," or the current Level of Service, whichever is farthest from Level of Service "A." No intersection may be allowed to deteriorate below LOS "E" or the existing LOS if worse than "E" without mitigation. The Orange County CMP states that a Traffic Impact Assessment (TIA) "will be required for CMP purposes for all proposed developments generating 2,400 or more daily trips," and that "for developments which will directly access a CMP Highway System link, the threshold for requiring a TIA should be reduced to 1,600 or more trips per day." The project is estimated to generate a total of 3,280 daily trips, and as such, the project is required to comply with the CMP Traffic Impact Analysis guidelines. The study area for a CMP analysis is defined by a measure of the project's significant impact on the roadway links. Significant impact is defined as links impacted by three percent or more of their LOS "E" capacity. The CMP states, "If a TIA is required only for CMP purposes, the study area would end when traffic falls below three percent of capacity on individual roadway links. If the TIA is also required for other purposes, additional analysis can be required by the local jurisdiction based on engineering judgment or local regulation as applicable." The LOS "E" capacities of the roadways surrounding the project site, and the forecasted daily project traffic volumes on those segments are shown on Figure 3C -I. Review of Figure 3C -I • shows that the traffic analysis has been carried sufficiently far enough so as to extend beyond the three percent range required by the CMP. The intersection of Jamboree Road and MacArthur Boulevard is located within the study area. This intersection was included in the TPO and Cumulative analysis. The intersection is shown to operate at LOS "E" both with and without the project. The project will not cause any CMP intersection to operate at a deficient Level of Service. This traffic study, therefore, complies with CMP requirements. Mitigation Measure No mitigation is required. Remaining Impacts The proposed project would not exceed levels of service established by the County Congestion Management Agency. Impacts would be less than significant. • Newport Lerus Chapter 3C. Trartepormtioa?ragIe Draft EIR 3C -16 November 2004 I• 0 NOT TO SCALE n DUPONT Z 0 492 !n ;0 J 0.9X Q G U A 656 84 1.2X 0.7x C',q S 328 0.6X 656 1.2X 164 o.3x PROJECT OIL F LOCATION 492 984 3.9X 1.7X AIL 984 1 -7X BRI 3TOL ST. N BRI TOL ST. S SQ 820 1.8X 0.9X 2 164 U 328 0.3X fY m 1.7X LEGEND'. XXX Proled ADT X.XXX Pmj d Traffic Psmmnfage of Roadway IDS 'E' Copodly SOURCE: Kimley -Horn and Associate., Inc Newport Beach Le us EIR / 204224 ■ Figure 3C -1 CMP Study Area Determination Potential Impact 3C6: Cumulative traffic impacts. Cumulative project traffic growth, which is growth due to development projects in the area, and growth in "pass through" traffic, is included in the analysis of the proposed project conditions. The area projects that could affect the study area are listed in Chapter 2, Table 2 -2. Currently, several area projects have been identified which could pose a cumulative impact to area traffic conditions. Tables 3C -3 and 3C -4 show the results of both the TPO and typical CEQA analysis, both of which consider area growth and future projects. Area growth would result in deterioration of levels of service at area intersections. The proposed mitigation would reduce identified cumulative project impacts. By providing service to current and future Lexus owners in closer proximity to where they live, this project could reduce the length of some regional trips. Mitigation Measure Refer to mitigation measures M -3C.1 and M -3C -2. Remaining Impacts Together with other area projects, the proposed project, with mitigation, would not create a cumulative impact. Impacts would not be cumulatively considerable. 11 Newport Le ms Chapter3C. Tramportation/Traffic Draf! ER 3C-18 November 2004 0 3D. Air Quality INTRODUCTION The air quality impact analysis considers construction and operational impacts associated with the proposed project. Construction and operational emissions are estimated following standards provided in the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) CEQA Air Quality Handbook. SETTING The proposed project site is located in the western portion of Orange County in the City of Newport Beach. The proposed project site is located within the jurisdictional boundaries of the SCAQMD, within the South Coast Air Basin (SCAB). The SCAB encompasses 6,745 miles and includes all of Orange County and the non desert portions of San Bernardino, Riverside, and Los Angeles Counties. The SCAQMD stretches from the Pacific Ocean in the west, to the Angeles National Forest to the north, Orange County to the south, and Riverside and San Bernardino Counties to the east. • Regional Climate The SCAB is primarily a coastal plain with interconnected valleys and low hills progressing into high mountain ranges on the perimeter. The region is located within a semi - permanent high - pressure system that lies off the coast. As a result, the weather is mild, tempered by a daytime sea breeze and a nighttime land breeze. This mild climate is infrequently interrupted by periods of extremely hot weather, winter storms, and Santa Ana winds. Rainfall in the SCAB is primarily restricted from November through April, with rainfall totals being highly variable from year to year. The SCAB has a low average wind speed of 5.7 miles per hour (mph) in downtown Los Angeles. Inland areas record slightly lower wind speeds, while coastal areas average approximately 2 mph greater than downtown. Because of the low average wind speed, air contaminants in the SCAB do not readily disperse. On spring and summer days most pollution is moved out of the SCAB through mountain passes or is lifted by the warm vertical currents produced by the heating of the mountain slopes. From late summer through the winter months, lower wind speeds and the earlier appearance of offshore breezes combine to trap pollution in the SCAB. Newport Lesus 3D. Air Quality Draft EIR 3D -1 November 2004 SCAQMD Rule 403 In December of 1998, the SCAQMD revised its existing Rule 403 regarding fugitive dust emissions. The purpose of this rule is to reduce the amount of particulate matter entrained in the ambient air as a result of anthropogenic (man -made) fugitive dust sources by requiring actions to prevent, reduce or mitigate fugitive dust emissions.2 Under this rule, a person shall not cause or allow the emissions of fugitive dust from any active operation, open storage pile, or disturbed surface area such that the presence of such dust remains visible in the atmosphere beyond the property line of the emission source. Second, a person conducting active operations within the boundaries of the SCAB shall utilize one or more of the applicable best available control measures to minimize fugitive dust emissions from each fugitive dust source type which is part of the active operation. Third, a person shall not cause or allow PM10 levels to exceed 50 micrograms per cubic meter when determined, by simultaneous sampling, as the difference between upwind and downwind samples collected on high - volume particulate matter samplers or other U.S. EPA - approved equivalent method for PM10 monitoring. Finally, any person in the SCAB shall prevent or remove within one hour the track -out of sand, gravel, soil, aggregate material less than two inches in length or diameter, and other organic or inorganic particulate matter onto public paved roadways as a result of their operations; or prevent the track -out of such material onto public paved roadways as a result of their operations and remove such material at anytime track -out extends for a cumulative distance of greater than 50 feet on to any paved • public road during active operations and remove all visible roadway dust tracked -out upon public paved roadways as a result of active operations at the conclusion of each work day when active operations cease. Existing Air Quality The SCAB is in non - attainment for both the federal and state ozone, carbon monoxide, and PMJ0 standards. The state's one -hour ozone standard in the SCAQMD was exceeded 5 days in 1998 and at least once per year from 1997 through 2001 (see Table 3D -2). The PM10 standard was exceeded 15 times in 1999, and at least eight times a year from 1997 to 2001. The CO standard has not been exceeded in the proposed project area for the last five years. The SCAB is a maintenance area for the federal and state NO, standards, which means it had once been in non- attainment. Existing Air Pollution Sources Air quality in the vicinity of the proposed project site is affected by emissions from motor vehicle traffic on adjacent roadways and highways. Z SCAQMD. Rule 403. December 1998. • ' ]bid. Newport Lexus 3D. Air Quality Draft E/R 3D -6 November 2004 • Sensitive Receptors Some land uses are considered more sensitive to air pollution than others due to the types of population groups or activities involved. SCAQMD includes in its list of sensitive receptors, residences, schools, playgrounds, childcare centers, convalescent homes, retirement homes, rehabilitation centers, and athletic facilities. Sensitive population groups include children, the elderly, and the acutely and chronically ill, especially those with cardio- respiratory diseases. Residential areas are also considered to be sensitive to air pollution because residents tend to be home for extended periods of time, resulting in sustained exposure to any pollutant present. There are no sensitive receptors, such as schools, within one mile of the project site. Newport Lexus 3D. Air Quality Draft E/R 3D -7 November 2004 TABLE 3D -2 • PROPOSED PROJECT AREA AIR POLLUTANT SUMMARY, 2000 -2002a Pollutant Standard 2000 2001 2002 Ozone (03) Highest 1 -hr average, ppm` 0.09 0.10 0.098 0.087 Number of standard excesses" 1 1 0 Carbon Monoxide (CO) Highest 1 -hr average, ppm` 20.0 8* 6 5 Number of standard excesses" 0 0 0 Highest 8 -hr average, ppmc 9.0 6.3* 4.57 4.3 Number of standard excesses" 0 0 0 Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2) Highest t -hr average, ppm` 0.25 0.11 0.08 0.11 Number of standard excesses 0 0 0 Particulate Matter -10 Micron (PM10) Highest 24 -hr average, pg/m3c 50 -- -- -- Number of standard excesses Annual Geometric Mean, pg/m3 30 Violation -- -- -- NOTE: Underlined values indicate an excess of applicable standard. • a. Data are from the SCAQMD Monitoring Station No. 3195 located in North Coastal Orange County Air Monitoring Subregion, Source No. 18. b. State standard, not to be exceeded. c. ppm - parts per million; pg/m3 - micrograms per cubic meter. d. Refers to the number of days in a year during which at least one excess was recorded. e. Measured every six days. ' Less than 12 full months of data. May not be representative. -- = Pollutant not monitored. Source: South Coast Air Quality Management District, Air Quality Data Tables, 2000, 2001 & 2002. • Sensitive Receptors Some land uses are considered more sensitive to air pollution than others due to the types of population groups or activities involved. SCAQMD includes in its list of sensitive receptors, residences, schools, playgrounds, childcare centers, convalescent homes, retirement homes, rehabilitation centers, and athletic facilities. Sensitive population groups include children, the elderly, and the acutely and chronically ill, especially those with cardio- respiratory diseases. Residential areas are also considered to be sensitive to air pollution because residents tend to be home for extended periods of time, resulting in sustained exposure to any pollutant present. There are no sensitive receptors, such as schools, within one mile of the project site. Newport Lexus 3D. Air Quality Draft E/R 3D -7 November 2004 IMPACTS AND MITIGATION Criteria for Determining Significance The CEQA Guidelines checklist provides the following thresholds for determining significance with respect to air quality. Air quality impacts would be considered significant if the project would: • Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan; • Violate any air quality standards or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation; • Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non - attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors); • Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentration; or, • Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people. In addition, the SCAQMD has adopted air quality thresholds of significance for construction . activities and project operations that are shown in Table 313-3. TABLE 3D -3 SCAQMD AIR POLLUTION SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA Air Pollutant Project Construction Project Operation Carbon Monoxide (CO) 550 lbs. Per day 550 lbs. Per day Reactive Organic Compounds (ROC) 75 lbs. Per day 55 lbs. Per day Nitrogen Oxides (NO,) 100 lbs. Per day 55 lbs. Per day Particulates (PM10) 150 lbs. Per day 150 lbs. Per day Source: South Coast Air Quality Management District, 1993. • Newport Le us 3D. Air Quality Draft E/R 3D -8 N camber 2004 0 Project Impacts Potential Impact 3Di: Consistency with the Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP). Air emissions in the SCAB are regulated by the SCAQMD. Pursuant to the CAA, the SCAQMD is required to reduce emissions of criteria pollutants for which the SCAB is in non - attainment. Strategies to achieve these emissions reductions are developed in the AQMP prepared by SCAQMD for the region. Chapter 3 of the 2003 SCAQMD AQMP states future emissions forecasts are based on demographic and economic growth projections provided by the Southern California Association of Government (SCAG).5 Individual projects and long -term programs within the region are required to be consistent with population, employment, and housing projections. The project is not a regionally significant project that would be considered inconsistent with the 2003 AQMP. The development would be consistent with urban development assumed in the City of Newport Beach General Plan and SCAG population projections. Therefore, the proposed project would be consistent with the AQMP. The proposed project does not meet the criteria for regional significance as outlined in CEQA section 152006 (b). Mitigation Measures No mitigation is required. Remaining Impacts The proposed project would be consistent with the Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP). It would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the AQMP. Impacts would be less than significant. Potential Impact 3D2: Construction air emissions. Construction of the proposed project would generate air emissions. Construction - related emissions would primarily be: 1) dust generated from grading and site preparation; 2) hydrocarbon emissions from paint and asphalt; 3) exhaust emissions from powered construction equipment; and, 4) motor vehicle emissions associated with construction activities, haul trucks, and worker commute. 0 s SCAQMD, 2003. Newport Lexus 3D. Air Quality Draft E/R 3D -9 November 2004 Construction -phase air quality impacts were analyzed quantitatively utilizing construction emissions estimation worksheets (Appendix B). The worksheets follow methodology outlined in the SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook and utilize emissions factors found in the EMFAC -2002 air emissions models and CARB Emission Inventory Publication number MO99 -32.3. The air emissions calculations assume that construction emissions would last approximately 18 months and would vary day to day depending on the activities being performed. Fugitive dust emissions would vary depending on the level and type of activity, silt content of soil, and prevailing weather. Some fugitive dust would be larger- diameter particles that would settle out of the atmosphere close to the site of the actual activity. Smaller- diameter dust would remain suspended for longer periods and would include PMIO. Fugitive dust emissions were calculated utilizing emissions factors found in Table 11.9 -1 of U.S. EPA's AP -42 compilation of emissions factors and SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook. In addition to fugitive dust, project construction would also result in emissions of other criteria air pollutants, including ROC and NO., due to combustion of fuel for heavy equipment operation, truck trips, and construction worker trips. ROC's would also be emitted during painting and asphalt laying operations. Construction activities would include the demolition of existing structures, grading and site preparation, excavation, and building construction. Currently it is estimated that demolition would last approximately 8 weeks, site grading and preparation would last approximately 8 weeks and building construction would last approximately 14 months. Building construction could occur while site preparation is occurring on another portion of the site. Total construction time is anticipated to last approximately 18 months. Demolition Prior to construction, six existing structures would be removed from the proposed project site. Three of the existing structures are 30,000 square -foot office buildings; one building is currently a 2,700 square -foot office; one is a 2,500 square -foot showroom, and one is a 10,000 square -foot repair facility. Construction debris will include broken concrete and steel framing. It is assumed that the average height of each story of the structures to be demolished would be 12 feet. Under this assumption, approximately 9,400 cubic yards (252,500 cubic feet) of demolition debris would be generated and hauled off site (20 percent of total cubic volume of demolished structures). Demolition is expected to last approximately 8 weeks and would involve the use of one crane, one backhoe, one loader, and one bulldozer. It is further assumed that 15 employees and 20 haul trucks would travel to and from the job site, and a water truck would travel one mile per day at the job site. Newport L"us 3D. Air Quality Draft E/R 3D-10 November 1004 C� J 0 9 Grading and Site Preparation • Grading and site preparation is anticipated to last approximately 8 weeks and will include excavation, site grading, underground plumbing and electrical installation. During this phase, it is estimated that one scraper, one compactor, one bulldozer, one excavator, and two loaders would work for various time periods at the proposed project site. It is further assumed that 50 employees would travel 30 miles to and from the job site daily, and a water truck would travel one mile per day. Assuming that a single haul truck can hold approximately 12 cubic yards of material, a total of 840 soil haul trucks would be necessary to remove the 10,000 cubic yards of excavated soil. Construction emissions worksheets are presented in Appendix B. 0 Building Construction During building construction, it is estimated that three forklifts, three compressors, three welders, two boomtrucks, one mortar mixer, one roller, and one paver would operate on the site for periods of time. It is further assumed that 50 employees would travel 30 miles to and from the proposed project site, three construction material delivery trucks per day would travel 25 miles to and from the site, a total of 1,000 concrete delivery trucks would also travel 25 miles each direction, and a water truck would travel one mile per day at the job site. Construction emissions worksheets are presented in Appendix B. Summary of Construction Emissions As shown in Table 313-4, total construction emissions would not exceed SCAQMD significance thresholds. Emissions at the site would vary day to day over the construction period. The emissions estimates assume that mitigation measures would be implemented to minimize fugitive dust and vehicle exhaust. Mitigation measures M -3D.1 through M -3D.12 are included below. Mitigation Measures M -3D.1 Cover all trucks hauling soil, sand, and other loose materials, or require all trucks to maintain at least two feet of freeboard. M -3D.2 Pave, water (three times daily), or apply non -toxic soil stabilizers on all unpaved access roads, parking areas, and staging areas at construction sites. M -3D.3 Sweep all paved access roads, parking areas, and staging areas at constriction sites daily with water sweepers. Nenyori Le as 3D. Air Quality Draft ELR 313-11 November 2004 TABLE 3D-4 • LEXUS DEALERSHIP CONSTRUCTION EMISSIONS* Building Significance Air Pollutant Demolition Excavation Construction Criteria Carbon Monoxide (CO) 17.10 33.71 34.42 550 lbs. per day Reactive Organic Compounds (ROC) 4.25 5.89 7.03 75 lbs. per day Nitrogen Oxides (NO,) 77.96 90.55 79.27 100 lbs. per day Particulates (PMT,) 11.94 25.82 5.32 150 lbs. per day * Emissions Factors Provided in URBEMIS2002, CARB Emission Inventory Publication Number M099_32.3 Table 13 and EPA AP42 compilation of emissions factors. Source: ESA, 2004. M -3D.4 Sweep streets daily with water sweepers if visible soil material is carried onto adjacent public streets. M -3D.5 Hydroseed or apply non -toxic stabilizers to inactive construction areas. Is M -3D.6 Enclose, cover, water (twice daily), or apply non -toxic soil binders to exposed stockpiles (dirt, sand, etc.). M -3D.7 Limit traffic speeds on unpaved roads to 15 miles per hour. M -3D.8 Install sandbags or other erosion control measures to prevent silt runoff to public roadways during rainy season construction (November through April). M -3D.9 Replant vegetation in disturbed areas as quickly as possible. M -3D.10 All construction equipment shall be properly tuned and maintained. M -3D.11 Contractors shall maintain and operate construction equipment so as to minimize exhaust emissions. During construction, trucks and vehicles in loading or unloading queues shall not idle. M -3D.12 Construction activities shall be staged and scheduled to avoid emissions peaks, and discontinued during second -stage smog alerts. is NeHporr Le us 3D. Air Quality Draft EIR 3D -12 November 2004 Remaining Impacts • Construction of the proposed project would emit criteria pollutants. Estimated daily average construction emissions would exceed significance thresholds set by the SCAQMD. Impacts would be significant and unavoidable. is Potential Impact 3D3: Project operation air emissions. Operational emissions include stationary and mobile sources of emissions. Stationary sources of emissions include emissions from boilers or generators. Mobile source emissions are motor vehicle emissions and would be the largest source of pollutants resulting from project operation. No stationary emissions would be generated at the proposed project site. Based on estimated trip rates, the proposed Newport Lexus automobile dealership would generate 3,280 new trips on a typical weekday basis with 112 trips in the morning peak hour and 189 trips in the evening peak hour. Some of these new trips would replace existing trips to the existing office park. Project operational emissions were estimated using the CARB URBEMIS 2002 emissions model (Appendix B). As shown in Table 3D -5, operational emissions would not exceed SCAQMD significance thresholds. Operational emissions would be considered a less than significant impact to air quality. TABLE 3D -5 - LEXUS DEALERSHIP OPERATIONAL EMISSIONS Air Pollutant Carbon Monoxide (CO) Reactive Organic Compounds (ROC) Nitrogen Oxides (NO,) Particulates (PMto) Project Operation 190.56 lbs. /day 14.72 lbs. /day 17.30 lbs. /day 15.03 lbs. /day Source: URBEMIS 2002, South Coast Air Quality Management District. Significance Criteria 550 lbs. /day 55 lbs. /day 55 lbs. /day 150 lbs. /day Newporl Le s 31). Air Qualhy Draft E/R 3D -13 November 2004 Mitigation Measures No mitigation required. Remaining Impacts Estimated daily average emissions would not exceed significance thresholds set by the SCAQMD. Impacts would be less than significant. Potential Impact 3D4: Cumulative impacts. The CEQA Guidelines require that a project be evaluated with respect to its contribution to the cumulative condition. Currently, the existing ambient air quality baseline is affected by emissions in the SCAB. As stated above, the SCAB is in non - attainment for carbon monoxide, ozone and particulatematter. Through the AQMP the SCAQMD analyzes projected regional growth and associated emissions of criteria pollutants. Based on the AQMP and other factors the SCAQMD establishes thresholds of significance for certain criteria pollutants. Any addition of these pollutants or their precursors in excess of SCAQMD CEQA thresholds of significance would result in a significant cumulative impact. As shown in Impacts 3D2 and 3D3, operational • emissions and construction emissions would not exceed SCAQMD thresholds of significance for any criteria pollutants or their precursors. As such, the proposed project would result in a less than significant cumulative impact to air quality. Mitigation Measures No mitigation is required. Remaining Impacts The proposed project would not create a cumulatively considerable impact to air quality. • Newport Le us 3D. Air &aliry Draft EIR 3D -14 November 2004 • Chapter 4. Alternatives Analysis 4.1 INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW According to the CEQA, an EIR must describe a reasonable range of alternatives to a proposed project that could feasibly attain most of the basic project objectives, and would avoid or substantially lessen any of the proposed project's significant effects. Additionally, a No Project alternative must be analyzed. An EIR must evaluate the comparative merits of the alternatives. The range of alternatives required in an EIR is governed by a "rule of reason" that requires an EIR to set forth only those alternatives necessary to permit a reasoned choice. An EIR need not consider every conceivable alternative to a project. Rather, the alternatives must be limited to ones that meet the project objectives, are feasible, and would avoid or substantially lessen at least one of the significant environmental effects of the project. "Feasible" means capable of being accomplished in a successful manner within a reasonable period of time, taking into account economic, environmental, legal, social, and technological factors. The EIR must briefly describe the rationale for selection and rejection of alternatives and the information the lead agency relied on when making the selection. It also should identify any alternatives considered, but rejected, as infeasible by the lead agency during the scoping process and briefly explain the reasons for the exclusion. Alternatives may be eliminated from detailed consideration in the EIR if they fail to meet most of the project objectives, are infeasible, or do not avoid any significant environmental effects. This chapter identifies two alternatives that attain some of the project objectives, are feasible, and could avoid or lessen environmental impacts, including the No Project alternative. This chapter concludes by analyzing the environmentally superior alternative. This EIR does not identify any unmitigated significant adverse impacts of the project, and therefore project alternatives are not strictly necessary. However, in order to comply with CEQA, this section presents a "Reduced Project Alternative" to illustrate how impacts would be affected if the project were reduced in size. Nenport Le s Chapter 4. Alternatives Analysis Draft EIR 4-1 November 2004 meet the project objectives. In addition, CEQA Guidelines (Section 15126.6(c)) require that, if the environmentally superior alternative is the No Project Alternative, the E1R also shall identify • an environmentally superior alternative among the other alternatives. The Reduced Project Alternative would be the environmentally superior alternative. This alternative involves the construction of a slightly smaller Lexus automobile dealership at the proposed project site; this alternative would meet all of the project objectives. Due to the only slightly smaller size of dealership under this alternative, it is assumed that impacts associated with the construction of this alternative, would be similar in nature to the proposed project (that is - less than significant). This alternative would reduce the number of significantly impacted intersections from two to one under the TPO and from one to none under the CEQA analysis. Mitigation measure M -3C.1 would mitigate to a level of less than significance the TPO impact at Irvine Avenue and Mesa Drive. For this reason the Reduced Project Alterative is now the preferred alternative. 0 0 Newport Le=s Chapter 4. AliernoUves Anaba'is Draft E/R 4.6 No,•eo ber 7004 i Chapter 5. Other CEQA Considerations This chapter presents the evaluation of other types of environmental impacts required by CEQA that are not covered within the other chapters of this Draft EIR. The other CEQA considerations include environmental effects that were found not to be significant, growth- inducing impacts or significant and unavoidable adverse impacts. 5.1 ADVERSE IMPACTS THAT CAN BE MITIGATED TO LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT Without mitigation, the project could result in significant impacts to: aesthetics and land use, hydrology and water quality and storm water, and traffic. The following impacts, however, can be mitigated to less than significant. • Aesthetics/ Land Use - The proposed project could create a new source of light and glare in the area - The proposed project would conflict with local land use policies • • Hydrology and Water Quality - The proposed project has the potential to degrade surface water quality during construction and operation • Traffic - The proposed project could impact the existing load and capacity of local intersections and exceed significance criteria established by the City of Newport Beach 5.2 GROWTH- INDUCING IMPACTS Pursuant to Section 15126.2(d) of the CEQA Guidelines, an EIR must address whether a projectwill directly or indirectly foster growth. Section 15126.2(d) reads as follows: "[An EIR shall] discuss the ways in which the proposed project could foster economic or population growth, or the construction of additional housing, either directly or indirectly, in the surrounding environment. Included in this are projects which would remove obstacles to population growth (a major expansion of wastewater treatment plant, might, for example, allow for more construction in service areas). Increases in the population mayfurther tax existing community Newport Lerus Chapter 5. Other CEQA Considerations Draft EIR 5-1 November 2004 service facilities so consideration must be given to this impact. Also discuss the characteristic of some projects which may encourage and facilitate other activities that could significantly affect the environment, either individually or cumulatively. It must not be assumed that growth in any area is necessarily beneficial, detrimental, or of little significance to the environment. " As discussed below, this analysis evaluates whether the proposed project will directly, or indirectly, induce economic, population, or housing growth in the surrounding environment. Direct Growth - Inducing Impacts in the Surrounding Environment A project would directly induce growth if it would remove barriers to population growth such as a change to a jurisdiction's General Plan and Zoning Ordinance, which allowed new residential development to occur. The construction of the proposed Lexus Dealership is intended to serve an existing demand and generate a new source of revenue for the City of Newport Beach. The new Lexus automobile dealership would not induce more population growth, but would accommodate that which already has occurred and which will continue to occur over time. Indirect Growth - Inducing Impacts in the Surrounding Environment A project would indirectly induce growth if it would increase the capacity of infrastructure in an area in which the public service currently met demand. Examples would be increasing the capacity of a sewer treatment plant, or a roadway beyond that needed to meet existing demand. The construction of the proposed project would not induce more growth in the area, but would meet the current and future demand for retail services for a population, which will increase regardless of the number of automobile dealerships currently in existence. 5.3 SIGNIFICANT UNAVOIDABLE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS CEQA Section 15126.2(b) requires a discussion of any significant impacts that cannot be reduced to levels of insignificance. Mitigation measures have been identified for all of the significant impacts of the proposed project, therefore the construction and operation of the proposed project would not result in any significant unavoidable environmental impacts. s Nee port Lexus Chapter S. Other CEQA Conriderndons Draft EIR 5 -2 November 2004 0 Chapter 6. References Airport Land Use Commission, Airport Land Use Plan for John Wayne Airport http: / /www.ocair.com/AELUP text version.htm, accessed online September 30, 2004. California Air Resources Board (CARB), Ambient Air Quality Standards, July 9, 2003. Carlile Coatsworth Architects, Inc. City of Irvine Planning Department. City of Newport Beach Economic Development Policy http: / /Nvww.city.newport- beach .ca.us /Councilpolicies/K- l0.htm, accessed online August 2, 2004. City of Newport Beach Municipal Code section 14.36.040 (1) http:/ imunicipalcodes .lexisnexis.com/codes /newportb /, accessed online September 23, 2004. City of Newport Beach Planning Department. Federal Emergency Management Agency, Flood Insurance Rate Map, Orange County, California, Panel 47, Map 06059C0047E, September 15, 1989 • Fuscoe Engineering, Inc. Amendment Newport Beach Lexus Dealership — Water Quality Study, letter from Howard Wen, MPH, Environmental Scientist, September 23, 2004. Fuscoe Engineering, Inc. Newport Beach Lexus Dealership — Hydrology & Hydraulics Study, September 3, 2004. Fuscoe Engineering, Inc. Newport Beach Lexus Dealership — Water Quality Report, September 7, 2004. Highway Capacity Manual (HCM), Special Report 209. Transportation Research Board, Washington D.C., 1997. Irvine General Plan, Circulation Element, http: / /N�,w.ci . irvine. ca.us /depts /ed/pl anningactivities /peneraIRIanlpdf /circul ation.pdf, accessed online September 24, 2004. Kimley -Horn and Associates, Inc, Traffic Study for Newport Lexus in the City of Newport Beach, September, 2004. Newport Beach General Plan, Circulation Element, 1996. Newport Beach General Plan, Land Use Element, 1998. Newport Beach General Plan, Public Safety Element, February 1975. pp. 24 -25. • South Coast Air Quality Management District, Air Quality Data Tables, 2000, 2001 & 2002. Newport Lexus Chapter 6. References Dry E/R 6-1 November 2004 South Coast Air Quality Management District and Southern California Association of • Governments, Final 1989 Air Quality Management Plan, March 1989. South Coast Air Quality Management District, Rude 403, December 1998. Thomas Brothers Maps, 2004. 0 Newport Lents Chapter 6 References Draft E/R 6-2 November 2004 TABLE 4 -1 SUMMARY OF PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION OPERATION (REDUCED PROJECT —117 KSF)' w/ out Project Conditions w/ Project Conditions Project Impact AM Peak PM Peak AM Peak PM Peak Change in ICU No. Signalized Intersection ICU LOS ICU LOS ICU LOS ICU LOS AM PM Sig? TPO Analysis (Approved Projects) 13 Jamboree Rd @ MacArthur Blvd 0.74 C 0.90 D 1 0.74 C 0.90 D 0.00 0.00 No 18 Irvine Ave @ Mesa Dr 0.84 D 0.98 E 0.84 D 0.99 E 0.00 0.01 Yes CEQA Analysis (Cumulative/Approved Projects) 13 Jamboree Rd @ MacArthur Blvd 0.858 D 0.992 E 1 0.855 D 1.000 E -0.003 0.008 No 18 Irvine Ave @ Mesa Dr 0.843 D 0.986 E 1 0.845 D 0.989 E 0.002 0.003 No I Since the project impacts associated with the reduced - intensity alternative will be less than the full project, analysis of the Traffic impacts for The reduced project was conducted only at the two intersections shown to be significantly impacted by the full project. Source: Kimley -Hom and Associates, Inc., Traffic Study for Newport Lexus in the City of Newport Beach, September 2004 impact (although not a CEQA impact) at the intersection of Irvine Avenue and Mesa Drive, and the project would still be required to participate in the funding of improvements at this intersection to mitigate this impact (see mitigation measure M- 3C.1). The project's share of • necessary improvements required under the Reduced Project Alternative is shown in Table 4 -2. TABLE 4-2 INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS - PROJECT RESPONSIBILITY Future Improved Effective Improved Effective Project Intersection Condition w/o w/o Capacity w/ Project Capacity Responsibility Project Project Increase Decrease (Dec./ Inc.) Irvine Avenue @ Mesa Drive - Approved — PM 0.983 0.932 0.051 0.936 0.004 0.078 Assumes reconfiguration of The wB approach to provide I left, I left/through, and I right -mm lane. Source: Kimley -Horn and Associates, Inc., Traffic Study for Newport Lecus in the City of Newport Beach, September 2004 4.3 ENVIRONMENTALLY SUPERIOR ALTERNATIVE An EIR must identify the environmentally superior alternative. The No Project Alternative would be environmentally superior to the proposed project on the basis of the minimization or avoidance of physical environmental impacts. However, the No Project Alternative does not Newport Lecus - Chapter 4. Alternatives Analysis Draft E/R 4 -5 November 2004 meet the project objectives. In addition, CEQA Guidelines (Section 15126.6(c)) require that, if the environmentally superior alternative is the No Project Alternative, the E1R also shall identify an environmentally superior alternative among the other alternatives. The Reduced Project Alternative would be the environmentally superior alternative. This alternative involves the construction of a slightly smaller Lexus automobile dealership at the proposed project site; this alternative would meet all of the project objectives. Due to the only slightly smaller size of dealership under this alternative, it is assumed that impacts associated with the construction of this alternative, would be similar in nature to the proposed project (that is - less than significant). This alternative would reduce the number of significantly impacted intersections from two to one under the TPO and from one to none under the CEQA analysis. Mitigation measure M -3C.1 would mitigate to a level of less than significance the TPO impact at Irvine Avenue and Mesa Drive. For this reason the Reduced Project Alterative is now the preferred alternative. ►rI • Newport Lesus Chapler 4. Ahvma ives Analysis Drafi E/R 4_6 November 2004 Chapter 5. Other CEQA Considerations This chapter presents the evaluation of other types of environmental impacts required by CEQA that are not covered within the other chapters of this Draft EIR. The other CEQA considerations include environmental effects that were found not to be significant, growth- inducing impacts or significant and unavoidable adverse impacts. 5.1 ADVERSE IMPACTS THAT CAN BE MITIGATED TO LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT Without mitigation, the project could result in significant impacts to: aesthetics and land use, hydrology and water quality and storm water, and traffic. The following impacts, however, can be mitigated to less than significant. • Aesthetics/ Land Use - The proposed project could create a new source of light and glare in the area - The proposed project would conflict with local land use policies • . Hydrology and Water Quality The proposed project has the potential to degrade surface water quality during construction and operation • Traffic - The proposed project could impact the existing load and capacity of local intersections and exceed significance criteria established by the City of Newport Beach 5.2 GROWTH- INDUCING IMPACTS Pursuant to Section 15126.2(d) of the CEQA Guidelines, an EIR must address whether a project will directly or indirectly foster growth. Section 15126.2(d) reads as follows: "[An EIR shall] discuss the ways in which the proposed project could foster economic or population growth, or the construction of additional housing, either directly or indirectly, in the surrounding environment. Included in this are projects which would remove obstacles to population growth (a major expansion of wastewater treatment plant, might, for example, allow for more construction in . service areas). Increases in the population may further tax existing community Newport Lexus Chapter 5. Other CEQA Considerations Draft EIR 5 -1 November 2004 service facilities so consideration must be given to this impact. Also discuss the characteristic of some projects which may encourage and facilitate other activities that could significantly affect the environment, either individually or cumulatively. It must not be assumed that growth in any area is necessarily beneficial, detrimental, or of little significance to the environment. " As discussed below, this analysis evaluates whether the proposed project will directly, or indirectly, induce economic, population, or housing growth in the surrounding environment. Direct Growth- Inducing Impacts in the Surrounding Environment A project would directly induce growth if it would remove barriers to population growth such as a change to a jurisdiction's General Plan and Zoning Ordinance, which allowed new residential development to occur. The construction of the proposed Lexus Dealership is intended to serve an existing demand and generate a new source of revenue for the City of Newport Beach. The new Lexus automobile dealership would not induce more population growth, but would accommodate that which already has occurred and which will continue to occur over time. Indirect Growth- Inducing Impacts in the Surrounding Environment A project would indirectly induce growth if it would increase the capacity of infrastructure in an area in which the public service currently met demand. Examples would be increasing the capacity of a sewer treatment plant, or a roadway beyond that needed to meet existing demand. The construction of the proposed project would not induce more growth in the area, but would meet the current and future demand for retail services for a population, which will increase regardless of the number of automobile dealerships currently in existence. 5.3 SIGNIFICANT UNAVOIDABLE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS CEQA Section 15126.2(b) requires a discussion of any significant impacts that cannot be reduced to levels of insignificance. Mitigation measures have been identified for all of the significant impacts of the proposed project, therefore the construction and operation of the proposed project would not result in any significant unavoidable environmental impacts. • Newport Lexus Chapter 5. Other CEQA Considerations Draft E/R 5 -2 November 2004 Chapter 6. References Airport Land Use Commission, Airport Land Use Plan for John Wayne Airport http: / /www.ocair.com /AELUP text version.htm, accessed online September 30, 2004. California Air Resources Board (CARE), Ambient Air Quality Standards, July 9, 2003. Carlile Coatsworth Architects, Inc. City of Irvine Planning Department. City of Newport Beach Economic Development Policy http: / /wv , v.city.newport- beach. ca.us /Councilpolicies/K- l0.htm, accessed online August 2, 2004. City of Newport Beach Municipal Code section 14.36.040 (1) http:/ /municipalcodes.lexisnexis.conVcodes /newportb /, accessed online September 23, 2004. City of Newport Beach Planning Department. Federal Emergency Management Agency, Flood Insurance Rate Map, Orange County, California, Panel 47, Map 06059C0047E, September 15, 1989 • Fuscoe Engineering, Inc. Amendment Newport Beach Lexus Dealership — Water Quality Study, letter from Howard Wen, MPH, Environmental Scientist, September 23, 2004. Fuscoe Engineering, Inc. Newport Beach Lexus Dealership — Hydrology & Hydraulics Study, September 3, 2004. Fuscoe Engineering, Inc. Newport Beach Lexus Dealership — Water Quality Report, September 7, 2004. Highway Capacity Manual (HCM), Special Report 209. Transportation Research Board, Washington D.C., 1997. Irvine General Plan, Circulation Element, http: / /www.ci.irvine.ca.us /dents /cd/Rl anninpactivities /generaIRI an/pdf /eirculation.pdf, accessed online September 24, 2004. Kimley -Horn and Associates, Inc, Traffic Study for Newport Lexus in the City of Newport Beach, September, 2004. Newport Beach General Plan, Circulation Element, 1996. Newport Beach General Plan, Land Use Element, 1998. Newport Beach General Plan, Public Safety Element, February 1975. pp. 24 -25. • South Coast Air Quality Management District, Air Quality Data Tables, 2000, 2001 & 2002. Newport Lexus Chapter 6. References Draft E/R f -1 Nw,ember 2004 South Coast Air Quality Management District and Southern California Association of Governments, Final 1989 Air Quality Management Plan, March 1989. South Coast Air Quality Management District, Rule 403, December 1998. Thomas Brothers Maps, 2004. LI • Newport Lexus Chapter 6. References Drajr E/R 6 -2 November 2004 0 E • Chapter 7. Report Preparation 7.1 DRAFT FIR PREPARERS City of Newport Beach George Berger, Program Manager David Lepo, Project Manager Environmental Science Associates Wendy Lockwood, Regional Director Jessica Kirchner, Associate Jeremy Buck, Graphics Natasha Mapp, Administration Kimley -Horn & Associates Serine Ciandella, Project Manager Newport Lesus Draft E/R 7 -1 Chapter 7. Report preparation November 2004 The Avis lot is approximately 3.0 acres and consists of two one -stary customer service buildings and a ve. icle maintenance and repair building (see Figure 3). The remaining portion of the site consists of parking areas; storage areas for automobile parts and tires, and landscaping along the western property boutda -y, adjacent to Dove Street. Access to the property is also from Dove Street to the west. Theae uses would be replaced by the proposed Lexus dealership. The project site is surrounded by office uses to the north, east and west and a small oommexial strip to the !south that runs along Bristol Road. The proposed project will require amendments to the General Plan, Zoning Ordinance, and a Conditional Use Permit (CUP). Dania Lepo, Project Ma er Hogle- Ireland, Inc. for the City of Newport Beach Dates is -4- July 2004 0 • 0 i • SECTION 1.0 INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST The following Environmental Checklist and discussion of potential environmental effects were completed in accordance with Section 15063(d)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines to determine if the project may have any significant effects on the environment. A brief explanation is provided for all determinations. A "No Impact" or "Less than Significant Impact" determination is made when the project would not have any impact or would not have a significant effect on the environment for that issue area based on a project - specific analysis. CEQA ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST AND INITIAL STUDY 1. Project Title: Newport Lexus Dealership 2. Lead Agency Name and Address: 3. Contact Person and Phone Number: 4. Project Location: 5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: 6. General Plan Designation: 7. Zoning: 8. Description of Project: The City of Newport Beach David Lepo (949) 553 -1427 Northwest comer of MacArthur Boulevard and Jamboree Road Wilson Automotive Group 1400 North Tustin Orange, CA 92867 Administrative, Professional and Financial Commercial PC -I I Newport Place The proposed project is to be located at the northwest comer of MacArthur Boulevard and Jamboree Road in the City of Newport Beach. The site is currently occupied by Platt College and an Avis Rent -a -Car storage lot (see Figures 2 and 3). The existing uses on the site would be demolished and replaced by a 30,000 square foot showroom and sales building and 100,000 square foot auto service building. The project also proposes a multi -story parking structure with 1,700 parking spaces for employee parking and storage of sales inventory. 9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: The site is located within the City of Newport Beach. The City of Irvine is located to the southeast of the project site. The project site is located approximately one mile to the south and east of John Wayne Orange County Airport. It consists of two parcels and is generally bounded by Jamboree Road on the south/southeast, MacArthur Boulevard on the east, Bowsprit to the north and Dove Street to the west. A parcel containing mostly commercial uses separates the project site from Bristol Street and the Route 73 Freeway to the southwest. Newport Lexus IS -5- July 2004 The project area is surrounded largely by commercial and office uses. There is a small commercial strip located along Bristol Street that stretches from Jamboree Road to Dove Street. The office buildings surrounding the site vary from 1 -2 stories to up to approximately 15 stories. The following land uses surrounded the site as of May 2004: • North — The site is bordered to the north by GPM Certified Public Accountants (3991 MacArthur Boulevard). • East — The site is bordered to the east by MacArthur Boulevard. Beyond MacArthur Boulevard are several hi -rise office buildings. • South — The site is bordered on the south by a shopping center whose occupants include the following: Conroy's Flowers, Liquor -Mart, Supercuts, Yuki's Sushi, Celebrity Cleaners, Planer Beauty, Pizza Hut. • West — The site is bordered on the west by Dove Street. Quail Street intersects Dove Street and continues to the northwest from the property boundary separating Park MacArthur and Avis location at 848 Dove Street. A mid -rise building containing the offices of John Laing Homes (895 Dove Street) is located to the west of the property on the south side of Quail Street and a two -story office building located at 901 Dove Street lies north of Quail Street. A Coco's Bakery and Restaurant (900 Bristol Street) is located to the southwest of the project site. 10. Other agencies whose approval is required: None E Newport Lexus 1S -6- July 2004 • ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The environtnental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this prejec:, im olving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" or "Less loan Significant with Mitigation Incorporation" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages: ❑ Aesthetics ❑ Agriculture Resources ZAir Quality ❑ Biological Resources ❑ Cultural Resources ❑ Geology / Soils ❑ Hazards & Hazardous Materials ® Hydrology / Water Quality ❑ Land Use / Planning F Mineral Resources ❑ Noise ❑ Population I Housing Q Public Services ❑ Recreation El Storm Water ZI Transportation 1 Traffic ❑ Utilities I Service Systems g Mandatory Findings of Signifeance DETERNU ATION: (To be completed by lead agency) On the basis of this initial evaluation: ❑ I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared ❑ I find that although the proposed project could have a significant eff6ct on the enviroament, there will not be a significant effect Lri this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION aril be prepared. ❑ I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. El I find that the proposed project MAY have a `potentially signifies= impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigared" impact on tha cnvirounsent, but at least one effect 1') has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation rrmeasures based an the earlier analysis as described on ansched sheets. An E.NVIRONLMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed ❑ I Bad that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the enviromssnert, because an potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing flasher is required DavidLepo, Date Prcject Manager Hogle- Ireland, Inc. for the City of Newport Beach • Ne upon Lexus IS -8- Judy 2004 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): 1. AESTHETICS — Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a State scenic highway? c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare that would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? II. AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES: In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Department of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. Would the project: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non - agricultural use? b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? c) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non - agricultural use? III. AIR QUALITY: Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air qualitly plan? b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? ❑ Less Than ❑ ❑ ❑ signi canl ❑ ❑ Potentiallr Wiih Less Thnn signfcom Maigarioa signifrcanl No • hnnaci Incorporation Impacl lmyarl ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ® ❑ ❑ ❑ ® ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ® ❑ ❑ ❑ ® ❑ ❑ ❑ Newport Lexus 1S -8- July 2004 • L] Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): III. AIR QUALITY — (cont.): c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non - attainment under an applicable federal or State ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions that exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES — Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporation Impact Impact ® ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ® ❑ ❑ ❑ b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? ❑ c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? ❑ d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? ❑ e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? ❑ f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Conservation Community Plan, or other approved local, regional, or State habitat conservation plan? ❑ Newport Lexus IS 0 El Z El Z ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ El July 2004 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY — (cont.) b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre- existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? Less Than" Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant .Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporation Impact Impact ... ❑ ❑ ❑ c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off -site? ❑ ® ❑ ❑ d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off -site? ❑ ® ❑ ❑ e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff. ❑ ® ❑ ❑ f) Result in temporary modifications to existing drainage patterns that may increase the flow rate of stormwater, violate water qualtiy discharge requirements, or result in substantial erosion on or off -site due to construction activities? ❑ ® ❑ ❑ g) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? ® ❑ ❑ ❑ h) Place housing within a 100 -year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? ❑ ❑ ❑ i) Place within a 100 -year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? ❑ ❑ ❑ j) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? ❑ ❑ ❑ k) Inundation ofseiche, tsunami, or mudflow? ❑ ❑ ❑ IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING — Would the project: a) Physically divide an established community? ❑ ❑ ® ❑ July 2004 Newport Lexus IS -12- • Less Than Significant Potentialh With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporation Impact Impact IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING -- (cont.) b) 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? ❑ ® ❑ ❑ c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? ❑ ❑ ❑ X. MINERAL RESOURCES — Would the project: a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the State? ❑ ❑ ❑ b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally - important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan? ❑ ❑ ❑ XI. NOISE — Would the project result in: a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? ❑ ® ❑ ❑ b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundbome vibration or groundbome noise levels? ❑ ® ❑ ❑ c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? ❑ ® ❑ ❑ d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity due to construction activities above levels existing without the project? ❑ ® ❑ ❑ e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? ❑ ❑ ® ❑ Q For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in • the project area to excessive noise levels? ❑ ❑ ❑ Newport Lexus 1S -13- July 2004 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): Les, Than Signyicmn Polenlially Wnh Less Than • Significani Af liga ion Sign fcanl No 1,npacl Incorparalion Imoacl ImDacl XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING --Would the project: a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? ❑ b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? ❑ ❑ ❑ c) Displace substantial numbers of people necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? ❑ ❑ ❑ XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES — a) 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, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: Fire protection? ❑ ❑ ® ❑ Police protection? ❑ ❑ ® ❑ Schools? ❑ ❑ ® ❑ Parks? ❑ ❑ ® ❑ Other public facilities? ❑ ❑ ® ❑ XIV. RECREATION — a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? ❑ ❑ ® ❑ b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? ❑ ❑ ® ❑ Newport Lexus IS -14- July 2004 • • Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporation Impact Impact XV. STORM WATER— Would the proposed project result in: a) Storm water system discharges from areas for materials storage, vehicle or equipment fueling, vehicle or equipment maintenance (including washing), waste handling, hazardous materials handling or storage delivery or loading docks or other work area? ® ❑ ❑ ❑ b) A significantly environmental harmful increase in the flow rate or volume of storm water nmoff? ❑ ❑ ® ❑ c) A significantly environmentally harmful increase in erosion of the project site or surrounding areas? ❑ ® ❑ ❑ d) Storm water discharges that would significantly impair the beneficial uses of receiving waters or areas that provide water quality benefits (e.g., riparian corridors, wetlands, etc.) ❑ ® ❑ ❑ e) Hann to the biological integrity of drainage systems and water bodies? ❑ ® ❑ ❑ XVI. TRANSPORTATION I TRAFFIC — Would the project: a) 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)? ❑ ® ❑ ❑ b) Result in the temporary street or lane closures that would result in either a change of traffic patterns or capacity that is substatial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system during construction activities (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)? ❑ ❑ ® ❑ c) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? ® ❑ ❑ ❑ d) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? ❑ ❑ ❑ e) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? ❑ ❑ ❑ Newport Lexus IS -15- July 2004 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): XVI. TRANSPORTATION / TRAFFIC — (cont.): f) Result in inadequate emergency access? g) Result in inadequate parking capacity resulting in an impact on traffic or circulation? h) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? XVIL UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS — Would the project: a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? g) Comply with federal, State, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? Less That Significant Potentialb With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact IncorDO� Impact Impact Newport Lexus IS -16- July 2004 0 0 ❑ ❑ ® ❑ Newport Lexus IS -16- July 2004 0 0 • Less Than Significant Potentiatto With Less Than Sign (cant Mitigation Significant No Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): Imaoct Incorporation Imnorr Inni.et XVIII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE re a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self - sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? ❑ ® ❑ ❑ b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ( "Cumulative considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? ® ❑ ❑ ❑ c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? ❑ ❑ ® ❑ Newport Lexus IS -17- July 2004 SECTION 2.0 DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES I. AESTHETICS: Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a State scenic highway? No Impact. The proposed project site is currently developed with office /commercial uses and an Avis Rent -a -Car storage lot. There are no scenic vistas or scenic highways near the site. Therefore, the project would not affect scenic vistas or scenic highways. c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporation. 'Be proposed project could alter the visual character of the overall area. Platt College, currently located on the site, consists of three two - story buildings. The proposed project would add a parking structure of up to eight stories on the site. Although several buildings in the surrounding area are of comparable scale, this could be considered a significant impact depending on the design of the structure. Mitigation Measures M -I.I: The parking structure associated with the project shall be designed to be consistent with the surrounding area. The applicant shall submit design plans to the City of Newport Beach for review to ensure proposed design elements do not conflict with the overall visual character of the surrounding area. d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporation. The proposed facility would operate until 9 PM on weeknights. This would require nighttime lighting. The additional lighting that would be required would be designed to illuminate the appropriate areas only. Design of the project would take advantage of landscaping and on -site architectural massing to block light sources and reflection of artificial lighting off cars on the site. The City of Newport Beach Municipal Code does not contain any specific guidelines pertaining to light and glare impacts. Therefore, the following mitigation measure is necessary to ensure impacts due to light and glare are less than significant. Mitigation Measures M -I.2: The applicant shall submit a lighting plan to be reviewed by the City of Newport Beach. The lighting plan shall include design features to minimize impacts of light and glare on the surrounding area. Newport Lexus IS -18- July 2004 • II. AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES: Would the project: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non - agricultural use? b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? c) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non - agricultural use? No Impact. The project site is currently developed with office /commercial uses and an Avis Rent -a- Car storage lot. There are no agricultural resources or operations. In addition, no Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance is located in the immediate vicinity of the project site. Therefore, no impacts to agricultural resources would occur. No mitigation measures are required. III. AIR QUALITY: Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable Air Quality Attainment Plan? Potentially Significant Impact. The site is located in the Orange County sub -area of the South Coast Air Basin (SCAB). The basin is designated as a non - attainment area for ozone (03), particulates (PMio), carbon monoxide (CO) and a "maintenance" area for oxides of nitrogen, which denotes that it • had once been a non - attainment area for the pollutant. The South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD), the regional agency empowered to regulate stationary sources, maintains an extensive air quality monitoring network to measure criteria pollutant concentrations throughout the SCAB. The Federal Clean Air Act (FCAA) and the California Clean Air Act require improvement plans to be developed for areas designated as nonattainment (with the exception of areas designated as non - attainment for the State PM10 standard). The 2003 AQMP updates the attainment demonstration (the plan the designates how attainment will be met), the federal standards for ozone and particulate matter (PM10), replaces the 1997 attainment demonstration for the federal carbon monoxide (CO) standard, provides a basis for a maintenance plan for CO for the future, and updates the maintenance plan for the federal nitrogen dioxide (NO2) standard that the South Coast Air Basin (Basin) has met since 1992. The project will involve the construction of an auto dealership consisting of a showroom, service center and parking structure. Construction and operation impacts may exceed thresholds of significance for certain pollutants set by the 2003 AQMP. The EIR for the project will further analyze this impact. b) Violate an air quality standard or contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation? c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non - attainment under an applicable federal or State ambient air quality standard (including emisisons which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? Potentially Significant Impact. Project related construction traffic would have a temporary effect on air quality in the vicinity of the project. Construction traffic and diesel- powered equipment would emit nitrogen oxides, carbon monoxide, sulfur oxides, hydrocarbons, and particulates. These emissions would increase local concentrations temporarily and could contribute to an increase in the frequency of violations of air quality standards. Newport LexusIS -19- July 2004 Stationary- source emissions (on -site) would be generated as a result of the combustion of natural gas to meet the heating needs of the proposed project. Stationary source emissions resulting from • electrical energy demand would occur offsite at electrical power generating plants within the SCAB. Power plant emission factors assume continued availability and use of natural gas in power plants. Total operational emissions include mobile - source (e.g. automobile trip generation) and stationary- source emissions (e.g. smokestacks). Due to the proposed use of the project site (automobile dealership and service center) it is likely that the project will generate a significant amount of criteria pollutants. The EIR for the project will further analyze these impacts. d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? Less than Significant Impact. The project site is currently developed and is surrounded by commercial and office uses. No sensitive receptors such as residences or schools would be affected. e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporation. Vehicle exhaust could create an objectionable odor in those portions of the site where automobiles idle. The following mitigation measure would reduce this impact to less than significant. Mitigation Measures M- III.I: Design features of the project will provide for adequate ventilation in those areas in which vehicle exhaust would create a strong odor. The applicant shall submit design plans for approval by the City of Newport Beach which address building ventilation. IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special- status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? No Impact. The proposed project site is located in a developed area of the City of Newport Beach. The proposed project site and surrounding area is developed or landscaped with non - native landscape and ornamental vegetation. Based on general knowledge of the biota of the area and an electronic database review of the Newport Beach quadrangle in the California Natural Diversity Database (CDFG 2004), t several sensitive species have historically been sighted in the general area of the project site. The site is located north of Upper Newport Bay which is considered a senstive habitat. However, the would not be affected by the proposed project because the Route 73 Freeway acts as a barrier between the project and the Bay. Based on the disturbed condition of the site (i.e. development) and the relative lack of suitable habitat, the potential for any known sensitive species on -site is considered low. The proposed project would, therefore, not have a substantial adverse effect on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or California Department of Fish and Game. Natural Diversity Database. accessed June 21, 2004. Newport Lexus 1S -20- July special - status species in local or regional plans or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Impacts would be less than significant. No mitigation measures are required. b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? Less than Significant Impact. No riparian habitats or sensitive natural communities are located at the project site. Upper Newport Bay is located to the south and west of the site and does contain riparian habitat. However, the habitat is located south of the Route 73 Freeway and would not be impacted by the proposed project. c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? Less than Significant Impact. No wetland habitat has been identified or is known to exist on the project site. Located to the south and west of the project site is Upper Newport Bay Biological Reserve. However, the wetlands are located south of the Route 73 Freeway and would not be impacted by the proposed project. d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? • No Impact. The area surrounding the site is developed with commercial and business uses. Wildlife corridors do not exist on or near the project site and would not be affected by project implementation. The project would not result in any disruption to wildlife movement or migration patterns. Newport Bay is located south of the project site; however, because the Route 73 Freeway acts as a barrier between the project site and Newport Bay, the project would not interfere with the movement of any native or migratory fish in the Bay. Impacts would be less than significant. No mitigation measures are required. e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? I) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Conservation Community Plan, or other approved local, regional, or State habitat conservation plan? No Impact. The project site is developed with office and commercial uses and a rental car storage lot. The surrounding area is largely developed with commercial and business uses. The proposed project would not require the removal of any protected plant species, as none currently exist on the site. Further, there are no known sensitive biological resources in the area as discussed previously. Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources or conflict with the provisions of any adopted habitat conservation plans. Impacts would be less than significant. No mitigation is required. V. CULTURAL RESOURCES Would the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in §15064.5? Newport Lexus IS -21- July 2004 No Impact. Generally, historically significant buildings are either more than 50 years old, and/or representative of a particular architectural style or time period in California history. The proposed project site is developed with office and business uses. The buildings currently on the site were constructed less than 50 years ago and do not represent a significant style or period in California history. Therefore, there would be no impact to historical resources. No mitigation measures are required. b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a unique archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5? c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporation. The proposed project site is located in an urbanized area and is currently developed with Platt College and a rental car storage lot. The National Register of Historic Places, California Historical Landmarks and the California Points of Historical Interest do not list any properties within a one -mile radius of the site. The project site does not contain any known historical, archaeological, or paleontological resources or unique geologic features. The proposed project area is entirely developed and there are no human remains known to exist at the proposed project site. Therefore, the proposed project is not anticipated to cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of any historical, archaeological, or paleontological resources or unique geologic features. The proposed project is not anticipated to disturb any human remains. However, in the event that such resources are inadvertently uncovered the following mitigation measures shall be implemented: Mitigation Measures • M -V.1: In the event that an archaeological or paleontological resource is inadvertently uncovered, the project applicant shall be required to immediately cease all construction at the place of discovery and a qualified archaeologist and /or paleontologist retained to evaluate the find If the archaeologiest or paleontologist determines that potentially significant paleontological or archaeological materials or human remains are encountered, the archaeologist and/or paleontologist must recover, retrieve and/or remove any paleontological or archaeological materials. The archaeologist shall provide a copy of documentation of all recovered date and materials found on -site to the regional information center of the California Archaeological Inventory for inclusion in the permanent archives and another copy shall accompany any recorded archaeological materials and data. M -V.2: The applicant shall comply with the procedures required by NAHC as outlined in Section 50907.9 of the PRC and Section 7050 of the Health and Safety Code. In the event of discovery or recognition of any human remains during construction or excavation activities associated with the project, the implementing agency shall cease further excavation or disturbance of the site until the coroner has been informed VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS Would the project: a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: Newport LexusIS -22- July 2004 ii) 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? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? Less Than Significant Impact. The project site is located within the seismically active region of southern California. Primary ground rupture or fault rupture is defined as the surface displacement, which occurs along the surface of a fault during an earthquake. There are no active faults identified by the State, as delineated on the most recent Alquist -Paolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map, on the project site.'` Due to their location within a region subject to strong seismic ground shaking, occupants of the proposed project would be exposed to seismic risks similar to those experienced by occupants at most other locations in the surrounding area. The proposed project would comply with all applicable building and safety requirements, which would reduce potential effects to less than significant levels. The proposed project itself would not cause a substantial increase in the number of people or structures exposed to seismic risks. No significant impacts would occur and no mitigation is required. iii) Seismic - related ground failure, including liquefaction? iv) Landslides? Less than Significant Impact. Liquefaction usually occurs in areas where groundwater is less than 30 to 50 feet from the surface. Seismically induced landslides and other slope failures are common • occurrences during or directly after earthquakes. The project site is not located in an area prone to liquefaction or landslides.3 Thus, the potential for liquefaction or for seismically induced landslides to affect the proposed project site is considered to be low. The proposed project would, therefore, not expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects due to liquefaction or seismically induced landslides. Impacts would be less than significant. No mitigation measures are required. b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporation. The proposed project would not significantly alter the existing topography within the project area. Currently, the project site is designed such that the area slopes somewhat along MacArthur Boulevard and Jamboree Road with berms along those sides of the project. However, the majority of the site contains flat impervious surfaces and the nature of the project is such that the final grading of the site would not differ significantly from the existing grade. Therefore, the proposed project is not anticipated to change stormwater run -off volumes or significantly affect drainage patterns. Operation of the proposed project is, therefore, not anticipated to result in substantial erosion or loss of topsoil. Soil erosion could result when the project site is excavated and cleared prior to construction. Exposed soils during grading and construction activities would be subject to wind and water erosion. Construction acitivites on I to 5 acres require permitting under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System ( NPDES), which regulates discharge to "navigable waters" of the United States. The requirements of NPDES are examined in Section VIII. Hydrology, Impact (a). Erosion and topsoil loss would be mitigated with the implementation of Best Management Practices (BMPs) under the Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP). Therefore, with the implementation of mitigation measure M -VLI, impacts of erosion and loss of topsoil would be reduced to less than • significant. a California Geologic Survey website, htti)://www.consrv.ca.gov/CGS/rghnVai)/affected.htm, accessed June 22,2004- Ibid. Newport Lexus IS -23- July 2004 Mitigation Measures M -VLI: The applicant shall prepare and implement a Water Quality Management Plan to be s submitted to the City of Newport Beach as required for coverage under the Statewide National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System construction permit. At a minimum, specific measures shall include the following: • Plan excavation and grading activities to be conducted during the dry season to the extent possible. • If construction occurs during the rainy season, storm runoff from construction areas shall be regulated by standard Best Management Practices which may include temporary on -site silt traps or detention basins. Stockpiles of loose material shall be covered to prevent wind and water erosion and runoff diverted away from exposed soil. • After completion of grading, re- vegetation shall be initiated as soon as possible, as feasible. c) Be located on strata 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? d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18 -1 -B of the Uniform Building Code, creating substantial risks to life or property? Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporation. The underlying sediments at the project site have been mapped as Quaternary strafied sequence, and the soils are predominately sandy loam, gravelly -sandy loam, silt loam, clays, fine sandy loam, and fine sands .4 Preliminary review indicates that the project is not located in an area prone to subsidence.5 . The proposed project site is located in a relatively flat area and is not located within an area identified as having a potential for seismically induced landslides. The project site is not mapped within an area identified as having a potential for liquefaction.6 Lateral spreading generally occurs where soils are susceptible to liquefaction. Therefore, because the potential for liquefaction at the project site is low, the potential for lateral spreading would also be considered low. The proposed project is, therefore, not anticipated to be located on soil that is unstable or would become unstable due to landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse and impacts would be less than significant; no mitigation measures would be required. Expansive soil is defined as soil that expands to a significant degree upon wetting and shrinks upon drying. Generally, expansive soils contain a high percentage of clay particles. The soils on site are predominately sandy loam, gravelly -sandy loam, silt loam, clays, fine sandy loam, and fine sands. Additional exploration borings will be performed in the locations of proposed buildings to provide detailed foundation design recommendations for the proposed project prior to construction. In the event that expansive soils are encountered, the proposed project would incorporate standard construction procedures and design features in compliance with general building and grading standards to ensure that expansive soils would not impact the proposed structures. With implementation of mitigation measure M -VL2, the proposed project would be designed to be compatible with soil properties at the proposed project site, including expansive soils. Golder Associates, Final Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Park MacArthur, May 2004. s Southern California Association of Governments, Draft Regional Transportation Plan PELR, 2004. 6 California Geologic Survey website, htt p:/ /mnw.consrv.ca.gov /shmp/html/pdf maps so.html accessed June 22, 2004. Newport Lexus IS -24- July 2004 Mitigation Measures M -VL2: Prior to construction of the proposed project, exploration borings shall be performed in the locations of the proposed buildings to provide detailed foundation design recommendations for the proposed new development. e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater? No Impact. The proposed project would not involve the use of septic tanks to handle its wastewater generation. Therefore, no impacts are anticipated as this is not a relevant concern to the proposed project. No mitigation measures are required. VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS Would the project: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? b) 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? Less than Significant Impact. The project would generate an increase in the amount of automotive related hazardous materials used on the site due to its use as an auto dealership. These • materials include antifreeze, waste oil and motor, transmission and gear oil. These materials are typically classified as low /routine hazards. The proposed project will likely include the installation of a 280 gallon anti -freeze storage tank, a 500 gallon waste coolant tank, a 750 gallon used oil storage tank, and a 480 gallon new oil storage tank. Potential hazards associated with these materials would be reduced through compliance with existing federal, State, and local rules and regulations. The Newport Beach Fire Department would oversee the design, installation, and operation of the underground and aboveground storage tanks in accordance with State and federal rules and regulations within its jurisdiction. The project applicant is required by the City of Newport Beach to file a Hazardous Materials Business Plan with the City Newport Beach Fire Department detailing all hazardous materials at the site, storage methods, and spill prevention plans. The project applicant shall also prepare and implement a Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasures (SPCC) Plan, as required by the State Water Resources Control Board. Compliance with federal, State, and local rules and regulations for hazardous materials - handling, and storage tanks would reduce the potential health and safety issues associated with the storage of hazardous materials to less than significant. c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one - quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? No Impact. The Newport Montessori School is the closest school to the project site within the City of Newport Beach. The school is located approximately one mile to the west of the project site. However, the project would not involve the use of hazardous materials, acutely hazardous materials, substances, or wastes in sufficient quantities to pose a potential hazard. As described above, the • project would be required to comply with all federal, State and local rules and regulations for hazardous materials handling to ensure that no impacts would occur. No mitigation measures are required. Newport Lexus 1S -25- July 2004 d) 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? No Impact. The proposed project site is not listed as a site containing hazardous waste on any lists compiled pursuant to Section 65962.5 of the Government Code .7 The Phase I assessment for the project indicates that previous uses on the site were listed for environmental violations and handling or storage of hazardous materials or wastes. The current Avis Rent -a -Car facility at 848 Dove Street was listed on the HAZNET database. According to the Phase I report, tank bottom wastes generated at the Avis facility are currently disposed of with a recycler. Two facilities that had previously occupied the site, Beach Imports and Newport Nissan (both vacated in 1991) were listed on several environmental databases (UST, HIST) regarding past use of hazardous materials on the site. Since that time contaminated soils were excavated and treated.s The proposed project would, therefore, not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment due to location on a hazardous materials site. No mitigation measures are required. e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? No Impact. The project is located approximately one mile to the South and west of John Wayne - Orange County Airport and is located within the land use plan area for that airport. The site is currently developed with primarily office uses. Although the project is larger in terms of square footage, it provides for fewer employees overall. Implementation of the proposed project would not result in an increase in the number of people at the site on a daily basis. In addition, the proposed project is not located within an accident potential zone /clear zone as stated in the Airport Environs Land Use Plan.9 Further, the project will comply with the requirements of the Airport Land Use Commission for Orange County. Therefore, the project would not result in an safety hazard for people residing in the project area. No mitigation measures are required. f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? No Impact. The project site is not located within the immediate vicinity of a private airstrip. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area or visiting the project site. No impacts are anticipated. No mitigation measures are required. g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? No Impact. The proposed project would not interfere with a current emergency response plan or an emergency evacuation plan for local, State or federal agencies. All emergency procedures would be implemented consistent with local, State, and federal guidelines during the construction and operation of the project. Therefore, no impacts are anticipated. No mitigation measures are required. r California Department of Toxic Substance Control, Hazardous Waste and Substances Site List (Cortese List), website httn: / /wvrw.dtsc.ca.gov /database /Calsites /Cortese List.cfm, accessed June 21, 2004 s Golder Associates, Final Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Park MacArthur, May 2004. • v Airport Land Use Commission, Airport Environs Land Use Plan, November 16, 1995. Newport Lexus 1S -26- July 2004 • h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? No Impact. The proposed project site and surrounding area are largely developed and no wildland fire hazard risk exists. On -site landscaping would be controlled through trimming and watering so as to reduce fire hazard impacts. Therefore, no impacts are expected. No mitigation measures are required. VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY: Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? Potentially Significant Impact. Stormwater and urban runoff is a significant source of water pollution that may result in declines in fisheries and other aquatic life, restrictions on recreational activities, losses to the annual tourism economy, and general impairment of the existing and potential beneficial uses of receiving waters. The proposed project would be required to comply with all applicable federal, State and regional regulations to protect water quality during construction as well as during the life of the project. As a project within the City of Newport Beach and whose site runoff discharges into the City's • Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4), the proposed Lexus Dealership is subject to the water quality rules and regulations set forth by the City for stormwater and non - stormwater discharges generated from the property. The project is anticipated to generate a number of general pollutants associated with its use as an automobile dealership. Typical pollutants from these facilities include heavy metals, oil and grease, organic compounds, and trash and debris. Other potential pollutants of concern are nutrients for commercial properties are pesticides, sediments and oxygen demanding substances. The proposed project is located within the vicinity of San Diego Creek and Upper Newport Bay, both considered impaired receiving water bodies. Currently, San Diego Creek is listed as impaired for pathogens and pesticides, while Upper Newport Bay is impaired by metal and pesticides. 10 Stormwater runoff generated from the project site ultimately discharges into these surface waters. The discharge of pollutants from the property that would further impair San Diego Creek and Upper Newport Bay would need to be prevented. The Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) for the proposed project will prevent the discharge of pollutants mentioned above into San Diego Creek and Upper Newport Bay. The EIR for the project will further analyze this impact. b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there should be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre - existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been • granted)? 10 Fuscoe Engineering, Newport Beach Lexus Dealership Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan, June 2004. Newport Lexus IS -27- July 2004 No Impact. The project site is located in an urban area, and is currently developed with urbanized uses. The quantity of impervious surfaces associated with the proposed project would not increase above existing conditions. Therefore, the proposed project would not alter the existing contribution of the proposed project site to groundwater recharge. Excavation and grading of the site are also not expected to interfere with any known aquifers. Therefore, no impacts are anticipated and no mitigation measures are required. c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off -site? d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off -site? Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporation. The project site is currently developed with surface parking and office /commercial uses. The proposed project includes the construction of an automobile showroom, auto service building and a 1,700 space parking structure. Changes would be made to the existing grade during construction, however the grade of the finished site would not differ significantly from the existing grade. As a result, operation of the proposed project is not anticipated to significantly alter the existing volume and drainage pattern of storm water at the project site and surrounding area. Operation of the proposed project would, therefore, not result in substantial erosion, siltation, or flooding, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff As detailed in Section VI. Geology and Soils, (b), soil erosion could take place during excavation prior to construction. To minimize soil erosion during construction activities, the proposed project would be subject to a municipal NPDES permit for construction and the preparation of a WQMP. With the implementation of mitigation measure M -VI.1 of Section VI. Geology and Soils, impacts of erosion and loss of topsoil would be reduced to less than significant. e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporation. The site is currently developed with Platt College (three, two -story buildings) and open air parking. Development of the Lexus Dealership would not substantially alter the existing grade. As a result, the volume and drainage patterns of stormwater runoff would remain similar to existing conditions. The proposed project would, therefore, not create runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing stormwater drainage systems. As detailed in Section VI Geology and Soils (b), soil erosion could take place during excavation prior to construction. To minimize impacts of soil erosion during construction activities, the proposed project would comply with requirements of a municipal NPDES permit for construction through the preparation of a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP). With the implementation of mitigation measure M -VI.1 of Section VI Geology and Soils, impacts associated with additional sources of polluted runoff would be reduced to less than significant. f) Result in temporary modifications to existing drainage patterns that may increase the flow rate of stormwater, violate water quality discharge requirements, or result in substantial erosion on or off -site due to construction activities? • Newport Lexus IS -28- July 2004 Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporation. The proposed project would not exceed stormwater drainage systems capacity by causing temporary or permanent changes to existing drainage patterns and stormwater volumes. As detailed in Section VI Geology and Soils, the WQMP for the project will minimize soil erosion impacts due to construction and ensure that runoff from the site does not violate water quality discharge requirements. Implementation of M -VI.1 would reduce the impacts to drainage patterns to less than significant. g) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? Potentially Significant Impact. The project site currently drains in a southerly direction toward Jamboree Road. Surface runoff then discharges off -site and ultimately drains to San Diego Creek/Upper Newport Bay through the City's MS4. Several options for incorporation of treatment control are being considered for the site to create a "treatment train" of BMPs. The EIR for the project will further analyze this impact and identify appropriate mitigation measures. h) Place housing within a 100 -year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? i) Place housing within a 100 -year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? j) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? No Impact. The proposed project is not located in a flood zone according to the City of Newport Beach.11 The project site is also not located in the vicinity of a dam. The proposed project does not is include housing. The proposed project will not impede or redirect flood flows, or expose people or structures to a significant risk due to flooding. Impacts are less than significant. No mitigation is required. 0 k) Inundation of seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? No Impact. Development and operation of the Lexus Dealership would not subject people or structures to unusual inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow. The Newport Beach General Plan indicates that the risk to the public from tsunamis is "extremely remote." 12 No impacts are anticipated to occur. No mitigation measures are required. IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING: Would the project: a) Physically divide an established community? Less than Significant Impact The project site is currently developed with office/commercial uses and open air parking and does not contain residential dwellings. In addition, the project would not introduce new roads or any above ground infrastructure that would divide the existing site. The impact of the proposed project would be less than significant. No mitigation measures are required. City of Newport Beach GIS Mapping Applications website httn'//ww 6. city.newuort- beach.ca.us/website/nb info/viewer.htm accessed online June 21, 2004. City of Newport Beach General Plan, Public Safety Element, March 10, 1975. Newport Lexus IS -29- July 2004 b) 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 Impact with Mitigation Incorporation. The project is not located in the coastal zone and thus would not conflict with any adopted coastal policies. The current zoning for the site is Administrative, Professional and Financial commerical. The proposed project will require amendments to the General Plan, Zoning Ordinance, and a Conditional Use Permit (CUP). Mitigation Measures M -IX.1: The applicant shall apply for a General Plan Amendment, Zoning Ordinance Amendment and a CUP from the City of Newport Beach. c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural communities conservation plan? No Impact. The project site and surrounding area are developed with commerical and business uses. There are no (mown habitat or natural communities conservation plans for the project area.13 Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with any conservation plans. No impacts are anticipated. No mitigation measures are required. X. MINERAL RESOURCES Would the project: is a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the State? b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally - important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan? No Impact. The proposed project site is located in a developed area. Further, there has not been, nor are there any (mown plans for any mining or mineral recovery projects at the project site or in the immediate vicinity of the project site. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource or locally- important mineral resource recovery site. No impacts are anticipated. No mitigation measures are required. XI. NOISE: Would the project result in: a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standard of other agencies? b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? U Southern California Association of Governments Draft Regional Transportation Plan 2004. • Newport LexusIS -30- July 2004 0 Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporation. The project site is not located in the vicinity of any sensitive receptors such as schools or residences. It is entirely surrounded by office and commercial uses. However, the following mitigation measures would be implemented to reduce potential noise impacts during construction activities: Mitigation Measures M -XLI: During construction phases, the contractor shall ensure that all construction be performed in accordance with the City of Newport Beach noise standards. No noise intensive construction or repair work shall be performed between the hours of 9:00 PM and 7:00 AM on any weekday, or before 8:00 AM or after 6:00 PM on any Saturday or national holiday, or at any time on Sundays. During construction activities, the contruction manager and inspector shall serve as the contact persons in the event that noise levels become distruptive. A sign will be posted at the site with the contact phone numbers. c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels exisiting without the project? d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporation. The amount of noise generated due to operation of the project is not anticipated to be significantly above those levels currently experienced at the site. Increases in noise levels are anticipated to be associated primarily with construction activities, and thus would not generate a permanent increase in ambient noise levels. The temporary increases in noise levels that could occur would be mitigated with the implementation of M -XL L Some increases to noise levels could occur due to use of the project site as an automobile dealership and repair shop. The following mitigation measure would reduce the impact of noise to less than significant. Mitigation Measures M -XL2: Design of the proposed project will incorporate measures to reduce noise associated with the project. These measures shall include noise barriers and setbacks as appropriate that will minimize operational noise impacts. The applicant shall submit designs to the City of Newport Beach for approval prior to construction of the project. The proposed project shall comply with Newport Beach municipal noise standards. e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or a public use airport, would the project expose people residing or wonting in the project area to excessive noise levies? Less than Significant Impact. The project is located within the land use plan area for John Wayne Orange County Airport and is currently developed with office uses. The project site is located within a Noise Impact Zone "2" or Moderate Noise Impact (60 dB CNEL or greater, less than 65dB CNEL). Although residential uses would not be considered acceptable in this zone, the proposed commercial Newport Lexus IS -31- July 2004 use is "normally acceptable" pursuant to the Airport Environs Land Use Plan for the County of Orange.14 This impact is considered less than significant. No mitigation measures are required. f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? No Impact. The project is not located within the vicinity of a private airstrip. Therefore, no impacts are anticipated. No mitigation measures are required. XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING Would the project: a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? Less than Significant Impact. The project site is currently occupied with Platt College and a rental car storage facility. The proposed project would replace these uses with a Lexus Dealership which would employ approximately 250 persons. Although the proposed project is larger in terms of overall square footage, it would accommodate fewer people on the site on a daily basis due to its use as a car dealership rather than a college or office. In addition, the project would not include the construction of any homes or the extension of any infrastructure, and therefore, would not induce growth, either directly or indirectly, in the area. This impact is less than significant. No mitigation measures are required. b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? c) Displace substantial numbers of people necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? No Impact. No residential units would be removed in order to construct the proposed project. Therefore, the proposed project would not displace substantial numbers of existing housing or people, or necessitate the construction of replacement housing elsewhere. No impacts would occur. No mitigation measures are required. XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES Would the project: a) 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 constructio n Impacts, In order to maintain acceptable objectives for any of the public services: Fire protection? Police protection? Schools? Parks? Other public facilities? of which could cause significant environmental service ratios, response times, or other performance 14 Airport Land Use Commission for Orange County, Airport Environs Land Use Plan, November 16, 1995. Newport LexusIS -32- July 2004 Is to 0 • Less than Significant Impact. The Newport Beach Police Department currently employs 148 officers to serve the residents and businesses in Newport Beach. Existing staffing levels of both police and fire protection services are sufficient to meet the potential needs of the proposed project. 15.16 Though the facility will require fire, police, park and other public services, the project is not expected to generate a need for new or physically altered governmental facilities. Current usage on the site includes three office buildings and an Avis rental car facility. Platt College has approximately 30 full time employees 17 the additional office space on the site is estimated to accommodate between 180 to 240 employees1s for a total of between 210 to 270 employees. The proposed project is estimated to employ approximately 250 people on site.19 Therefore, the proposed project would not create a significant increase in public service needs and would not require new or additional governmental facilities. Existing public services would be sufficient to serve the proposed project. The impact would be less than significant. No mitigation measures are required. XIV. RECREATION a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project would generally serve the existing residents in • the project area. Approximately 250 people would be employed at the project facility. Many of these prospective employees are likely to already reside in the Newport Beach area. Despite efforts to hire local employees, some people from outside the area may relocate due to new employment at the proposed project site. However, because the projected employment would not be greater than current employment at the site, the proposed project is not anticipated to increase the need for recreational facilities because employment at the dealership is not likely to result in population growth. The project would not require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities. Further, the project will comply with applicable requirements to pay park and other public facilities fees. The impact would be less than significant. No additional mitigation measures are required. XV. STORM WATER: Would the project result in: a) Storm water system discharges from areas for materials storage, vehicle or equipment fueling, vehicle or equipment maintenance (including washing), waste handling, hazardous materials handling or storage delivery or loading docks or other work areas? Potentially Significant Impact. The proposed project is anticipated to generate a number of general pollutants associated with its usage as an auto dealership. These pollutants include heavy metals, oil and grease, organic compounds, and trash and debris. Other potential pollutants of concern are nutrients pesticides, sediments, and oxygen demanding substances. 20 Best Management Practices 15 Lieutenant Klein, Newport Beach Police Department Letter to David Lepo forwarded to ESA, dated July 26, 2004. 16 Lockard, Dennis, Newport Beach Fire Marshal. Letter to David Lepo forwarded to ESA, dated July 27, 2004 n Bower, Mary, Platt College, personal communication July 29, 2004. !a Based on Orange County Transportation Authority Model, job generation factors. 19 Information on job projection provided by Lexus. 20 Considered potential pollutants if landscaping or open areas exist on -site. Newport Lexus 1S -33- July 2004 (BMPs) would be employed to prevent the discharge of pollutants from the property that would further impair San Diego Creek and Upper Newport Bay. The project Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) for the proposed Lexus Dealership would adequately mitigate the general pollutants mentioned above, prior to storm water runoff discharging off -site. The EIR for the project will further analyze this impact and identify potential mitigation measures. b) A significantly environmental harmful increase in the flow rate or volume of storm water runoff? Less than Significant Impact. As stated in Section VI. Geology and Soils (b), because the finished grade of the project would not differ significantly from the existing grade of the project site, the proposed project is not anticipated to change stormwater runoff volumes or drainage patterns. Impacts would be less than significant. No mitigation measures are required. c) A significantly environmentally harmful increase in erosion of the project site or surrounding areas? Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporation. As detailed in Section VI. Geology and Soils, soil erosion could take place during excavation prior to construction. To minimize soil erosion during construction activities, the proposed project would comply with requirements of a municipal NPDES permit for construction through the preparation of a WQMP. With the implementation of mitigation measure M -VL1 of Section VI. Geology and Soils, impacts of erosion and loss of topsoil would be reduced to less than significant. The proposed project is, therefore, not anticipated to create a harmful increase in erosion on the project site or surrounding area, with implementation of mitigation measure M -VL1 of Section VI. Geology and Soils. As detailed in Section VII. Hydrology, the finished grade of the proposed project would differ only minimally from the grade at the existing site. Stormwater drainage patterns during operation of the proposed project are not anticipated to differ significantly from existing patterns. Operation of the proposed project would, therefore, not result in an environmentally harmful increase in erosion. d) Storm water discharges that would significantly impair the beneficial uses of receiving waters or areas that provide water quality benefits (e.g. riparian corridors, wetlands, etc.)? e) Harm to the biological integrity of drainage systems and water bodies? Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporation. As stated in Section VIII. Hydrology impact (a), the proposed project would be required to comply with all applicable federal, State and regional regulations to protect water quality during construction as well as during the life of the project. These regulations protect the beneficial uses and biological integrity of receiving water bodies such as San Diego Creek and Upper Newport Bay. Compliance with these regulations would include the preparation of a WQMP to be submitted to the City of Newport Beach for coverage under the general statewide construction NPDES permit, detailed in mitigation measure M -VI.1 in Section VI. Geology and Soils. Implementation of mitigation measure M -VI.1 would ensure that stormwater from the proposed project site would not impair the beneficial uses of receiving waters or harm the biological integrity of drainage systems and water bodies. Implementation of mitigation measure M -VI.1 will reduce impacts to less than significant. r�L Newport Lexus IS -34- July 2004 XVL TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC: Would the project: a) 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)? Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporation. The traffic generated by the project could increase the traffic to the roadway network near the project site in comparison to existing conditions. A traffic study will be prepared for the project and will be included in the EIR. The EIR for the project will further analyze this issue and identify mitigation measures as necessary. b) Result in the temporary street or lane closures that would result in either a change of traffic patterns or capacity that is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system during construction activities (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)? Less than Significant Impact. The proposed project is located on two parcels that total approximately eight acres. It is unlikely that construction of the project would require lane closures as there is adequate space for construction equipment on the site. However, it is possible that lane closures would be required on adjacent streets in order to stage construction equipment during the construction period. In this case, the applicant will comply with local regulations regarding adequate signage to provide information to drivers in and around the site. The impacts would be less than significant. No mitigation measures are required. c) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? Potentially Significant Impact. The amount of traffic generated by the project could have cumulatively significant impacts on the level of service at intersections in the vicinity of the project site. A traffic study will be prepared for the project and will be included in the EIR. d) Result in a chance in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? No Impact. As previously discussed in Section XIL Population and Housing, the project is not anticipated to induce population growth and would, therefore, not lead to increased air travel. Proposed structures will be consistent with height restrictions for the planning area for John Wayne Orange County Airport as set forth in the Airport Land Use Plan for Orange County, and would not require changes in air traffic patterns. Accordingly, no impact would occur and no mitigation measures would be required. e) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? No Impact. No significant changes to existing roadway alignments are expected as a result of project development. Changes to the configuration of the traffic diversion island in Bowsprit at MacArthur Boulevard may be required, and reconfiguration of traffic lanes on MacArthur and Jamboree may also Newport Lexus IS -35- July 2004 be required. All such improvements will comply with local and State roadway design standards. No design feature hazards will be created. No incompatible uses are contemplated. No impact would . occur. No mitigation measures are required. t) Result in inadequate emergency access? g) Result in inadequate parking capacity? No Impact. The design of the project would provide adequate emergency access and adequate parking consistent with Newport Beach Municipal Code requirements. No impact would occur. No mitigation measures are required. h) Conflict with adopted polices supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? No Impact. Design of the project will comply with all State and federal requirements relating to public transportation. All policies supporting alternative transportation would be followed by the project. No impact would occur. No mitigation measures are required. XVII. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS Would the project: a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporation. As stated in Section VIII. Hydrology (a), the proposed project would be required to comply with all applicable federal, State and regional regulations to protect water quality during construction as well as during the life of the project. Compliance with these regulations would include the preparation of a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) to be submitted to the City of Newport Beach consistent with the general statewide construction NPDES permit, detailed in mitigation measure M -VI.1 in Section VI. Geology and Soils. b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? No Impact. The proposed project site currently includes three 30,000- square foot (90,000 sq. fr. total) office buildings and an Avis rent -a -car storage facility and showroom. These uses are estimated to consume approximately 22,400 gallons per day (GPD) of water and generate approximately 19,500 GPD of wastewater.21 Implementation of the proposed project would result in the demolition of the existing buildings and construction of a 100,000 square foot service building and a 30,000 square foot showroom. The proposed project is estimated to consume approximately 6,000 GPD 22 of water and generate approximately 9,100 GPD of wastewater. Z3 Wastewater generation would be higher than water consumption due to the need to wash cars on the site. Overall, there would be a net reduction of 16,000 GPD of water and 10,400 GPD of wastewater. The existing infrastructure at the site would be sufficient to serve the proposed project. No impacts are anticipated. No mitigation measures are necessary. City of Los Angeles, Bureau of Sanitation, Generation Factors, 2001. 12 Based information provided to ESA from Tustin Lexus. The Tustin Lexus dealership consumes approximately 3,850 GPD. 23 City of Los Angeles, Bureau of Sanitation, Generation Factors, 2001. Newport Lexus IS -36- July 2004 c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? Less than Significant Impact. As discussed in Section VIII. Hazards (c), under the proposed project, the volume of storm water runoff from the proposed project site is not anticipated to change with implementation of the proposed project. As a result, the existing storm water drainage infrastructure surrounding the project site would be adequate to serve the proposed project. d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? No Impact. The proposed project site currently includes three 30,000- square foot office buildings (90,000 sq. ft. total) and an Avis rent -a -car storage facility (10,000 sq ft) and office (2,500 sq ft.). These uses are estimated to consume approximately 22,425 gallons per day (GPD) of water. 24 Usage data from an existing Lexus automobile dealership in the area, when adjusted for the difference in size between the existing and proposed dealership, indicates the project facility would consume approximately 6,000 GPD 25 This would be a net decrease in water consumed on site. The project would also require water for on -site car washing. Ionized water for this use will be transported by truck to the project facility. The existing water supply to the site will be sufficient to serve the proposed project .26 No impacts are anticipated. No mitigation measures are necessary. e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? No Impact. The proposed project site currently includes three 30,000 square foot office buildings (90,000 sq. ft. total) and an Avis rent -a -car storage facility and showroom. These uses are estimated to generate approximately 19,500 GPD of wastewater. 27 Currently, wastewater flows from the site to a 12 -inch sewer that extends under MacArthur Boulevard to the Orange County Sanitation District (OCSD) Main Street Pump Station.'`' The sewerage from the project site would be treated at one of two OCSD area treatment plants which have a combined capacity of 293 million gallons daily (mgd).'9 To identify potential impacts to the proposed project area's water supply, water consumption factors for the proposed project were estimated based on water consumption being approximately 15% more than the wastewater generated .30 The proposed project would generate approximately 5,100 GPD of wastewater. 31 In addition to wastewater generated by other uses associated with the proposed facility, ionized water used for car washing may be discharged, after clarification, into the sanitary sewer. Based on the assumption that approximately 250 cars per day will be washed at the project dealership, an estimated 4,000 gallons of wastewater per day will be generated. Adding this figure to the wastewater generated elsewhere in the facility (5,100 GPD) results in total wastewater generation of 9,100 GPD. 24 Ibid. 23 This assumes 1.2 million annual gallons, and operation of the facility 6 days per week. 2' Deutsche, Tim, Newport Beach Department of Public Works. Personal communication July 23, 2004. City of Los Angeles, Bureau of Sanitation, Generation Factors, 2001. 28 Nazaroff, Adam, Orange County Sanitation District. Personal communication July 28, 2004. z9 City of Los Angeles, Bureau of Sanitation, Generation Factors, 2001.. . 70 Generation factors based on City of Los Angeles, Bureau of Sanitation waterlwastewater generation factors, 2001. st Ibid Newport Lexus IS -37- July 2004 This represents a net decrease of 10,400 gallons of wastewater generation per day from that of current uses on the site. Because this is an overall decrease in the amount of water at the site, the existing • infrastructure at the site would be sufficient to serve the proposed project. 3233 No impacts are anticipated. No mitigation measures are necessary. 1) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? Less Than Significant Impact. The City of Newport Beach is served by six landfills: Arvin Sanitary Landfill in Kern County, Fontana Refuse Disposal Site in San Bernardino County, Frank R. Bowerman Sanitary Landfill, Olinda Alpha Sanitary Landfill, and Prima Deshecha Sanitary Landfill in Orange County and Simi Valley Landfill - Recycling Center in Ventura County. 34 Olinda Alpha is permitted to receive 8,000 tons per day and has a remaining capacity of 67 percent; Frank R. Bowerman Landfill in Orange County is permitted to receive 8,500 tons per day and has 77 percent of its capacity remaining.35 Both of these landfills have sufficient remaining capacity to serve the project. Since two major landfills have adequate capacity to serve waste generated by the project, this impact is considered less than significant. The current usages on the site are estimated to generate approximately 80 annual tons of solid waste.36 The proposed project is estimated to generate approximately 103 tons of solid waste per year. 37 While this represents an incremental increase over current solid waste generation levels, area landfills have sufficient capacity to accommodate this increase. This impact is considered less than significant. No mitigation measures are required. g) Comply with federal, State, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporation. According to current regulations, including the California Integrated Waste Management Board Model Ordinance, demolition and construction projects are required to participate in existing countywide programs and to implement site - specific source reduction, recycling, and reuse programs. The proposed project would be required to reduce the total estimated waste output (demolition material), through reuse and recycling, by 50 percent, in accordance with the Integrated Waste Management Act AB 939. With implementation of mitigation measure M- XVIL1, the proposed project would meet requirements of AB939 and the project's impact on solid waste would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures M- XVIL1: During demolition and construction, inert materials, such as soil, asphalt, concrete, and other recyclable materials, shall be recycled to the greatest extent practicable. 32 Davidson, Eldon, City of Newport Beach Utilities Department. Letter to Gloria Broming forwarded to ESA, dated July 19, 2004. 33 Nazaroff, Adam, Orange County Sanitation District, Personal communication, July 28, 2004. 34 Jurisdiction profile for the City of Newport Beach hgp: / /www.ciwmb.ca gov/Profiie&(Juris /JurProfiiie2, asp? RG= C &JMD==340 &JUR= Newport+Beach accessed online July 27, 2004. as California Integrated Waste Management Board Facility Profiles, hn: / /%mw.ciwmb.ca.eov/Profiiles, acilitv/LandfiilY accessed online June 21, 2004. 36 County of Los Angeles Solid Wane Generation Factors, 2001. • " Ibid. Newport Lexus IS -38- July 2004 • XVIII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE • a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the hahitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self - sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the numher or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporation. The project site is located within an urbanized area surrounded by commercial and business uses. As discussed in Section IV. Biological Resources (a through d), vegetation on the project site includes ornamental trees, shrubs and grasses. There are no known rare or endangered animal or plant species at or surrounding the project site. Therefore implementation of the proposed project would not degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of fish and wildlife species, cause fish or wildlife populations to drop below self - sustaining levels, threaten or eliminate a plant or animal community, or reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal. As discussed in Section V. Cultural Resources (a through c), the project site does not contain any historical resources or any known archaeological, paleontological or unique geologic features. Any surficial archaeological or paleontological resources which may have existed at one time have likely been unearthed or disturbed. Although there is a possibility that archaeological or paleontological resources exist at deep levels below ground surface, the uncovering of such resources would be remote. Implementation of M -V.1 and M -V.2 would reduce the impacts to less than significant. No historic resources are known to exist on the site. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would not eliminate important examples of major periods of California history or prehistory. b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.) Potentially Significant Impact. The area surrounding the project site is largely urbanized. As such, an increase in the amount of traffic in the area due to the project could be cumulatively considerable. In addition, because the project is located in a non - attainment area for certain air pollutants, construction and operational impacts to air quality associated with the project could be cumulatively considerable. Both of these impact areas will be analyzed in the EIR for the project. c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? Less than Significant Impact. Due to the proposed use of the project site as an automotive dealership /repair shop, implementation of the proposed project would result in the presence of hazardous materials used or stored on the site. However, as examined in Section VII. Hazards, the project would comply with all local, State and federal regulations regarding the use, transport, handling and disposal of these materials. Therefore, the project would not result in any significant environmental effects which could cause adverse effects on human beings. Newport Lexus IS -39- July 2004 SECTION 3.0 9 LIST OF MITIGATION MEASURES INCORPORATED INTO THE PROJECT AESTHETICS M -I.1: The parking structure associated with the project .shall be designed to be consistent with the surrounding area. The applicant shall submit design plans to the City of Newport Beach for review to ensure proposed design elements do not conflict with the overall visual character of the surrounding area. M -I.2: The applicant shall submit a lighting plan to be reviewed by the City of Newport Beach. The lighting plan shall include design features to minimize impacts of light and glare on the surrounding area. AIR QUALITY M- III.1: Design features of the project will provide for adequate ventilation in those areas in which vehicle exhaust would create a strong odor. The applicant shall submit design plansfor approval by the City of Newport Beach which address building ventilation. CULTURAL RESOURCES • M -V.1: In the event that an archaeological or paleontological resource is inadvertently uncovered, the project applicant shall be required to immediately cease all construction at the place of discovery and a qualified archaeologist and/or paleontologist retained to evaluate the find If the archaeologiest or paleontologist determines that potentially significant paleontological or archaeological materials or human remains are encountered, the archaeologist and /or paleontologist must recover, retrieve and /or remove any paleontological or archaeological materials. The archaeologist shall provide a copy of documentation of all recovered date and materials found on -site to the regional information center of the California Archaeological Inventory for inclusion in the permanent archives and another copy shall accompany any recorded archaeological materials and data. M -V.2: The applicant shall comply with the procedures required by NAHC as outlined in Section 50907.9 of the PRC and Section 7050 of the Health and Safety Code. In the event of discovery or recognition of any human remains during construction or excavation activities associated with the project, the implementing agency shall cease further excavation or disturbance of the site until the coroner has been informed. GEOLOGY AND SOILS M -VI.1: The applicant shall prepare and implement a Water Quality Management Plan to be submitted to the City of Newport Beach as required for coverage under the Statewide National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System construction permit. At a minimum, specific measures shall include the following: • Newport Lexus IS -40- July 2004 • • Plan excavation and grading activities to be conducted during the dry season to the extent possible. • if construction occurs during the rainy season, storm runoff from construction areas shall be regulated by standard Best Management Practices which may include temporary on -site silt traps or detention basins. Stockpiles of loose material shall be covered to prevent wind and water erosion and runoff diverted away from exposed soil, • After completion of grading, re- vegetation shall be initiated as soon as possible, as feasible. M -VI.2: Prior to construction of the proposed project, exploration borings shall be performed in the locations of the proposed buildings to provide detailed foundation design recommendations for the proposed new development, LAND USE AND PLANNING M4X.1: The applicant shall apply for a General Plan Amendment, Zoning Ordinance Amendment and a CUP from the City of Newport Beach. NOISE M -XLI: During construction phases, the contractor shall ensure that all construction be performed in accordance with the City of Newport Beach noise standards. No noise • intensive construction or repair work shall be performed between the hours of 9:00 PM and 7:00 AM on any weekday, or before 8:00 AM or after 6.00 PM on any Saturday or national holiday, or at any time on Sundays. E During construction activities, the contruction manager and inspector shall serve as the contact persons in the event that noise levels become distruptive. A sign will be posted at the site with the contact phone numbers. M -XI.l: Design of theproposedproject will incorporate measures to reduce noise associated with the project. These measures shall include noise barriers and setbacks as appropriate that will minimize operational noise impacts. The applicant shall submit designs to the City of Newport Beach for approval prior to construction of the project. The proposed project shall comply with Newport Beach municipal noise standards. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS M- XVIL1: During demolition and construction, inert materials, such as soil, asphalt, concrete, and other recyclable materials, shall be recycled to the greatest extent practicable. Newport Lexus IS 41- July 2004 SECTION 4.0 REFERENCES • Airport Land Use Commission, Airport Environs Land Use Plan, Nobember 16, 1995. Bower, Mary, Platt College, personal communication July 29, 2004. California Department of Fish and Game. Natural Diversity Database., accessed June 21, 2004. California Department of Toxic Substance Control, Hazardous Waste and Substances Site List (Cortese List), website http: / /wNvw.dtsc.ca.gov /database /Calsites /Cortese List.cfm accessed June 21, 2004 California Geologic Survey website, httv://www.consrv.ca.izoviCGS/rghm/ap/affected.html accessed June 22, 2004. California Geologic Survey website, http_/ /gmmw.consrv.ca.aov /shmplhtmUpdf maps so.html accessed June 22, 2004. California Integrated Waste Management Board Facility Profiles, http: / /www.ciwmb.ca.pov /Profiles /Facility andfilY accessed online June 21, 2004. California Intergrated Waste Management Board Jurisdiction profile for the City of Newport Beach htip: /,`www.ciwmb.ca. eov/Profiles /Juri s /JurProfile2. asp ?RG= C &JURID= 340 &JUR = Newport+Beach accessed online July 27, 2004. City Los Angeles, Bureau of Sanitation, Generation Factors, 2001. of City of Newport Beach General Plan. March 1975. City of Newport Beach GIS Mapping Applications website http : / /www6.city.newport- beach.ca.us /website /nb info /viewer.htm accessed online June 21, 2004. County of Los Angeles, Solid Waste Generation Factors, 2001. Davidson, Eldon, City of Newport Beach Utilities Department. Letter to Gloria Broming forwarded to ESA, dated July 19, 2004. Fuscoe Engineering, NeHport Beach Lexus Dealership Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan, June 2, 2004. Golder Associates, Final Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment Park MacArthur, May 2004. Lieutenant Klein, Newport Beach Police Department. Letter to David Lepo forwarded to ESA, dated July 26, 2004. Lockard, Dennis, Newport Beach Fire Marshal. Letter to David Lepo forwarded to ESA, dated July 27, 2004 Nazaroff, Adam, Orange County Sanitation District. Personal communication July 28, 2004 Southern California Association of Governments, Draft Regional Transportation Plan PEIR, 2004. Newport Lexus IS -42- July 2004 • SECTION 5.0 • LIST OF PREPARERS AND CONTRIBUTORS LEAD AGENCY City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd. P.O. Box 1768 Newport Beach, CA 92658 -8915 George Berger, Project Manager David Lepo, Program Manager CONSULTANT — AUTHOR Environmental Science Associates 4221 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 480 Los Angeles, CA 90010 Wendy Lockwood, Regional Director Deanna Hanson, Director Roger Jinks, Senior Graphics Jessica Kirchner, Associate Natasha Mapp, Administration Newport Lexus IS -43- July 2004 :A `U `.J August 20, 2004 Community Devcbpaiuw Dcpurunom w vwrimn imC ra.115 C i v of Irvine. One Civic Cenlei PIa2a, PC. Box 19575 rvor. Ciblormo 9JF ^3- 95'l!> ;949) 774.6000 David Lepo, Project Manager Flo.gle- Ireland, Int. 42 Corporate Park, Suite 250 Irvine, CA 92606 Subject: Notice of Preparation and Initial Study of a Draft EIR — Lexus Dealership Dear Mr. Lepo: The City of Irvine has received and reviewed the information on the above referenced project. The Community Development Department has consulted with the Public Works Department for possible comments on, transportation issues. Based on their review, Transportation Services staff has the following comments: COMMENT I City staff has previously met with the City of Newport Beach's traffic consultant and discussed the proposed traffic study area and methodology. City of Irvinc methodology and performance criteria shall be applied along arterials and intersections with the City of Irvine. Provided that it is consistent with our discussions, the City of Irvine has no additional comments relating to the traffic study area_ COMIvfENT 2 Project impacts and mitigation within the City of Irvine shall be identified and discussed in the traffic study and EIEL If project mitigation is required at locations within or affecting the City of Irvine, we would like the opportunity to review all preliminary design and engineering plans. If impacts are identified due to this project, we anticipate that they will likely be, at the intersection of Jamboree Road & MacArthur Boulevard or along Jamboree Road. CCIMMENT 3 We look forward to the review of the project traffic study and EIR- PRIN-rFr) ON AWNC:LED PA ;ER Mr. David Lepo August 20, 2004 Page 2 Thank you for the opportunity to review the project. We would appreciate information on any is change in the project description as the planning process proceeds. If you have any questions, please contact me at (949) 724 -6546 or aurcis(aci.irvine.ca.us Sincerely, J L � CIS Associate Planner cc: Barry Curtis, Principal Planner Kerwin Lau, Senior Transportation Analyst File E JD.t:rARMVUNT OFiTRAnPORTATION DbUtt 12 3337Wvd4M Drive, e=6320 Trvim, CA 92612-6844 TeL (949)2124-= Fax: (949) 7242592 August 31, 2004 Mr. David Lepol, I 'rile: IGR City of Nerwp Bem SCTO*, 21 3300 Newport oulm6d Log#* Ii P.OJIbx 1769 SR k. 73 -KeNqlon Caftruk 92658 -8915 I subj,mt: NV*rt Le cas Deaknhip Dear Mr. Lepo.. 7barkky(m for the oPioftfitytorcvi�-W and comment ou the Njoticeeffire L the New Part Lams kiwm*p Drift rmvirommand impact Ptepam . The project applic ilson Automotive Group proposes to d p a 50,000 square: foot dealership showroaM, a square fbot mdo service bmidbq� a multi story pulting strumn that would acr crtrrtuuriale ud 1,700 .9mm for empitrium Parksts urns storage of sales inventoTy. The project site is located c44 1,3931, ad 3961 M=Artlmr Booi�mm4 and 848and 980 Dove Shad in the City of Newport i California. The neatest State R6ute tai the project site is State Route 73. Caftizat District 12 Mates is a mviewing agency on this project MA has the I Ag comments: • 1. A Traffic *ad Amb* must be submitted to Czttmsfbr review and cc 2. Tit the event of any actMry in Cahram' fight-ur-way, an mnuxbnent !A wig bo requiml Applicants we required to plan for siffid p=A processing time; which mIude, mvineeri atodies 4W }+Maaohmemal documentation int Pima condmi to keep us Momed of this project and a>ly fitttrre level which could P", us, Owse p0mawly im* 6* trazMportation fiafm If you have my q or do nct hesitate to ca lMarAm Mokvist (949) 724-2267. T%r(y Mxrts; Office afRamii4s a" Ru%mr%& Teri Pmm* Cab ms HQ WAMamuxft PUmin fmae AWmid Rice, Traft Ormitm North ftwen Gupta, &viroum" Mwmmg A IA AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION o,aAric;F courrry �— FOR ORANGfi COUNTY 3160 Airway Aven[ie • Costa Mesa, California 92626 - 949Z2.5170 fax: 949252.6012 August 31, 2004 Mr. David Lepo, Project Manager Jangle- Ireland, Inc. 42 Corporate Park, Suite 280 Irvine, CA 92606 Subject: NOP -DEM for Newport Lexus Dealership Dear Mr. Lepo; On behalf of the Airport land Use Commission (ALUC) for Orange County, we have reviewed the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) Notice Of apmtion (NOP) for the Newport I= D .alership and wish to offer the following commeats/eotsectioias.• . The project site is located•within two planning areas described and depicted in the Airport Land Use Ci++++**+4ssion!sAirpart.O virons land Use Plan (AELUP) for John Wayne A4port (JWA), specifically being within t1m AEL UP Noise Impact Zone and the Height Rmt rikiion Zone. The project description Wclu lm a multistory parking snuou re of as-yet unspeeiiied height, as well as art auto dealer showroom qnd service center within aasresof TAA mpdstedpbysicA height restrictions ofparticular.coitc=to the ALUC. Initial SU y Seetieny VII & ),,CI "Hazards And Hazardous MatmWa" 3t °`Noise" respectively, in each'covesponding'Paragiaph e)" states assurance of project compliance with the AL;QC's AE&LlP for JWA. However, your accompanying Footnotes 9 & 14E both•referonce.an earlier AFLVP that bas been supersecjpd by the paneatAELUP, last amended oti December 19, 2002. • Fo0ov69 enalygie bf the'projeot by FAA mull the FAR Pert 7:1 pmcedrue, a gW%ainadon of Consistency or Inconsistency with the JWAAELUP would need to be made by the A,LUO. ... ; Please note that Cafibrnia Public Rtsotucis Code Sett me -21096(a) requires that lead agencies pmparing anEIR for ? projgc.GViWa an ALUC's airport planning. area.(i;e`.;iELM zone) utilize jhe Caltraas/Division of ActonmoicS Cal tondaAbport Landt4q PImunIng.Randbook as a teohnical resource for the CEQA document, The Hm+dbogkis avg']able on -line Athe CalaanvDOA website which is: ww,rw.dot ca.gov under Land Use Planning. - Thank you for this oppommity to comomemt on ibis project in the endrrans of JWA. If you have any questions, please contact me at (949) 252 -5170 or jgolding@ooak.couL co: City of Newport Beach Planning Department 0 10 Appendix B. Air Quality Worksheet � I ESTIMATED EMISSIONS FROM DEMOLITION Construction Imports Inputs Total days Allowed for Project Total Days Allowed for Demolition (Days) Total Site Acres (Acres) Total Cubic Yards for Demolition Number of Employees Average Trip Length One Way POV (Miles) Total Work Hours Per Day (Hours/Day) Total Number of Demo Haul Trucks Daily Number of Demo Haul Trucks Average Trip Length One Way Demo Haul Trucks (Miles) Total VMT Water Trucks per day (Miles) 360.00 Grams/Mile 40.00 9.00 9400 15 30 8 783 20 25 2 20 Total # of equipment Hours per Day Days in Operation Miles Per Hour Number of Each Equipment used for Construction 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 30 0 0 scraper LDT diesel Grams/Mile GramWile # of equipment 3.02 3.6 I Hours per Day 0.2 8 Days in Operation 0.3 20 Iles Per Hour 0.01 I loaders diesel LDA 34.00% summer. Carbon Monoxide (CO) Reactive Organic Compounds (ROC) Nitrogen Oxides (NOx) Particulates (PM 10) Source: EMFAC2002 I, forklift compactor cra diesel diesel dies 1 0 1 6 0 6 40 0 210 i dozer truck bac diesel diesel di es Used in EMFAC2002 Daily VMT LDA & LD' Daily VMT Haul Truck ne welder pipe - jacker el diesel diesel 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 khor dump truck excavator el diesel diesel LDA LDT HDD Grams/Mile GramWile Grams/Mile 3.02 3.6 2.9. 0.19 0.2 0.65 0.25 0.3 15.97 0.01 0.01 0.26 Vehicle Exhaust Emissions from POV, Construction Construction Workers POV $missions EMFAC Emissions Factor. Est. Emission Grams/Mile Ibs/dav Monoxide (CO) Organic Compounds (ROC) i Oxides (NOx) Source: Emission Factors From EMFAC2002 Source: EMFAC2002 Haul Truck Emissions -dozer truck EMFAC dump truck scraper Emissions compactor crane Factor. Est. Emission Total Grams/Mile Ibs /day Carbon Monoxide (CO) 50 hp diesel 175 hp diesel Reactive Organic Compounds (ROC) 175 hp diesel Nitrogen Oxides (NOx) d97 ..r344t- Sulfur Oxides (SOx) Ibs/hour Ibs/hour Particulates (PM 10) Ibs7day Source: EMFAC2002 Source: ARB Emission Inventory Publication Number M099_32.3 Table 13 released: 2000 Source: ARB Inventory Publication M099_32.5 App. B released: 2000 0 • Construction Equipment Emissions -dozer truck backhoe dump truck scraper forklift compactor crane welder pipe - jacker Total 120 hp diesel Emissions 500 hp diesel 175 hp diesel 50 hp diesel 175 hp diesel 50 hp diesel 175 hp diesel Emissions Carbon Monoxide (CO) Ibs/bour Ibs/hour Ibs/hour Ibs/hour Ibs/hour Ibs/hour Ibs7day Carbon Monoxide (CO) 0.62 0.24 0.05 0.22 0.55 0.11 2.07 Reactive Organic Compounds (ROC) 0.24 0.13 0.03 0.11 0.1 0.2 _ Nitrogen Oxides (NOx) 4.82 2.24 0.49 2.01 0.9 1.85 _ x Particulates (PM 10) 0.10 0.05 0.01 0.05 0.05 0.05 - Source: ARB Emission Inventory Publication Number M099_32.3 Table 13 released: 2000 Source: ARB Inventory Publication M099_32.5 App. B released: 2000 0 • loaders -dozer truck backhoe dump truck excavator Total 175 hp dieser 120 hp diesel 175 hp diesel 120 hp diesel 500 hp diesel 120 hp diesel Emissions Ibs/bour Ibs/bour - Ibs/hour lbs/hour Ibs/hour Ibs/hour Ibs/day Carbon Monoxide (CO) 0.23 0.36 0.22 0.11 0.66 0.08 Reactive Organic Compounds (ROC) 0.12 0.19 0.12 0.06 0.25 0.15 Nitrogen Oxides (NOx) 2.07 3.27 2.02 1.01 5.16 1.39 Particulates(PMI 0) 0.05 0.08 0.05 0.02 0.1 0.03 Source: ARB Emission Inventory Publication Number M099_32.3 Table 13 released: 2000 Source: ARB Inventory Publication M099_32.5 App. B released: 2000 0 • Total PM 10 Fugitive Dust Emissions from construction Unmiti ag ted Milieation Air Pollutant Emission Factor Emissions Effciencv Est. Emission Ib( s/day) Particulates (PM10) Loaders* 0.000035 lb/ton 0.09996 lb/day SD% Thresholds 0.0 Paraculales(PM 10) Bulldozer ** 24 lb/hr 14.4 lb /day 50% (!bs(day) 7 Particulates(PM10) Scraper * ** 4.3 Ib /vmt 0 lb/day 50% Carbon Monoxide (CO) 0 Particulates (PM10) Backhoc * * ** 0.000035 lb/ton 0 lb/day 50% NO 0.0 Particulates(PM10) Trencher * * * ** 0.000035 lb/ton 0 lb/day 50% 75.00 0.0 Partimlates(PM10) demolition * * * * ** 0.00042 lbW 2.6649 lb/day 50% rimer. 1.3 Particulates (PM 10) POV & Haul Truck 0.42 gm/mile Particulates (PM 10) 1.74 Total Particulates NO - * Aggragate Batch Drop Equation AP -42, 13.2.4 -3 (1) Assume mean wind speed = 1.6475 mph, 7-9% soil moisture content & 280 cubic yards per hour per loader, I cubic yard= 2550 pounds. ** Bulldozing Overburden Equation Table 11.9 -1 AP42 Assume 15% silt content, 7.9 % soil moisture content * ** Cut and Fill Operations with 15 Cubic Meter Pan Scraper Equation SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook, Table A9 -9 * * ** Aggragate Batch Drop Equation AP42, 13.2.4 -3 (1) Assume mean wind speed = 1.6475 mph, 7.9% wit moisture content & 135 cubic yards per hour per backhoe, 1 cubic yard= 2550 pounds. * * * ** Aggregate Batch Drop Equation AP -42, 13.2.4 -3 (1) Assume mean wind speed = 1.6475 mph, 7.9% soil moisture content & 135 cubic yards per hour per Trencher, I cubic yard = 2550 pounds. * * * * ** Demolition emissions factor, Table A9 -9 SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook, 1993. Source: Table 11.9 -1 EPA AP42 *Source: ARB Recommended Source: EMFAC7O and SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook C� SCAQMD Est. Emissions Thresholds Air Pollutant (!bs(day) (lbs/day) Significant? Carbon Monoxide (CO) -,. 550.00 NO Reactive Organic Compounds (ROC) ` `a' 75.00 NO Nitrogen Oxides(NOx) rimer. 100.00 NO Particulates (PM 10) at19�4.i `' 150.00 NO Source: EMFAC7O and SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook C� ESTIMATED EMISSIONS FROM EXCAVATION 'Total Days Allowed for Demolition (Days) Total Site Acres (Acres) Total Cubic Yards for Demolition Number of Employees Average Trip Length One Way POV (Miles) Total Work Hours Per Day (Hours/Day) Total Number of Demo Haul Trucks Daily Number of Demo Haul Trucks Average Trip Length One Way Demo Haul Trucks (Niles) Total VMT Water Trucks per day (Miles) % LDA %LDT Season 40.00 3.6 Daily VMT LDA & LDTfbyi: jDaily VMT Haul Truck 8.00 10000 50 30 8 833 21 25 I Total Number of Each Equipment used for Construction 4 of equipment 1 0 1 0 0 Hours per Day 6 0 6 0 0 Days in Operation 20 0 20 0 0 Miles Per Hour I 1 scraper forklift compactor crane welder diesel diesel diesel diesel diesel 0 0 0 pipe- jacker diesel 4 of equipment 2 Hours per Day 8 Days in Operation 15 Miles Per Hour 1 loaders diesel 1 6 40 I dozer diesel 0 9 0 truck diesel 1 0 0 0 I backhoe diesel 1 0 1 0 0 dump truck diesel 1 6 20 I excavator diesel Assumptions Used in EMFAC2002 % LDA %LDT Season 66.00% 3.6 Daily VMT LDA & LDTfbyi: jDaily VMT Haul Truck 0.19 summer Monoxide (CO) :Organic Compounds (ROC) i Oxides (Nox) ales (PM 10) Grams/Mile Grams/Mile Gnans/Mile 3.02 3.6 2.9 0.19 0.2 0.65 0.25 0.3 15.97 0.01 0.01 0.26 ource: hMFAC2002 0 Vehicle Exhaust Emissions from POV, Construction f i Construction Workers POV Emissions EMFAC Emissions Factor. Est. Emission. Grams/Mile Ibs/day Monoxide (CO) e Organic Compounds (ROC) i Oxides (NO%) aces (PM J ource: Emission Factors Fmm EMFAC2002 Source: EMFAC2002 Haul Truck Emissions EMFAC scraper Emissions compactor crane Factor. Est. Emission Total Grams/Mile Ibs/day Carbon Monoxide(CO) 2.9 175 hp diesel Reactive Organic Compounds (ROC) 0.65 Emissions Nitrogen Oxides(NOx) 13.97 Ibs/hour Sulfur Oxides (SOx) NA ° ,Particulates (PM 10) 0.26 'DfA may` Source: EMFAC2002 Carbon Monoxide (CO) 0.23 0.36 0.22 0.11 0.66 0.08 Reactive Organic Compounds (ROC) 0.12 0.19 0.12 0.06 0.25 0.15 Nitrogen Oxides (NOx) 2.07 3.27 2.02 1.01 5.16 1.39 Particulales(PM10) 0.05 0.08 0.05 0.02 0.1 0.03 Source: ARB Emission Inventory Publication Number M099_32.3 Table 13 released: 2000 Construction Equipment Emissions scraper forklift compactor crane welder pipe- jacker Total 500 hp diesel 175 hp diesel 50 hp diesel 175 hp diesel 50 hp diesel 175 hp diesel Emissions Ibs/hour Ibs/hour Ibs/hour lbs/bour lbs/bour Ibs/hour Ibs/day Carbon Monoxide (CO) 0.62 0.24 0.05 0.22 0.55 0.11 Reactive Organic Compounds (ROC) 0.24 0.13 0.03 0.11 0.1 0.2 Nitrogen Oxides(NOx) 4.82 2.24 0.49 2.01 0.9 1.85 _ Particulales(PMIO) 0.10 0.05 0.01 0.05 0.05 0.05 loaders dozer truck backhoe dump truck excavator Total I 175 hp diesel 120 hp diesel 175 hp diesel 120 hp diesel 500 hp diesel 120 hp diesel Emissions lbs/bour Imour Ibs/hour Ibs/hour lbs/bour Ibs/hour Ibs/day Carbon Monoxide (CO) 0.23 0.36 0.22 0.11 0.66 0.08 Reactive Organic Compounds (ROC) 0.12 0.19 0.12 0.06 0.25 0.15 Nitrogen Oxides (NOx) 2.07 3.27 2.02 1.01 5.16 1.39 Particulales(PM10) 0.05 0.08 0.05 0.02 0.1 0.03 Source: ARB Emission Inventory Publication Number M099_32.3 Table 13 released: 2000 Source: ARB Inventory Publication M09932.5 App. B released: 2000 • Aggmgate Balch Drop Equation AP-42,13.2.4-3 (1) Assume mean wind speed= 1.6475 mph, 7.9% soil moisture contem & 280 cubic yards per hour per loader, I cubic yard = 2550 pounds •• Bulldozing Overburden Equation Table 11.9 -1 AP -42 Assume 15% silt content, 7.9 %soil moisture content •'• Cut and Fill Operations with 15 Cubic Meter Pan Scraper Equalion SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook, Table A9 -9 •• "• Aggmgate Batch Drop Equation AP-42, 13.2.4 -3 (1) Assume mean wind speed = 1.6475 mph, 7.9% soil moisture content & 135 cubic yards per hour per backhce, I cubic yard= 2550 pounds. ••••• Aggragale Batch Drop Equation AP-42, 13.2.4 -3 (1) Assume mean wind speed = 1.6475 mph, 7.9% soil moisture content & 135 cubic yards per hour per Trencher, 1 cubic yard = 2550 pounds. Source: Table 11.9 -1 EPA AP42 "Source: ARB Recommended Total Air Emissions from Total PM 10 Fugitive Dust Emissions from construction SCAQMD Unmitigated Mitigation Est. Emissions Thresholds Air Pollutant Emission Factor Emissions Efficient; Est. Emission Carbon Monoxide (CO) 550.00 NO OW a" Particulates (PM 10) Loaders' 0.000035 Rxton 0.19992 lb/day 50% 0.1 Particulales(PM10) Bulldozer•• 2.4 lb/hr 14.4 lb/day 50% 7 Particulates (PM 0) Scraper ••• 4.3 lb /vmt 25.8 lb/day 50% 12.9 Particulates(PM10) Backhoe•••• 0.000035 lb/ton 0 lb/day 50% 0.0 Particulates (PM 10) Trencher ••••• 0.000035 lbrton 0.03612 lb/day 50% 0.0 Particulates (PM 10) POV & Haul Truck 0.42 gm/mile 3.74 Total Particulates • Aggmgate Balch Drop Equation AP-42,13.2.4-3 (1) Assume mean wind speed= 1.6475 mph, 7.9% soil moisture contem & 280 cubic yards per hour per loader, I cubic yard = 2550 pounds •• Bulldozing Overburden Equation Table 11.9 -1 AP -42 Assume 15% silt content, 7.9 %soil moisture content •'• Cut and Fill Operations with 15 Cubic Meter Pan Scraper Equalion SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook, Table A9 -9 •• "• Aggmgate Batch Drop Equation AP-42, 13.2.4 -3 (1) Assume mean wind speed = 1.6475 mph, 7.9% soil moisture content & 135 cubic yards per hour per backhce, I cubic yard= 2550 pounds. ••••• Aggragale Batch Drop Equation AP-42, 13.2.4 -3 (1) Assume mean wind speed = 1.6475 mph, 7.9% soil moisture content & 135 cubic yards per hour per Trencher, 1 cubic yard = 2550 pounds. Source: Table 11.9 -1 EPA AP42 "Source: ARB Recommended Total Air Emissions from Construction Including POV, Fugitive Dust, and SCAQMD Est. Emissions Thresholds Aire llutant (lbstday) (lbs/day) Significant? Carbon Monoxide (CO) 550.00 NO Reactive Organic Compounds (ROC) $_ ",_ _ 75.00 NO Nitrogen Oxides (NOx) 100.00 NO Particulates (PM 10) 150.00 NO Source: EMFAC7C3 and SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook 0 • ESTIMATED EMISSIONS FROM CONSTRUCTION Total days Allowed for Project Total Days Allowed for Demolition (Days) Total Site Acres (Acres) Number of Employees Average Trip Length One Way POV (Miles) Total Work Hours Per Day (HourslDaV) Total Number of Delivery Trucks Daily Number of Delivery Trucks Average I rip Length One Way Demo Haul Trucks (Miles) Total VMT Water Trucks per day (Miles) 3.02 360.00 66.00% 0.19 280.00 8.00 50 30 8 1840 7 2S 1 Total Number of Each Equipment used for Construction # of equipment 1 3 1 1 3 Hours per Day 4 6 4 4 6 Days in Operation 40 140 40 40 160 Miles Per Hour mortar mixer forklift roller paver welder diesel diesel diesel diesel diesel 3 6 160 compressor diesel # of equipment 0 Hours per Day 0 Days in Operation 0 Miles Per Hour loaders diesel 0 0 0 dozer diesel 0 0 0 truck diesel 0 0 0 backhoe diesel 2 4 160 boom truck diesel 0 0 0 excavator diesel Assumptions Used in EMFAC2002 3.02 % LDA %LDT Season 66.00% 0.19 Daily VMT LDA $ LDT do" Daily VMT Haul Truck 0.65 34.00% summer LDT HDD Carbon Monoxide (CO) Reactive organic Compounds (ROC) Nitrogen Oxides (NOx) Particulates (PM 10) 3.02 1 3.6 1 2.9 0.19 0.2 0.65 0.25 0.3 15.97 0.01 0.01 0.26 Source: EMFAC2002 Vehicle Exhaust Emissions from POV, Construction Construction Workers POV Emissions Haul Truck Emissions EMFAC truck EMFAC Emissions mortor mixer Emissions Factor. Est. Emissions Factor. Gmms(Mile Ibs/day Carbon Monoxide (CO) Ibslday Reactive Organic Compounds (ROC) 175 hp diesel 175 hp diesel Nitrogen Oxides (NOx) ��x .3. %b ; Particulates (PM 10) dNA Sourcc: Emission Factors From EMFAC2002 Source: EMFAC2002 Haul Truck Emissions dozer truck EMFAC boom truck mortor mixer Emissions roller paver Factor. Est. Emissions Total Gmms/Mile Ibslday Carbon Monoxide (CO) 175 hp diesel 175 hp diesel Reactive Organic Compounds (ROC) 175 hp diesel Nitrogen Oxides (NOx) dNA Sulfur Oxides (SOx) IbAour Particulates (PM 10) Ibs/day Source: EMFAC2002 Source: ARB Emission Inventory Publication Number M099_32.3 Table 13 released: 2000 Source: ARB Inventory Publication M099_32.5 App. B released: 2000 0 �I • Construction Equipment Emissions dozer truck backhoe boom truck mortor mixer forklift roller paver welder pipe jacker Total 120 hp diesel Emissions 50 hp diesel 175 hp diesel 175 hp diesel 175 hp diesel 50 hp diesel 175 hp diesel Emissions Carbon Monoxide (CO) Ibs/hour IbsPoour Ibs/hour IbAour Ibs/hour lbs/hour Ibs/day Carbon Monoxide (CO) 0.5 0.24 0.23 0.24 0.55 0.11 2.07 Reactive Organic Compounds (ROC) 0.1 0.13 0.12 0.13 0.1 0.2 0.08 Nitrogen Oxides (NOx) 1.2 2.24 2.08 122 0.9 1.85 ` Particulates(PM10) 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 _ Source: ARB Emission Inventory Publication Number M099_32.3 Table 13 released: 2000 Source: ARB Inventory Publication M099_32.5 App. B released: 2000 0 �I • loaders dozer truck backhoe boom truck excavator 'Total 175 hp diesel 120 hp diesel 175 hp diesel 120 hp diesel 250 hp diesel 120 hp diesel Emissions Ibs/hour Ibs/hour Ibs/bour Ibs/hour Ibs/hour Ibs/hourIbs/day Carbon Monoxide (CO) 0.23 0.36 0.22 0.11 0.34 0.08 Reactive Organic Compounds (ROC) 0.12 0.19 0.12 0.06 0.18 0.1.5 Nitrogen Oxides (NOx) 2.07 3.27 2.02 1.01 3.14 1.39 Particulates(PM10) 0.05 0.08 0.05 0.02 0.08 0.03 Source: ARB Emission Inventory Publication Number M099_32.3 Table 13 released: 2000 Source: ARB Inventory Publication M099_32.5 App. B released: 2000 0 �I • I i I Total PM10 Fugitive Dust Emissions from construction . Unmitigated Mitigation Air Pollutant Emission Factor Emissions Efficiency Est. Emissions 4 -. InL �raasl Particulates (PM 10) Loaders• 0.000035 lb /ton 0 lb/day 50% 0.0 I Particulates (PM10) Bulldozer" 2.4 lb/hr 0 lb/day 50% 0 Particulates (PM IO) Scmper•r. 4.3 Ib /vmt 0 lb /day 50% 0 Particulates (PM10) Backhoe "'•• 0.000035 lb/ton 0.10836 lb/day 50% 0.1 Particulates (PM 10) Trencher •.... 0.000035 lb/ton 0 lb /day 50 % 0.0 Particulates (PM 10) POV & Haul Truck 0.42 gm/mile 3.08 Total Particulates • Aggragate Batch Drop Equation AP-42, 132.4 -3 (1) Assume mean wind speed= 1.6475 mph, 7.9% soil moisture content & 280 cubic yards per hour per loader, 1 cubic yard= 2550 pounds. '• Bulldozing Overburden Equation Table 11.9 -1 AP42 Assume 15% silt content, 79 %soil moisture content Cut and Fill Operations with 15 Cubic Mcter Pan Scmper Equation SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook, Table A9 -9 ••** Aggragate Batch Drop Equation AP42, 13.2.4 -3 (])Assume mean wind speed— 1.6475 mph, 7.9% soil moistum content & 135 cubic yards per hour per backhoe, 1 cubic yard= 2550 pounds. •'••• Aggragate Batch Drop Equation APA2, 13.2.4 -3 (1) Assume mean wind speed = 1.6475 mph, 7.9°% soil moisture content & 135 cubic yards per hour per Trencher, I cubic yard= 2550 pounds. Source: Table 11.9 -1 EPA APA2 *Source: ARB Recommended Total Air Emissions from Construction Including POV, Fugitive Dust, and SCAQMD Est. Emissions Thresholds Air Pollutant (lbs /day) (lbs/day) Significant? Carbon Monoxide (CO) 550.00 NO i Reactive Organic Compounds (ROC) _ 75.00 NO Nitrogen Oxides (NOx) _ - 100.00 NO Particulates (PM 10) - 150.00 NO Source: EMFAC7G and SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook 1 1 r I i I Response to Comments NEWPORT LEXUS Final Environmental Impact Report SCH No. 2004081004 Mcn-ch zoos Prepared for City of Newport Beach SA Environmental Science EAssociates n's o ESA En nMOi Science Associates :1 Response to Comments i NEWPORT LEXUS Final Environmental Impact Report SCH No. 2004081004 ' ' Mach 2005 Prepared for ' City of Newport Beach 1 1 225 Bush Street 8950 Cal Center Drive 710 Second Avenue 2685 Ulmerton Road Suite 1700 San Francisco CA 94104 Building $ Suite 300 Suite 730 Suite 702 Surumcntq CA 95826 Scuttle, WA 98104 Clearwater, FL 33762 (415) $96 -5900 (916) 564 -0500 (206) 442 -0900 (727) 572 -5226 43614th Strcet 4221 Wilshire Boulevard 1751 Old Pecos Trail 5850 T.G. Lee Boulevard Suite 600 Oakland. CA 946t2 Suite 480 Suite Suite 440 Tats Angeles, CA 90010 Santa Fe,NM87505 Oda." FL 32822 ' (510) 839 -5066 (323) 933 -6111 (505) 992 -8860 (407) 8514155 2042 1 n's o ESA En nMOi Science Associates 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 :t 1 1 '1 '1 1 1 1 1 f 1 1 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS FINAL EIR NEWPORT LEXUS Table of Contents Page Introduction 1 Comments . 2 1. Southern California Association of Governments, December 14, 2004 Jeffrey M. Smith, AICP, Senior Regional Planner 3 2. City of Newport Beach, January 10, 2005 Memorandum from Lexus Subcommittee Environmental Quality Affairs Citizens Advisory Committee (EQAC) 4 3. Airport Land Use Commission for Orange County, January 11, 2005 Joan S. Golding, Executive Officer 10 4. City of Irvine, January 12, 2005 Diane Nguyen, Associate Planner 11 5. California Department of Transportation, District 12, January 12, 2004 (sic) Robert F. Joseph, Chief IGR(Community Planning Branch 13 Responses 15 ii INTRODUCTION I I 1 This Response to Comments Final Environmental Impact Report for the Newport Lexus Dealership has been prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) as amended (Public Resources Code Section 2100 et. seq.) and CEQA Guidelines (Section 15000 et. seq.). The Final EIR is an informational document prepared by the Lead Agency that must be considered by decision - makers before approving or denying a proposed project. This Response to Comments, Final EIR together with the Newport Lexus Draft EIR, comprises the Newport Lexus Final EIR. ' The Newport Lexus Draft EIR was completed and released for public review in November 2004 in accordance with CEQA. Comments were received from November 29, 2004 through January 12, 2005. A total of 5 letters were received including a memorandum from the Lexus Subcommittee Environmental Quality Affairs Citizens Advisory Committee (EQAC). These comments and responses to those comments follow. Newport Lexas Response io Comments Fiwl £/R 1 March 2005 1 L I 1 I COMMENTS Newport Lexus Response to Comments Final EIR 2 March 2005 So WRAIuuroRpu ASSOCIATION of GOVERNMENTS Main duce &A west Seventh Street tzth Riaot. LosAngefes, Califomia 9oot7'3635 1, I Emv 136f81s whrrsmt•�dOY aBiveM1 ne•tleM: tat•r[ibnrvbn hehaxli 1Lm6W/ � Frl Yle ht✓iltlnll: Supatiw Xmi ,e�x. k¢MYiI i•III•I • SM1b qY h•e10aC MMM !qY FW. tOF hIMMK • bvfRQblf t•a hnMent (waa•eawr Ba hrtt Bws t•IaLt 6••OslYUtidP•t, aaniMCaa••' bMYNdt BMMt• .. Ip Mllw f•,oC, wo••e mxe«0e BurM•. LETTER 1 Mr. David Lego Hogle Ireland, I= 42 Corporate Park, Suite 250 Irvine, CA 92606 RE: SLAG Clearinghouse No. 120040811, Newport Lanus' . :. •: .: .: . • •.: fill 17 7 IN W16 Oil • r• •: •.' c Jai •! LK- • : = _ , • r: CWxmwd • -cAa avirrx•.ii,' w. • hd t�•x... i•axua • ,•@ The project tide surd 5C/1Crl Clearingttottae number shook! be used in all w. �,M• «• ...�• ,. •. n9 Project espondence .Be•.wl hie.weM�eln•lm hat tl!M1'fI'r SLAG �6roncemi this Corr shook! be k1rin °ate• t w S.A. W AWIw sent to the apetrtion of the Coordinator. If you have any WeWom B1�anbw•SHnn'hir. Pi,exa• tau• plesSeCO1ffid Irre at (213)1236-1857. Thank you. OMW C"W can lwv,; 0age O w. gem. twin • M 5w her•, Pxe stwo CIMM. M,Beaf • eebw te•A. wntlw4td. awn . tsnne Oegafy tap♦a Pon• I" Ob•lie- Ma " W. Iw MMu • �Ber terra Elm • At•pp• Poo w• aM,xoe• and Rgnrl.Megron� tbaW C.." M•rirn &WM tiwnr.6e Ceah' • ila+nisbxah.lM+n,Ynn! 8a•i' F!¢ki•pr. Ya,® gBry • tnn t•+hbR. arenetle • W,i hods. [xhak•! CY, •ten roe,n, paaw Sw MniNY• Cuttp hM Bi•m. Un Baaadit (amp • hB 4ea•Mx. B•MM tN:•mmp • tiWM Bataxy HIIS d Fpke qkY • lwrrtue pNe, 4Raa • Ira' a•+4rrn, 6*md sepxe • 5aun w•td•e_sm B♦enadia fxpQie, 0o:aia • BebmaM1 toinwe. etlro 'ta+t•e• C•e,h: b0.' MBaM., q�ar• [aver . CAM Beitma 5HF %Agr • CO Mwrtwx. Sae Buxuwwar• tadtaaV. Pwi t4aee•a eralp CwMt tamq• a kr. CraHes Saia.idgq•CwM tMNk CAW* w1w$X 00 Grud•,ba Ibbninw,fama Yaan trod! Ia••pxbtb•[aMF•Or,u BW ppBMS.iMdgBtY �y n.res•.x,•M 'tM�Wk• O� J 1 LETTER 2 MEMORANDUM To: Environmental Quality Affairs Citizens Advisory Committee (EQAC) City of Newport Beach ( "City ") ' From: Newport Lexus Subcommittee; EQAC City of Newport Beach ' Subject: Draft Environmental Impact Report ( "DEIR ") for the Newport Lexus Project (the Project) Date: January 10, 2005 i ' Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the DEIR for the Newport Lexus Project located at the southwest corner of Jamboree Road and MacArthur Boulevard in Newport Beach. Listed below are our comments on the DEIR. Executive Summary 1 I The Executive Summary provides a project overview and also states that there are two alternatives discussed in the DEIR, the No Project Alternative and the Reduced Project Alternative. However, it is not until the end of the document that the DEIR states that the Reduced Project Alternative is the environmentally superior alternative, and ' "(f)or this reason the Reduced Project Alternative is now the preferred alternative." 2_1 DEIR P. 4 -6 ' The fact that the Reduced Project Alternative is now the preferred alternative makes much of the analysis in the DEIR superfluous. However, we.make the following comments on the DEIR in the hopes of improving the Final EIR and the proposed ' Project. The Executive Summary provides a list of the proposed Project objectives. These ' include specific goals of the City of Newport Beach Economic Development Objectives, as well as the applicant's specific Project objectives. The Final EIR should clarify what 2 -2 the specific proposed Project objectives are, and should clarify what, if any, sales tax 1 rebates or other financial incentives will be offered by the City to help meet the proposed Project objectives. ' The Executive Summary states that the Project includes General Plan and Zoning Code changes for the northern five acres; however, the Executive Summary does not discuss the status of the southern three acres. The Final EIR should provide the general 2 -3 designation and zoning designations for the Project including the plan entire site, 1 I EQAC Lexus DEIR Page 2 January 10, 2005 southern three acres. There appears to be a typographical error in the third bullet of the applicant's 2 -4 objectives, which ends with the word "and." DEIR P. ES -3 The Executive Summary states that alternatives to the Project "are not strictly necessary." This statement is unclear and requires more information to explain when alternatives are required. The Final EIR should cite the case law and/or the Govemment 2 -5 Code section to assist the reader in understanding the extent to which project alternatives are required. Chapter 2 Proiect Description and Site Characteristics This chapter provides the proposed Project background and a description of the proposed Project. With the exception of the site location, environmental setting and surrounding land uses, most of the information in this chapter relates to the alternative that has not been determined to be the preferred alternative. The Final EIR should fully analyze the preferred alternative. The Bowsprit/MacArthur Boulevard intersection is discussed in the Transportation/Traffic section; however, none of the figures in this chapter illustrate this intersection relative to the Project site. The Final EIR should include this intersection in any figures that are intended to illustrate the intersections that will be impacted or will impact the proposed Project. Chanter 3A Aesthetics and Land Use This chapter addresses the potential aesthetic impacts associated with the proposed Project. Again, these impacts could vary with the analysis of the Reduced Project Alternative since the showroom and the service center will be reduced in size. One of the applicant's objectives, as stated in the Executive Summary, is for the Project to be of high architectural quality, complementary to the Newport Beach image. The figures in this chapter illustrate the scale and massing of the buildings, but do not provide any architectural detail. The Final EIR should include artists' renderings that illustrate the architectural style of the buildings for the proposed Project as they will be viewed from Jamboree Road, MacArthur Boulevard and Dove Street. The "Craftsman" architectural style shown to the EQAC Committee does not appear to be compatible with the architectural styles of the newer buildings in the area. If that is the intended architectural style for the proposed Project, the Final EIR should include a discussion of how that architectural style meets the stated applicant's objectives for the Project. 2 -6 f &A 2 -8 1 1 2 -9 1 1. ' ' plan and photometric plan to be reviewed by the City of Newport Beach. The lighting EQAC plan shall include design features ... to minimize impacts of light and glare on the Lexus DEIR ' Page 3 Jamboree Road the intersection. The mitigation measure should be revised in the Final January 10, 2005 ' Figures 3A -7 through 3A -9 illustrate that the proposed Project will remove mature trees from the public right -of -way along Jamboree Road and MacArthur Boulevard. The Newport Beach City Council Policy Manual contains the City's policy for the removal of City trees. The Final EIR should list the Policy Manual among the Applicable Regulations on Page 3A -6, and it should discuss the applicability of the Policy to the removal of these trees. I 2 -10 The proposed Project is located within the Orange County Airport Land Use Commission ( "ALUC ") planning area and must be submitted to the ALUC for review for consistency with the Airport Land Use Plan ( "ALUP "). The Final EIR should discuss whether the proposed Project meets Federal Aviation Regulation ("FAR ") 77 and FAR 2 -� part 77.23 standards for determining whether a structure is an "obstruction" and whether a negative decision from the ALUC will impact the City's ability to approve the proposed Project. Mitigation Measure M -3A.7 states that "(t)he applicant shall submit a lighting ' plan and photometric plan to be reviewed by the City of Newport Beach. The lighting plan shall include design features ... to minimize impacts of light and glare on the 2 -74 surrounding area." The auto display area is elevated above MacArthur Boulevard and Jamboree Road the intersection. The mitigation measure should be revised in the Final EIR to ensure the lighting plan takes into consideration greater potential for light spillover due to the lower roadway elevation. Further, Mitigation Measure M -3A.6, with its use of "off -site architectural massing to block light sources" appears to be in contradiction with the lighting plan and photometric plan promised in Mitigation Measure M -3A.7, which is intended to "to 2_13 minimize impacts of light and glare on the surrounding area." The Final EIR should discuss fully how the proposed lighting plan and photometric plan will impact ' surrounding areas and propose mitigation measures that minimize those impacts. Mitigation Measure M -3A.9 states that the applicant will apply fora use permit from the City, and that the City will amend the Planned Community Development Standards, Newport Place "to reflect the proposed use on the site and incorporate development standards reflecting the highest level of improvements as now exist in the ' project area." The language in this mitigation measure is vague, and it is difficult to 2 -14 understand what the mitigation measure will achieve and how it will be measured by the public and decision makers. This mitigation measure should be revised in the Final EIR 1 to accurately address the proposed Project's consistency with local land use policies. 1 EQAC Lexus DEIR , Page 4 January 10, 2005 2 -16 Chanter 3B Hydrology, Water QIWity and Storm Water , This chapter focuses on potential impacts to surface water hydrology, surface water quality, groundwater hydrology, and groundwater quality resulting from the ' development of the proposed, Project. As stated in this chapter of the DEIR, the majority of the Project site's runoff discharges into Dove Street catch basin, which in turn M discharges to San Diego Creek. San Diego Creek is a tributary of Upper and Lower ' Newport Bay, which ultimately discharges into the Pacific Ocean. The San Diego Creek and both Upper and Lower Newport Bay are all considered impaired water bodies. 2 -75 ' The DEIR states that the Project applicant has prepared and submitted a Water Quality Management Plans ("WQMP'), which includes Best Management Practices ( "BMP ") for site design, as well as source and treatment control for the proposed Project site's runoff. The DEIR further states that the WQMP is available for review at the City of Newport Beach. "The project WQMP demonstrates that the proposed project will implement post - construction BMPs to mitigate potential pollutants generated at the project site that may compromise the beneficial uses and water quality objectives of ' downstream receiving water bodies." DEIR P. 3B -12 The WQMP should have been included as an appendix to the DEIR, and the , BMPs contained therein should have been fully analyzed in the DEIR in order for the public and decision makers to review and comment on it. However, since Mitigation 2 -16 Measure M -3B.2 calls for its submittal, it appears that the City may not have approved the WQMP. The Final EIR should include the WQMP, discuss fully all water quality and hydrology impacts, and provide specific and enforceable mitigation measures to lessen any such impacts. M Chapter 3C Transportation/Traffic This chapter addresses the traffic impacts associated with the proposed Project. , The DEIR summarizes the analysis that was conducted -for the Project site. However, the DEIR does not include the traffic study itself as an appendix, but states that "(t)he entire 2 -17 ' report is available for review at the City of Newport Beach." Again, this makes it difficult for the public to review and comment on the traffic analysis, and the Final EIR should include the "Traffic Study for Newport Lexus" as an appendix. , Chapter 3C lists the various agency regulations that govern the traffic analysis. The Final EIR should include Measure S among the applicable regulations and discuss 2 -18 ' whether the General Plan Amendment and additional traffic generated by the proposed Project trigger Measure S regulations. MacArthur Boulevard is a high speed, high traffic volume arterial. Adding a , 2-19 drive aisle to this street without providing acceleration and deceleration lanes can ' EQAC Lexas DEIR ' Page 5 January 10, 2005 increase the potential for accidents and impede through traffic. For this reason, the location and geometry of the MacArthur Boulevard access drive needs to be evaluated in the following areas: 2 -19 Cont. ' • Vehicles approach the site on MacArthur Boulevard at a downhill grade and drive at a high rate of speed. Vehicles that have not slowed significantly prior to entering the site will pose a hazard to customers shopping for vehicles in the ' parking lot. The traffic study should be revised to show how vehicles will be slowed so they may safely enter the site without impeding through traffic on MacArthur Boulevard. • Drivers exiting the site onto MacArthur Boulevard from the right -in, right -out driveway may attempt to cross several travel lanes to reach the left -turn lane onto ' northbound Jamboree Road. The traffic study should be revised to include a 2 -20 weaving analysis to determine whether drivers can safely make this movement, or whether operational improvements should be incorporated into the proposed ' Project to preclude drivers from attempting a dangerous traffic maneuver. • The lack of an acceleration lane for drivers exiting the site onto MacArthur Boulevard will require them to merge into high speed traffic from a stop. The 2 -21 traffic study needs to be revised to evaluate traffic impedance and accident potential from vehicles merging onto MacArthur Boulevard. At the Fletcher Jones dealership, vehicles waiting to be serviced are dropped off ' on Bayview Way. To ensure that vehicles do not stack onto Dove Street at the new Lexus dealership, the Final EIR should include a stacking and queuing study to determine 2-22 if the staging areas are large enough to accommodate the volume of customers at peak drop off hours. Mitigation Measure M -3C.2 requires the widening of MacArthur Boulevard to three left turn lanes and a fourth through lane. The DEIR does not indicate whether these improvements will require right -of -way acquisition.. The Final EIR should fully analyze 2 -23 where the right -of -way is needed, the cost of right -of -way acquisition, and any ' environmental impacts of the widening. DEIR P. 3C -11 According to the DEIR, the Traffic Phasing Ordinance ( "TPO ") calculation of the .applicant's fair share of the improvements called for in Mitigation Measure M -3C.1 and ' M -3C.2 is only 7.8% for the Irvine/Mesa intersection and 10.5% for Jamboree and 2 -24 MacArthur Boulevard. The Final EIR should specify if there are other sources of funds for these improvements and when the improvements are likely to be constructed. ' Finally, the MacArthur Boulevard drive aisle and the Bowsprit/ MacArthur Boulevard intersection are potentially hazardous sharp curves and dangerous 2 -25 ' intersections. The "Traffic Study for Newport Lexus" should be revised to include an analysis of these areas, and the Final EIR should discuss fully all traffic impacts a EQAC Lexus DEIR , Page 6 January 10, 2005 associated with the MacArthur Boulevard drive aisle and the Bowsprit/ MacArthur ' Boulevard intersection, and provide specific and enforceable mitigation measures to 2-25 Cont. lessen any such impacts. Appendix. Section 3 List of Mitigation Measures Incorporated Into the Project 1 This section lists mitigation measures that were incorporated into the project. , However, these mitigation measures are not discussed in the Project Description and are not included in the list of mitigation measures in Table ES -1 on DEIR P. ES -5. The 2.26 absence of these mitigation measures from sections of the report where mitigations would , normally be found could lead to their omission when the proposed Project is implemented. The Final EIR should incorporate these mitigation measures into the proper chapters and sections of the main body of the document. ' 1 1 Cl L� I 1 �I January 11,2005 LETTER 3 ,AIRPORT LAND: USE COMMISSION: FOR, 01Z A.;N G E. COUNTY 3160 Airway Avenue • Costa Mesa; California 926264949.2325170 fax 949.2526012' Mr. David Lepo, Project Manager Hogle- Ireland, Inc. 42 Corporate Park, Suite 280 Irvine, CA 92606 Subject: Draft Environmental Impact Report- (DEIR) for Newport Lexus Dealersbip Dear Mr. Lepo: ' On behalf of the Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) for Orange County; we have reviewed the DEIR for the Newport Lexus Dealership and wish to offer a few pertinent comments /corrections. ' The reference to the ALUC on page 3A -7 incorrectly suggests that the Commission is an agency.or arm of the County of Orange. In fact, the formal name of the ALUC was adopted specifically to convey the fact that ALUC is a State - mandated independent local commission operating, under ' particular provisions of the California Public Utilities Code, and is not a "department" of County 3 -1 government More significantly, the footnote citing the discussion's: online. source (JWA AELUP), is inappropriate as the current JWA AELUP (dated 12119/2042) is not yet available on the airport's ' website. Copies of the current JWA AEL UP are available at the ALUCoffice, as well, as at the City's Planning Department. Pages 3A -7 & 3A -8 also contain typos in referring to the AELUP. LJ� L_1 Mitigation Measure M -3A.10 (page 3A -16) correctly states that the applicant shall submit project plans to.the FAA for evaluation under FAR Part 77, but incorrectly states that the applicant shall. also submit the project to the ALUC for a Consistency/Inconsistency Determination. By law, the 3-2 ALUC functions as an agency to agency entity: Consequently the City of Newport Beach bears: the responsibility to submit the project for ALUC review. Also, it merits noting that California Public Resources Code Section 2-1096(a). requires that lead agencies preparing an EIR for a project within an ALUC's airport planning area (i.e. AELUP zone) utilize the CaltrarwDivision of Aetnnautics' Califernia.Afrport Land Use Planning Handbook as a 3 -3 technical resource for the CEQA document. The Handbook is available on -line at the Caltrans/ DOA website which is: www.dot.ca.gov under Land Use Planning. Thank you for this opportunity to comment on this Draft EIR for a project in the environs of JWA. If you have any questions, please contact me at (949) 252 -5170 origol&g@6cair.com. Sincerely, L,-.. S. Joan S. Golding Executive Officer cc: City of Newport Beach Planning Department 10 January 12, 2065 LETTER 4 , Community Development Department vvww ci.srvine,ca.us , City of Irvine, One Civic Cerrlei Plaza, Pp'..$t 19575 Irvine, Calitarria 92623,9575 (949) 724 -6000 , Mi. David Lepo, Project Manager liogle- Ireland, Inc. 42.Corpomte Park, Suite 250 Irvine, CA 926066 Subject: Draft EIR for a Lexas Dealership in the City of.Newport Beach The City, of Irvine has received and reviewed the information on the above referenced project and has the following comments: 1. Per our phone conversation on. Wednesday, January 5, 2005, please provide the City with a copy of the "Planned Community Development Standards, Newport Place." Staff is requesting 4 -1 for this information to confirm the additional uses that are permitted under this zoning district. 2. Page ES -1 — Reference the figure that depicts the project location. ] 4 -3 3. Page ES -3 — Under the "Reduced Project Alternative" scenario, identify what is being reduced 4 -3 by 13,000 square feet. 4. Page ES -7 and 3C -11 - Please revise the language describing mitigation in number M- 3C.2 to clearly identify the proposed improvements at the intersection of MacArthur Boulevard 4 -4 and Jamboree Road. As it currently reads, it is difficult to understand what improvements are being proposed. 5. Page ES -9 — Revise mitigation measure M -31).12 to ensure that construction - related traffic on the City of Irvine streets will be addressed and mitigated in the EIR. The City is requesting that 4 -5 the construction traffic hours be limited to 9:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. and 7:00 p.m. to 5:00 a.m. off. The City does not permit construction traffic during the peak hours. 6. Page 2 -9 —Add text in the EIR to state that delivenesldrop off will not be allowed on Jamboree] 4 -6 Road or MacArthur Boulevard. 11 PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER 1 u L� L 1 Mr,Davia I-epo January 12; 2005' ' Page 2 ' 7, Tables 2 -2 & 2 -3,— Clarify whether the R.D. Olsen project at 2801 Main. Street (340 dwelling: units with 6,500 s.£ of retail) was considered in the cumulative impacts to the project Itis not;, listed under the'Tables 2 -2 and 2 -3 for Rte summary of pending;and approved prc jects. For your 1 4 -7 ' information, the conditional use permit was approved by the Planning Commission on t�ctobed 21.,:2004. ' S. include a Sub Secti on in Chapter 2 (Project Description and Site Characteristics) and Chapter 3C (TransportationPfn�c) to describe the proposed site access points ( "Site Access") in order 4 -8 to clearly understand the type and precise location of the proposexf access points. ' 9. Page 3C -1 - The EIR shall include additional important informationttables/exhibits such as: existingfproposed trip generations, trip distribution and so forft lnelude the same tables and 4 -9 ' exhibits from the Lexus Traffic Impact Study. 10. Submit the proposed project site design plan to the City's Public Works Department for detail ' analysis/mview of the proximity of the proposed right in/out access to the intersection of MacArthur. Boulevard and Jamboree Road. A Weaving Analysis (60 percent right out conflicts 4 -10 with MacArthur Boulevard SB through, SB free right turn and SB left turn traffic) may be ' required at a later date to review the impacts of 60 percent ri ght out tm ic. Thank you for the opportunity to review and continent on the proposed document.. We would ' appreciate the opportunity to review any further information regarding this project as the planning process proceeds. if you have any questions, please contact me at by phone at (949) 724 -6375 or by email at dinwienl5ald.irvme ca.us. Sincerely, ' TR�I t� DIANE Nft ' Associate Planner cc: Tina Christiansen, Director of Community Development Brian Fisk, Manager of Planning Services Michael Haack, Manager of Development Services ' Barry Curtis, Principal Planner Farideh Lyons, Senior Transportation Analyst File n 1 12 LETTER 5 D]iP� Q1� T:�ATi30Q4' ' T� ��FgiE {f/3�EkYeG1 a�iV�, '�_ C:iZ. :.. -. ' :} •l!: "r{'I.L11'R1kWtT� ��.r!.r A/! 333fk6ddoi17q+b,Som380 _ ,:p('{'y'OF�blE1Y� ..: t'4;., „. . SniaRC0.9ti99A J ., 5' TRt43Z77 y , :ttiS, "O'' 4 r ; x .. FAX Mid,.I�glQlt78yddjdl l , 1 1�- rt:iJ1•{ SfYY i4 �, r } r �. «r >T.. r'�'`$ i. r ! r ' d../'5,,3.7. tf ..7 / ? ;'t.r. 1"Oky ItIlI M » • r : ?f '}l r s Fi r.�ir, f. F :.. ire• '" Mr.Dat+ii7 7.epo - i�it a: iG�Ci3�1'�i - . t ty 3�TeorpartBondi 9CEM20Mi 33©O.Neovpoi`t8oulov>$8 %ug�T 7+t42,A B:Q ofcI7G8 SRA 73 Nswprsit ;Boat. Ca'6i�a 92658+8975 .Desr3&. LA P% iw the app oft* to * toM OW : Rapuirb sfmd tM Taft I Wihon.Aa4omofimeP peopoto a tOgoim square foot wAm service bufldmg, n gtt%V to 7 700 Spam far eaplc�"rd*g'az ad cm 39OU- 931,.sad 3961 UPe- :'Somim smdg ice: Nevei6er 20Ww The a 3tlg0U : foot deaiet9hip. m”. pwims, Sbualsue thpt would . wrap of seise inventory The paaigot fend 848•sod'SM Dm ft 4d is the rprxdoa.airools5safexauu.7'3: -° . C'dtroaDiatriot 12 oxen is sfievitvsia8 agatcy on tirispmjeaand nes t6efo8pwm $:comas' Trmww t. ThOP, Aaetyeia:Ar the - oiBtiaal St eo Lined, sed o uad X8-73 1scArderrungaatUirsmp a9ucnld'be ecmduateti Tbgtrips wed , ea a result rsfti3is pxlject wau{d. taaae queuing ofie @fish 0s�c to.tifc d�v�► 'oiso tbovnd:3abo_soe.ICod& 7a maim the. zgpod dues DO hddregs. tile.impact oaaro�bovmd $R -73 Msolszt>su' aff ramp &k t4 the iucrasad usfffo.l ow. llmwpotekmet kgvw s and.wopaead mitigation. Vim . hemp not lk= addmssed is ft apon aad =si be submitteil: to- C*M3s % mview and 2, btmsec*a amtgmt on SUM highway epstism shall. %Mte EM to *O& The a preee ad in the enpaat based a icu method, K9t O &M not address the above imp M&' �tbmrt t]ie evah..gf the above impel tg and ar{p su6aequecC aiitfgatiim mea9sree the =*W for .>avaw�ao .� addiiWtethe,as'ttage:f0 490FA qo at dra oNm ka bns. The hapact -4o the, ttaffe .on 3sodsoim 3mad (eafabbovnd VpDach} and'AQeakdw tsggrat oiTramp (aottltbnomL 73 dilay.L? b ad nt+ the eatinrsttod rye ieugl7ie, 5 -� 5 -2 3. Cainam roVims chat it mry. tkutu A or paTbuuwlogical mnWe js are dwavared w+&m tip I Caltiaaa rigli;: pd way ditdsg thlh ,w0jem. of saogtnu>tioa a is the .. ceasauatiitbe.Ca7trans whi�ralstaff cae inspecto*Sn : 13 _—A 1 1 14 ad A. %i the agAr ", M hi , FOWM cowsd wee to mOAMi ee :;m the�oeiagg.•svazere Meemuffi must ba� coat all *�ida ioeiie and a mid eny tine sng of matrnels; cs"isch. m ;fa11 cr. `51ow � Caltraee ioadviays orl�7meg, S. > oAp• mbe amde to'.State.daaiaege d�9t1>aaE the apptonai' of the Lyisl x 1Z� 5 -5 1�3ES Jait. #5C eveGt of anq acerviEq to "Q*WhMta pwdtt wa'bc Applicants Sre'.04*W: t4 plan permit FM CM" Onim v E . MKS iaohtda 5 -6 elowelins SWdtesaad envir�meodyl Bowe wmtimua .m:.xeV us mimed , � ties. wadem eat .any re *v .op a W" WOW > 9 ?. f if you -have aw . . ox aw'to coataoc .Ilk plepse dh aot meto: t�ffi..MwyBmUghM it (949) 724 -226ti 1t0.gE&TF:30S�[+Q.:Glti�' MRICCuua�ori Bmuch. c_ Tarry Ro6c+tg, a�k�oaeS ao� 8isarmh Toni Pcacvvit ,fi�ttsmii4: ;CUCa�udoa�y.. ' A&�so:$ioe. lktiffia:petatioasNiutlt Praveoo•�, Fast P}s�dug A s -4 14 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS Letter 1: December 14, 2004 Southern California Association of Governments Jeffrey M. Smith, AICP Senior Regional Planner No response necessary. Newport Le us Response to Commenm Final E!R 15 March 2005 ' Letter 2: January 10, 2005 City of Newport Beach Memorandum from Lexus Subcommittee Environmental Quality Affairs Citizens Advisory Committee (EQAC) 2 -1 There is very little difference between the project discussed throughout the ' Draft Lexus Newport EIR and the "Reduced Project Alternative ". The minor reduction in service bays of 13,000 square feet results in a minor reduction in traffic impacts, however, this reduction would be sufficient to reduce project impacts at the two intersections identified as impacted in the traffic section of the EIR from significant to less than significant (although the alternative would still have a TPO impact that would be mitigated through fairshare ' participation in funding improvements). All other impacts would be essentially the same or only incrementally reduced. 11 11 J [1 2 -2 The project specific objectives of the applicant (as shown at the top of p. E5 -3 and middle of p. 2-4) are: N.pon Lexus Final EIR - To better serve the existing Lexus customer base in Newport Beach. - To expand Lexus' market share in Orange County and the Newport Beach area; and - To construct a facility of high architectural quality, complimentary to the Newport Beach image. The EIR also highlights that the project would help achieve certain City goals as identified in the City Council Economic Development Policy. Although these are listed in the Project Objectives section of the EIR, they are City goals that the project would help achieve, not .project objectives. Issues associated with sales tax and otber financial information are not the subject of CEQA documents. An economic analysis of the project was prepared for the City by Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. The analysis shows the project is projected to generate nearly $1.5 million of sales tax revenue to the City in its first year of operation, growing to over $2 million per year by the tenth year of operation. The City Council has approved a sales tax sharing agreement with the project applicant, which provides that the City and the applicant will share the local sales tax generated by the project equally until such time as the applicant is paid $9.5 million at 5% interest. Based on the projected sales tax. from the project, the City would complete payments in year 14 of operations. During the 14 years during which sales tax would be shared, the City would still be receiving new sales tax revenue, with its 50% share ranging from $725,000 to $1.2 million per year, and the total over 14 years reaching $t3.7 16 Response to Comments March 2005 million. The City's full share of sales tax for the 15a' year of operation would be $2.5 million. 2 -3 As indicated in the last paragraph on p. 3A -15 of the Draft EIR, "The Newport Beach General Plan Land Use Element designates the northerly five acres of the project site as `Administrative, Professional and Financial Commercial' and the southerly three acres as `Retail and Service Commercial'." Zoning for the entire site is PC Planned Community, as explained at the top of p. 3A -16. 2-4 The `; and " at the end of the third bullet at the top of p. ES -3 is deleted. 2 -5 The first sentence of the second paragraph under the heading, "Alternatives to the Project" on P. ES -3 of the DEIR is deleted. The purpose of an alternatives analysis is to identify alternatives that would reduce identified significant impacts. The project already included identification of mitigation measures that would eliminate all significant adverse impacts.. Thus identifying further ways to reduce impacts through different alternatives is unnecessary. However, the reduced project alternative does provide another method of reducing project impacts. 2 -6 See response to comment 1 above. 2 -7 A label is added to Figure 1 to identify Bowsprit. 2 -8 See response to comment 1 above. 2 -9 The City has no policies or process for design review. No architectural style has been established for any area of the City. There is no prevailing architectural style of existing surrounding developments. 2 -10 None of the trees identified for removal are on City property and are therefore not subject to the City's policy. If street trees are required, they will be provided in accordance with applicable City policies. 2 -11 The project is below the glide path for the airport and would comply with all applicable regulations. See also Letter 3 comments and responses. 2 -12 The purpose of the City reviewing the photometric plan is to ensure that there is no inappropriate spillover light, and the elevations of surrounding roadways are taken into consideration in that review. 2 -13 Mitigation Measure M -3A.6 is revised to reference "nearby buildings to block light sources" rather than "off -site architectural massing to block light sources." The intent of this measure is to consider the effect of and the impact upon other buildings in the evaluation of project lighting and the potential impact on any sensitive light receptors. Not all occupants of buildings are sensitive to light. This measure is complementary to measures M -3A.7. Newport Lexus Response to Comments Final E]R 17 March 2005 I 11 U 1 [1 1 pN O m 0 z F d 0 m 0 a F a O y �� � N 5 �+ C � 'A w U nU� N O 4 2 -14 The end of mitigation M -3A.9, "and incorporate development standards reflecting the highest level of improvements as now exist in the project area" is deleted. The intent of this language was to require use of building materials /finishes equal to, or better than, those of surrounding buildings. However, the City has no policies relating to design. In addition the approval of the use permit requires findings of compatibility of the proposed use with existing uses. 2 -15 Comment noted. 2 -16 The WQMP is fully summarized in the Draft EIR. The full document is available for review at City Hall. The WQMP is fully analyzed in the Draft EIR, and appropriate mitigation identified. The City will review and approve the WQMP in connection with their review and approval of grading permits. In this way the latest BMP's and requirements will be included. 2 -17 The traffic study is fully summarized in the Draft EIR. It is available for review at City Hall. 2 -18 Measure S is not related to physical environmental impacts and is not relevant to this CEQA document. It will be addressed in the Staff Report for this project. 2 -19 There is an existing right -turn auxiliary lane along the entire MacArthur Boulevard project frontage, which becomes a free right -turn at the Jamboree intersection. Vehicles entering the Lexus site on MacArthur Boulevard will do so from this auxiliary lane, and will be out of the flow of through traffic on MacArthur Boulevard. The main driveway is also designed with a large radius on the entering approach to enable entering vehicles to make the turn without the need to slow to a near stop. An additional deceleration lane is not needed at this driveway. 2 -20 The traffic analysis indicates that 20% of the project traffic will exit the site and turn left at Jamboree Road. This represents 14 vehicles in the morning peak hour and 42 vehicles in the evening peak hour. The Highway Capacity Manual weaving analysis was used to evaluate the "weave" that would be required for 42 vehicles to cross three southbound lanes in approximately 175 feet to get to the left -tarn pocket over the course of an hour. The analysis was conducted for the Cumulative With Project evening peak hour, since this would represent the worst case. The analysis results indicate that the weave Level of Service would be LOS "C" due primarily to the small number of vehicles making the weave maneuver over the course of an hour. 2 -21 The right -turn auxiliary lane along the MacArthur Boulevard frontage will provide an opportunity for exiting vehicles to accelerate while merging into the through lanes. A separate acceleration lane is not needed. Newport Lerus Response to Comments Final Ell? 19 March 2005 d ' 2 -22 The Lexus site will provide three dedicated inbound queuing lanes, each more than 350 feet in length, (storage capacity for approximately 40 vehicles) for ' customers arriving for service. If the number of incoming vehicles exceeds the capacity of the three dedicated lanes, the center lane and one of the outbound lanes on the service entrance can be temporarily used for queuing t inbound customer vehicles until the queue dissipates. This would allow for a total of approximately 60 additional vehicles. ' Once the arriving vehicles are processed, they will be taken into the service building. The service building will accommodate 160 vehicles being serviced, waiting to be serviced, and already serviced. After being serviced, cars will ' be taken to the car-wash area, which will accommodate an additional 26 vehicles. The layout of the Lexus site and the generous vehicle stacking and staging areas have been designed specifically to avoid the queuing and ' overflow problems experienced at other dealerships. 2 -23 Mitigation Measure M -3C.2 would require some widening on Jamboree Road (not MacArthur Boulevard). The recommended improvement has not been ' engineered to determine right -of -way and cost issues. This level of detail is not required at the EIR stage. In addition, this mitigation measure is only '. required of the Full Project. Since the Reduced Intensity Alternative has been identified as the preferred alternative, this improvement will not be required of ' the project. ' 2 -24 Additional funding sources for the Irvine / Mesa improvement include County funding programs and traffic impact fees collected from other developers. ' This intersection is scheduled for improvement through a County- sponsored ' improvement program by the Year 2007. ' 2 -25 It is assumed that the reference to a potentially hazardous sharp curve refers to the angled MacArthur Boulevard drive aisle. The site plan presented in the EIR is conceptual as it relates to site access and on -site circulation. A detailed site plan will be required of the project, and the driveway design and all site ' access and circulation features will be reviewed and refined through the site design review and approval process at the City. '. The operation of the intersection of Bowsprit and MacArthur was addressed in the traffic study. The study indicates that the project will be responsible for ' modifying the Bowsprit / MacArthur intersection to reduce the outbound curb radius from 90 feet to the typical 35 feet, to create additional separation between Bowsprit and the project entrance, and to slow the speed of vehicles turning out of Bowsprit and reduce the conflicts between Bowsprit traffic and ' dealership traffic. ' 2 -26 The mitigation measures included in Section 3 of Appendix A are those preliminarily identified at the Initial Study stage of the process. Many of Newport Lesus Response to Comments ' Final EIR 20 March 2005 these measures were revised and expanded in the Draft EIR. Measures related to impacts that were fully mitigated at the Initial Study stage (Cultural Resources, Noise, Utilities and Service Systems) are not included in the Draft EIR, because these issues were fully examined and `Focused out' of the EIR at the Initial Study stage based on the analysis contained therein. Newport Leos Response to Comments Final EIR 21 March 2005 Letter 3: January 11, 2005 Airport Land Use Commission for Orange County Joan S. Golding, Executive Officer 3 -1 The reference to the ALUC in the last paragraph at the bottom of p. 3A -7 is changed from "Orange County Airport Land Use Commission" to "Airport Land Use Commission for Orange County". The footnote at the bottom of p. 3A -7 is revised to read: 3 -2 01 2 Airport Land Use Commission, Airport Land Use Plan for John Wayne Airport. References to the "ALUP" at the bottom of p. 3A -7 and top of p. 3A -8 are revised to be "AELUP." Mitigation measure M -3A.10 is revised to read: The applicant shall submit project plans to the FAA to be evaluated under FAR Part 77. The City shall submit plans to the ALUC for a Determination of Consistency or Inconsistency with the AELUP. Comment noted. The Draft EIR is consistent with the Handbook. Newport Leans Response to Comments Fiml E/R 22 March 2005 Letter 4: January 12, 2005 City of Irvine Diane Nguyen, Associate Planner 4 -1 Comment noted. Requested materials were sent. 4 -2 A reference to Figure 2 -1 is added to the first paragraph on p. ES -1 under the subheading `Project Overview'. 4 -3 The reduction of 13,000 square feet identified in the Reduced Project Alternative is in service bays. 4 -4 Mitigation Measure M -3C.2 calls for the addition of a third westbound left - turn lane and a fourth eastbound through lane at the intersection of Jamboree Road and MacArthur Boulevard. Please note that Jamboree Road is considered to be the east -west street, and MacArthur Boulevard is considered to be the north -south street. 4 -5 The City of Irvine, via e-mail of February 1, 2005 from Diane Nguyen, agreed to the following. Mitigation Measure M -3D.12 is revised to add the following: Construction traffic hours will be prohibited as follows: 7:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. Monday through Friday; 6:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m. Saturday; all day Sunday and federal holidays. All vehicles involved with material deliveries, loading or transfer of materials, equipment service, and maintenance of any devices for or within any construction project shall not operate on City of Irvine streets during prohibited hours unless a waiver has been granted by the City. 4 -6 As indicated at the bottom of p. 2 -7, "Delivery trucks would access the site from Dove Street." This will be a standard condition of approval. 4 -7 . The R. D. Olsen project at 2801 Main Street (340 dwelling units, 6,500 sf of retail) was inadvertently omitted from Table 2 -3; it was however assumed in the traffic analysis (see Table 2, Page 9 of the traffic report). It is hereby added to Table 2 -3 of the E1R. 4 -8 Site access is discussed in the last paragraph on p. 2 -7. Site access is also discussed on p. 3C -14 under the heading "Potential Impact 3C3: Any hazards due to a design feature or incompatible use." 4 -9 The following sentence and associated trip generation table and trip distribution graphic are added to the EIR at the bottom of p. 3C -8: Newport Lems Response to Comments Final E]R 23 March 2005 "Project trip generation and existing trip generation at the site are shown in Table 3C -2A; project trip distribution is shown in Figure 3C -0." 4-10 See response to comment 2 -20 above. I Newport Lexas Rapowe to Comments Final EfR 24 March 2005 ?� 2 S S a E N m o' 0 c o � a o � m � 0. o N ^� C d� m N m � 7 O 7 o� E N N� O. R m C) z 0z m 0 A o OR R N � 1 A N � � A y ono O a l 6 7 5 N �. S •S. _ A 7 a m b p x, R T b r y e � _ ti' 7 N ti ti N b d i S rD r eo ti y w A ti N N O A b b O F O N �3 C A 7 I O 7 N m F I I / I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ._� k §) � 2 \/§ { � } \ \ \ / ! � as Of ■ a in - - , • , ©r In- - ■ , ! ^ . . °[ & } �X 5z • | | _ , i. . � . ■ . . Hmrw ' &_ ■ , . \ll�> ' I \ ._� k §) � 2 \/§ { � } \ \ \ / Letter 5: January 12, 2004 (sic) Department of Transportation Robert F. Joseph, Chief 5 -1 After consultation with Caltrans engineer Steve Pham on January 31 and February 1, Caltrans has indicated that the reference to the Jamboree Road / Bristol Street intersection can be disregarded. The following is added to page 13 of the traffic study under Trip Distribution: Project traffic was not assigned to the northbound SR -73 MacArthur Boulevard off -ramp, because project traffic on northbound MacArthur Boulevard destined for the Lexus site would find the northbound SR -73 route to be more out -of- direction than staying on MacArthur Boulevard. The project therefore would not be expected to impact the flow and queuing on the ramp. 5 -2 With the discussion and understanding described above in Comment, additional analysis of queuing at these two locations is not needed. 5 -3 Comment noted. 513 Comment noted. 5 -5 Comment noted. 5 -6 Comment noted. Nexport Lexus Response to Comments Final E/R 27 March 2005 • Exhibit "A" EIR Findings and Facts in Support of Findings for Newport Lexus (SCH #2004081004) The Newport Lexus (Project) Environmental Impact Report ( "EIR "), State Clearinghouse Number 2004081004, has been completed in accordance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code § §21000 et seq. ( "CEQA "). The subject document, constituting the Final EIR consists of two volumes: Volume 1 is the Draft EIR in full including appendices. Volume 2 contains the comments received on the Draft EIR and responses to each comment including modifications incorporated into the Draft EIR. Findings and Facts in Support of Findings are required by Public Resources Code Section 21081 to identify each potentially significant impact identified in the EIR and indicate the means by which each is to be avoided or reduced to a less than significant level. Section 15091 of the CEQA Guidelines requires that the public agency approving or carrying out the Project shall make written findings for each significant impact identified in the EIR. These findings include one of the following: 1. Changes or alterations have been required to, or incorporated into, the Project which • avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as defined in the EIR. 2. Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and not the agency making the finding. Such changes have been adopted by such other agency or can and should be adopted by such other agency. 3. Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the Final EIR. These findings accomplish the following: 1. They address the significant environmental effects identified in the EIR for the approved project. 2. They incorporate all mitigation measures associated with these significant impacts identified in the Final EIR. 3. They indicate whether a significant effect is avoided or reduced by the adopted mitigation measures to a less than significant level, or remain significant and unavoidable, either because there are no feasible mitigation measures or because, even with implementation of mitigation measures, a significant impact will occur. The conclusions presented in these findings are based on the Final EIR and other evidence in the record of proceedings. To the extent that these findings conclude that various proposed mitigation measures outlined in the Final EIR are feasible and have not been modified, superseded, or withdrawn, the City Council hereby implements these mitigation measures and incorporates these measures into the Project. The mitigation measures •identified as feasible and within City Council authority to implement for the Project are express conditions of approval which the City Council binds itself to upon adoption of this resolution and project approval. Other requirements are referenced in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan (MMRP), adopted concurrently with these findings, and become effective upon project implementation (Exhibit B). Impacts found to be LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT with incorporation of MITIGATION MEASURES The Final EIR identifies significant impacts that are reduced to a "less- than - significant' level by the inclusion of the mitigation measures identified in the Final EIR. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project, which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects identified in the Final EIR to a less- than - significant level. These changes and alterations are set forth in the MMRP, which the City Council is adopting concurrently with these findings. Aesthetics and Land use The Final EIR concludes in Impact 3A1 that the proposed project would not have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista, damage a scenic resource and /or degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site. Development of the project would result in an •overall increase in building intensity on the site and would also include rooftop parking, which would be visible to occupants in taller neighboring buildings. The inclusion of mitigation measure M -3A.1 would reduce this impact to less than significant. Finding: The identified mitigation measure is incorporated into the Project requiring the applicant to submit design plans to the City for review in order to ensure consistency with the surrounding area and all conditions of approval. The mitigation measures would be implemented by the Newport Beach Planning Department . With this mitigation incorporated, the City Council finds that the identified impact is reduced to a less than significant level. The Final EIR concludes in Impact 3A3 that redevelopment of the project site with the proposed project would increase light and glare at the project site. The proposed project would require nighttime building lighting, security lighting and landscape lighting all of which would be detectable from the surrounding areas. The Final EIR identifies mitigation measures M -3A -2 through M -3A -8 to ensure that lighting impacts are less than significant. Finding: The identified mitigation measures are incorporated into the Project. The mitigation measures would be implemented by the City of Newport Beach Planning Department. With this mitigation incorporated, the City Council finds that the identified impact is reduced to a less than significant level. The Final EIR concludes in Impact 3A4 that the proposed project would require revisions to •local land use plans, specifically the Planned Community Development Standards for Newport Place. The Final EIR identifies mitigation measures M -3A.9 and M -3A -10 which require the applicant to apply for a Use Permit and submit project plans to the FAA for evaluation, to ensure that the project would be consistent with local land use plans. •Finding: The identified mitigation measures are incorporated into the Project. The mitigation measures would be implemented by the City of Newport Beach Department of Public Works. With this mitigation incorporated, the City finds that the identified impact is reduced to a less than significant level. Hydrology, Water Quality and Storm Water The Final EIR concludes in Impact 3131 that the proposed project could generate a number of general pollutants associated with its use as an automobile dealership. Construction activities associated with the Project may impact water quality due to sheet erosion of exposed soils and disposition of particles and pollutants in drainage areas. The use of materials such as fuels, solvents and paints also present a risk to surface water quality due to an increased potential for non - visible pollutants entering the storm drain system. Compliance with the City of Newport Beach Municipal Code and preparation of a SWPPP for NPDES compliance would help reduce impacts. The Final EIR also identifies mitigation measures M -313.1 and M -313.2 which require proof of filing for an NOI with the SWRCB and preparation of a WQMP prior to issuance of a grading permit. Finding: The identified mitigation measures are incorporated into the Project. The mitigation measures would be implemented by the Newport Beach Planning Department. With this mitigation incorporated, the City Council finds that the identified impact is reduced to a less than significant level. •The Final EIR concludes in Impact 3134 that the proposed project could have a significant impact on groundwater quality. The use of materials such as fuels, solvents and paints, as well as the potential of leakage from on site storage tanks present a risk to surface water quality due to an increased potential for pollutants entering the storm drain system. The Final EIR identifies mitigation measure M -313.2 which requires the applicant to have approval for a WQMP prior to the issuance of a grading permit. Finding: The identified mitigation measures are incorporated into the Project. The mitigation measures would be implemented by the Newport Beach Planning Department. With this mitigation incorporated, the City Council finds that the identified impact is reduced to a less than significant level The Final EIR concludes in Impact 3135 that the proposed project would contribute small quantities of contaminants to the overall runoff reaching the San Diego Creek, when added to the contributions of the related projects; the Project would not have a cumulatively considerable impact on hydrology and water quality in the project area. To further minimize impacts the Final EIR identifies mitigation measures M -313.1 and M -313.2 which require proof of filing for an NOI with the SWRCB and preparation of a WQMP prior to issuance of a grading permit. •Finding: The identified mitigation measures are incorporated into the Project. The mitigation measures would be implemented by the Newport Beach Department of Public Works. With this mitigation incorporated, the City Council finds that the identified impact is reduced to a less than significant level. •Transportation/trafric The Final EIR concludes in Impact 3C1 that implementation of the proposed project would result in a significant impact at two area intersections, MacArthur Boulevard and Jamboree Road and Irvine Avenue and Mesa Drive. Therefore, the Final EIR identifies mitigation measures M -3C.1 and M -3C.2 which include improvements to both intersections to mitigate the TPO and CEQA impacts of the project. In addition, a Reduced Project Alternative was identified. That alternative is the same as the Proposed project except that it is 13,000 square feet smaller and does not impact the intersection of MacArthur Boulevard and Jamboree Road. The Reduced Project Alternative is now the proposed project; thus, Mitigation measure M -3C.2 is not necessary. Finding: The identified traffic mitigation measure, except for measure M -3C.2 which is not necessary with the reduced Project Alternative, are also incorporated into the Project. The mitigation measures would be implemented by the Newport Beach Planning Department. With this mitigation incorporated, the City Council finds that the identified impact is reduced to a less than significant level. The Final EIR concludes in Impact 3C2 that the proposed Project would provide adequate parking supply. Thirty -two onsite parking spaces are provided for customers while eight spaces are provided for vendors and over two hundred employee spaces would be provided. The Final EIR identifies mitigation measure M -3C.3 which requires that the proposed project •comply with Newport Beach Municipal Code (Section 20.66.050) parking requirements and would ensure impacts would be less than significant. Finding: The identified mitigation measure is incorporated into the Project. The mitigation measures would be implemented by the Newport Beach Planning Department. With this mitigation incorporated, the Council finds that the identified impact is reduced to a less than significant level. The Final EIR concludes in Impact 3C3 that the proposed project would not create a hazard due to a design feature. The intersection of Bowsprit Drive and MacArthur Boulevard currently operates as an unsignalized intersection with a free -flow right turn lane. The Final EIR identifies mitigation measure M -3CA which requires the project applicant to make improvements to the intersection of Bowsprit Drive and MacArthur Boulevard. With implementation of this mitigation measure the proposed project would not create a hazard due to a design feature. Finding: The identified mitigation measure is incorporated into the Project. The mitigation measures would be implemented by the Newport Beach Department of Public Works. With this mitigation incorporated, the Council finds that the identified impact is reduced to a less than significant level. •The Final EIR concludes in Impact 3C6 that the proposed project would contribute to deterioration of levels of service at area intersections when combined with other area projects. Therefore, the Final EIR identifies mitigation measures M -3C.1 and M -3C.2 which require improvements to the intersection of MacArthur Boulevard and Jamboree Road and •Irvine Avenue and Mesa Drive. With implementation of these mitigation measures impacts would not be cumulatively considerable. Finding: The identified mitigation measure is incorporated into the Project. The mitigation measures would be implemented by the Newport Beach Department of Public Works. With this mitigation incorporated, the Council finds that the identified impact is reduced to a less than significant level. Air Quality The Final EIR concludes in Impact 3D2 that construction of the proposed project would generate air emissions including 1) dust generated from grading and site preparation; 2) hydrocarbon emissions form paint and asphalt; 3) exhaust from powered construction equipment; and 4) motor vehicle emissions associated with construction activities, haul trucks and worker commute. Therefore, the Final EIR includes mitigation measures M -3D.1 through M -3D.12 which would minimize fugitive dust and vehicle exhaust. With implementation of these mitigation measures impacts relating to construction would be reduced to less than significant. Finding: The identified mitigation measures are incorporated into the Project. The mitigation measures would be implemented by the Newport Beach Planning Department. With this mitigation incorporated, the Council finds that the identified impact is reduced to a less than • significant level. IMPACTS Found to be LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT without MITIGATION The Final EIR identifies impacts that are considered to be "less than significant' and do not require the adoption of mitigation measures. It is hereby determined that the following environmental impacts of the Project will be less than significant. Aesthetics and Land Use The Final EIR concludes in Impact 3A2 that the proposed project would be consistent with established plans and policies concerning visual resources. The proposed project would adhere to the requirements of the Newport Place Planned Community guidelines for the proposed project site. Therefore, the design of the proposed project would be consistent with existing and future design guidelines as determined by the City of Newport Beach. Finding: The City Council finds that Impact 3A3 is less than significant, and no mitigation measures are required. The Final EIR concludes in Impact 3A5 that the proposed project would not have a cumulative aesthetic impact when combined with other area projects. Area projects identified include commercial /mixed use and residential projects. This development is occurring in an area that has already been impacted by urban development. Therefore, the proposed •project, in conjunction with other area projects would not have a cumulative impact on aesthetics. Finding: The City Council finds that Impact 3A5 is less than significant, and no mitigation measures are required. Hydrology, Water Quality and Storm Water The Final EIR concludes in Impact 3132 that the proposed project would not deplete groundwater supplies or interfere with groundwater recharge. The existing site is approximately 95 percent impervious surface while the proposed site would be approximately 90 percent impervious. The proposed project will neither significantly increase, nor reduce, the opportunity for groundwater recharge from existing conditions. Finding: The City Council finds that Impact 3132 is less than significant, and no mitigation measures are required. The Final EIR concludes in Impact 3133 that proposed alterations to the existing drainage pattern would not exceed the capacity of existing or planned stone drains and produce flooding on or off site. Temporary changes would occur to the drainage system due to construction on site that would not be significant, as runoff would continue to drain through the existing conveyances. Proposed changes would result in shorter travel distance for runoff; however, these changes would result in insignificant capacity increases to the existing • storm drains. Finding: The City Council finds that Impact 3133 is less than significant, and no mitigation measures are required. Transportation/Traffic The Final EIR concludes in Impact 3C4 that the proposed project would provide adequate emergency access. The proposed project design would be in compliance with Fire Department requirements regarding emergency vehicle access. Finding: The City Council finds that Impact 3C4 is less than significant, and no mitigation measures are required. The Final EIR concludes in Impact 3C5 that proposed projects would not exceed levels of service established by the County Congestion Management Agency. Traffic analysis for the proposed project has been carried sufficiently far enough so as to extend beyond the three percent range required by the CMP and will not cause any CMP intersection to operate at a deficient Level of Service. Finding: The City Council finds that Impact 3C5 is less than significant, and no mitigation measures are required. • Air Quality According to the Final EIR Impact 3131, the proposed project would be consistent with the Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP). The development of the proposed project would be •consistent with urban development assumed in the City of Newport Beach General Plan and SCAG population projections. The proposed project does not meet the criteria for regional significance as outlined in CEQA section 152006(b). Finding: The City Council finds that Impact 3D1 is less than significant, and no mitigation measures are required. According to Impact 3D3, the proposed project would generate mobile sources emissions resulting from project operation. However, estimated daily average emissions would not exceed significance thresholds set by the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). Therefore, operational emissions would be considered a less than significant impact to air quality. Finding: The City Council finds that Impact 3D3 is less than significant, and no mitigation measures are required. Significant Unavoidable Impacts The Final EIR concludes that no significant impacts would remain after implementation of the identified mitigation measures. Therefore, the Project would not require adoption of a • Statement of Overriding Considerations. Findings Concerning Alternatives The Final EIR evaluates two project Alternatives. The Reduced Project Alternative was identified as the environmentally superior alternative and is now the preferred Project. That alternative is the same in all respects as the Project, except that it would be 13,000 square feet smaller than the originally proposed project. This alternative eliminates the one CEQA traffic impact (at the intersection of MacArthur Boulevard and Jamboree Road), and is now the preferred project. • �J • a Exhibit "B" Mitigation Monitoring Program for Newport Lexus (SCH #2004081004) Aesthetics and Land Use Impact 3A1: Impacts to scenic vistas, scenic resources, existing visual character and quality. M -3A.1 In accordance with the City of Newport Beach General Plan and "Planned Community Development Standards, Newport Place," the applicant shall submit design plans to the City of Newport Beach for review to ensure consistency with the surrounding area and all conditions of approval. MONITORING AND REPORTING MONITORING MONITORING SCHEDULE ACTIONS RESPONSIBILITY Maintain record of oversight for Newport Beach Prior to project construction. administrative record. Department of Planning Impact 3A3: Impacts associated with new sources of light and glare that could affect surrounding uses. M -3A.2: All lighting fixtures shall be consistent with Illuminating Engineering Society of North America (IESNA) "sharp cut -off' fixtures, and will be fitted with flat glass lenses and internal and external shielding. M -3A.3: All fixtures shall be parallel with the finished grade of the project site; no fixtures shall be tilted above a 90 -degree angle. M -3A.4: Lighting levels will be appropriately designed to fall within the IESNA recommendation for automobile dealerships. M -3A.5: Site lighting systems and showroom lighting shall be grouped into control zones to allow for open, closing and night light/security lighting schemes. All control groups shall be controlled by an automatic lighting control system utilizing a time clock; photocell, and a low voltage relays. M -3A.6: Design and layout of the site shall take advantage of landscaping, on -site architectural massing, and off -site architectural massing to block light sources and reflection from cars. M -3A.7: The applicant shall submit a lighting plan and photometric plan to be reviewed by the City of Newport Beach. The lighting plan shall include design features (such as those mentioned above) to minimize impacts of light and glare on the surrounding area. M -3A.8: A post - installation inspection will be required to ensure that the site is not excessively illuminated at that illuminations lighting sources are properly shielded. MONITORING AND REPORTING MONITORING MONITORING SCHEDULE ACTIONS RESPONSIBILITY Monitor compliance with construction contract Newport Beach Prior to and during construction specifications. Maintain record of oversight Department of for administrative record. Planning • Impact 3A4: Consistency with local land use policies and plans. • M -3A.9: The applicant shall apply for a Use Permit from the City to allow the proposed use on the site. The City shall amend the text of "Planned Community Development Standards, Newport Place" to reflect the proposed use on the site and incorporate development standards reflecting the highest level of improvements as now exist in the project area. MONITORING AND REPORTING MONITORING MONITORING SCHEDULE ACTIONS RESPONSIBILITY Maintain record of oversight for Newport Beach Prior to project construction. administrative record. Department of Planning Hydrology. Water Quality and Storm Water Impact 3131: Impacts on water quality standards. M -313.1: Prior to the issuance of a grading permit by the City, the applicant shall provide proof of filing for an NOI with the SWRCB and prepare a project S WPPP that will describe the BMPs to be implemented during project construction. • M -313.2: Prior to the issuance of a grading permit by the City, the applicant shall have an approved WQMP. The WQMP shall identify the site design, source control and treatment control BMPs that will be implemented on the site to control predictable pollutant runoff, including operations and maintenance plan for the prescribed structural BMPs to ensure their long -term performance. MONITORING AND REPORTING ACTIONS Maintain record of oversight for administrative record. Impact 3134: Impacts on groundwater quality. MONITORING RESPONSIBILITY Newport Beach Department of Planning MONITORING SCHEDULE Prior to project construction. M -313.1: Prior to the issuance of a grading permit by the City, the applicant shall provide proof of filing for an NOI with the SWRCB and prepare a project S WPPP that will describe the BMPs to be implemented during project construction. M -313.2: Prior to the issuance of a grading permit by the City, the applicant shall have an approved WQMP. The WQMP shall identify the site design, source control and treatment control BMPs that will be implemented on the site to control predictable pollutant runoff, including operations and maintenance plan for the prescribed structural BMPs to ensure their long -term performance. MONITORING AND REPORTING •ACTIONS Maintain record of oversight for administrative record. MONITORING RESPONSIBILITY Newport Beach Planning Department MONITORING SCHEDULE Prior to project construction. • • Transoortation/Traffic Impact 3C1: Impacts to Level of Service. M -3C.1: To mitigate the TPO impact: restripe the westbound approach at the intersection of Irvine Avenue and Mesa Drive to provide one left turn lane, one shared through/left lane and one right -tam lane. In addition, necessary signal modifications will be made to implement split -phase signal operation on the east -west approaches. MONITORING AND REPORTING ACTIONS Monitor compliance with construction contract specifications. Maintain record of oversight for administrative record Impact 3C2: Impacts to parking supply. MONITORING RESPONSIBILITY Newport Beach Planning Department MONITORING SCHEDULE Prior to and during construction. M -3C.3: The proposed project shall comply with all City of Newport Beach Municipal Code (Section 20.66.050) parking requirements. MONITORING AND REPORTING ACTIONS Monitor compliance with construction contract specifications. Maintain record of oversight for administrative record. MONITORING MONITORING SCHEDULE RESPONSIBILITY Newport Beach Planning Prior to and during construction. Department Impact 3C3: Impacts from hazards due to a design feature or incompatible use. M -3C.4: The applicant will make the required improvements at the intersection of Bowsprit Drive and MacArthur Boulevard to reduce the curb radius of the eastbound free right turn on Bowsprit Drive to MacArthur Boulevard to an approximately 35 -foot curb radius to slow turning traffic and to increase the distance between Bowsprit Drive and the project entrance. • MONITORING AND REPORTING ACTIONS MONITORING MONITORING SCHEDULE RESPONSIBILITY • u Monitor compliance with construction contract specifications. Maintain record of oversight for administrative record. Impact 3C1: Cumulative traffic impacts. Newport Beach Planning During project construction. Department M -3C.1: To mitigate the TPO impact: restripe the westbound approach at the intersection of Irvine Avenue and Mesa Drive to provide one left turn lane, one shared through/left lane and one right -rum lane. In addition, necessary signal modifications will be made to implement split -phase signal operation on the east -west approaches. MONITORING AND REPORTING ACTIONS Monitor compliance with construction contract specifications. Maintain record of oversight for administrative record. Air Quality MONITORING MONITORING SCHEDULE RESPONSIBILITY Newport Beach Planning Prior to and during construction. Department Impact IS -IIIe: Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people. • M -HIA: Design features of the project will provide for adequate ventilation in those areas in which vehicle exhaust would create a strong odor. The applicant shall submit design plans for approval by the City of Newport Beach which address building ventilation. MONITORING AND REPORTING MONITORING MONITORING SCHEDULE ACTIONS RESPONSIBILITY Maintain record of oversight for Newport Beach Prior to project construction. administrative record. Department of Planning Impact 3D2: Impacts due to construction air emissions. M -31)1: Cover all trucks hauling soil, sand and other loose materials, or require all trucks to maintain at least two feet of freeboard. M -31).2: Pave, water (three times daily), or apply non -toxic soil stabilizers on all unpaved access roads, parking areas, and staging areas at construction sites. M -3D.3: Sweep all paved access roads, parking areas and staging areas at construction sites daily with water sweepers. M -31)A: Sweep streets daily with water sweepers if visible soil material is carved onto adjacent public streets. M -31).5: Hydroseed or apply non -toxic stabilizers to inactive construction areas. • r� U • M -3D.6: Enclose, cover, water (twice daily), or apply non -toxic soil binders to exposed stockpiles (dirt, sand, etc.) M -3D.7: Limit traffic speeds on unpaved roads to 15 miles per hour. M -3D.8: Install sandbags or other erosion control measures to prevent silt runoff roadways during rainy season construction (November through April). M -3D.9: Replant vegetation in disturbed areas as quickly as possible. M- 3D.10: All construction equipment shall be properly tuned and maintained. M- 3D.11: Contractors shall maintain and operate construction equipment so as to minimize exhaust emissions. During construction, trucks and vehicles in loading or unloading queues shall not idle. M- 3D.12: Construction activities shall be staged and scheduled to avoid emissions peaks, and discontinued during second -stage smog alerts. MONITORING AND REPORTING ACTIONS Maintain record of specifications for administrative record. Monitor compliance with construction contract specifications Cultural Resources MONITORING RESPONSIBILITY Newport Beach Planning Department MONITORING SCHEDULE Prior to and during construction activities. Impact IS- V.b -d: Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource, directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource, or disturb any human remains. M -V.1: In the event that an archaeological or paleontological resource is inadvertently uncovered, the project applicant shall be required to immediately cease all construction at the place of discovery and a qualified archaeologist and/or paleontologist retained to evaluate the find. If the archaeologist or paleontologist determines that potentially significant paleontological or archaeological materials or human remains are encountered, the archaeologist and/or paleontologist must recover, retrieve and/or remove any paleontological or archaeological materials. The archaeologist shall provide a copy of documentation of all recovered data and materials found on -site to the regional information center of the California Archaeological Inventory for inclusion in the permanent archives and another copy shall accompany any recorded archaeological materials data. • M -V.2: The applicant shall comply with the procedures required by NAHC as outlined in Section 50907.9 of the PRC and Section 7050 of the Health and Safety Code. In the event of discovery or recognition of any human remains during construction or excavation activities or disturbance of the site until the coroner has been informed. • • • MONITORING AND REPORTING ACTIONS Maintain record of specifications for administrative record. Monitor compliance with construction contract specifications Geology and Soils MONITORING RESPONSIBILITY Newport Beach Planning Department Impact IS- VI.c,d: Be located on unstable strata or soil, or expansive soil. MONITORING SCHEDULE During project construction activities. • M -VI.2: Prior to construction of the proposed project, exploration borings shall be perforated in the locations of the proposed buildings to provide detailed foundation design recommendations for the proposed new development. MONITORING AND REPORTING ACTIONS Maintain record of oversight for administrative record. Noise MONITORING RESPONSIBILITY Newport Beach Planning Department MONITORING SCHEDULE Prior to project construction. Impact IS- XI.a,b: Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of established standards or excessive groundbome vibration. • M -XI.I: During construction phases, the contractor shall ensure that all construction be performed in accordance with the City of Newport Beach noise standards. No noise intensive construction or repair work shall be performed between the hours of 9:00 PM and 7:00 AM on any weekday, or before 8:00 AM or after 6:00 PM on any Saturday or national holiday, or anytime on Sundays. During construction activities, the construction manager and inspector shall serve as the contact persons in the event that noise levels become disruptive. A sign will be posted at the site with the contact phone numbers. MONITORING AND REPORTING ACTIONS Maintain record of specifications for administrative record. Monitor compliance with construction contract specifications MONITORING RESPONSIBILITY Newport Beach Planning Department MONITORING SCHEDULE During project construction activities. Impact IS- XI.c,d: Cause a substantial permanent or temporary increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity. • M -XI.2: Design of the proposed project will incorporate measures to reduce noise associated with • the project. These measures shall include noise barriers and setbacks as appropriate that will minimize operational noise impacts. The applicant shall submit designs to the City of Newport Beach for approval prior to construction of the project. The proposed project shall comply with Newport Beach municipal noise standards. • 0 MONITORING AND REPORTING ACTIONS Maintain record of specifications for administrative record. Monitor compliance with construction contract specifications Utilities and Service Systems MONITORING RESPONSIBILITY Newport Beach Planning Department MONITORING SCHEDULE During project construction activities. Impact IS- XVII.g: Comply with federal, state and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste. • M- XVII.I: During demolition and construction, inert materials, such as soil, asphalt, concrete, and other recyclable materials, shall be recycled to the greatest extent practicable. MONITORING AND REPORTING ACTIONS Maintain record of specifications for administrative record. Monitor compliance with construction contract specifications MONITORING RESPONSIBILITY Newport Beach Planning Department MONITORING SCHEDULE During project construction activities. • • • STATE OF CALIFORNIA } COUNTY OF ORANGE } ss. CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH } I, LaVonne M. Harkless, City Clerk of the City of Newport Beach, California, do hereby certify that the whole number of members of the City Council is seven; that the foregoing resolution, being Resolution No. 2005 -26 was duly and regularly introduced before and adopted by the City Council of said City at a regular meeting of said Council, duly and regularly held on the 24th day of May 2005, and that the same was so passed and adopted by the following vote, to wit: Ayes: Heffernan, Rosansky, Ridgeway, Daigle, Mayor Bromberg Noes: Nichols Absent: Webb Abstain: None IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto subscribed my name and affixed the official seal of said City this 25th day of May 2005. (Seal) City Clerk Newport Beach, California